The powerliiner range started on D plates and they were late Ds (87) I don’t remember a European launch much earlier than that. That’s not to say there wasn’t, just that there were none in the UK when that ERF went on the road
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … uite-glory
The ERF sounds like an after market fit going by the description in the post.But the fact is if CM are right I could probably have had a 475 as standard factory fit in my SA 401 ( and a fuller instead of an EPS 
) as of 1982. 
Carryfast:
POWER NOT QUITE GLORY | 10th January 1987 | The Commercial Motor ArchiveThe ERF sounds like an after market fit going by the description in the post.
Yes.
Carryfast:
But the fact is if CM are right I could probably have had a 475 as standard factory fit in my SA 401 … as of 1982.
You would have been told to bugger off back down South.
Sorry if the above post is slightly misleading ,the original engine was removed ,Colin Barrett fitted the 450 in later years ,however it’s still in daily use .
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
Will Daf ever catch up ?
Dan Punchard:
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 lolWill Daf ever catch up ?
Their engine is the default choice in a KW or Peterbilt. You could say they have caught and passed ■■■■■■■ in that regard! 
Evening all,
The ■■■■■■■ 14litre, an interesting subject. This debate, and others, must be of amusement to Clessie ■■■■■■■ as he looks down on us. For his mechanical camshaft activated fuel injection for a diesel engine first marketed in 1919, allowing the unheard of revolution of 1800 times per minute was the base line for the development of the ■■■■■■■ HA , 4 & 6 cylinder engines of 83, & 125 hp in 1931. By 1936, ■■■■■■■ were becoming established as a diesel engine manufacturer, but primarily on the US west coast.
This must have been a great relief to his primary financial backer, William Irwin, (for whom Clessie had been a Chauffer), and who had received no financial return since the first engine in 1919. 27 years, makes you realise how facile are our current Bankers, with their 5 year “envelopes”! ■■■■■■■ employed an interesting mix of business ethic, and marketing guile…to generate an aura of bountiful success he was taken to skipping whole blocks of consecutive engine numbers…giving clients the impression that ■■■■■■■ was a really large player…That came much later!
1944 saw the launch of the 12 litre engines, to eventually reach a volume in excess of 1 million units. 1955 and the 14 litre was created.
1956 and the Shotts plant was opened, (mainly to circumnavigate strong UK Import controls.), followed in 1963 by Darlington, (and the V Series), and Daventry. By 1979, over 5000 people were employed across the three plants, sales of loose engines amounted to £134 million,annual production was 34000 units, 70% going into road vehicles, (Lorry, and PSV).
By 1980, ■■■■■■■ engine chassis held a market share of 43% of the total market above 6tons. Remarkably ■■■■■■■ were holding 20% of the 28 ton plus sector.
Why?
Well they were available, when other loose fit engines were not, they were remarkably cheap to buy for a manufacturer, and the basic engine was powerful, relatively economic, (if driven correctly), if not a little on the heavy side…but they were very reliable, be it 250, 290, or later 320 hp. ■■■■■■■ supported its product strongly in the field, both with its own investment in outlets, or via franchise holders. And when the end came…they could be rebuilt for a reasonable outlay, and go again…oh yes, and the standard engine could, (and often was ), “fettled”…and could they just go…
A little personal rambling…I first came across ■■■■■■■ back in 69 selling Atkinsons, first the 180.......made that elegant Garden Shed on wheels shake all over......then the 205.......with a 10 speed fuller...what a rocket.......(but you needed good batterys on a cold day to get them going)…then I sort of missed the 14 litres until I came back from the US, and had my own business.
So it was ERFs,in the main, mostly 14 litres, (but I had a good number of the 10s, and I loved them, and they never let me down), much sweeter sound than the “big banger”. But the 14 litres did me well, those on one contract, 8 of them, E14s covered over 900000miles each, made their residual guarantee prices, and ended up in Malcolm Harrisons, and sold on well. They only cost me routine servicing. A gaggle of E290s, all averaged over 500000 miles, again no major costs. But similar cost of operation was obtained by chassis with L10, and the little 8 litre. I loved ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ as a caviat I have to remark that I had equally low cost operation from MANs, (232s), and surprisingly RoadTrains with the TL12s in them.
