Here we have what i believe to be a ■■■■■■■ 220, its really interesting to see engines like this with sections cut outso you can see the internal working parts.
Hiya did the 220 have a turbo or not i would have said 290 but not sure. i couldn’t see mine for crap and stuff
around it.
John
3300John:
Hiya did the 220 have a turbo or not i would have said 290 but not sure. i couldn’t see mine for crap and stuff
around it.
John
The 220 wasn’t Tubo’d John,but the 290 was,it was the same 14 ltr engine IIRC,we ran plenty of 205’s and 220’s but not the 250 (unturbo’d) and the 290 they were just too thirsty for my taste mate !! Cheers Dennis.
Good to see worked on these many times, your mans right 220 / 250 not turbo . Early engines known as the small cam but then became with mods big cam , 14ltr horsepower range from 220 nat asperated to 450 + turbocharged / intercooled . Bloody good engine 500 thousand miles ;;;;;; . The 320 was very popular in Leyland roadtrains / Marathons / Sed Atki / Erf / Foden. Couple one of these engines to a Fuller or Eaton Twin splitter put a Rockwell axle behind it and youve got a good Gaffers moter. Replaced by the 10 ltr ■■■■■■■ in my opinion not a patch on the old 14 ltr but because they were lighter ( more payload ) they kind of took over early 10ltr prone to oil leaks and didnt sound any thing like the old 14ltr which had more grunt about it.
I feel sure that the ■■■■■■■ 220’s that we had in Foden and Atkinson dumpers had external fuel pipes to the injectors whereas that engine hasn’t? Maybe our ones were earlier, they were in 1968/70 dumpers and I rebuilt a few of them with new pistons and liners.
Pete.
Hi all,
You can tell a 220 ■■■■■■■ by the pair of coiled external fuel pipes coming out of back of the rear cylinder head,the 14 ltr has straight (not coiled) pipes and they run diagonaly,from the rear of the engine,as can be seen on that cracking cut away 
.
Regards Andrew.
a cracking engine,at Smith of Maddiston,the majority of the fleet were ■■■■■■■ 220,but not a patch on the Big J 240 Percy!!!
David 
5thwheel:
a cracking engine,at Smith of Maddiston,the majority of the fleet were ■■■■■■■ 220,but not a patch on the Big J 240 Percy!!!David
Will you ever give up David !!! Dennis.
Bewick:
5thwheel:
a cracking engine,at Smith of Maddiston,the majority of the fleet were ■■■■■■■ 220,but not a patch on the Big J 240 Percy!!!David
Will you ever give up David !!! Dennis.
You are like a clockwork train,wind you up and off you go!!..apologies Dennis,but I just cannot resist the temptation.
Take it easy
David 
Bewick:
3300John:
Hiya did the 220 have a turbo or not i would have said 290 but not sure. i couldn’t see mine for crap and stuff
around it.
JohnThe 220 wasn’t Tubo’d John,but the 290 was,it was the same 14 ltr engine IIRC,we ran plenty of 205’s and 220’s but not the 250 (unturbo’d) and the 290 they were just too thirsty for my taste mate !! Cheers Dennis.
I shudder to correct Mr. Bewick, but I think that you’ll find the ■■■■■■■ 180/205/220 are all 12.2 litres, the first 14 litre was the 250, when the fuel fell off a cliff. The only 14 litre ■■■■■■■ which in my limited experience of ■■■■■■■ units could have half reasonable fuel figures eeked out of it, was the NT240.
Bewick:
5thwheel:
a cracking engine,at Smith of Maddiston,the majority of the fleet were ■■■■■■■ 220,but not a patch on the Big J 240 Percy!!!David
Will you ever give up David !!! Dennis.
Couldnt agree more david. But im still working on providing concrete evidence of said percy in a bigj
This topic keeps popping up all over this site so someones gonna crack it just needs some PERCYverance
acd1202:
Bewick:
3300John:
Hiya did the 220 have a turbo or not i would have said 290 but not sure. i couldn’t see mine for crap and stuff
around it.
JohnThe 220 wasn’t Tubo’d John,but the 290 was,it was the same 14 ltr engine IIRC,we ran plenty of 205’s and 220’s but not the 250 (unturbo’d) and the 290 they were just too thirsty for my taste mate !! Cheers Dennis.
I shudder to correct Mr. Bewick, but I think that you’ll find the ■■■■■■■ 180/205/220 are all 12.2 litres, the first 14 litre was the 250, when the fuel fell off a cliff. The only 14 litre ■■■■■■■ which in my limited experience of ■■■■■■■ units could have half reasonable fuel figures eeked out of it, was the NT240.
