late 80,s had a 6x2 roadtrain with a 400 in, was a flying machine, never got flashed in much by the scania and volvo drivers when you went buy them. 
my old man had a rolls 350 li in his, but the 14 ltr was the best.
.
Here Carryfast, I have an idea 
You get a fair bit of abuse on here, deservedly so at times but you do have a lot to say about the fire engines and the workings of Bedford, how about you start a thread about all that, there’s bound to be some interesting stuff amongst your ramblings 
.
Carryfast:
smokinbarrels:
Carryfast:
Saviem:
Now dear CF, ■■■■■■■ always was, and always will be remembered as a far better lorry engine than the “green leakers”, (even if a Detroits wail is one of lifes accoustic pleasures)!Beware smokingbarrels obviously understands your world of Fire Appliances, for was not the V903 V8, a 306hp engine fitted into Nubians!!Superb recollections Gentlemen, keep them coming, Cheerio for now.
The 903 went into the Nubian/Protector 2.
But to put things into perspective the 18 Litre 16V71 in the Pathfinder put out over 1,700 lbs/ft of torque at 1,200 rpm and 635 hp at 2,100 rpm, so more power than two 903’s.That was,of course,without bothering to turbocharge it.
Although having said that they did/do get (a lot) more power out of the turbocharged 903 used in the Nubian etc than just 306 hp but it’s then just a question of how long for.
That’s correct. We had a 903 in our 1975 Thornycroft Nubian Major crash tender with semi auto gearbox. Great machine and loved driving it, only problem is I’m now a bit deaf in my left ear!
Regards SB.
The air operated accelerator was the worst thing on that Scammell especially trying to drive it in the factory.It answered with a delay and usually with more revs than wanted.
But like the Pathfinder and other crash tenders the one I knew was rear engined so quiet in the cab except the old Nubian 1 which usually had a petrol Rolls B81 in the cab.It would be interesting if it was a Nubian 1 with a turbocharged 903 in it
that would have been a flying machine and worth the extra noise.
This is a Nubian 2 but built by Saro in this case not Chubb Fire.
i429.photobucket.com/albums/qq17 … 1mans2.jpg
But Saviem’s comments certainly didn’t seem to match the difference between the preference of Detroit engines over ■■■■■■■ in most of the serious aircraft fire fighting vehicles and that reputation seems to have arguably applied in commercials in many markets over the years.
The truck in your photo is a Mk11 Scammell super major which entered service in the early 80’s, they also made a 4x4 version called the Mk10. They both had rear mounted turbocharged engines. The later models were fairly rapid and I’m not sure If they had twin turbos fitted?
The truck I was relating to was the Thornycroft Nubian Mk9 built in the mid 70’s with the 15ltr normal un-turbocharged 903. They were hot, smelly and noisy in the cab…a proper mans truck!!
Regards SB
.
Apart from torquing the heads, I like the small bore 220 although the idea of mounting the oil filter outside the chassis seemed a bit strange and vulnerable. The non turbo 14 liter NH250 I thought was a great engine, but the 240 and 250 turbo versions weren’t so good and I was never a fan of the E290 which saw the start of the bent injector pushrod and camshaft lobe wear that problems that suddenly emerged. The two things about the 14 litre that wound me up were: the fuel feed and return pipes on the back head that were so difficult to undo without damage, and those dreadful top water rail O rings. If you couldn’t get the thing off in one lump and be sure nothing had moved, then you were in for a long frustrating job getting everything clean and resealing properly. Bear in mind this was all work for a main dealer who had quoted a complete price for the job, in an effort to compete with the comparatively local ■■■■■■■ service centre, who were advertising a price for parts and labour for an in-chassis overhaul, which was almost the same as the price as that for which we could buy the parts. Of the more serious problems we encountered, the more persistently appearing seemed to be weeping coolant from head gaskets and diesel in the coolant. The latter certainly not impressing died -in- the- wool, Gardner-dedicated showmen. Given the application too, not easy to be certain that it wasn’t a case of using a dirty watering can. This was also the time when so many of these fairgrounds were starting to “try out a ■■■■■■■■ and discovering that things like the valve clearances and injectors required just that little bit of attention that they had previously not had to do. (or rather ignored). No disrespect intended, I made some good friends on the fairgrounds. What I did hear over and over again and not concerning ■■■■■■■ was after they said : “of course they are worn out before we get them”, came: " all these vehicles are now built for the first customer and woe betide the poor ****** who has them second hand."
As for the early L 10, well I hated the poxy thing with a vengeance. Before the chassis had even been delivered we were changing coolant side plate gaskets behind the turbo and stripping out the timing case, gears etc to attend to oil leaks. Then having put a few miles on the vehicle, it would be back in the workshop with complaints about oil consumption because the piston cooling jets had been incorrectly installed on build. Fortunately the E320 then came along and initially many of the problems decreased.
Call me a thick ■■■■ if you want CF,but I’ve just realised the reason why you are always ranting on about “exotic and powerful” engines,you are a Fire Brigade bloke while most of us on the site are “dyed in the wool” transport men !!! We have no need of a motor that can leave a cosseted garage and reach 0 to 60 in nano seconds !!!I could never understand all the bollox you spouted about us been better off running engines which,If we were lucky might achieve 3 mpg !!! and cost 4 or 5 times more than the motors we ran which,incidentally,we expected to turn a profit from !!So you were talking about Chalk and we were talking about Cheese!!! Cheers Bewick.
