robert1952:
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
It would be no surprise that the ■■■■■■■■ torque advantage would have also helped in beating the DAF’s journey times.
As for any issues with the 13 speed v 9 speed the general premise that the latter won’t provide as good control over engine speed,regarding engine designs like the turbo 14 litre ■■■■■■■ in which that control was critical,remains ?.
As for the splitter side of the box not being up to the torque output that sounds a bit dubious assuming it was obviously designed to cope with its stated torque rating. Especially assuming that we’re discussing the RTO 1213 in that case just to be sure of covering the output of the 335 NTC which would hopefully also have been enough to cover even the increased torque of the after cooled ■■■■■■■ range if ERF had chosen to offer it.
Notwithstanding any of that.The question remains.Regarding the choice of lower overall gearing, however obtained,for the NGC v Gardner 240 powered range. Thereby resulting in the NGC predictably being lumbered with a severely under geared driveline by comparison.Resulting in an engine which was most efficient in the 1,500-1,800 rpm range,needlessly running at 2,000 rpm +.Which didn’t need to run at much more than 1,700 rpm max,probably less under normal motorway conditions at Euro type speed limits,given the right gearing and which would also predictably incur a massive fuel consumption penalty by needlessly running at higher engine speeds than that. IE the turbo ■■■■■■■ needed to be ‘geared’ for well over 60 mph,let alone 92 kmh,on the governor to provide the most efficient engine speed for running at the limit whether here or in Euroland.The rest was then up to the driver in maintaining the discipline required to drive at the most efficient ( and legal ) speeds.
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.
Thanks Eric. I did wonder where Bedrijftransport magazine conducted their test and of course the Limburg area makes sense because of the hills. Useful info: thank you! You realise that when I mentioned the Ardennes test route, I was referring to the test conducted by Truck magazine six months later! Robert
I found this rather impressive piece of artwork by Manal Maseras on the internet and as it’s already in the public domain I might as well post it on here! I love the little details he has added to the original photograph, like lining out the wheels and mudguard, silvering the ERF badge, moving the TIR-plate to the bumper and placing iodined fog-lamps under the bumper!
Nonetheless, I have emailed the artist to:
a) ask his permission to use it in Book 3
b) to ask if he made the registration number up.
The picture is obviously based on Roy Mead’s photograph of JDF 132N. However, Manal has given it the probably fictitious reg., FDJ 231M. It is highly unlikely to have had this number for two reason:
NGCs were not available to UK operators under the ‘M’-plate period
We know only of two NGCs in Beresford’s livery.
However, I am double-checking the facts by asking Manal about the number. I’ll keep you posted!
robert1952:
I found this rather impressive piece of artwork by Manal Maseras on the internet and as it’s already in the public domain I might as well post it on here! I love the little details he has added to the original photograph, like lining out the wheels and mudguard, silvering the ERF badge, moving the TIR-plate to the bumper and placing iodined fog-lamps under the bumper!
Nonetheless, I have emailed the artist to:
a) ask his permission to use it in Book 3
b) to ask if he made the registration number up.
The picture is obviously based on Roy Mead’s photograph of JDF 132N. However, Manal has given it the probably fictitious reg., FDJ 231M. It is highly unlikely to have had this number for two reason:
NGCs were not available to UK operators under the ‘M’-plate period
We know only of two NGCs in Beresford’s livery.
However, I am double-checking the facts by asking Manal about the number. I’ll keep you posted!
Robert
0
Ken Beresford would be very touched by all the attention his old trucks are receiving.
Still alive and living in Sandbach - home of the ERF
robert1952:
I found this rather impressive piece of artwork by Manal Maseras on the internet and as it’s already in the public domain I might as well post it on here! I love the little details he has added to the original photograph, like lining out the wheels and mudguard, silvering the ERF badge, moving the TIR-plate to the bumper and placing iodined fog-lamps under the bumper!
Nonetheless, I have emailed the artist to:
a) ask his permission to use it in Book 3
b) to ask if he made the registration number up.
The picture is obviously based on Roy Mead’s photograph of JDF 132N. However, Manal has given it the probably fictitious reg., FDJ 231M. It is highly unlikely to have had this number for two reason:
NGCs were not available to UK operators under the ‘M’-plate period
We know only of two NGCs in Beresford’s livery.
However, I am double-checking the facts by asking Manal about the number. I’ll keep you posted!
Robert
0
Ken Beresford would be very touched by all the attention his old trucks are receiving.
Still alive and living in Sandbach - home of the ERF
Love your thread Robert
Ken b
Thanks Ken: it’s everyone’s thread, of course, but I appreciate the sentiment! I’d have liked to have interviewed Ken Beresford about his NGC but of course it was all a long time ago.
