■■■■■■■ had many friends(sisu owners) in our county to ,unfourtynatly even many former sisu owner get teared of that every sisu was a “prototype” so slowly more and more by real lorries, when they tryed to fit cat engines the story was almost all, resulting in two years no civil sisus, now poverline from M-B and a last try 
,hej bma
Here’s an idea 
This is the ■■■■■■■ thread, so why are we reading numerous posts about Detroit Diesels and Gardner engines 
There is a lot of stuff to talk about without mentioning any other engines, as has been said, there are possibly a lot of people who have knowledge they could share, but choose not to because they don’t want to get in an argument with the two stroke twit
Carryfast, you’re dragging this thread down, keep it on topic please
cav551:
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.
newmercman:
Here’s an ideaThis is the ■■■■■■■ thread, so why are we reading numerous posts about Detroit Diesels and Gardner engines
There is a lot of stuff to talk about without mentioning any other engines, as has been said, there are possibly a lot of people who have knowledge they could share, but choose not to because they don’t want to get in an argument with the two stroke twit
Carryfast, you’re dragging this thread down, keep it on topic please
So how is anyone going to learn anything about the history of the development of those engines without a full understanding of the horsepower race going on in the States which drove that development and without a full understanding of their main competitor’s products and the way in which they compared at every level of the marketplace.Although maybe understandably it’s obvious that US horesepower race of the times won’t be understood by the Brits of the time.Or more likely it’s a case of not wanting to understand it.
Back on topic then! 
My experience of ■■■■■■■ is confined to the 220’s that we had in Foden and Atkinson dumpers which were pretty reliable seeing how they were not exactly overmaintained, plus a couple of 250’s in Foden eight leggers that seemed to require regular injector checks to keep them on song. I also drove and maintained a couple of Foden six wheelers with the 220 L10, opened up to 250, which didnt seem to go well in my opinion, even in a six wheeler, though the Foden had high gearing which didn’t help on hill work. They also leaked oil from every joint, the stupid electric fuel cutouts failed on several occasions and needed a clout with a hammer to get working again! Now the L10’s that were fitted in the Ford Cargo’s that O/D’s ran from our quarry were opened out to 270 and also had Jake brakes fitted (cab cross member had to be modified to get them in) and boy didnt they go well, appeared pretty oil tight as well. They seemed a good motor, in a six, but obviously we will find that they where not in the Detroit league (oops, gone off topic AGAIN!) 
Pete.
This is good stuff. Opinions based on actual experience of the nuts and bolts.
Windrush, you said that the Foden was high geared, was that the ex Smiths one, as it was noted that the Constructors could pull away faster but the Fodens were better for distance work.
Not sure of the horsepower, (think it was a 250) but I drove a Terex dumptruck with a ■■■■■■■ engine and that went well and made a nice banshee howl when loaded… 
It may well have been possible to fit a ■■■■■■■ KTA into a 4x2 Freightliner and obtain something like 600 bhp, but this is an 18 litre engine with the accompanying penalty in weight, which is something like half a ton. As mentioned before this is also going to require heavy duty transmission and cooling. IIRC even with US cabover units operating in this country at the time, there was always an overall length issue. As far back as the early 1980s it was quite possible to obtain this sort of horsepower, at overhaul, from the 14 litre ■■■■■■■■ So the larger engine would have been for vanity.
The LV & A series ERFs and Atkinson Mk1 & Borderers using the 12 litre ■■■■■■■ NH 180 -220 engines were able to use either the David Brown 0 600 or the Fuller RTO 609/610 series gearboxes with a 14" Lipe Rollway clutch. However as soon as the 14 litre NHK250 and the NTE270 appeared the larger and heavier RTO 9509 gearbox and its derivatives were required. By the time we got to the E320 we had also moved up to a 15 1/2 inch Spicer clutch, (which I can assure you was a ****** heavy lump of metal to lift into place), and a 2" input shaft in the gearbox.