Are you 101% sure “acd1202”,I was under the(probably now misguided)impression that the 3 ■■■■■■■ engines you mention were 14 ltr lumps.It was the fuel systems that were tweaked to give a higher output.I do of course stand corrected and we did run many ■■■■■■■ in the 4 horse powers you mention ! Cheers Bewick.
Hiya i had a ERF B series (VED 571S) with a big cam 290 tweeked and a twin splitter fuller. god it would fly and drink fuel like mad.
the job was Sheffield to Bangor with scrap. it was the only truck for the job, straight over the Snake pass.
there was no motorway round Stockport and no duel carriageway coast road in north wales. i could out run F12’s
ask the Pritchards lads from Anglesey.the job was a rubbish rate but we had no queuing no timed deliveries you could
come and go as you wanted. plus a return load from Bangor nice work at the time.
John
Nice to see this engine again, spent a few hours on these. I’d say this is an NTE 290, the E formula as they were known were a version of the NTC range, the 290’s came in two ratings 240bhp and 270bhp, Turbo but no Aftercooler, the higher rated 350 and 370 had both, this engine has no Aftercooler on the Intake side. The big Ford Transcons (and other makes) were fitted with these and matched to the Eaton/Fuller box and Rockwell axle were a well tried and trusted powerline. The PT (PressureTime) fuel system was also good with hardly any problems. The engines did have the odd problems, leaking cylinder heads, the fuel pipes on the back of the heads sometimes broke/split, various leaks in places due to ■■■■■■■ using ‘O’ rings instead of gaskets but on the whole great engines and as long as the injection timing was set up periodically they went like a train and gave good service, I liked them. Franky.
Bewick:
acd1202:
Bewick:
3300John:
Hiya did the 220 have a turbo or not i would have said 290 but not sure. i couldn’t see mine for crap and stuff
around it.
JohnThe 220 wasn’t Tubo’d John,but the 290 was,it was the same 14 ltr engine IIRC,we ran plenty of 205’s and 220’s but not the 250 (unturbo’d) and the 290 they were just too thirsty for my taste mate !! Cheers Dennis.
I shudder to correct Mr. Bewick, but I think that you’ll find the ■■■■■■■ 180/205/220 are all 12.2 litres, the first 14 litre was the 250, when the fuel fell off a cliff. The only 14 litre ■■■■■■■ which in my limited experience of ■■■■■■■ units could have half reasonable fuel figures eeked out of it, was the NT240.
Are you 101% sure “acd1202”,I was under the(probably now misguided)impression that the 3 ■■■■■■■ engines you mention were 14 ltr lumps.It was the fuel systems that were tweaked to give a higher output.I do of course stand corrected and we did run many ■■■■■■■ in the 4 horse powers you mention ! Cheers Bewick.[/
On the Atkinson speck sheet, the 220 is 12.2litres, and the 250 is 14.0litres, you can tell a mile of- f when the are running, the 12 litre talk to you more. on flickr S95 fleetmaster has put a vid on of one that he used to own,
flickr.com/photos/75262259@N … hotostream
makes me shiver eveytime i have this vid on.
The 220 is the small bore 5 1/8. 250 is a 14 l with 5 1/2 bore. 180, 205, 220 are all 12 l. Injector pipes go in through the side of the heads to each cylinder. 14l has only two pipes going in the rear, and then link pipes between each head. 14 l also has more head studs.
All are 4 valve and have PT fuel system.
FodenS80:
The 220 is the small bore 5 1/8. 250 is a 14 l with 5 1/2 bore. 180, 205, 220 are all 12 l. Injector pipes go in through the side of the heads to each cylinder. 14l has only two pipes going in the rear, and then link pipes between each head. 14 l also has more head studs.
All are 4 valve and have PT fuel system.
So the 180/205/220 were all the same 12ltr engines but it was the fuel settings and injectors that were different then? Its along time ago since we ran ■■■■■■■■■■■ you sure do learn something every day and I would have pawed over both Atki and ERF spec sheets and read all the bumff,I could have sworn they were 14 ltr lumps though !! I know that the 250 ■■■■■■■ was a “non starter” in our Bewick fleet for it’s derisory fuel consumption so that was the end of the ■■■■■■■ for us in 1976 !Dennis.
On paper the 250 looks the better lump, but everyone says a good 220 was the better bet. Perhaps ■■■■■■■ agreed and that’s why the 240 came along with the turbo?
hi all,
the 220’s i remember were all bad starters in the cold weather.the nhc 14litre 250 was no problem starting,though the thirst for diesel put a lot of operators of running them.i always thought the 220 was an 11litre 
you never stop learning 
regards andrew.