I have just received a charming email from the artist himself, both confirming that the picture really depicts JDF 132N and granting me permission to use the painting in my 3rd book. Another thing I noticed about the picture today, was Manal’s lovely use of light. It is a great picture! Robert
robert1952:
… 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
1200x20 rolling circumference 3.42m
o/d ratio 0.74
final drive ratio 4.64
eng speed rpm 2100
engine speed rph 126000
wheel rph 36696
wheel m/h 125500
wheel km/h 125.5
wheel mph 78.4
There must have been some sort of speed limiter on the lorry, if the words “governed road speed 92km/h” are to be believed. Maybe there was some means of restricting engine speed in the top one or two gears- something on the gearbox, connected to the fuel pump governor, maybe. Does anyone have any knowledge of such devices on 1960s/70s vehicles? It would certainly make sense, from the standpoints of road safety and fuel consumption.
robert1952:
I found this rather impressive piece of artwork by Manal Maseras on the internet and as it’s already in the public domain I might as well post it on here! I love the little details he has added to the original photograph, like lining out the wheels and mudguard, silvering the ERF badge, moving the TIR-plate to the bumper and placing iodined fog-lamps under the bumper!
Nonetheless, I have emailed the artist to:
a) ask his permission to use it in Book 3
b) to ask if he made the registration number up.
The picture is obviously based on Roy Mead’s photograph of JDF 132N. However, Manal has given it the probably fictitious reg., FDJ 231M. It is highly unlikely to have had this number for two reason:
NGCs were not available to UK operators under the ‘M’-plate period
We know only of two NGCs in Beresford’s livery.
However, I am double-checking the facts by asking Manal about the number. I’ll keep you posted!
Robert
0
Ken Beresford would be very touched by all the attention his old trucks are receiving.
Still alive and living in Sandbach - home of the ERF
Love your thread Robert
Ken b
Thanks Ken: it’s everyone’s thread, of course, but I appreciate the sentiment! I’d have liked to have interviewed Ken Beresford about his NGC but of course it was all a long time ago.
I have just received a charming email from the artist himself, both confirming that the picture really depicts JDF 132N and granting me permission to use the painting in my 3rd book. Another thing I noticed about the picture today, was Manal’s lovely use of light. It is a great picture! Robert
Good find chap ! I wonder why he used a different number plate,seems a bit odd ■■ Out of intrest did you ask
for a copy of the photo he painted it from ?
robert1952:
… 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
1200x20 rolling circumference 3.42m
o/d ratio 0.74
final drive ratio 4.64
eng speed rpm 2100
engine speed rph 126000
wheel rph 36696
wheel m/h 125500
wheel km/h 125.5
wheel mph 78.4
There must have been some sort of speed limiter on the lorry, if the words “governed road speed 92km/h” are to be believed. Maybe there was some means of restricting engine speed in the top one or two gears- something on the gearbox, connected to the fuel pump governor, maybe. Does anyone have any knowledge of such devices on 1960s/70s vehicles? It would certainly make sense, from the standpoints of road safety and fuel consumption.
I’d doubt if there was any way of applying road speed limiting v engine governor in the day which is why speed limiters meant new technology of linking road speed sensing to accelerator control in the early days of mechanical injection and speed limiters.IE no need for the early generation of speed limiters if the technology to limit road speed already existed.
Meanwhile what figure do you get with direct top not over drive.
3.42 x 2,100 = 7,182 m per minute divide by 4.64 =1,547 m per minute x 60 =92.8 kmh.As opposed to 92.8 divide by the non existent overdrive ratio 0.74 = 125.4.
[quote=“Carryfast”}…
3.42 x 2,100 = 7,182 m per minute divide by 4.64 =1,547 m per minute x 60 =92.8 kmh.As opposed to 92.8 divide by the non existent overdrive ratio 0.74 = 125.4. [/quote]
It suggests that the 92km/h “governed speed” was the maximum in direct drive, IE 8th out of nine. I wonder if there was some sort of linkage between the gearbox and the pump? It would not have to be as tamper-proof or reliable as a legal speed limiter- just somehting to prevent the average driver from thrashing the wagon.
[zb]
anorak:
It suggests that the 92km/h “governed speed” was the maximum in direct drive, IE 8th out of nine. I wonder if there was some sort of linkage between the gearbox and the pump? It would not have to be as tamper-proof or reliable as a legal speed limiter- just somehting to prevent the average driver from thrashing the wagon.
Everything in the information provided points to 9th being direct top there was no ‘overdrive’ ?. In which case it was more a case of ERF and the local continental dealerships being the ones who were ‘thrashing’ the motor by not seeming to have a clue regarding the correct way to gear a turbo ■■■■■■■ powered vehicle.Either in the form of an over drive box or a higher final drive.
In which case we seem to have some clear evidence that the NGC was really only going to make a good heavy haulage tractor with that gearing.