But the 14 litres were universally cheaper, (and more profitable), to operate than either F10s, or Scania 113s, and totally eclipsed the big Mercedes. Only DAF came close. Makes good reading, ones true cost of operation, across various marques!
Somewhere above there is a reference to the Twin Turbo 14 litre NTC475. That is an interesting engine indeed! Originally conceived as a “special” option for the heavy haul, and primarily the Canadian, Alberta, and British Columbia markets. These had a gtw, of 62 tonnes if I remember correctly, (how I miss my old friend Martin Phippard at a time like this, he was an absolute mine of accurate information on the Canadian lorry market).
■■■■■■■ main offering was the KT range@ 450, 525, and 600 hp. But the 18 litre lump, (and I am being disrespectful to a magnificent engine), was a tad on the heavy side. So in `80/81, ■■■■■■■ created the NTC475. with a weight saving of 1000lbs over the KT range. Having dual stage turbocharging and charge cooling, the primary Garrett low pressure turbo, feeding the secondary high pressure Holset Turbo a reduced compression ratio of 13.7;1 (the 290 version having 15:1). The net result was 475 hp @2100 rpm, 1430 lb ft of torque @1400 rpm, but interestingly, 1400 lb ft @1300, dropping to 1190 lb ft @2100 rpm. The engine featured mechanical variable induction timing as per that fitted to the California bound 290s. SFC was .342 lb/bhp/kwh, compared to the standard 290s .334. Fuel economy was to average at around 10% less than the KT1150 @450 hp.
I can be a frightful bore regarding the ■■■■■■■ KT and NTC475 engines, as I imported several Kenworth tractors with the big banger KT in them, and one, and only one with the NTC475. The NTC engine one came along with a sister having a “little” 350 hp 14 litre. Both from my pal who tended to deal in exotic owner driver lorries in deepest Kansas.
The NTC had found its way into a KW K100 Aerodyne, the former property of a Montana “Bull Hauler”…Individuals who tended to have the brass to buy what they want, to haul, (in the main), their own stock…oh and have their pointy toed right boot welded to the floor! Specification wise she was about 20ft wb, Rockwell shhds @4.11, on 8 bag air, 15 speed double overdrive Fuller, 130 in Aerodyne, chrome column, pedals etc, and enough dials to make you very nervous, and running on 24in Budd Alloys.
I only drove her loaded once, (I was still using my Interstator to move my odd bits of Militaria around), when I put her under the old King, with one of my T34s on the back. Probably around 50 tonnes all up…clutch home at less than 500 revs, then a rocket ride up to a speed where I thought the life of my Kings tyres would be seriously compromised! I cannot recall a more responsive and light reving engine in any vehicle ever. It was quite simply the most driveable, big power unit I have ever experienced. Swift throttle response, swift die down, just a real sprinter, that simply ignored any hills!
I contemplated keeping her, but as ever profit got in the way…and she went down to a new life in the Auvergne. But what an engine, easily outclassed the big banger KTA .
I shall have to take a medicinal Bollinger to calm my fevered brow…
Why was the ■■■■■■■ 14 litre succesfull…because it just was so good!!!
Cheerio for now.
Saviem:
Somewhere above there is a reference to the Twin Turbo 14 litre NTC475. That is an interesting engine indeed! Originally conceived as a “special” option for the heavy haul, and primarily the Canadian, Alberta, and British Columbia markets. These had a gtw, of 62 tonnes if I remember correctly, (how I miss my old friend Martin Phippard at a time like this, he was an absolute mine of accurate information on the Canadian lorry market).■■■■■■■ main offering was the KT range@ 450, 525, and 600 hp. But the 18 litre lump, (and I am being disrespectful to a magnificent engine), was a tad on the heavy side. So in `80/81, ■■■■■■■ created the NTC475. with a weight saving of 1000lbs over the KT range. Having dual stage turbocharging and charge cooling, the primary Garrett low pressure turbo, feeding the secondary high pressure Holset Turbo a reduced compression ratio of 13.7;1 (the 290 version having 15:1). The net result was 475 hp @2100 rpm, 1430 lb ft of torque @1400 rpm, but interestingly, 1400 lb ft @1300, dropping to 1190 lb ft @2100 rpm. The engine featured mechanical variable induction timing as per that fitted to the California bound 290s. SFC was .342 lb/bhp/kwh, compared to the standard 290s .334. Fuel economy was to average at around 10% less than the KT1150 @450 hp.
