[zb]
anorak:
robert1952:
Interesting comments, Pete. I drove a few classic early ‘high torque at low revs’ motors including the Scania V8 in the 142. As an admirer (and one-time user) of the 14-litre engine in its various forms, I wonder at what point in history did that engine finally match the Scania V8 for high torque at low revs. It must have been some time after the old small-cam ■■■■■■■ engines, perhaps when the NTE 320 came on the scene… ? Robert
According to the published figures, the Swedes were always a step ahead, IIRC. The NTC355 might have had a few more lbft than the 140, but neither of those variants were ‘high torque at low revs’ motors.
Anorak, the swedes were a few years behind in the 60s as the 335 or 380 turbo ■■■■■■■ was out mid 60s around 65 66 and the V8 was late 60s if recall correctly but it did not take them long to catch up 
cheers Johnnie
sammyopisite:
[zb]
anorak:
robert1952:
Interesting comments, Pete. I drove a few classic early ‘high torque at low revs’ motors including the Scania V8 in the 142. As an admirer (and one-time user) of the 14-litre engine in its various forms, I wonder at what point in history did that engine finally match the Scania V8 for high torque at low revs. It must have been some time after the old small-cam ■■■■■■■ engines, perhaps when the NTE 320 came on the scene… ? Robert
According to the published figures, the Swedes were always a step ahead, IIRC. The NTC355 might have had a few more lbft than the 140, but neither of those variants were ‘high torque at low revs’ motors.
Anorak, the swedes were a few years behind in the 60s as the 335 or 380 turbo ■■■■■■■ was out mid 60s around 65 66 and the V8 was late 60s if recall correctly but it did not take them long to catch up
cheers Johnnie
Agreed 100%. The period I was referring to was the “high torque/low speed” era, from 141/E290 onwards. Having done a bit of reading around it, the ■■■■■■■ E370 had about 20lbft more than the 141, from 1979, but then along came the 142 in 1980, and so on.
gazsa401:
ramone:
What is the situation with ■■■■■■■ now , do they still produce road going engines or is it just plant and generators
They still supply engines to DAF for the LF series and to IVECO for their Eurocargo range
They also supply some Chinese manufacturers to use in their off-road heavy dumpsters
[zb]
anorak:
sammyopisite:
Anorak, the swedes were a few years behind in the 60s as the 335 or 380 turbo ■■■■■■■ was out mid 60s around 65 66 and the V8 was late 60s if recall correctly but it did not take them long to catch up
cheers Johnnie
Agreed 100%. The period I was referring to was the “high torque/low speed” era, from 141/E290 onwards. Having done a bit of reading around it, the ■■■■■■■ E370 had about 20lbft more than the 141, from 1979, but then along came the 142 in 1980, and so on.
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … 6/from-the
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … ew-engines
joncris:
gazsa401:
ramone:
What is the situation with ■■■■■■■ now , do they still produce road going engines or is it just plant and generators
They still supply engines to DAF for the LF series and to IVECO for their Eurocargo range
They also supply some Chinese manufacturers to use in their off-road heavy dumpsters
They’re made under licence in China to the current euro emissions standards you could import one but you’d need a master mind to wire up the electrics ,I did enquire once it was a fortune .
Until those last few posts I hadn’t realised that the ■■■■■■■ NH and L10, Rolls/Perkins etc were no longer fitted in trucks, whatever happened there then? 
My gaffer’s truck, a 1989 Foden 26 tonne six wheeler, had the 8 litre C series ■■■■■■■ engine in it and that was a lovely truck to drive compared to mine with the L10. I suppose that has also ceased production?
Pete.