As for the road test report I think I’d have said along the lines of predictably pulled like a train in severe terrain.But overall an incorrectly,under geared liability of a vehicle for general long distance motorway use.Having been specced by its manufacturer with no regard to the finer points of matching gearing and engine even that engine itself not being the ultimate in turbo ■■■■■■■ technology in the day.With it being anyone’s guess how ■■■■■■■ and their dealers didn’t see the obvious advantage in putting the NTA range in the thing together with ideally the RTO 13 speed.Or at least the RTO 9 speed which they obviously rightly saw as being needed in the case of the 240 Gardner,but not for the NGC for some reason.
Then it was just a case of trusting its drivers to do the job of acting as the road speed limiter as was the case with everything else until the early 1990’s.Bearing in mind that logically limiting road speed,as opposed to governing the engine,required the type of road speed sensing accelerator control interface solution which was enforced on the manufacturers at that time with their being no realistic alternative.While ‘governing’ the engine was just a blanket type restriction on engine speed obviously somewhere around peak power rpm.
In which case,read at face value ( and on the basis that 0.74 top gear means RTO not RT ? ),the information suggests that the NGC was actually geared to hit its ‘governor’ in direct top gear ( 9th ) at around 92 kmh .When the 0.87 of the RTO 13 speed also seems to provide around 90 kmh at 1,800 rpm ?.Which might have been the ideal compromise to cater for Euro type speed limits and terrain with both being an obvious major improvement over the RT 9 speed in either case.
Carryfast:
As for any issues with the 13 speed v 9 speed the general premise that the latter won’t provide as good control over engine speed,regarding engine designs like the turbo 14 litre ■■■■■■■ in which that control was critical,remains ?.
As for the splitter side of the box not being up to the torque output that sounds a bit dubious assuming it was obviously designed to cope with its stated torque rating. Especially assuming that we’re discussing the RTO 1213 in that case just to be sure of covering the output of the 335 NTC which would hopefully also have been enough to cover even the increased torque of the after cooled ■■■■■■■ range if ERF had chosen to offer it.
We’ve had this discussion before but I can’t locate it. I seem to remember someone posting the date or year when Fuller beefed up its 13-speed box. IIRC, I got this info from Cookie who I think got it from the ERF field engineer who took that NGC out to Kuwait as a demonstrator - I’ll double-check this, but I’ve met this chap and he certainly knows his stuff. Robert
robert1952:
I found this rather impressive piece of artwork by Manal Maseras on the internet and as it’s already in the public domain I might as well post it on here! I love the little details he has added to the original photograph, like lining out the wheels and mudguard, silvering the ERF badge, moving the TIR-plate to the bumper and placing iodined fog-lamps under the bumper!
Nonetheless, I have emailed the artist to:
a) ask his permission to use it in Book 3
b) to ask if he made the registration number up.
The picture is obviously based on Roy Mead’s photograph of JDF 132N. However, Manal has given it the probably fictitious reg., FDJ 231M. It is highly unlikely to have had this number for two reason:
NGCs were not available to UK operators under the ‘M’-plate period
We know only of two NGCs in Beresford’s livery.
However, I am double-checking the facts by asking Manal about the number. I’ll keep you posted!
Robert
0
Ken Beresford would be very touched by all the attention his old trucks are receiving.
Still alive and living in Sandbach - home of the ERF
Love your thread Robert
Ken b
Thanks Ken: it’s everyone’s thread, of course, but I appreciate the sentiment! I’d have liked to have interviewed Ken Beresford about his NGC but of course it was all a long time ago.
I have just received a charming email from the artist himself, both confirming that the picture really depicts JDF 132N and granting me permission to use the painting in my 3rd book. Another thing I noticed about the picture today, was Manal’s lovely use of light. It is a great picture! Robert
Good find chap ! I wonder why he used a different number plate,seems a bit odd ■■ Out of intrest did you ask
for a copy of the photo he painted it from ?
The photo he painted is in my Book 1. That’s how I know Roy Mead took it! As for the number plate: Manal said he often plays about with the number plates. I think he’s Spanish. If you go on his website there are all sorts of semi-fictional LHD ERFs. Robert
[zb]
anorak:
[quote=“Carryfast”}…
3.42 x 2,100 = 7,182 m per minute divide by 4.64 =1,547 m per minute x 60 =92.8 kmh.As opposed to 92.8 divide by the non existent overdrive ratio 0.74 = 125.4.
It suggests that the 92km/h “governed speed” was the maximum in direct drive, IE 8th out of nine. I wonder if there was some sort of linkage between the gearbox and the pump? It would not have to be as tamper-proof or reliable as a legal speed limiter- just somehting to prevent the average driver from thrashing the wagon.