The E 290 saw the marketing men move in big time and quite a lot of hype surrounded it. Going from period road tests, if one looks at the true NET installed bhp figures (to BSau141a which was the required criteria) for this engine it wasn’t a 290 at all - it was actually 274. From memory the 220 was actually 204 or 212 and the NHK 250 was 224. Whereas the two main engine models beginning with G actually exceeded their published bhp (not by much, but still true). Funny how you can manipulate the figures to your advantage when trying to sell something.
To their credit ■■■■■■■ ran in 1972 an excellent, and well noticed, advertising campaign featuring a NH220 that had been stripped down at 500,000 miles. This engine had in its earlier life been involved in an accident and run inverted; following bearing repairs to one journal it had completed the mileage quoted. ■■■■■■■ were initially sceptical because it had been run all its life on oil from one of the less well known(at the time) companies - Morris’s. However the actual condition of the internal components was found to be excellent, which was to Morris’s credit as well; with a significant number being fit for further service.
Where’s carryfasts posts gone.
kr79:
Where’s carryfasts posts gone.
They were upsetting the Stasi so I deleted them. 
Hi cav551, That’s a thought-provoking post, if I may say.
Regarding the K series ■■■■■■■■ I once knew a South African mechanic/driver, who remembered them being fitted in SA market ERFs- was he right? While it may have been possible to “open out” the 14 litre ■■■■■■■ to KTA power outputs, I would suggest that this option would not, generally, be considered by operators purchasing new vehicles. This, I believe, is why the 2 stroke Detroit engine became popular in lorries: it provided the power of a K19 or 18 litre Cat 3408, while having a capacity of only 14 litres. Therefore, its weight, size and cost, I assume, would be more in line with the ■■■■■■■ N14 or Cat 3406. The link below lists the ex-factory specifications of the DD engines:
depco.com/depco/Files/standa … _92807.pdf
Regarding standards, manufacturers have always messed with them. The Gardner 180 gave a true 180bhp gross, but 171-173 net installed. As a rule, during the 60s and 70s, proprietary engine suppliers quoted gross power and vehicle manufacturers gave net installed power figures. In the mid '80s, the vehicle manufacturers started giving out gross numbers- hype, as you say. It is a maze of detail. For example, the Scania 142 intercooler was a 420, right? When Commercial Motor published its roadtest of that lorry, its power was quoted at 414bhp, net installed to BS141Au. In about 1985, Scania started calling it a 430, to DIN88- a gross standard. The 420 figure was to DIN80, a net standard, but using Metric PS- these horses are 0.14% smaller than British ones, hence the higher figure (than 414). When the 143 came out, the 450 model had 435bhp, to BS141Au and the 470 was actually a 453, according to CM.
French manufacturers Saviem and Unic used to give SAE figures, which are about 10% higher than DIN gross. None of it is lies, just a bit of smoke and mirrors. I have a 1974-dated Volvo brochure, which quotes the F89 as having 330bhp DIN, while, on the same page, it says the same engine produces 330bhp SAE- one of those numbers is a lie, but which one?
cav551:
It may well have been possible to fit a ■■■■■■■ KTA into a 4x2 Freightliner and obtain something like 600 bhp, but this is an 18 litre engine with the accompanying penalty in weight, which is something like half a ton. As mentioned before this is also going to require heavy duty transmission and cooling. IIRC even with US cabover units operating in this country at the time, there was always an overall length issue. As far back as the early 1980s it was quite possible to obtain this sort of horsepower, at overhaul, from the 14 litre ■■■■■■■■ So the larger engine would have been for vanity.The LV & A series ERFs and Atkinson Mk1 & Borderers using the 12 litre ■■■■■■■ NH 180 -220 engines were able to use either the David Brown 0 600 or the Fuller RTO 609/610 series gearboxes with a 14" Lipe Rollway clutch. However as soon as the 14 litre NHK250 and the NTE270 appeared the larger and heavier RTO 9509 gearbox and its derivatives were required. By the time we got to the E320 we had also moved up to a 15 1/2 inch Spicer clutch, (which I can assure you was a ****** heavy lump of metal to lift into place), and a 2" input shaft in the gearbox.
