.
V8Lenny:
Carryfast:
V8Lenny:
Allison equipped trucks have always accelerated better than any manual or automated manual trucks, espacially turbocharged because you don’t lose boost between shifts. They are worse when cruising and climbing hills because of higher transmission lossesAccellerating under load is no different to climbing a hill.It’s all about how much power and torque is applied at the driving wheels.The Allison might arguably shift a bit quicker and under power but it’s usually got less,so wider,ratios.Therefore the combination of the ( fast enough ) shift times of a constant mesh box,closer ratios and lower transmission losses means a clutch type manual wins out on economy and performance over a torque converter type auto in most cases in most types of emergency or haulage trucks.
Which,as I’ve said just leaves the torque converter type auto winning out sometimes when it’s advantages outweigh it’s disadvantages such as in the case of specialist heavy haulage applications etc or in cases and/or where the truck is more often likely to be driven by licence holders than drivers.
Forget the engine in this case it’s just posted as a comparison of transmissions and shift times and the way in which the motor has to work harder for the same effect with the Allison,although obviously there’s a lot less time needed with Detroit motors because of the fast drop in revs when they’re declutched (like a car with a lightened flywheel) unlike ■■■■■■■ etc.
Finnish roadworks (Tielaitos) used Sisus with M11 and Allison and similar Sisus with Eaton 16sp synchro boxes. Those with Allison were accelerating much better. There has also been some official tests by Scania between Allison, Opticruise and manual, Allison always won. It’s all about turbocharging, with manual you loose boost every time you shift and it takes time to spool up again. That’s why you don’t use every gear of your transmission when you are trying to save fuel. Even manuals accelerate better when skipping gears, for example with 14 speed Volvo and Scania I shift only 4 times to reach limiter and I usually win the drag races in France and Spain road tolls. My fuel consumption was also one of the lowest of the fleet. I also read about some fleet in GB that had 9 and 14 speed Volvos and 9 speeds were usually most fuel efficient because not so skilled drivers couldn’t use too many gears.
It’s not surprising that an old Allison type box has more chance in a comparison with slow shifting synchro boxes.But the last sentence provides most of the reasoning in many other cases especially in the case of Fuller v Allison.
Why super race trucks used Allison or ZF planetary/torque converter type boxes? Because they were faster/quicker even if losses were greater. Why BMW M5 is using manual or automated manual? Because most of their customers are old german ■■■■■ or similar from other countries who don’t know much about driving or cars. Well ok, in some situations you get better feel of the car with manual. Ferraris I don’t rate at all, italian overpriced crap. And in general you can’t compare trucks and cars.
In long distance work manual always wins in fuel economy because of smaller losses but in short distance work like distribution, tipper, logger etc. Allison wins in performance and economy. I heard that Allison is about 12000 euros more than Opticruise and 200 kilos heavier so they won’t sell very well these days.
Do you remember when engine manufacturers used to publish these sort of graphs?
They are great- they show power, torque and efficiency at all loads and speeds. I can’t find any on the internet, pertaining to the engines we have been discussing. Does anyone have such data for our favourite engines?
V8Lenny:
Why super race trucks used Allison or ZF planetary/torque converter type boxes? Because they were faster/quicker even if losses were greater. Why BMW M5 is using manual or automated manual? Because most of their customers are old german ■■■■■ or similar from other countries who don’t know much about driving or cars. Well ok, in some situations you get better feel of the car with manual. Ferraris I don’t rate at all, italian overpriced crap. And in general you can’t compare trucks and cars.In long distance work manual always wins in fuel economy because of smaller losses but in short distance work like distribution, tipper, logger etc. Allison wins in performance and economy. I heard that Allison is about 12000 euros more than Opticruise and 200 kilos heavier so they won’t sell very well these days.
Super race trucks aren’t usually raced with fully freighted trailers they’re just light weight purpose built race units.In the case of a loaded truck the disadvantage of the power losses v the time lost to shift gears with the manual turns in the favour of the proper manual box.Just so long as the driver knows how to use it.
As for loggers the operator of the wagon here at 0.0-0.36 obviously agrees with me that a short shifted manual box is better all round than having an engine running at higher revs than needed,throwing away loads of power,through a torque converter,to do the same job at the end of the day. 
youtube.com/watch?v=zkhkupzF … re=related.
The reason why BMW uses an automated manual in an M5 instead of a torque converter type is because in both cases it’s all about drivers who can’t really drive but in the case of the automated manual it’s still driving through a clutch and there’s less power losses at the wheels.
Which probably explains the reasons why the same applies in the case of manufacturers using automated manuals in trucks not torque converter type Allisons in most cases.