Carryfast:
ramone:
What is the situation with ■■■■■■■ now , do they still produce road going engines or is it just plant and generators
It’s the ISX range now which apparently some seem to say is ok while others say its a bit of a lemon.With the historic fight in the loose engine market still going on between Detroit and ■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Just to add to CF’s comment, yes ■■■■■■■ are still in the truck (and bus) market, at least here in Oz. There’s the ISX range (15l) that CF mentions (with a Euro5 compliant version), plus various E5 truck, bus and light(er) commercial engines.
http://www.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Though it has to be said that users of the ISX (Signature) engines are a lot less enthusiastic about them than they were of ■■■■■■■ past.
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
Agreed 100%. The period I was referring to was the “high torque/low speed” era, from 141/E290 onwards. Having done a bit of reading around it, the ■■■■■■■ E370 had about 20lbft more than the 141, from 1979, but then along came the 142 in 1980, and so on.
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … 6/from-the
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … ew-engines
robert1952:
Interesting comments, Pete. I drove a few classic early ‘high torque at low revs’ motors including the Scania V8 in the 142. As an admirer (and one-time user) of the 14-litre engine in its various forms, I wonder at what point in history did that engine finally match the Scania V8 for high torque at low revs. It must have been some time after the old small-cam ■■■■■■■ engines, perhaps when the NTE 320 came on the scene… ? Robert
I did not consider the NTC475, because it was not a “high torque at low speed” engine (its torque peak occurred at 1400, which is a high speed, by the standard), about which type Robert had originally asked. I guess that ■■■■■■■ would have called it an E475, had that been the case. A more appropriate comparison would have been DS14 versus E400- those two were sold at the same time in Europe. Did any European chassis receive an NTC475?
Edit- the E400 launch is detailed here:
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … yve-got-it
Even that is not a “high torque at low speed” type, with its maximum torque and power at 1400 and 2100 rpm respectively. The most powerful low-speed version was the 1979-vintage E370, according to the text. The Swedish 14 litre was always a step ahead, at least on the specification sheet.
[zb]
anorak:
I did not consider the NTC475, because it was not a “high torque at low speed” engine (its torque peak occurred at 1400, which is a high speed, by the standard), about which type Robert had originally asked. I guess that ■■■■■■■ would have called it an E475, had that been the case. A more appropriate comparison would have been DS14 versus E400- those two were sold at the same time in Europe. Did any European chassis receive an NTC475?
Edit- the E400 launch is detailed here:
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … yve-got-it
Even that is not a “high torque at low speed” type, with its maximum torque and power at 1400 and 2100 rpm respectively. The most powerful low-speed version was the 1979-vintage E370, according to the text. The Swedish 14 litre was always a step ahead, at least on the specification sheet.
The idea isn’t to concentrate too much on ‘where’ the torque ‘peak’ is in the range ( in this case 1300-1400 rpm seems to be more or less about as good as it got in regards to the 14 litre ) it’s ‘how much’ actual torque there is and how much of it that is ‘retained’ ‘below’ that peak figure . 
On that basis check out the curve contained in the article.It stays above 1,400 lb/ft down to 1,300 rpm and will obviously still be producing more than the Scania’s peak down to 1,200 rpm and probably below that unless the curve goes off a cliff below 1,300 for some reason ( doubtful ).In which case the 475 was arguably one of the greatest of all the 14 litre ■■■■■■■ versions and a Scania V8 killer in every way that mattered,probably except fuel consumption,with loads of power everywhere in the range top and bottom 
.Not surprising considering the turbo compounding idea.Which just leaves the question does a most ‘efficient’ engine speed of obviously between around 1,300 rpm to around 1,600 rpm qualify as a low speed high torque design.Which seems to be more or less the ideal working range for most of the most powerful ■■■■■■■ 14 litre range.I’d suggest it does.
While the article suggests that it was available for use in all the usual suspects’ chassis manufactured here.Given the choice I think I’d have put the 475 in my SA 401 rather than the E320-400 range of options. 