The E 290 saw the marketing men move in big time and quite a lot of hype surrounded it. Going from period road tests, if one looks at the true NET installed bhp figures (to BSau141a which was the required criteria) for this engine it wasn’t a 290 at all - it was actually 274. From memory the 220 was actually 204 or 212 and the NHK 250 was 224. Whereas the two main engine models beginning with G actually exceeded their published bhp (not by much, but still true). Funny how you can manipulate the figures to your advantage when trying to sell something.
Blimey it’s no secret that most HP figures quoted during the 1960’s and 1970’s weren’t calculated in exactly the same way as those given in later years in everything from trucks to cars and everywhere from the states to here.BUT.
By the standards of the day those figures were a like with like representative figure of the outputs provided by most/all manufacturers between engines and the fact is there’s no way that a naturally aspirated ■■■■■■■■■■ anything else,using a like with like comparison based on engine size,would have provided the same combination of fuel efficiency/productivety and it’s the ‘comparitive’ figures between different engines in the day that mattered not how those figures compare to those given later.
In the real world then or now there’s no substitute for cubic inches and the best way to turn any diesel into an inefficient boat anchor is to run the thing without turbocharging but I’m sure that the KTA could run happily with a 13 speed Fuller like most other big power options in the day but I’m not allowed to post examples of the main competition with those levels of power output.
The fact is whatever anyone else here might like to think the Americans were running regularly at 100 mph type speeds during the late 1960’s-1970’s with those types of trucks and whatever the actual figures might or might not be those types of speeds take a decent level of power output and reliability and there were mainly only three engine manufacturers in that league.
The rules mean that I can’t provide the other two on this topic but in general it was all done on the basis that might is right and bigger is better and if the thing didn’t have a turbocharger or two bolted to it,then even at that time,unlike here,they knew that it would cost money in the form of lost productivety relative to the amount of fuel burnt.
But,just as in all cases related to the power issue,the logic of having the drawback,of the extra weight,of a bigger engine,was that it would be offset by the improved levels of reliability,provided by lower engine speed and/or less cylinder pressures,for the same level of output.There was a way where that issue could be reduced by getting more power,for a given engine size,without compromising engine speed and pressures but if I said what it was I’d be in trouble. 
But at least you’ve now admitted that even something like a KTA would fit in a 4x2 unit which,contrary to your ideas,obviously wouldn’t have meant any length issues whatsoever when compared with most types which were in use here during the same period.
Carryfast:
kr79:
Where’s carryfasts posts gone.They were upsetting the Stasi so I deleted them.
The information about the fire appliances was good. Please reinstate it. The other stuff can stay buried.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
kr79:
Where’s carryfasts posts gone.They were upsetting the Stasi so I deleted them.
The information about the fire appliances was good. Please reinstate it.
I’ll re post it over on the fire fighting vehicles topic sometime.I’ll probably be able to re write it all a bit shorter to convey the same info next time too.
Muckaway:
Windrush, you said that the Foden was high geared, was that the ex Smiths one, as it was noted that the Constructors could pull away faster but the Fodens were better for distance work.
Not sure of the horsepower, (think it was a 250) but I drove a Terex dumptruck with a ■■■■■■■ engine and that went well and made a nice banshee howl when loaded…
The ex Smiths one wasn’t bad gear wise Nathan, in fact it was a little on the low side and at 60 mph (+ ) it was screaming away! The later one that I had was fitted with an overdrive Fuller and was a nightmare when trying to back up a slope, but on a motorway it ran well and would hit the limiter, set at 52mph, with a gear in hand. You needed first gear to set off when loaded though. The gaffer’s identical truck was fitted with the little ■■■■■■■ C series engine, about 8 litre, and was much better geared for our type of work.
Pete.
Evening all, good ■■■■■■■ stuff coming through! cav551, excellent post on the 220s, but the engine you refer to used by ■■■■■■■ in their marketing, was a 180, in an LV ERF, (was it F, 68 reg)? that was operated by Plants at Gnosall, Nr Stafford. Cracking engine those 180s, I always thought them more “driveable” than the 205, (but not the 220).
