Small piece from the 1974 Commercial motor catalogue.
(Click on pages twice to read)
DEANB:
Small piece from the 1974 Commercial motor catalogue.
(Click on pages twice to read)1
0
That’s good! The piece on the NGC is very detailed indeed. Not seen this catalogue entry before. Robert
Reading through the dense technical data in Commercial Motor’s catalogue for the 1974 motor show [posted by Dean in the post above ^^], I noticed a detail I haven’t come across before: the NGC was governed to 92 kph which equates to 60 mph, the UK speed limit for HGVs. Old drivers have told me many tales of how their NGCs flew past everything on hills but I cannot recall any claims that they attained high speeds on the flat. This might account for the NGC’s reliability and longevity on long-haul work, especially as the 335 bhp engine was powerful for its time. It may be, too, that this limit had its roots in the history of early ERF 5MW ‘Europeans’ that were found to be travelling at speeds in excess of 80 mph on Belgian motorways before ERF intervened and clipped their wings!
It’s amazing what trains of thought a tiny detail in a 43 year-old clipping can spark off!
Robert
I was emailed this pic off the internet this afternoon. Looks like a dockside pic - Jeddah perhaps? Robert
Those B-series looked quite “modern”, especially if you compare them to those Berliet’s/Ford cab’s…
robert1952:
I was emailed this pic off the internet this afternoon. Looks like a dockside pic - Jeddah perhaps? Robert0
Hi Robert
Fleet 107 outside Trans Arabia office Jeddah
Loaded x warehouse with packing cases and a reel of cable for Racal Comminications - Spying equipment for ministry of interior!!! Loaded for a multi drop arround the Kingdom at very remote locations - and I mean remote - the drivers were not to keen at the beginning because the Racal guy was ex military (SAS) would leave the driver on his own in the middle of nowhere and go and rest up on his own - things change when Mike Rendall came - he again was ex military (SPS) - still in contact with him in the Falklands.
We did quite a few of these types of consignments - meet the agent at a location, he would then quide the driver - charged at a daily date plus mileage - good earner.
Amazing how these crop up
Best regards
Ken
robert1952:
Reading through the dense technical data in Commercial Motor’s catalogue for the 1974 motor show [posted by Dean in the post above ^^], I noticed a detail I haven’t come across before: the NGC was governed to 92 kph which equates to 60 mph, the UK speed limit for HGVs. Old drivers have told me many tales of how their NGCs flew past everything on hills but I cannot recall any claims that they attained high speeds on the flat. This might account for the NGC’s reliability and longevity on long-haul work, especially as the 335 bhp engine was powerful for its time. It may be, too, that this limit had its roots in the history of early ERF 5MW ‘Europeans’ that were found to be travelling at speeds in excess of 80 mph on Belgian motorways before ERF intervened and clipped their wings!It’s amazing what trains of thought a tiny detail in a 43 year-old clipping can spark off!
Robert
It’s more like 96 kmh = 60 mph not 92.In which case it would be no surprise that a dedicated Euro product would be supplied with low Euro type final drive gearing to cater for at most 90 kmh and often 80 kmh speed limits as opposed to the typical UK 65 mph in the day.Given that combination of turbo ■■■■■■■ torque and relatively low Euro type final drive gearing the thing would have flown in the hills.
However that would also create the contradiction of an engine which was more about using the torque and low engine speeds wherever possible especially in the case of low load running at low Euro type motorway speeds on the flat.
Which then leaves the question what do they mean by ‘governed’ and at what engine speed and exactly what engine speed was it running at at 90 kmh ?.Or did ‘governed’ in this case actually mean that it was derated from its max power engine speed of 2,100 rpm bearing in mind that they didn’t have speed limiter type technology which could shut down the fuelling just based on road speed. 
While assuming it was geared at around 2,000 rpm at 90 kmh then surely it would have drunk fuel like it’s going out of fashion while also doing anything but adding to its durabilty. 