[/quote]
Here’s a good clue. Further up the page, I mentioned that ERF had to do something with the early export 3MW-cabbed ‘Europeans’ in Belgium. I’ve found Wobbe Reitsma’s passage from an article he wrote for REVS International magazine. Here it is. Robert
robert1952:
Here’s a good clue. Further up the page, I mentioned that ERF had to do something with the early export 3MW-cabbed ‘Europeans’ in Belgium. I’ve found Wobbe Reitsma’s passage from an article he wrote for REVS International magazine. Here it is. Robert
0
I’d guess that’s the smoking gun that shows that ERF’s top brass lost the plot in trying to use stupidly low gearing as a primitive type of speed limiter.IE it seems clear that they went for a direct top ( 9th ? ) box combined with the final drive which we’ve based our figures on.While it’s obvious that they also didn’t compensate for it with a high enough if at all final drive and it obviously wouldn’t have created the speed limiting effect that they were looking for anyway even if they had.
The result being an engine which needed to be running at no more,preferably less,than 1,800 rpm at maximum speed,running on the governor instead. All because they didn’t seem to want to tell the continentals that we can’t run a turbo ■■■■■■■ at 2,000 rpm + routinely in general use and still expect anything like an acceptable fuel consumption nor even arguably acceptable durability.So we gear it at least like we gear a Gardner 240 ( RTO ) or nothing take it or leave it.If your drivers then want to defeat the object by driving it flat out everywhere at silly speeds that’s not our problem.
Carryfast:
As for any issues with the 13 speed v 9 speed the general premise that the latter won’t provide as good control over engine speed,regarding engine designs like the turbo 14 litre ■■■■■■■ in which that control was critical,remains ?.
As for the splitter side of the box not being up to the torque output that sounds a bit dubious assuming it was obviously designed to cope with its stated torque rating. Especially assuming that we’re discussing the RTO 1213 in that case just to be sure of covering the output of the 335 NTC which would hopefully also have been enough to cover even the increased torque of the after cooled ■■■■■■■ range if ERF had chosen to offer it.
We’ve had this discussion before but I can’t locate it. I seem to remember someone posting the date or year when Fuller beefed up its 13-speed box. IIRC, I got this info from Cookie who I think got it from the ERF field engineer who took that NGC out to Kuwait as a demonstrator - I’ll double-check this, but I’ve met this chap and he certainly knows his stuff. Robert
The 13 speed would probably only be an ideal world question anyway.The main question being the choice between 9 speed RT v RTO in this case.Bearing in mind ERF’s choice of RTO in the case of less powerful Gardner powered types with the same need to get the optimum balance of speed capability at relatively low engine speeds.
Hey, Don’t think that there was a sort of limeter (it could be but never seen at other so why ■■)
But think as all other it could live with 2200/2300 revs ■■?
At that time Scania’s 140 did only 90 @ 2300 revs with the fastest ratio.
tiptop495:
Hey, Don’t think that there was a sort of limeter (it could be but never seen at other so why ■■)
But think as all other it could live with 2200/2300 revs ■■?
At that time Scania’s 140 did only 90 @ 2300 revs with the fastest ratio.
Eric,
Thanks Eric. Yes, it is as well to remember the specifications of the other premium tractors of the period. Robert
That’s a terrific picture, Dean! I do love these line-up images because they show the NGC in historical context and there seems to be so few of them. That’s a great line-up, made all the more attractive by Beresford’s smart livery. Cheers for that! Robert
Hey, For me as everyone knows the best solution would have been an RTO9513 with which you can drive it as a 9 speed too, and doesn’t make your engine lazy.
Of course a 335hp ■■■■■■■ will not have much problem with it. But with in those time the usual 250/300hp
engine would have been it hard to keep in top gear.
so with an overdrive you can go to direct, only a step of 300 revs, but in a 8/9 or 10 speedbox the gaps will be much wider.
RT9509A or RTO9509C will do 9■■2100 revs, in 7th only 69@2100revs.
With the RTO9513 90@1800 revs and 92 again at 2100, so in heavy weather, windy and heavy loaded you can keep it at only 70. So in 7th @2100revs is 69, but in 11th (7th overdrive) it will be only 1900revs.
Especially assuming that we’re discussing the RTO 1213 in that case just to be sure of covering the output of the 335 NTC which would hopefully also have been enough to cover even the increased torque of the after cooled ■■■■■■■ range if ERF had chosen to offer it.
Thereby resulting in the NGC predictably being lumbered with a severely under geared driveline by comparison.Resulting in an engine which was most efficient in the 1,500-1,800 rpm range,needlessly running at 2,000 rpm +.Which didn’t need to run at much more than 1,700 rpm max,probably less under normal motorway conditions at Euro type speed limits,given the right gearing and which would also predictably incur a massive fuel consumption penalty by needlessly running at higher engine speeds than that. 
