Before i left u.k. all the motors we had were before limiters let me remember now,
Daf2800 - 66/7 mph
Volvo F10 270 engine - 70 mph
" F88 290 engine - 78 mph
White 325 Cat engine - 80 mph
Scania 113 360 engine - needle would stop on limiter i think its 80 mph is it! (been 21 yrs since i faced a euro tacograph) and it would go way past that an absolute flyin machine
In the late 70âs one of our drivers got 2 x speeding tickets in same week both on the M5 74 & 79 mph⌠wait for itâŚin a Guy 220 â â â â â â â big six box take yer a week to get their mind
It used to annoy me that back in 2000 my 1988 truck had the limiter set at 52 mph when the speed limit was 60, it was a blooming nuisance on motorways when your mates kept passing you!
ramone:
A slightly different take on this subject ,how many of you have moved into the middle lane to let a lorry onto a motorway only for the driver to either accelerate away leaving you in the middle lane ,or getting up to 56 mph and you end up having to slow down to get back into the inside lane because you cant pass it ? Not the speed limiters fault i know but if they were set at 100 kms/h 62 mph it may make a difference.Many drivers dont want to drive at that speed ,some are restricted to much less ,i think it would stop bunchingbut it will never happen
I donât remember too many issues like that before limiters especially further back in time.Most trucks were driven reasonably near to their max speed with the 60 mph limit on motorways being seen as more or less a guideline.The result of that being that trucks were either running faster or slower depending on type and ability.Which applied the same in that scenario of moving over to allow another vehicle to enter a motorway for example.After the introduction of limiters overtaking anything just became a pain together with the resulting bunching caused by them.
I agree with Geoff about the bunching on motorways due to the speed limiters.What is worse is two artics running side by side on dual carriageways for two or three miles because the overtaking vehicle hasnât got enough speed to get past.
The drivers are a bit daft doing that as well.
ramone:
A slightly different take on this subject ,how many of you have moved into the middle lane to let a lorry onto a motorway only for the driver to either accelerate away leaving you in the middle lane ,or getting up to 56 mph and you end up having to slow down to get back into the inside lane because you cant pass it ? Not the speed limiters fault i know but if they were set at 100 kms/h 62 mph it may make a difference.Many drivers dont want to drive at that speed ,some are restricted to much less ,i think it would stop bunchingbut it will never happen
Vehicles bunched-up, nose-to-tail, is a bad side-effect of speed limiters. Given that the legal speed limit is 60mph, or 96km/h, there is the possibility to allow different speed limiter settings, based on some parameter or other. How about this:
Operators can pay an increasing amount of road tax, according to the speed limiter setting of the vehicle. Those operations which are time-sensitive would pay extra to have their limiters set at 60mph, or even 100km/h. Operators who are more concerned about fuel use or driver abuse could pay a reduced rate of road tax and have the vehicle limited to 50mph, or some intermediate value. The higher-speed vehicles could be required by law to have auxiliary engine brakes fitted, while those with only a simple exhaust brake could be restricted to the lower tax brackets.
I agree the limit should be put back to 60 mph but you shouldnt have to pay more tax. The extra fuel used should be sufficent. I think we pay enough tax as it is.I just think it would be more practical on our congested roads these days.Anothermoan of mine is why dont drivers drive in the left hand lane if not overtaking another annoying thing that occurs every day on the M62 through the roadworks
I canât beleive all these motors and nobody exploded doing more than 56mph! (tongue firmly in cheek). I remember going with my dad in his new 1626. The steering wheel was bloody huge and it had a button to start it. That motor could catch pigeons it absolutely flew (on the flat, not so fast going over the col de bonhomme heading for Swiss lol)
Happy happy days. What happened to the job?
The bunching is caused mainly by selfish drivers (alot around today! )who drive on the limiter & insist on overtaking anyone they think is possible, even if the man in front is doing 0.05 mph less + also when someones fully freighted -& theres a slight incline - he then drops 2mph -then the man behind overtakes âŚroad levels , man on inside up to limiter again [zb] , he then gives up ,returns to inside lane eases off then low & behold the man behind him ( also on the limiter )overtakes & so on & on it goesâŚ
When I first started on powder tanks at Longsons I was on a 84 d plate E14 8 LEGGER, Paisley to Buxton and back in a 9 hr drive was easy, would sit a 80 all day long, would shake the bones out of your spine though.