While ‘governing’ the engine to compensate for the low gearing would have meant that it wasn’t capable of delivering its full power output at 2,100 rpm.IE was it derated ?.
Although turbo ■■■■■■■ torque,by the standards of the day,combined with low Euro gearing would explain why it seems to often have been the vehicle of choice for heavy haulage operations.But possibly an under geared liability for normal operations.On that note any of the big power US type engines would have been the exception to the rule regards the use of low Euro type gearing specs in the day in having relatively extreme and narrow torque and thereby SFC curves and might explain some of the resistance against Brit trucks there.IE the wrong gearing applied to the wrong engine/s.Thereby possibly and sadly creating an unnecessary fuel consumption nightmare. 
Kenb:
robert1952:
I was emailed this pic off the internet this afternoon. Looks like a dockside pic - Jeddah perhaps? Robert0
Hi Robert
Fleet 107 outside Trans Arabia office Jeddah
Loaded x warehouse with packing cases and a reel of cable for Racal Comminications - Spying equipment for ministry of interior!!! Loaded for a multi drop arround the Kingdom at very remote locations - and I mean remote - the drivers were not to keen at the beginning because the Racal guy was ex military (SAS) would leave the driver on his own in the middle of nowhere and go and rest up on his own - things change when Mike Rendall came - he again was ex military (SPS) - still in contact with him in the Falklands.
We did quite a few of these types of consignments - meet the agent at a location, he would then quide the driver - charged at a daily date plus mileage - good earner.Amazing how these crop up
Best regards
Ken
A nice angle on the TA story, Ken! Thanks for posting. Robert
Carryfast:
robert1952:
Reading through the dense technical data in Commercial Motor’s catalogue for the 1974 motor show [posted by Dean in the post above ^^], I noticed a detail I haven’t come across before: the NGC was governed to 92 kph which equates to 60 mph, the UK speed limit for HGVs. Old drivers have told me many tales of how their NGCs flew past everything on hills but I cannot recall any claims that they attained high speeds on the flat. This might account for the NGC’s reliability and longevity on long-haul work, especially as the 335 bhp engine was powerful for its time. It may be, too, that this limit had its roots in the history of early ERF 5MW ‘Europeans’ that were found to be travelling at speeds in excess of 80 mph on Belgian motorways before ERF intervened and clipped their wings!It’s amazing what trains of thought a tiny detail in a 43 year-old clipping can spark off!
Robert
It’s more like 96 kmh = 60 mph not 92.In which case it would be no surprise that a dedicated Euro product would be supplied with low Euro type final drive gearing to cater for at most 90 kmh and often 80 kmh speed limits as opposed to the typical UK 65 mph in the day.Given that combination of turbo ■■■■■■■ torque and relatively low Euro type final drive gearing the thing would have flown in the hills.
However that would also create the contradiction of an engine which was more about using the torque and low engine speeds wherever possible especially in the case of low load running at low Euro type motorway speeds on the flat.
Which then leaves the question what do they mean by ‘governed’ and at what engine speed and exactly what engine speed was it running at at 90 kmh ?.Or did ‘governed’ in this case actually mean that it was derated from its max power engine speed of 2,100 rpm bearing in mind that they didn’t have speed limiter type technology which could shut down the fuelling just based on road speed.
Although turbo ■■■■■■■ torque,by the standards of the day,combined with low Euro gearing would explain why it seems to often have been the vehicle of choice for heavy haulage operations.But possibly an under geared liability for normal operations.On that note any of the big power US type engines would have been the exception to the rule regards the use of low Euro type gearing specs in the day in having relatively extreme and narrow torque and thereby SFC curves and might explain some of the resistance against Brit trucks there.IE the wrong gearing applied to the wrong engine/s.Thereby possibly and sadly creating an unnecessary fuel consumption nightmare.