I can be a frightful bore regarding the ■■■■■■■ KT and NTC475 engines, as I imported several Kenworth tractors with the big banger KT in them, and one, and only one with the NTC475. The NTC engine one came along with a sister having a “little” 350 hp 14 litre. Both from my pal who tended to deal in exotic owner driver lorries in deepest Kansas.
The NTC had found its way into a KW K100 Aerodyne, the former property of a Montana “Bull Hauler”…Individuals who tended to have the brass to buy what they want, to haul, (in the main), their own stock…oh and have their pointy toed right boot welded to the floor! Specification wise she was about 20ft wb, Rockwell shhds @4.11, on 8 bag air, 15 speed double overdrive Fuller, 130 in Aerodyne, chrome column, pedals etc, and enough dials to make you very nervous, and running on 24in Budd Alloys.
I only drove her loaded once, (I was still using my Interstator to move my odd bits of Militaria around), when I put her under the old King, with one of my T34s on the back. Probably around 50 tonnes all up…clutch home at less than 500 revs, then a rocket ride up to a speed where I thought the life of my Kings tyres would be seriously compromised! I cannot recall a more responsive and light reving engine in any vehicle ever. It was quite simply the most driveable, big power unit I have ever experienced. Swift throttle response, swift die down, just a real sprinter, that simply ignored any hills!
I contemplated keeping her, but as ever profit got in the way…and she went down to a new life in the Auvergne. But what an engine, easily outclassed the big banger KTA .
I shall have to take a medicinal Bollinger to calm my fevered brow…
Why was the ■■■■■■■ 14 litre succesfull…because it just was so good!!!
Cheerio for now.
That was the one that had stuck in my distant memory Saviem.Obviously for good reason.
For the purposes of Robert’s topic it would be fair to say that it combined the best of all worlds of both the performance of a good V8 but with the practicality of a good 6 cylinder motor.Probably to the point where as I said it was at least a Scania V8 killer possibly also the Merc 1644 and according to CM all that available in the usual suspects here as of at least 1982 for anyone who was bright enough to order it.
The obvious question then being was there any real point in the biggest power E/Formula series like 350-400 ?.As opposed to ■■■■■■■ just rationalising on E320 or the 475. 
Saviem:
Evening all…
Somewhere above there is a reference to the Twin Turbo 14 litre NTC475. That is an interesting engine indeed! Originally conceived as a “special” option for the heavy haul, and primarily the Canadian, Alberta, and British Columbia markets. These had a gtw, of 62 tonnes if I remember correctly, (how I miss my old friend Martin Phippard at a time like this, he was an absolute mine of accurate information on the Canadian lorry market).■■■■■■■ main offering was the KT range@ 450, 525, and 600 hp. But the 18 litre lump, (and I am being disrespectful to a magnificent engine), was a tad on the heavy side. So in `80/81, ■■■■■■■ created the NTC475. with a weight saving of 1000lbs over the KT range. Having dual stage turbocharging and charge cooling, the primary Garrett low pressure turbo, feeding the secondary high pressure Holset Turbo a reduced compression ratio of 13.7;1 (the 290 version having 15:1). The net result was 475 hp @2100 rpm, 1430 lb ft of torque @1400 rpm, but interestingly, 1400 lb ft @1300, dropping to 1190 lb ft @2100 rpm. The engine featured mechanical variable induction timing as per that fitted to the California bound 290s. SFC was .342 lb/bhp/kwh, compared to the standard 290s .334. Fuel economy was to average at around 10% less than the KT1150 @450 hp.
I can be a frightful bore regarding the ■■■■■■■ KT and NTC475 engines, as I imported several Kenworth tractors with the big banger KT in them, and one, and only one with the NTC475. The NTC engine one came along with a sister having a “little” 350 hp 14 litre. Both from my pal who tended to deal in exotic owner driver lorries in deepest Kansas.
The NTC had found its way into a KW K100 Aerodyne, the former property of a Montana “Bull Hauler”…Individuals who tended to have the brass to buy what they want, to haul, (in the main), their own stock…oh and have their pointy toed right boot welded to the floor! Specification wise she was about 20ft wb, Rockwell shhds @4.11, on 8 bag air, 15 speed double overdrive Fuller, 130 in Aerodyne, chrome column, pedals etc, and enough dials to make you very nervous, and running on 24in Budd Alloys.