Iam unable to make any comments at all, as a DRIVERfor just a few miles i never once considered the technical abilities of any lorry /truck i drove we were always told we supply the motor you drive, non of your business, i must take my hat off to all of you, who are so knowledgeable ,you must have enquiring engineering minds .dbp
cav551:
I found the high flow rate of the ■■■■■■■ PT fuel system was a double edged sword when the mercury fell below the cloud point of diesel. Fine if the engine was running, or had been very recently and the fuel line between tank and filter was not too exposed; the return flow warmed the tank contents and kept the engine running or made restarting easier. But if the engine and had been shut down for an appreciable period then it was the high flow rate that clogged the filter. Getting a ■■■■■■■ to keep running in these conditions was difficult, especially given the required cranking time on probably already weakened batteries, that still so even after filling the filter with warmer fuel. Taking only one filter to a disabled vehicle was unlikely to meet with success.
The other way to get the lumpy diesel flowing again is to leave the middle rubber ring out of the filter allowing fuel to by pass .
The only ■■■■■■■ that I drove was a ■■■■■■■ V903 14.5L / 350bhp V8. Bloody great sounding motor!
Here’s a little ■■■■■■■ engine I spotted today. I’ve been delivering air filters to ■■■■■■■ dealers in BC. The first drop had its weekly delivery of 51plts! They’re the service agent for a local coal mining operation. The bloke unloading me at the second drop in Vancouver (which is where the pic was taken) told me they rebuild two of these engines every week at a cool half a million bucks a pop! They are fitted in Komatsu haul trucks and knock out 3500hp and 5600 lbft of torque.
newmercman:
Here’s a little ■■■■■■■ engine I spotted today. I’ve been delivering air filters to ■■■■■■■ dealers in BC. The first drop had its weekly delivery of 51plts! They’re the service agent for a local coal mining operation. The bloke unloading me at the second drop in Vancouver (which is where the pic was taken) told me they rebuild two of these engines every week at a cool half a million bucks a pop! They are fitted in Komatsu haul trucks and knock out 3500hp and 5600 lbft of torque. 0
Half a million for 3500bhp? That’s the same as $50k for a recon NTC350, if hp per dollar is your measure.
Talking of NTC’s, do you have any knowledge of the two-turbo NTC475, mentioned earlier in the thread? Did it sell well, or was it an engineering ox-bow lake? I would bet the price of one of those dumper engines that no NTC475s made it across the Atlantic, hence my asking a US-based lorry nut about the things .
Yes it is a bit expensive isn’t it, but it’s not the sort of job anybody can do, so back street garages are not an option. I believe the phrase “got you by the short and curlies” is part of the sales pitch!
I have heard of the NTC 475, I’ve seen pics of KW W9s with said engine, mostly heavy haul types. It was a special order as far as I can tell and also used in marine applications. So don’t shake hands on that bet, the Atlantic is the most likely place to find one lol, it also happens to be the best place for the ISX, but in that case only if it’s attached to a big chain…
GOOD SHOT newmercman, they look like kv12 or 16 ,i am sure some one will know, i like you" BLOKE" COMMENT must be ex east midlands area man ,do the canadians know they are" BLOKES," Tell them it is from a long forgotten tribe ex railwaymen…or introduce CHAP.
this beast is fitted with a 450 14 litre from America ,bought to the uk by ■■■■■■■ originally intended for plant application ,a full container load were sold off in Manchester .
1985 on a C, that would’ve been the most powerful lorry in Europe when new then. The 440 Merc and 450 Scania were three years later and the 470 Scania and 480s from IVECO and Merc never hit the market until 1989, it took Daf 20yrs to catch up lol
newmercman:
1985 on a C, that would’ve been the most powerful lorry in Europe when new then. The 440 Merc and 450 Scania were three years later and the 470 Scania and 480s from IVECO and Merc never hit the market until 1989, it took Daf 20yrs to catch up lol
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … -frankfurt
The ‘C’ plate started on August 1985, so the '44 Merc would have been available then, according to the CM report. ■■■■■■■ usually quoted gross bhp, so that E450 would have had about 425-430 DIN. The Merc wins, then.
WTF’s going on? I’m telling you how to do your old job!
