acd1202:
[zb]
anorak:
Does anyone know of any oversquare lorry engines which were generally accepted as successful?The 17.17 litre Fiat/IVECO V8 was oversquare, how successful would depend on who you are talking to.
Hi acd1202. A quick look at a spec. sheet for its predecessor, the Unic 14.88 litre V8, reveals that it was also oversquare (135x130). I have not read a bad word about either engine.
Hallo, I always have heart dat FORD had asked ■■■■■■■ to change the bore for other pistons but was a disaster as I they told me.And as I think in brochure I have it was caled the Super 252.
As I find it I’ll post it.
Greetings Eric,
I doubt many would know what a Square, Under or Oversquare engine meant and a term rarely used in the mechanics world nevermind by drivers, so I would think the info your after would have to come from written sources of statistics, that’s if there is any for truck diesel engines. When I was a lot younger and keener I used to fill my head with technical info that I never ended up using and which today has long gone, I hardly recall what I was doing last week thesedays and long since gave up storing this type of knowledge. It probably wouldn’t be worth guessing either, some engines mentioned on this site as reliable and powerful I’ve found the opposite and Visa Versa and you could say the same about actual vehicles, I would say it all depends on a persons working experience of what he liked or disliked. Franky.
Frankydobo:
I doubt many would know what a Square, Under or Oversquare engine meant and a term rarely used in the mechanics world nevermind by drivers, so I would think the info your after would have to come from written sources of statistics, that’s if there is any for truck diesel engines. When I was a lot younger and keener I used to fill my head with technical info that I never ended up using and which today has long gone, I hardly recall what I was doing last week thesedays and long since gave up storing this type of knowledge. It probably wouldn’t be worth guessing either, some engines mentioned on this site as reliable and powerful I’ve found the opposite and Visa Versa and you could say the same about actual vehicles, I would say it all depends on a persons working experience of what he liked or disliked. Franky.
The terms describe the two different types of bore stroke ratio either bigger bore dimesion than stroke dimension (over square) or bigger stroke dimension than bore (under square) or square equal bore and stroke dimension.However it is possible for an over square engine to produce more torque than an undersquare one on the basis of having a larger overall engine capacity which can still provide a larger,or at least sufficient,stroke dimension than the undersquare one has which is what matters especially in the case of an 8 compared to a 6 cylinder engine.It’s doubtful that any over square truck engine could outperform an under square one all else being equal.
Exactly but how many on this site would know that to give the opinions asked for, I would think I could count on one hand the times I might have heard this terminology during over 45 years of diesel mechanics and certainly not in recent years. Probably easier to just say which engines were prefered or thought of as better doing the job, a V or an in-line and let the arguments begin!
Frankydobo:
Exactly but how many on this site would know that to give the opinions asked for, I would think I could count on one hand the times I might have heard this terminology during over 45 years of diesel mechanics and certainly not in recent years. Probably easier to just say which engines were prefered or thought of as better doing the job, a V or an in-line and let the arguments begin!
If it’s torque then it’s a big V8 or V12 no contest because they can provide the best all round combination of number of cylinders and bore and stroke dimensions/ratios while remaining short enough to provide torsional strength in the crankshaft and overall size requirements.I’m not going to get involved in a two stroke v four stroke argument though. 
Hi Frankydobo, the Vee engine production, in the UK came about as follows. Two new manufacturing plants were built in the early 60’s in Darlington. One plant under Chrysler’s control manufactured the Val and Vale engines for use in the Dodge ‘K’ series vehicles, the Dodge chassis used both the V6 and V8 engines. The second, adjacent plant, was built and operated by ■■■■■■■ as a ‘components’ plant to service the Chrysler facility. The ■■■■■■■ plant produced all the fuel injection equipment and other small components, it was also where the ■■■■■■■ UK customer training school was located.
At some point, in the later 60’s, ■■■■■■■ took over responsibility for both plants. I cannot recall if the Ford contract, for the D1000 V8 Vale engine, came before or after the split from Chrysler but I do recall getting involved with the Ford personnel and dealers in 1967 prior to the D1000 launch.
It seems Perkins came out the winners in this V War, from the info I have, Dodge introduced the 500 Series in 1964 with the Chrysler V8 which was the ■■■■■■■ VALE built under licence. This proved unpopular so Dodge offered the Perkins V8-410. Fords D1000 appeared in 1967 again with the VALE but within a year they began to offer their own V8 engine which was infact the Perkins V8-510 built under license as an alternative. Whether that is the truth and nothing but the truth its what I’ve got in black and white. Certainly the Perkins V8 seems to have had a better reign than the VAL/VALE, we sold only last year an ‘A’ Reg Dennis foam tender that had been converted to a flat and moffett mounty carrier fitted with the Perkins 510 and it was still banging away, noisy bloody thing but it just kept on going. It had a starting problem now and again due to a faulty stop on the pump that stuck, usually at the wrong time until we sorted it. Rare old beast and I doubt I’ll hear the noise from that engine again out on the road. Franky.