I only drove her loaded once, (I was still using my Interstator to move my odd bits of Militaria around), when I put her under the old King, with one of my T34s on the back. Probably around 50 tonnes all up…clutch home at less than 500 revs, then a rocket ride up to a speed where I thought the life of my Kings tyres would be seriously compromised! I cannot recall a more responsive and light reving engine in any vehicle ever. It was quite simply the most driveable, big power unit I have ever experienced. Swift throttle response, swift die down, just a real sprinter, that simply ignored any hills!
I contemplated keeping her, but as ever profit got in the way…and she went down to a new life in the Auvergne. But what an engine, easily outclassed the big banger KTA .
I shall have to take a medicinal Bollinger to calm my fevered brow…
Why was the ■■■■■■■ 14 litre succesfull…because it just was so good!!!
Cheerio for now.
The NTC475 sparks my interest, because it was so unusual. I get the impression that ■■■■■■■ were testing the water somewhat, with regard to that engine’s unprecedented-for-the-time torque/litre figure. One of the articles linked above mentions concerns about the cost of durability testing, as if ■■■■■■■ were tentatively warning their customers that they were unsure that they had done enough of it! Why would they target the heavy haulage sector, as opposed to the general market, when weight and cost- the two principal disadvantages of the KT compared to the NTC- would be less of a concern to the indivisible load specialists? Because, I guess, they did not want too many NTC475s in the field- they were fearful of another V situation besmirching the reputation of the straight six. I’m glad that did not happen. I will sup a pint of bitter tonight, in honour of ■■■■■■■■ courage in pushing the boundaries.
Saviem:
Why was the ■■■■■■■ 14 litre succesfull…because it just was so good!!!Cheerio for now.
What a good read! Thanks for your knowledge and insights once again m. Saviem! Robert
Carryfast:
Saviem:
For the purposes of Robert’s topic it would be fair to say that it combined the best of all worlds of both the performance of a good V8 but with the practicality of a good 6 cylinder motor.Probably to the point where as I said it was at least a Scania V8 killer possibly also the Merc 1644 and according to CM all that available in the usual suspects here as of at least 1982 for anyone who was bright enough to order it.
A daring and interesting suggestion! Probably not at all far from the truth. The ■■■■■■■ was certainly much livelier than the MB out in the hills. Robert
[zb]
anorak:
I will sup a pint of bitter tonight, in honour of ■■■■■■■■ courage in pushing the boundaries.
And I will do likewise!! Robert
Nice reading and also a good confirmation on the quality-aspects. The 14 litre was introduced in 1960.
robert1952:
Carryfast:
For the purposes of Robert’s topic it would be fair to say that it combined the best of all worlds of both the performance of a good V8 but with the practicality of a good 6 cylinder motor.Probably to the point where as I said it was at least a Scania V8 killer possibly also the Merc 1644 and according to CM all that available in the usual suspects here as of at least 1982 for anyone who was bright enough to order it.A daring and interesting suggestion! Probably not at all far from the truth. The ■■■■■■■ was certainly much livelier than the MB out in the hills. Robert
At least in the case of the 475 going by the figures and Saviem’s comments that would probably be an understatement not to mention Fuller v EPS or at best Synchro.
Saviem referred to Clessie ■■■■■■■ looking down on the topic in which case his biggest surprise would probably be all that from a committed Detroit ‘fan’. 
Sadly we can only imagine what might have been ‘if’ only we’d have carried on with those 1950’s import controls thereby keeping the competition like the Scania and Merc out of the frame and if ■■■■■■■ then left buyers with that choice of either E320 or 475 take it or leave it in their ERF or SA 401 etc.
abc
ERF-Continental:
Be assured and confident that Clessie ■■■■■■■ didn’t bother about some sort of competition as his way of thinking and tinkering was by far more global than many of the expected competition. His dedication was on technical innovation together with availability before and after
with a precise service network. At the end of the day he was that clever to put his money and energy on DIFFERENT horses, hence marine,
energy, automotive construction, locomotive and that resulted in 1932 to a first acceptance of automative applications with the installation in a A.S.-chassis on the europe continent. The pie is easily to be divided, but how often or long do you eat…Bear in mind that General Motors (with Detroit Diesel), later Penske, but also Caterpillar with high stakes in construction and hence in strong
competition with VOLVO BM, Komatsu (very loyal to ■■■■■■■■ and upcoming others, had different cards in this poker-game!