.
Tlking of the 220s, some of our long serving drivers reckon the 220s were better than the 240 and 250s; The 240s were E regs and were known to have an annoying whine. Whatever the problem, it led to Smiths buying Cats for the next few years until ■■■■■■■ gave them an experimental 14l 500, later cut back to 480; It must’ve impressed as all 3000 series trucks were bought for several years with the L10 in 275, 305 and 325 power ratings. The last proper Fodens came on W plates with the Celect but were not as good as the Cat C10. No Alphas were bought with ■■■■■■■ motors either.
Come on Geoff be fair what bewick says is valid if my house is on fire I want the fire engine there quick sod the fuel so the Detroit beats the Gardner. I’m a general in the army and my government wants to start a war I want tanks on the spot ASAP sod the fuel.
Im a haulage contractor I want the trucks to get there ASAP but at a reasonable cost so I have different criteria I know fuel costs are far worse these days but we have never had us style cheap fuel so it was always a balancing act. Sadly Gardner never got the balance right but ■■■■■■■ and to a lesser extent cat and rolls did.
.
Carryfast:
Which is why it’s all about specific outputs when more suddenly becomes less because that 42-56 Litres worth of 240 Gardners,needed to provide the similar type of power output as that 26 Litre turbocharged V12,will burn a lot more fuel at the end of the day to shift that 65 t tank over the same distance at the same average speed.:
In the Gardner thread, I showed- using the manufacturers’ own data- that the 8LXB was about 12% more efficient at full load, than an 8v71, over the normal operating speed range of each engine. I also stated that, at lower loads, the 2 stroke engine would be further disadvantaged, due to the losses in the scavenging supercharger becoming a greater proportion of the total power. You ignore/misunderstand these simple numbers and arguments and plough on ad nauseum, repeating the same fantasy in every post. The terminology you use sounds like it fell off the pages of a magazine and landed in a pile on the floor. My own knowledge could be improved by the learning of many members of this forum, but you either bore them off or engage them in childish ■■■-for-tat exchanges. I’m just about sick of it.
Here’s your job for tomorrow: show a handful of your posts to a proper automotive engineer- one who has/had a job working on engine design or R&D- and look at the expression on his/her face.
.
It wasn’t the 380bhp Detroit I compared. It was the 8v71 as fitted to the TM. Both engines were available in British lorries in the same period, hence the comparison. Read the post again, paying attention to the numbers. In your last post, you refer to 42-56 litres of Gardners, so I assume you are allowing the Gardner its standard specific power output, not 380bhp from 8 cylinders.
Seriously, if you don’t know any practising automotive engineers, try a first-year mech eng student, maybe one who has an interest in vehicles.
.
[zb]
anorak:
My own knowledge could be improved by the learning of many members of this forum, but you either bore them off or engage them in childish ■■■-for-tat exchanges. I’m just about sick of it.
Your problem is self inflicted, you must be one of the few who actually read through the posts
I’ll give you a tip, just read the first one, all the rest are exactly the same
newmercman:
[zb]
anorak:
My own knowledge could be improved by the learning of many members of this forum, but you either bore them off or engage them in childish ■■■-for-tat exchanges. I’m just about sick of it.Your problem is self inflicted, you must be one of the few who actually read through the posts
I’ll give you a tip, just read the first one, all the rest are exactly the same
My point is that discussions between well-informed members are often stymied or sidetracked, to the detriment of the forum. As well as drivers, we have authors, mechanics, salesmen- all sorts of people, who give their knowledge freely; stuff you would not read in any book or magazine. There will be people out there who, in the day, did good work on the design/development of the vehicles we talk about- how many of them have given TNUK a big swerve, after seeing the standard of the technical arguments on some of the threads?
Here’s a video of a nice-sounding N14 (not sure about the Jake noise):
We seem possibly to be straying into the world of fantasy on occasion. We are I think, discussing the type of engine to be fitted to a 1970/80’s 4x2 tractor unit in the main. If we are seriously considering fitting some of the engines mentioned, where on earth is the driver going to sit and live? How much payload are we going to lose because of the sheer weight of the things? A rough guess would assume that we would actually have to have a bonneted vehicle to accommodate the engine, meaning that unless we intend to run overlength, then a shorter trailer than standard would be required. Furthermore larger more powerful engines require larger and heavier transmissions to cope with the torque output; further reducing payload. The Commercial Motor and Road Transport road tests of the era, always quoted payload/MPG/hour as the comparison factor. While not everyone wished to run at maximum weight, the magazines had realised what criteria were necessary for a meaningful comparison between different combinations.
Up until (off the top of my head) 1980? vehicles were not operating tachographs, faster journey times were only partially achieved for the benefit of the employer, with far more transport cafe about then, a lot of the time gained was spent drinking tea, allied to the unfortunate tendency for the vehicle to be thrashed to make up for excessive time spent in such establishments. (duck below parapet).
Returning briefly to the Gardner, there was enough trouble with trailer swing clearances and damaged rear cylinder heads, air line gantries etc. when the 8LXB was first introduced. I also seem to recall that the E290 turbocharger in some vehicles was mounted behind the rear head, being not only in a vulnerable place, but even with the mesh guard to prevent burning the driver’s legs, instances still occurred of suzies melting.
On another Forum, bus enthusiasts have fantasised about installing alternative AEC engines in Routemasters, the most powerful of these, the AV1100, would have to be at least partially fitted inside the lower deck!
.