Carryfast:
V8Lenny:
Why super race trucks used Allison or ZF planetary/torque converter type boxes? Because they were faster/quicker even if losses were greater. Why BMW M5 is using manual or automated manual? Because most of their customers are old german ■■■■■ or similar from other countries who don’t know much about driving or cars. Well ok, in some situations you get better feel of the car with manual. Ferraris I don’t rate at all, italian overpriced crap. And in general you can’t compare trucks and cars.In long distance work manual always wins in fuel economy because of smaller losses but in short distance work like distribution, tipper, logger etc. Allison wins in performance and economy. I heard that Allison is about 12000 euros more than Opticruise and 200 kilos heavier so they won’t sell very well these days.
Super race trucks aren’t usually raced with fully freighted trailers they’re just light weight purpose built race units.In the case of a loaded truck the disadvantage of the power losses v the time lost to shift gears with the manual turns in the favour of the proper manual box.Just so long as the driver knows how to use it.
As for loggers the operator of the wagon here at 0.0-0.36 obviously agrees with me that a short shifted manual box is better all round than having an engine running at higher revs than needed,throwing away loads of power,through a torque converter,to do the same job at the end of the day.
youtube.com/watch?v=zkhkupzF … re=related.
The reason why BMW uses an automated manual in an M5 instead of a torque converter type is because in both cases it’s all about drivers who can’t really drive but in the case of the automated manual it’s still driving through a clutch and there’s less power losses at the wheels.
Which probably explains the reasons why the same applies in the case of manufacturers using automated manuals in trucks not torque converter type Allisons in most cases.
are you mixing up a5/6geared transmission whit hyraulic turbineclutch whit a tourke converter 
.on those allisons in scania bus i drove there where lockup on 4/5 gear no turbine in action whitout "kickdown. so in normal speed no powerlose no more fuel either to a manual in same use, and the fuel use comes from betven steeringwheel and the pedal,cheers benkku
Carryfast:
kr79:
Is your car automatic GeoffreyGood example.Guess what.It came from the factory fitted with the car version of a GM auto boat anchor ( 3 speed 400 ).That went in the skip and it’s now a 5 speed manual all done at a lot of expense and trouble but worth every penny and hour spent doing the job because it’s (much) faster than it would have been left with the boat anchor tied to it and as usual that same conversion done on lots of others over the years has proved time and again that the torque converter type auto costs the usual around 30% hp at the wheels.
If this would have gone faster with an auto that’s what they would have fitted in it because believe it or not they tried to ban it under homologation regs because by that time the standard XJS was only available with the GM auto box and was won on appeal because it’s original designers knew better and had offered it with a proper manual box in the beginning.The reason why they dropped the option was all about the buying habits (more like ‘driving’ qualities’ ) of the customers not because the auto was quicker.
youtube.com/watch?v=c5jtf83eKGs
Which probably explains why Ferrari or BMW don’t fit torque converter type transmissions in the 599 or the M5.
Who said everything from British leyland was crap. Do you do track days or have you done the nuerberg ring.
My mate had the xjs r got an xkr now proper tool. Mind you so is he caught by the old bill a few weeks back at 120.
bma.finland:
Carryfast:
V8Lenny:
Why super race trucks used Allison or ZF planetary/torque converter type boxes? Because they were faster/quicker even if losses were greater. Why BMW M5 is using manual or automated manual? Because most of their customers are old german ■■■■■ or similar from other countries who don’t know much about driving or cars. Well ok, in some situations you get better feel of the car with manual. Ferraris I don’t rate at all, italian overpriced crap. And in general you can’t compare trucks and cars.In long distance work manual always wins in fuel economy because of smaller losses but in short distance work like distribution, tipper, logger etc. Allison wins in performance and economy. I heard that Allison is about 12000 euros more than Opticruise and 200 kilos heavier so they won’t sell very well these days.
Super race trucks aren’t usually raced with fully freighted trailers they’re just light weight purpose built race units.In the case of a loaded truck the disadvantage of the power losses v the time lost to shift gears with the manual turns in the favour of the proper manual box.Just so long as the driver knows how to use it.
As for loggers the operator of the wagon here at 0.0-0.36 obviously agrees with me that a short shifted manual box is better all round than having an engine running at higher revs than needed,throwing away loads of power,through a torque converter,to do the same job at the end of the day.
youtube.com/watch?v=zkhkupzF … re=related.
The reason why BMW uses an automated manual in an M5 instead of a torque converter type is because in both cases it’s all about drivers who can’t really drive but in the case of the automated manual it’s still driving through a clutch and there’s less power losses at the wheels.