Well yes, you are right to ask ‘what do they mean by governed’? I wondered this too. If you click on page 87 and look at the bottom right-hand section, it reads: rear axle type D85.13.2 spiral bevel with epicyclic hub reduction 4.64:1 ratio capacity 13000 kg governed road speed 92 kph.
Now either the punctuation is crap in this report, or it implies that the hub reduction mechanism is geared to govern / limit the speed as declared. I’m open to education or at least suggestions here. Robert
robert1952:
Well yes, you are right to ask ‘what do they mean by governed’? I wondered this too. If you click on page 87 and look at the bottom right-hand section, it reads: rear axle type D85.13.2 spiral bevel with epicyclic hub reduction 4.64:1 ratio capacity 13000 kg governed road speed 92 kph.Now either the punctuation is crap in this report, or it implies that the hub reduction mechanism is geared to govern / limit the speed as declared. I’m open to education or at least suggestions here. Robert
I’d guess that it would have been the total confusion of trying to describe that possible worst of all worlds spec in the continentals trying to apply excessively low gearing to an extremely gearing critical first generation high torque low engine speed design.IE what they probably actually meant was the engine hits its normal set governor speed at the low road speed of 92 kmh. If that wasn’t the case we’d obviously be talking about a derated 335. In which case it’s no wonder that we’ve got comments applying to the customer base that fuel consumption was a big issue.In which case the question is why didn’t ERF just say sorry this needs a higher final drive ratio and your drivers will just have to do the job of keeping within the silly Euro motorway speed limits as best they can.Which of course speed limiters do for them now.
Edit to add I’d guess that ERF speccing the Fuller RTO as opposed to RT would have been a game changer regards the above.
In which case it’s anyone’s guess why and what ERF were thinking there in having predictably handicapped its fuel consumption through under gearing from the outset.
Carryfast:
Edit to add I’d guess that ERF speccing the Fuller RTO as opposed to RT would have been a game changer regards the above.In which case it’s anyone’s guess why and what ERF were thinking there in having predictably handicapped its fuel consumption through under gearing from the outset.
I notice that it specs the RT 9509A. I’ve just looked up the Pat Kennett test in which the following year the gearbox was described as following the H-shift pattern and much improved - it was still the RT 9509A!
You may be protesting too much about the fuel consumption, CF. While I was looking at the results of that gruelling test just now, I noticed that the overall fuel consumption was as follows:
ERF NGC: 5.23 mpg
Saviem SM340: 5.14 mpg
Scania LB 140S: 5.19 mpg
Merc 1932S: 5.63 mpg
DAF 2800 DKS: 6.12 mpg
Volvo F89.32: 5.38 mpg
Robert
robert1952:
Carryfast:
Edit to add I’d guess that ERF speccing the Fuller RTO as opposed to RT would have been a game changer regards the above.In which case it’s anyone’s guess why and what ERF were thinking there in having predictably handicapped its fuel consumption through under gearing from the outset.
I notice that it specs the RT 9509A. I’ve just looked up the Pat Kennett test in which the following year the gearbox was described as following the H-shift pattern and much improved - it was still the RT 9509A!
You may be protesting too much about the fuel consumption, CF. While I was looking at the results of that gruelling test just now, I noticed that the overall fuel consumption was as follows:
ERF NGC: 5.23 mpg
Saviem SM340: 5.14 mpg
Scania LB 140S: 5.19 mpg
Merc 1932S: 5.63 mpg
DAF 2800 DKS: 6.12 mpg
Volvo F89.32: 5.38 mpgRobert
Hey Robert, don’t think that you can trust much fuel consumption test, mostly Business agents will give you
a top adjusted engine/truck for tests.
As I see here above fuel consumptions, with my little experience, must Scania Daf and Volvo be the best, with Mercedes and MAN (Saviem) with the old MAN V8 engine far behind, and de MB powerless.
