tiptop495:
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.
Eric,
Thanks for those figures, Eric. You may be interested to know that the optional NTC 290 engine fitted to NGCs was coupled to an RT9513. Cheers! 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
…which does not tally with the other thing, which said that the the NGC was governed to 92km/h, but was fitted with the overdrive 'box. It must be a mistake, or there was some inhibitor device or other on the NGC.
Hey, thanks Robert and Anorak.
But here an other question about wheelbases, looks like there was only one available ■■?
Here are the shortest wheelbases we had in Belgium and gave a very hard drive, Mercedes was a bit better with its weak cab suspension.
But for Holland for their only 10 ton drive axle they all would have been too short.
And the 2 give an wide gap for rotaion of the front trailer overhang,because of the far forwards sitting cab.
But for the ERF it gave much less room, and with a fifth wheel at 50 cm and a trailer overhang of 1.20 meters.
In Belgium it just but to do, but in Holland ■■? the fifth wheel must set much more forward te keep drive axle weight limits.
Eric,
tiptop495:
Hey, thanks Robert and Anorak.
But here an other question about wheelbases, looks like there was only one available ■■?
Here are the shortest wheelbases we had in Belgium and gave a very hard drive, Mercedes was a bit better with its weak cab suspension.
But for Holland for their only 10 ton drive axle they all would have been too short.
And the 2 give an wide gap for rotaion of the front trailer overhang,because of the far forwards sitting cab.
But for the ERF it gave much less room, and with a fifth wheel at 50 cm and a trailer overhang of 1.20 meters.
In Belgium it just but to do, but in Holland ■■? the fifth wheel must set much more forward te keep drive axle weight limits.
Eric,
The ERF’s wheelbase was quite long for a UK tractor of the period. Our domestic units were shorter and often suffered from ‘cab nod’. I do remember having to be very careful when picking up foreign semi-trailers from the docks with '70s tractors because sometimes the pin was too far back to couple without hitting the back of the cab or fouling the trailer legs. Things got better in the '80s! loved your diagram. Robert
[zb]
anorak:
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
…which does not tally with the other thing, which said that the the NGC was governed to 92km/h, but was fitted with the overdrive 'box. It must be a mistake, or there was some inhibitor device or other on the NGC.
It could be a mistake. If the reporter was led to believe that the NGC was geared to a comfortable rpm at 92kph, he may have mis-chosen the word ‘governed’ to get the concept across. After all he would have been burning the midnight oil to get thousands of facts into the catalogue before the show. I’ll scrutinise all my other data about the NGC and see if I can find any other references to it. It also occurs to me that Pat Kennett would almost have certainly referred to any such arrangement in his Euro Test. Cheers, Robert
robert1952:
tiptop495:
Hey, thanks Robert and Anorak.
But here an other question about wheelbases, looks like there was only one available ■■?
Here are the shortest wheelbases we had in Belgium and gave a very hard drive, Mercedes was a bit better with its weak cab suspension.
But for Holland for their only 10 ton drive axle they all would have been too short.
And the 2 give an wide gap for rotaion of the front trailer overhang,because of the far forwards sitting cab.
But for the ERF it gave much less room, and with a fifth wheel at 50 cm and a trailer overhang of 1.20 meters.
In Belgium it just but to do, but in Holland ■■? the fifth wheel must set much more forward te keep drive axle weight limits.
Eric,
The ERF’s wheelbase was quite long for a UK tractor of the period. Our domestic units were shorter and often suffered from ‘cab nod’. I do remember having to be very careful when picking up foreign semi-trailers from the docks with '70s tractors because sometimes the pin was too far back to couple without hitting the back of the cab or fouling the trailer legs. Things got better in the '80s! loved your diagram. Robert
Hey, Yes I know if we pick up English trailer the gap was much bigger, and even some short wheelbased bonneted tractors could pull them. And at that time Volvo’s F88 was made in Brussels and gave for (GB) 3meter( Bel) 3.20 and Holland 3.4 metres. It must have been very hard horses to drive with less wheelbases, but at the time it were still strong drivers with big arms. 
Eric,
robert1952:
[zb]
anorak:
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
…which does not tally with the other thing, which said that the the NGC was governed to 92km/h, but was fitted with the overdrive 'box. It must be a mistake, or there was some inhibitor device or other on the NGC.