up here it was a bit different ,sweden had 51 tonnes finland 48 tonnes weight and higest alowwed speed sweden 70km/h finland 80km/h ,so most trucks was geared 1450 rmp/70 km/h so we did not go so fast normaly ,but my old 142 could top 120 but the revs 2600
ramone:
Not the speed limiters fault i know but if they were set at 100 kms/h 62 mph it may make a difference.Many drivers dont want to drive at that speed ,some are restricted to much less ,i think it would stop bunchingbut it will never happen
Here (Oz) anything over 12T (post-1991) GVW is supposed to be fitted with a limiter set at 100km/h. What I donât quite understand is why I can sit on the 110km/h freeway limit in my car and find semis (artics) and B-doubles filling all my mirrors
[zb]
anorak:
I have been looking through the CM archives, to see if there was a standard factory specification which would give 100mph without over-revving the engine- so far without success! I found out that the 190.48 could have a 3.08 diff and a Fuller 13 speed, but this was a direct top version, which would give a top speed of only 76mph at 1900rpm. If Newmercmanâs lorry had the overdrive Fuller, with a ratio of 0.87:1, this would give 97mph on 315/80 tyres at 2100rpm, as the man said. I donât know whether the overdrive Fuller was a factory option.
I thought I could remember reading about vehicles which were geared, from the factory, for 60mph at about 1200rpm. I cannot find any evidence of that!
They (190-48s) were also available with the ZF EcoSplit 16spd in them, to the best of my knowledge they were overdrive top as they were set up for MAN and MB who both used hub reduction at the time, so my money is on the single overdrive with 3.08s
With a direct top the rear end gears would need to be 2.64 and that would make for poor gradability, the other possibility is a double overdrive (0.74) with 3.55 gears
[zb]
anorak:
I have been looking through the CM archives, to see if there was a standard factory specification which would give 100mph without over-revving the engine- so far without success! I found out that the 190.48 could have a 3.08 diff and a Fuller 13 speed, but this was a direct top version, which would give a top speed of only 76mph at 1900rpm. If Newmercmanâs lorry had the overdrive Fuller, with a ratio of 0.87:1, this would give 97mph on 315/80 tyres at 2100rpm, as the man said. I donât know whether the overdrive Fuller was a factory option.
I thought I could remember reading about vehicles which were geared, from the factory, for 60mph at about 1200rpm. I cannot find any evidence of that!
They (190-48s) were also available with the ZF EcoSplit 16spd in them, to the best of my knowledge they were overdrive top as they were set up for MAN and MB who both used hub reduction at the time, so my money is on the single overdrive with 3.08s
With a direct top the rear end gears would need to be 2.64 and that would make for poor gradability, the other possibility is a double overdrive (0.74) with 3.55 gears
IIRC, the '48 was also available with 3.42:1 at the back, so your 0.74:1 top gear would be ideal for the ton, if it was available!
I have just read that the MAN 462 had 3.36:1 at the back, giving it 1200rpm at 50mph. The article said that the red line on the clock was at 2400rpm.
I have just read that the MAN 462 had 3.36:1 at the back, giving it 1200rpm at 50mph. The article said that the red line on the clock was at 2400rpm.
[/quote]
Hallo Anorak, right they offered after a while that fast ratio, because it was a real fuelwaster. But on the easiest climb you had to change down so it stayed a fuelwaster,but of couse it could speed with such a ratio so it was only as good as a 450+HP with low load weights.The MAN 500HP (19502) was a lot better then.
[zb]
anorak:
I have been looking through the CM archives, to see if there was a standard factory specification which would give 100mph without over-revving the engine- so far without success! I found out that the 190.48 could have a 3.08 diff and a Fuller 13 speed, but this was a direct top version, which would give a top speed of only 76mph at 1900rpm. If Newmercmanâs lorry had the overdrive Fuller, with a ratio of 0.87:1, this would give 97mph on 315/80 tyres at 2100rpm, as the man said. I donât know whether the overdrive Fuller was a factory option.
I thought I could remember reading about vehicles which were geared, from the factory, for 60mph at about 1200rpm. I cannot find any evidence of that!
They (190-48s) were also available with the ZF EcoSplit 16spd in them, to the best of my knowledge they were overdrive top as they were set up for MAN and MB who both used hub reduction at the time, so my money is on the single overdrive with 3.08s
With a direct top the rear end gears would need to be 2.64 and that would make for poor gradability, the other possibility is a double overdrive (0.74) with 3.55 gears
IIRC, the '48 was also available with 3.42:1 at the back, so your 0.74:1 top gear would be ideal for the ton, if it was available!
I have just read that the MAN 462 had 3.36:1 at the back, giving it 1200rpm at 50mph. The article said that the red line on the clock was at 2400rpm.
There you go then, a double overdrive (0.74) and 3.42 rear end and youâre well over the ton.
My Pete will do over the ton (allegedly ) that has a double overdrive and 3.70 gears, but it has 24" rims and 11R tyres, so it has the same final drive ratio as 22" low profiles running 3.55 gears.
3.42s & double overdrive will cruise at 68mph with 1300(ish)rpm, 3.36s will do 72mph.