About the ■■■■■■■ it was Always a fuelwaster here, but with power as no other, but at the and it must have been
used less as the German trucks.
Of course we didn’t have mutch technicians who could adjust ■■■■■■■ engines, and the would have been a lot better for fuel consumption.
Hey Robert thanks for the quotation of the magazin, nice to read.
It looks likes the test was done in Holland , but with Belgian specifications as you see with 1200r20 tyres
Which maybe means a short ratio for the Dutch max allowes 80kph, even today. Even Belgium had here mostly short ratio’s, compare with England 32 ton and 96kph allowed, and keep in mind
lots drove in that time with about at least 5 tons overloads, which was Always between 40/45 ton gross and holland was even 50 ton.
2100 rev’s at 90kph were a bit common in those days here 1965/1975, but lots used the red band on the rev counter.
Of course some asked for a coach axle (lets say for a singel 2 or 3 axle lorry which grosses at about 19/26 ton).
Which meaned that it slowed of the smallest climb, and often had to take an other route to avoid the steep climbs.
The first which went as a train here in the BENELUX was de Volvo 16 speed end the sixties, begin seventies DAF’s turbo 2600 with RTO 13 and 4.9 ratio. NOT 2800’s which had much slowers ratio’s, mid seventies came then the Trancontinental. Which was to get with the RTO 9509A or RTO9513 and driveaxles ratio’s of 3.7, 4.1 and 4.6 as choice.
Think Scania’s were here geared with 90@2100rev’s till '77 110 or 140, the fasted standard was 4.71 ratio and no overdrive gearbox. Even Volvo with the 8 speed box was reving 2200@90 but all drove at 2400/2500 revs.
Eric,
tiptop495:
Hey Robert thanks for the quotation of the magazin, nice to read.It looks likes the test was done in Holland , but with Belgian specifications as you see with 1200r20 tyres
Which maybe means a short ratio for the Dutch max allowes 80kph, even today. Even Belgium had here mostly short ratio’s, compare with England 32 ton and 96kph allowed, and keep in mind
lots drove in that time with about at least 5 tons overloads, which was Always between 40/45 ton gross and holland was even 50 ton.
2100 rev’s at 90kph were a bit common in those days here 1965/1975, but lots used the red band on the rev counter.
Of course some asked for a coach axle (lets say for a singel 2 or 3 axle lorry which grosses at about 19/26 ton).
Which meaned that it slowed of the smallest climb, and often had to take an other route to avoid the steep climbs.
The first which went as a train here in the BENELUX was de Volvo 16 speed end the sixties, begin seventies DAF’s turbo 2600 with RTO 13 and 4.9 ratio. NOT 2800’s which had much slowers ratio’s, mid seventies came then the Trancontinental. Which was to get with the RTO 9509A or RTO9513 and driveaxles ratio’s of 3.7, 4.1 and 4.6 as choice.
Think Scania’s were here geared with 90@2100rev’s till '77 110 or 140, the fasted standard was 4.71 ratio and no overdrive gearbox. Even Volvo with the 8 speed box was reving 2200@90 but all drove at 2400/2500 revs.Eric,
Thanks Eric! The test was conducted on the old steep roads in the Belgian Ardennes. The full test is on this thread - I put it on here somewhere near the beginning (page 9 or 10). Here’s the link!
viewtopic.php?f=35&t=83810&start=240
Cheers, Robert
robert1952:
Carryfast:
Edit to add I’d guess that ERF speccing the Fuller RTO as opposed to RT would have been a game changer regards the above.In which case it’s anyone’s guess why and what ERF were thinking there in having predictably handicapped its fuel consumption through under gearing from the outset.
I notice that it specs the RT 9509A. I’ve just looked up the Pat Kennett test in which the following year the gearbox was described as following the H-shift pattern and much improved - it was still the RT 9509A!