I do not know if “my claim to fame” is truly such, but I always wondered if I was the only person in the UK to have run a KTA 18litre in a tractor unit? Back in 94 I imported a Marmon conventional, (the rare breed from Texas). Bl… ugly thing, … but wow was she impressive! KTA,@600hp, (and like lots of these show and go trucks came with the dyno sheets)! 15speed double overdrive, and a six speed spicer behind that! No, truly I could not change through every gear, who on earth specs transmissions like this, only does it for one purpose, to achieve a set of gears that provide the optimum performance for their needs, and the fact that you end up with a myriad of unusable ratios is purely incidental! Tandem SQHDs on newway air, 90in Double Eagle, odly she ran on aluminium 20in Budds,80%, and no caps. Painted in Misted Imron, (a fading green), so many gauges that you just got worried if a needle moved! But the heart, The KTA, what can one say, just excessive in every way, just the sight of it when you tipped the bonnet, the rumble, the whistle, gears, you do`nt need gears, she had come from an Owner operator from Oklahoma, via an old friend in Kansas city, and had been contracted to Bekins. Why on earth the man specified a KTA could only be ego, and lots of it! But what a wonderful machine, and what a fantastic engine, (despite having exceeded 1000000miles, as documented). And she still lives in Italy with the proud owner who purchased her from me!
[ZB], interesting point, and often overlooked, about the way manufacturers declared their engines power outputs. Apples and Pears comes to mind! Somewhere in a filing cabinet I have an excellent guide published by Unic, (Iveco), regarding the published ratings of all engines available in the French lorry market, like for like. A very useful document, (and very well thumbed)! One thing Iveco,as an organisation excell at, clear documentation, and product comparison. But they do`nt make inline 6cylinders like what ■■■■■■■ did! Cheerio for now.
Saviem:
I do not know if “my claim to fame” is truly such, but I always wondered if I was the only person in the UK to have run a KTA 18litre in a tractor unit? Back in 94 I imported a Marmon conventional, (the rare breed from Texas). Bl… ugly thing, … but wow was she impressive! KTA,@600hp, (and like lots of these show and go trucks came with the dyno sheets)! 15speed double overdrive, and a six speed spicer behind that! No, truly I could not change through every gear, who on earth specs transmissions like this, only does it for one purpose, to achieve a set of gears that provide the optimum performance for their needs, and the fact that you end up with a myriad of unusable ratios is purely incidental! Tandem SQHDs on newway air, 90in Double Eagle, odly she ran on aluminium 20in Budds,80%, and no caps. Painted in Misted Imron, (a fading green), so many gauges that you just got worried if a needle moved! But the heart, The KTA, what can one say, just excessive in every way, just the sight of it when you tipped the bonnet, the rumble, the whistle, gears, you do`nt need gears, she had come from an Owner operator from Oklahoma, via an old friend in Kansas city, and had been contracted to Bekins. Why on earth the man specified a KTA could only be ego, and lots of it! But what a wonderful machine, and what a fantastic engine, (despite having exceeded 1000000miles, as documented).
If only we could have got an answer to your question from that original owner.It’s my bet thet his buying decision was probably based more on the fact that he wanted something which would stand up to who knows how many long runs done as fast as possible,with just essential servicing like oil and filter changes done on route when time allowed,than anything to do with ego.
I’m guessing ego as the 14 litre ■■■■■■■ isn’t known for giving up the host after low mileage. Same as why does anyone by a 730 scania or 750 Volvo to use in the uk at 44 ton. Between limiters and distances involved in this country you will never use that extra power enough to do enough extra work to warrant the extra cost.
I bet you have gone week at the knees reading that spec. 
Carryfast:
kr79:
Where’s carryfasts posts gone.They were upsetting the Stasi so I deleted them.
It is richer for us all to hear everyone’s perspective…even though we may not always agree…