Frankydobo:
It seems Perkins came out the winners in this V War, from the info I have, Dodge introduced the 500 Series in 1964 with the Chrysler V8 which was the ■■■■■■■ VALE built under licence. This proved unpopular so Dodge offered the Perkins V8-410. Fords D1000 appeared in 1967 again with the VALE but within a year they began to offer their own V8 engine which was infact the Perkins V8-510 built under license as an alternative. Whether that is the truth and nothing but the truth its what I’ve got in black and white. Certainly the Perkins V8 seems to have had a better reign than the VAL/VALE, we sold only last year an ‘A’ Reg Dennis foam tender that had been converted to a flat and moffett mounty carrier fitted with the Perkins 510 and it was still banging away, noisy bloody thing but it just kept on going. It had a starting problem now and again due to a faulty stop on the pump that stuck, usually at the wrong time until we sorted it. Rare old beast and I doubt I’ll hear the noise from that engine again out on the road. Franky.
0
I don’t think V truck engine design was in ■■■■■■■■ DNA.The 903 was arguably their best shot and just wasn’t in the same league in widespread service as the Detroit 8V71/8V92,CAT 3408,and the Scania and FIAT V8’s. 
Carryfast:
Frankydobo:
It seems Perkins came out the winners in this V War, from the info I have, Dodge introduced the 500 Series in 1964 with the Chrysler V8 which was the ■■■■■■■ VALE built under licence. This proved unpopular so Dodge offered the Perkins V8-410. Fords D1000 appeared in 1967 again with the VALE but within a year they began to offer their own V8 engine which was infact the Perkins V8-510 built under license as an alternative. Whether that is the truth and nothing but the truth its what I’ve got in black and white. Certainly the Perkins V8 seems to have had a better reign than the VAL/VALE, we sold only last year an ‘A’ Reg Dennis foam tender that had been converted to a flat and moffett mounty carrier fitted with the Perkins 510 and it was still banging away, noisy bloody thing but it just kept on going. It had a starting problem now and again due to a faulty stop on the pump that stuck, usually at the wrong time until we sorted it. Rare old beast and I doubt I’ll hear the noise from that engine again out on the road. Franky.
0I don’t think V truck engine design was in ■■■■■■■■ DNA.The 903 was arguably their best shot and just wasn’t in the same league in widespread service as the Detroit 8V71/8V92,CAT 3408,and the Scania and FIAT V8’s.
Good research Franky- this is the sort of stuff that makes the forum so addictive, IMO.
Cf- as our resident Yankophile, why do you think ■■■■■■■ bothered to engineer the 903, when its 855 inline six was already a great success? Was there some demand in the States for a more compact 14 litre engine? I think I remember reading on a US forum that the 903 was notably resistant to the abuse meted out by the mud and smoke brigade (sled-pulling, or whatever they call it. If there is ever proof that it takes all sorts, these nutters are it).
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
Frankydobo:
It seems Perkins came out the winners in this V War, from the info I have, Dodge introduced the 500 Series in 1964 with the Chrysler V8 which was the ■■■■■■■ VALE built under licence. This proved unpopular so Dodge offered the Perkins V8-410. Fords D1000 appeared in 1967 again with the VALE but within a year they began to offer their own V8 engine which was infact the Perkins V8-510 built under license as an alternative. Whether that is the truth and nothing but the truth its what I’ve got in black and white. Certainly the Perkins V8 seems to have had a better reign than the VAL/VALE, we sold only last year an ‘A’ Reg Dennis foam tender that had been converted to a flat and moffett mounty carrier fitted with the Perkins 510 and it was still banging away, noisy bloody thing but it just kept on going. It had a starting problem now and again due to a faulty stop on the pump that stuck, usually at the wrong time until we sorted it. Rare old beast and I doubt I’ll hear the noise from that engine again out on the road. Franky.
0I don’t think V truck engine design was in ■■■■■■■■ DNA.The 903 was arguably their best shot and just wasn’t in the same league in widespread service as the Detroit 8V71/8V92,CAT 3408,and the Scania and FIAT V8’s.
Good research Franky- this is the sort of stuff that makes the forum so addictive, IMO.