You may be protesting too much about the fuel consumption, CF. While I was looking at the results of that gruelling test just now, I noticed that the overall fuel consumption was as follows:
ERF NGC: 5.23 mpg
Saviem SM340: 5.14 mpg
Scania LB 140S: 5.19 mpg
Merc 1932S: 5.63 mpg
DAF 2800 DKS: 6.12 mpg
Volvo F89.32: 5.38 mpgRobert
I’d guess that with better gearing,they could have got themselves second to the DAF on that list by hopefully beating the Merc at least.The critical nature of getting the gearing right with the turbo ■■■■■■■■ type of torque and SFC curve really can’t be over stated.
In which case it’s really difficult to understand the thinking going on in the day at ERF when firstly the NGC would have been expected to not only offer the NTA engine option but also the RTO 13 speed as standard let alone at least using the right 9 speed in the form of the RTO with the 335.Also bearing in mind that given the wrong conditions of actually less severe terrain and more high speed motorway running the idea of running a turbo ■■■■■■■ on the governor at 2,000 rpm + at 92 kmh could probably foreseeably produce an even worse figure than shown there.On that note it seems obvious that the gearing of the Gardner 240 powered ERF shown previously at least would actually have been even more relevant in the case of the NGC.In which case it’s anyone’s guess why they felt that 59 mph at less than 2,000 rpm was right for the Gardner with less than 800 lb/ft.But felt that more than 2,000 rpm at 92 kmh was right for something with more than 900 lb/ft and in which it was already well known predictably drank fuel like it was going out of fashion towards its higher rpm range. We can then add to that the obviously even tighter control over the engine speed envelope within the optimum band of the SFC curve which could/would have been provided by using the 13 speed rather than the 9 speed.Which is obviously what DAF’s engineers rightly chose to such great effect.
tiptop495:
Hey Robert, don’t think that you can trust much fuel consumption test, mostly Business agents will give you
a top adjusted engine/truck for tests.
As I see here above fuel consumptions, with my little experience, must Scania Daf and Volvo be the best, with Mercedes and MAN (Saviem) with the old MAN V8 engine far behind, and de MB powerless.
About the ■■■■■■■ it was Always a fuelwaster here, but with power as no other, but at the and it must have been
used less as the German trucks.
Of course we didn’t have mutch technicians who could adjust ■■■■■■■ engines, and the would have been a lot better for fuel consumption.
Ironically it would have been in easier terrain at sustained motorway type speeds where such silly under gearing would have massacred the fuel consumption figures of the turbo ■■■■■■■ the most.We can then add to that the choice of using the 9 speed v 13 speed with an engine that needs to have tight control of its rev range.The choices made by ERF here would be laughable if the missed opportunities weren’t so sad.
Carryfast:
tiptop495:
Hey Robert, don’t think that you can trust much fuel consumption test, mostly Business agents will give you
a top adjusted engine/truck for tests.
As I see here above fuel consumptions, with my little experience, must Scania Daf and Volvo be the best, with Mercedes and MAN (Saviem) with the old MAN V8 engine far behind, and de MB powerless.
About the ■■■■■■■ it was Always a fuelwaster here, but with power as no other, but at the and it must have been
used less as the German trucks.
Of course we didn’t have mutch technicians who could adjust ■■■■■■■ engines, and the would have been a lot better for fuel consumption.Ironically it would have been in easier terrain at sustained motorway type speeds where such silly under gearing would have massacred the fuel consumption figures of the turbo ■■■■■■■ the most.We can then add to that the choice of using the 9 speed v 13 speed with an engine that needs to have tight control of its rev range.The choices made by ERF here would be laughable if the missed opportunities weren’t so sad.
Very interesting although getting a bit technical for me.
Is this why ■■■■■■■ developed the L10 and 11. Which gave mich better fuel consumption figures?
I like your moment ref ERF management and there decision making - it just carried on
Cheers
Ken b
Carryfast:
tiptop495:
Hey Robert, don’t think that you can trust much fuel consumption test, mostly Business agents will give you
a top adjusted engine/truck for tests.