Which probably explains the reasons why the same applies in the case of manufacturers using automated manuals in trucks not torque converter type Allisons in most cases.are you mixing up a5/6geared transmission whit hyraulic turbineclutch whit a tourke converter
Local running buses with frequent stop start operations are another of those types of applications more suited to using auto or pre selector type transmissions.A torque converter type transmission is effectively a type of hydraulic turbine system which replaces the clutch in the conventional type of transmission.There’s been numerous ideas to (try to) reduce the drawbacks of torque converters over the years using lock up mechanisms however however in most cases they are only used where their advantages outweigh their disadvantages as I’ve said.
The two videos which I posted say everything about the differences in the amount of output required from the engine,to get the same effect at the wheels using a typical Allison auto v a decent manual box with a clutch. .
youtube.com/watch?v=fKHFiqfWO5k
youtube.com/watch?v=I-cM80_qs98
The old description,of autos using fluid connections between the engine and wheels,being just like driving a manual transmission with a knackered slipping clutch,was an accurate one.As in that example above you can often add to that too wide gaps between the ratios because there’s too few gears.
whats the differens betwen 6 gears and 5 hydraulic gears and 10 /12 manual if driving in normal speed is in stright drive whitout turbin, or what carryfast,you only need the automat to get up speed ,or then it,s the same, the fuel depends of driver and a god engine in the box(why not scandinavians couse they work well whit autos),bye one when get enought money 
cheers benkku
hmm, ■■■■■■■ engines… I have had 5 ford transcons, all with the e290 big cam, all good for power, but everysingle one of them had water liner failure, but ti be fair we just exported the engines anyway, they all ways got me home, but were fairly bad on fuel doing spain mainly, i was averaging 6mpg, however, with a 2400ltr belly tank, i didnt lose any sleep over it.I am also reminded of a guy who put a 14lt ■■■■■■■ engine into a f12 globetrotter, that would have been some motor, coupled up to a 13 speed fuller.
I think it was Brain’s Haulage who got so fed up with Scania engine and gearbox problems that they substituted ■■■■■■■ Fuller as an experiment.
cav551:
I think it was Brain’s Haulage who got so fed up with Scania engine and gearbox problems that they substituted ■■■■■■■ Fuller as an experiment.
No cav551, it was Samuel Williams, who put a “custom torque” NTC225, 225hp@1900rpm, 900lb ft @1100rpm, Lipe rollway, and 6speed Fuller, into a 1968 LB110, OOG980G. Having become fed up with the “lifetime cost” of a 100% Scania unit as they approached 200000miles. They also converted one to Rolls power, the subsequent ownership of which is documented by “geoffthecrowtaylor”, on the middle east thread.
Quite some conversion I believe! Cheerio for now.
This was in a volvo !
This was the ■■■■■■■ model I cut my teeth on, the wonderful NHK, in 205 or 220 mode. it (in my opinion) led the way for reliability, power, and yes, even economy if driven properly. 
Ps don’t forget the noise it makes, to steal a quote from the ESL jodrells AWESOME!!! 
Regards Kev.
PPs. Happy birthday IAIN.
Given the amount of ■■■■■■■ noise on other threads, I’ve given this one a bump. Specifically, I am interested in the Custom Torque engine, as mentioned above. It seems like an early incarnation of the Big Cam theme. Why was it not more popular?
You really are an Anorack !! Most people are out celebrating and your’e talking about early incarcerations of the Big Cam !! 
Happy New Year everyone…its 3.10am and I just got home. G’night.
GS
So you go out for the New Years celebrations then you come home at 3.10 am and go straight on to Trucknet !!!
GS … Really …Who’s the Anorak…At least it’s 9 at night here
Jeff…
[zb]
anorak:
Given the amount of ■■■■■■■ noise on other threads, I’ve given this one a bump. Specifically, I am interested in the Custom Torque engine, as mentioned above. It seems like an early incarnation of the Big Cam theme. Why was it not more popular?
Because knowbody new about it,quite a lot like other ■■■■■■■ products.How do I post pictures as ive got the full story in one of my old ■■■■■■■ news?
railstaff:
[zb]
anorak:
Given the amount of ■■■■■■■ noise on other threads, I’ve given this one a bump. Specifically, I am interested in the Custom Torque engine, as mentioned above. It seems like an early incarnation of the Big Cam theme. Why was it not more popular?Because knowbody new about it,quite a lot like other ■■■■■■■ products.How do I post pictures as ive got the full story in one of my old ■■■■■■■ news?
Here you go ‘railstaff’ - just follow the instructions:
Robert
thanking you.