Cf- as our resident Yankophile, why do you think ■■■■■■■ bothered to engineer the 903, when its 855 inline six was already a great success? Was there some demand in the States for a more compact 14 litre engine? I think I remember reading on a US forum that the 903 was notably resistant to the abuse meted out by the mud and smoke brigade (sled-pulling, or whatever they call it. If there is ever proof that it takes all sorts, these nutters are it).
Now then “anorak”,CF resembles that last remark !!
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
Frankydobo:
It seems Perkins came out the winners in this V War, from the info I have, Dodge introduced the 500 Series in 1964 with the Chrysler V8 which was the ■■■■■■■ VALE built under licence. This proved unpopular so Dodge offered the Perkins V8-410. Fords D1000 appeared in 1967 again with the VALE but within a year they began to offer their own V8 engine which was infact the Perkins V8-510 built under license as an alternative. Whether that is the truth and nothing but the truth its what I’ve got in black and white. Certainly the Perkins V8 seems to have had a better reign than the VAL/VALE, we sold only last year an ‘A’ Reg Dennis foam tender that had been converted to a flat and moffett mounty carrier fitted with the Perkins 510 and it was still banging away, noisy bloody thing but it just kept on going. It had a starting problem now and again due to a faulty stop on the pump that stuck, usually at the wrong time until we sorted it. Rare old beast and I doubt I’ll hear the noise from that engine again out on the road. Franky.
0I don’t think V truck engine design was in ■■■■■■■■ DNA.The 903 was arguably their best shot and just wasn’t in the same league in widespread service as the Detroit 8V71/8V92,CAT 3408,and the Scania and FIAT V8’s.
Good research Franky- this is the sort of stuff that makes the forum so addictive, IMO.
Cf- as our resident Yankophile, why do you think ■■■■■■■ bothered to engineer the 903, when its 855 inline six was already a great success? Was there some demand in the States for a more compact 14 litre engine? I think I remember reading on a US forum that the 903 was notably resistant to the abuse meted out by the mud and smoke brigade (sled-pulling, or whatever they call it. If there is ever proof that it takes all sorts, these nutters are it).
I’d bet it was probably all about (trying to) keep market place credibility in the day when a wagon with 6 cylinders was more widely considered as a poor relation to a wagon with 8 or more.Which probably now only applies very rarely even in emergency vehicle applications with Scania being the last of the line in widespread use.No surprise I’m still in agreement with those Scania engineers and customers.
The fact is in most cases it’s the Detroit 8V71/8V92,CAT 3408,and Scania and FIAT which are more often remembered for all the right reasons whereas the 903 seems to have been a case of hit or miss reliablity while never being known as anything special output wise.Unlike it’s 14 Litre 6 cylinder designs in ever modified form to the N14.
■■■■■■■ V/VT Series V6,V8 and V12 Diesel Engines:-
V6 - 5.8/6.2 L (VAL) (V6-140/155; V/VT-352/378)
V6 - 9.6L (VIM) (V6E-195, V6-200)
V8 - 7.7/8.3/9.1 L (VALE) (V8-170/185/210; V/VT-470/504/555)
V8 - 12.9 L (VINE) (V8E-235/V8-265)
V8 - 14.8 L (V/VT/VTB-903; VT-350)
V12 - 28 L (V28)
From the Commercial Motor Archive,Friday,4th September,1964:-
"Jaguar to Build ■■■■■■■ Vees
JAGUAR CARS LTD. are to manufacture in this country the ■■■■■■■ range of VIM and VINE V-6 and V-8 diesel engines. This was announced on Tuesday by Sir William Lyons, the Jaguar chairman, at a gathering of operators and manufacturers, to unveil the new range of Guy Big I goods vehicles (see pages 62 to 67). The VIM and VINE are used in the Guy Big I and in the Daimler Roadliner {sec pages 68 to 70).
Chrysler/■■■■■■■■ in a joint venture, are to manufacture in two factories at Darlington the smaller, oversquare, ■■■■■■■ VAL and VALE V-6 and V-8 diesels. Until Sir William’s announcement. all European production of the VIM and VINE was in the hands of the German manufacturers, Krupp."
A new company,Jaguar-■■■■■■■■■■■ set up to manufacture ■■■■■■■ V6 and V8 engines in Coventry,but
there was a change of plan:Henry Meadows Ltd,of Wolverhampton,and part of the Jaguar Group,was chosen to build these engines in it’s factory,but nothing came of this in the long term.
However,these ■■■■■■■ engines were fitted in Daimler motorcoach and bus and Guy lorry models:-
Daimler Roadliner SRC6 Single Decker Bus model.
Daimler Roadliner SRC6 Single Decker Motorcoach model.