As I see here above fuel consumptions, with my little experience, must Scania Daf and Volvo be the best, with Mercedes and MAN (Saviem) with the old MAN V8 engine far behind, and de MB powerless.
About the ■■■■■■■ it was Always a fuelwaster here, but with power as no other, but at the and it must have been
used less as the German trucks.
Of course we didn’t have mutch technicians who could adjust ■■■■■■■ engines, and the would have been a lot better for fuel consumption.Ironically it would have been in easier terrain at sustained motorway type speeds where such silly under gearing would have massacred the fuel consumption figures of the turbo ■■■■■■■ the most.We can then add to that the choice of using the 9 speed v 13 speed with an engine that needs to have tight control of its rev range.The choices made by ERF here would be laughable if the missed opportunities weren’t so sad.
Looking again at the Euro Test, a couple of things strike me. Firstly, although the technical data chart shows an RT 9509A, the description of the test says it was an RT 9509 with direct top. Secondly, although the DAF had a 13-speed Fuller it wasn’t a very good installation and it came in a full 45 minutes later than the ERF in the overall timing. So what was gained in fuel consumption appears to have been lost in road time.
Remember, too, that the 13-speed 'box was available on NGCs from the outset - albeit coupled to a 290; it’s just that very few took the option up. One or two actually put 13-speed boxes with 335s retrospectively, but ERF didn’t fit them in that combo because apparently the splitter mechanism (as it was then) didn’t like the torque loads from the 335. I’m sure we’ve been through all this before, CF! Robert
Robert
robert1952:
Carryfast:
tiptop495:
Hey Robert, don’t think that you can trust much fuel consumption test, mostly Business agents will give you
a top adjusted engine/truck for tests.
As I see here above fuel consumptions, with my little experience, must Scania Daf and Volvo be the best, with Mercedes and MAN (Saviem) with the old MAN V8 engine far behind, and de MB powerless.
About the ■■■■■■■ it was Always a fuelwaster here, but with power as no other, but at the and it must have been
used less as the German trucks.
Of course we didn’t have mutch technicians who could adjust ■■■■■■■ engines, and the would have been a lot better for fuel consumption.Ironically it would have been in easier terrain at sustained motorway type speeds where such silly under gearing would have massacred the fuel consumption figures of the turbo ■■■■■■■ the most.We can then add to that the choice of using the 9 speed v 13 speed with an engine that needs to have tight control of its rev range.The choices made by ERF here would be laughable if the missed opportunities weren’t so sad.
Looking again at the Euro Test, a couple of things strike me. Firstly, although the technical data chart shows an RT 9509A, the description of the test says it was an RT 9509 with direct top. Secondly, although the DAF had a 13-speed Fuller it wasn’t a very good installation and it came in a full 45 minutes later than the ERF in the overall timing. So what was gained in fuel consumption appears to have been lost in road time.
Remember, too, that the 13-speed 'box was available on NGCs from the outset - albeit coupled to a 290; it’s just that very few took the option up. One or two actually put 13-speed boxes with 335s retrospectively, but ERF didn’t fit them in that combo because apparently the splitter mechanism (as it was then) didn’t like the torque loads from the 335. I’m sure we’ve been through all this before, CF! Robert
Robert
Hey, It had been possible to drive the test twice with the Daf, once as an 9 speed without using the splitter
and then as an 13 speed. And maybe the Daf had the fastest final drive of 4.49 which gives 90@1700 revs. And with this you have to change at every climb. Here we had the 5.14 which was much better, even never saw here the 4.49, only with the ZF 9 speed without overdrive.
But on the BT test here above I read that the test was done in Holland near the Belgian frontier, where i tis a bit hilly and with very steep climbs over 8 tot 15%. Look at my copy (Slenaken Vaals) south of Maastricht.