IIRC, the ZF 'box was also direct drive in top gear. Correct me if I am wrong. Maybe the single overdrive Fuller was offered later, with the 3.08 axle, as an âeconomyâ option, with the added bonus of 100mph cruising!
Regarding the earlier discussion on power required to achieve a certain speed, do you have any recollections from your journalism days, on the tests they ran?
Whatever the gearing, the one I had did over the ton, as I no longer hold a UK licence I donât have to include the word allegedly either
I ran up the A2 from the M25 solo after coming back from Eminox in Abington where Iâd had a set of chimneys fitted (courtesy of Minoan Lines) and nailed it, my Dad was following me in a car and I left him standing, when we stopped he said he was doing 110mph when he inched past me. We know that car speedos are not the most accurate, but theyâre not out that much, so I was definitely doing the ton
When I had a limiter put on that lorry it was okay at first when it was set to 100km/h, but when it had to be dropped to 90km/h it was geared way too high, the slightest climb needed a downsplit or it fell flat on its face
My F16 by contrast was a revelation at 90km/h, prior to speed limiters that thing had an incredible thirst, but at 90km/h it was as good as a 113-360 I had. On a run together they would be within a few litres of each other, but the F16 would be at the fuel pumps for a long time waiting for the little Scania to catch up
newmercman:
Whatever the gearing, the one I had did over the ton, as I no longer hold a UK licence I donât have to include the word allegedly either
I ran up the A2 from the M25 solo after coming back from Eminox in Abington where Iâd had a set of chimneys fitted (courtesy of Minoan Lines) and nailed it, my Dad was following me in a car and I left him standing, when we stopped he said he was doing 110mph when he inched past me. We know that car speedos are not the most accurate, but theyâre not out that much, so I was definitely doing the ton
I believe you!
I just wondered whether Iveco let them out the factory door with that capability. I suppose if the customer said, put an overdrive Fuller in it, otherwise Iâll buy someone elseâs wagon, he would probably get what he wanted.
newmercman:
My Pete will do over the ton (allegedly ) that has a double overdrive and 3.70 gears, but it has 24" rims and 11R tyres, so it has the same final drive ratio as 22" low profiles running 3.55 gears.
3.42s & double overdrive will cruise at 68mph with 1300(ish)rpm, 3.36s will do 72mph.
I imported a 377 Pete in 2003 from North Carolina with a CAT 3406E, Super 10 'box, but unsure of the rear ends. 103~105mph was no problem when bobtailing, but what really struck me was how steady and comfortable it cruised at 80~85mphâŚAt that speed it felt like a Euro truck at 90km/hr. When I sold that I imported a Kenworth W900L Aerodyne,again with a CAT 3406E and I canât honestly remember which gearbox it had. What I do remember is that she used to top out at 95~96 mph
[zb], mine was well used when I got it, so I have no idea what it had, as I said I got the lorry for free really, so it was all a bonus to me
Riverstick, my 379 is very stable at speed, it holds the road very well too, a bit unnerving at first as thereâs not much lean compared to a cabover, it does lean but instead of feeling like Iâm going to fall out of the chair, the biggest tell tale is the ting ting ting from the chrome weights on the bottom of the mudflaps scraping along the road
Mid-1960s, the prototype AEC Mandator V8 that was given to Turners of Soham for evaluation. It was one of four prototypes seeded to Turners, Western Transport, Russell of Bathgate, and BRS by AEC. AEC engineers would frequently change the gearbox and rear diff combinations for performance evaluations. 80 mph was common with the Turners prototype. Ken Peacock, the Turners driver loved to tell the tale of when he was in a cafe one day on the A1 near Stevenage when another driver he knew was bragging about the new Scania he had and what it would do. Ken got tired of this so told his mate to get going and he would see him at Tonyâs cafe at Grantham. Ken then ordered another mug of tea, let his mate have a 15 minutes head start and then over took the Scania with the Mandator V8 several miles before Grantham. Both the Scania and the AEC were fully freighted. Turners had that V8 for about 4 years and it was registered on a 1966 D plate. When they were running right and not breaking down there wasnât much that would out perform a Mandator V8, not only for top speed but for pulling power on hills.
I also drive a Dodge with a â â â â â â â V8 that was comfortable at 75 mph in about 1971.
wait for itâŚin a Guy 220 â â â â â â â big six box 
+ also when someones fully freighted -& theres a slight incline - he then drops 2mph -then the man behind overtakes 
)overtakes & so on & on it goesâŚ
is why I can sit on the 110km/h freeway limit in my car and find semis (artics) and B-doubles filling all my mirrors 
) that has a double overdrive and 3.70 gears, but it has 24" rims and 11R tyres, so it has the same final drive ratio as 22" low profiles running 3.55 gears.