Daimler Roadliner SRC6 Motorcoach engine installation:-
flickr.com/photos/22455491@N02/2398762077
Daimler Roadliner/Plaxton Panorama Motorcoach,UAD 316H:-
flickr.com/photos/22455491@N02/2198311648
Both powered by ■■■■■■■ VIM V6-200 9.6-litre V6 150 BHP (bus) 192 BHP (motorcoach) Diesel Engines.
Guy Big J6 Rigid 6x2 and 6x4 Lorry models.
Powered by a ■■■■■■■ VIM V6-200 9.6-litre V6 170 BHP and 192 BHP Diesel Engine.
The above engine was also fitted in at least three Daimler Fleetline Double Decker Omnibuses:-
7000 HP,experimental-prototype Fleetline Double Decker Omnibus.
Fleetline CRC6-36 for Walsall.
Fleetline CRC6 for North Western.
Many examples of these engines in the Daimler Roadliner motorcoaches and buses proved to be
unreliable:excessive exhaust smoke,too much vibration,over heating and engine stiffness were the
most noted problems,including difficulty in re-starting the engine when hot.
From August 1968 the Perkins V8-510 8.36-litre V8 150 BHP (bus) 170 BHP (motorcoach) Diesel
Engine was optional in the Roadliner bus and motorcoach models,and these were desiginated SRP8.
A prototype Roadliner SRL8 was fitted with a AEC-designed British Leyland 12.1-litre V8 Diesel
Engine.This was exhibited as the Guy Conquest at the January 1969 Brussels Show.An experimental Fleetline CRL8-36 Double-Decker Bus was also built.
Some other TruckNetUK members on this thread have also said that at least some of the above engines
were unreliable - these engine’s were also LOUD!
Thornycroft Nubian Major TMA/300 6x6 Airfield Fire Crash Tender Fire Engine.
flickr.com/photos/leicester- … 783746919/
This model was powered by the ■■■■■■■ VINE V8-300 12.9-litre V8 300 BHP Diesel Engine.
A later version was fitted with the bigger ■■■■■■■ V/VT/VTB-903 14.8-litre V8 300 BHP Diesel Engine.
VALKYRIE
Well I never knew they built ■■■■■■■ engines at the Henry Meadows factory in Wolverhampton and I did used to deliver engine parts in there at one time ! The factory was on Cannock rd. a few hundred yards from the Guy motors factory in Park lane.
■■■■■■■ V12 engine
Trev_H:
Well I never knew they built ■■■■■■■ engines at the Henry Meadows factory in Wolverhampton and I did used to deliver engine parts in there at one time ! The factory was on Cannock rd. a few hundred yards from the Guy motors factory in Park lane.
I think that Sir Williams choice of the ■■■■■■■ V6 as the launch engine for the,then,new Guy Big J was not one of his better decisions ! Cheers Dennis.
I used to have a Daimler chassis ex M.I.R.A it had been modified for their purpose for brake/tilt testing , I had it parked in my yard for quite a while until i was approached by a bus preservation society who wanted the ■■■■■■■ V6 for a bus they owned. Apparently the engine in the chassis they had was so unreliable ( bad starting , overheating ect ect) they wanted this so they could have an engine they could swop over while they worked on the other one. The chap told me that if they got their engine going they kept it running at ralies ect all day and even then they had an ERF wrecker on standby to tow it back! I sold them the engine and gearbox and delivered it to them ( the rest i scrapped) i never did find out how they went on.
Frankydobo:
It seems Perkins came out the winners in this V War, from the info I have, Dodge introduced the 500 Series in 1964 with the Chrysler V8 which was the ■■■■■■■ VALE built under licence. This proved unpopular so Dodge offered the Perkins V8-410. Fords D1000 appeared in 1967 again with the VALE but within a year they began to offer their own V8 engine which was infact the Perkins V8-510 built under license as an alternative. Whether that is the truth and nothing but the truth its what I’ve got in black and white. Certainly the Perkins V8 seems to have had a better reign than the VAL/VALE, we sold only last year an ‘A’ Reg Dennis foam tender that had been converted to a flat and moffett mounty carrier fitted with the Perkins 510 and it was still banging away, noisy bloody thing but it just kept on going. It had a starting problem now and again due to a faulty stop on the pump that stuck, usually at the wrong time until we sorted it. Rare old beast and I doubt I’ll hear the noise from that engine again out on the road. Franky.
0
Having experienced both the ■■■■■■■ in a Dodge and the Perkins in a Ford D1000 I don’t think there was much to choose between them. It all depended on whether you were interested in reliability or fuel economy. My chum’s Dodge regularly returned 25% better consumption than my more reliable Ford but seemed to spend most of it’s life on the roadside with it’s cab tilted.