On that note,at least in terms of ■■■■■■■■ automotive sector interests,the importance of the 14 litre can’t be over estimated bearing in mind what would have been left if that part of the equation wasn’t there.Which then leaves the question was that all important redundancy,in the basic design’s ability to withstand ever increasing levels of stress,in the form of the later levels of specific torque output,put there by design or accident,and that figures of 100 lb/ft + per litre probably couldn’t possibly have been foreseen in the 1940’s/50’s.Or then again were they in Clessie ■■■■■■■■ mind at the time.
@Carryfast…you have a point…but at the end of the day there should be a plan on which market one wants
to serve…to quote Saviem by saying GM was hindered with many interim-managers and the newcomers had
several other ideas, which also was the case within ■■■■■■■■ but in comparison ■■■■■■■ had more horses in
the race by giving more attention with relevant technical and marketing teams to SERVE a market when there
is ONE…a very relevant remark in nowadays business…we assume but don’t exactly know.
Well, ■■■■■■■■ business was in early years a lot of trial and error but out of that learning curve they managed
to cope with challenges and threads…and close to 100 years of existence, who can say that nowadays?
Don’t forget that ■■■■■■■ was sole in its business, Rolls Royce had cars, engines for aviation, marine and automotive,
Caterpillar had a massive range with own construction-equipment, Volvo had cars, trucks, marine, generators, Scania
had trucks, generators and later the rich back-up of Volkswagen and in between the spouse Mack, so compare apples
with apples no pears! ■■■■■■■■ Gardner, Perkins, Buda, Hercules, etc etc, those companies were dedicated in their
relevant markets on engine-supplies! Rather contradictionary because for that reason the majority of manufacturers
focussed on own production…nowadays very oldfashioned in terms of procurement, outsourcing and logistics.
DAF for an example would not have survived without Perkins and Leyland…but nowadays they finally know how to
avoid to be dependend on others…a good choice? Not when you experienced your DAF not satisfactory on engines.
Volkswagen was the most clever pupil of the class by purchasing ■■■■■■■ for the Brasilian market, preventing their
own engines would affect home markets but moreover the lack of experience and service in Latin Americas.
Evening all,
Some interesting posts to ponder…
Carryfast a thought provoking post, what if Britain had erected strong import tariffs, would it have protected our industry? Other countries in Europe did so, yet Britain allowed unfettered access to our own markets…and in the case of our own industry, when imported product simply could not, (in its delivered form), meet C&U regulations, which were totally out of step with those in place in our neighbouring western European countries. But our domestic manufacturers HAD TO,…(.a handicap in designing vehicles for other European markets), and to compound the blow there was no enforcement against the “illegal”, (and it was), imported product!
Just think that scenario through…It does not reflect well on our politicians, or those who could have lobbied, the industry, and the Trade Unions, does it!!!
The US truck market of `79, saw 200,000 chassis produced. ■■■■■■■ were fitted in 46% of them.
The market crashed in ``83, at 100,000 units, yet ■■■■■■■ held 60% of that market.
Merril Lynch , that sage of the investment marketers, urged investors to acquire ■■■■■■■ stock in 1984!
ERF Continental is right, ■■■■■■■ strength was totally on the market that they were in, the manufacture and supply of engines for various applications and that was their strength.
But just to go back to the 475, and although it was seen as suitable for the heavy haul operation, its prime focus was to prevail in the Canadian provincial market with its high, but strictly enforced weight limit 0f circ 62 tonnes. The 475 having a weight advantage over the KT range of circ 1000 lbs.
The 14 litre in its 335 form was a preferred option to many of the French heavy haulage operators that I dealt with, primarily as an engine swop from Detroit in the case of the PRP-Willeme multi axle range, and even kept some of the aged, (but superb), "Shark Nose 610s going even 20 years after they hit the road, and very much so in the case of the Berliet “big hitter” the TBO, the 335 was an almost universal swop motor!
Cheerio for now.
Any thoughts on the worst ■■■■■■■ engine ? I vote for the 365 .