It could be a mistake. If the reporter was led to believe that the NGC was geared to a comfortable rpm at 92kph, he may have mis-chosen the word ‘governed’ to get the concept across. After all he would have been burning the midnight oil to get thousands of facts into the catalogue before the show. I’ll scrutinise all my other data about the NGC and see if I can find any other references to it. It also occurs to me that Pat Kennett would almost have certainly referred to any such arrangement in his Euro Test. Cheers, Robert
Where is that Eurotest? It would also clear up the wheelbase issue- I thought a 3.4m one was optional (or standard?).
I’ve just looked up the 1974 ERF Earls Court brochure itself. It states quite clearly that the NGC had an RT9509A split torque 'box with direct top gear. Oh, and a wheelbase of 3.4 m. Robert
[zb]
anorak:
robert1952:
[zb]
anorak:
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
…which does not tally with the other thing, which said that the the NGC was governed to 92km/h, but was fitted with the overdrive 'box. It must be a mistake, or there was some inhibitor device or other on the NGC.
It could be a mistake. If the reporter was led to believe that the NGC was geared to a comfortable rpm at 92kph, he may have mis-chosen the word ‘governed’ to get the concept across. After all he would have been burning the midnight oil to get thousands of facts into the catalogue before the show. I’ll scrutinise all my other data about the NGC and see if I can find any other references to it. It also occurs to me that Pat Kennett would almost have certainly referred to any such arrangement in his Euro Test. Cheers, Robert
Where is that Eurotest? It would also clear up the wheelbase issue- I thought a 3.4m one was optional (or standard?).
Here:
viewtopic.php?f=35&t=83810&start=240
Here’s the page of the NGC brochure showing the wheelbase options. robert
Here’s a more precise/accurate version of the 3/5MW slowing down debacle straight from the horse’s mouth. This the NGC designer, Jack Cooke himself, being quoted in an interview in Motor Transport 20/05/77 by reporter Phil Reed. Robert
The ^^^above Jack Cooke bit, more importantly, goes on to state that resolving this problem led directly to a policy of standardising on direct top gearboxes for all models, including the NGC, with suitably higher ratio rear axles. Robert
robert1952:
The ^^^above Jack Cooke bit, more importantly, goes on to state that resolving this problem led directly to a policy of standardising on direct top gearboxes for all models, including the NGC, with suitably higher ratio rear axles. Robert
Hey Robert thanks for the solution, that looks better, and by seeing this brochure the ERF was the most torquey
engine on the continent at that time.
It shows max 1261 NM nett at 1300, against Scania with 1225 @1450 revs and the F89 with 1245@1300.
Eric,
tiptop495:
robert1952:
The ^^^above Jack Cooke bit, more importantly, goes on to state that resolving this problem led directly to a policy of standardising on direct top gearboxes for all models, including the NGC, with suitably higher ratio rear axles. Robert
Hey Robert thanks for the solution, that looks better, and by seeing this brochure the ERF was the most torquey
engine on the continent at that time.
It shows max 1261 NM nett at 1300, against Scania with 1225 @1450 revs and the F89 with 1245@1300.
Eric,
Cheers Eric. To sum up: I reckon the CM reporter knew something of the history of this gearbox/axle development and simply used the word ‘governed’ to convey the idea of clipping the beast’s wings a little. Forty-three years later we have been left to do our homework to ascertain what he meant by ‘govern’. I think we’ve probably arrived at a conclusion! Robert
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,
Firstly it seems clear that they were using excessive under gearing to hit the engine governor as a type of speed limiter.
While I could understand the need for higher revs in the case of a naturally aspirated Merc or small engined high revving F7 or DAF 2500 etc which needed to be geared to make use of what low torque and power output they provided.But it won’t work in the case of a large capacity big power turbo motor like the ■■■■■■■■
I’d guess the idea points to a total misunderstanding in the day of how to gear a big power high torque truck in that they often saw peak power as the relevant mark for running at max motorway speeds.Combined with the even worse idea of then also applying that to silly low continental motorway speed limits to the point of using under gearing as a form of speed limiting device.Which leaves the question what type of fuel consumption was a Scania 140,let alone a 335 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ at 2,000 rpm + over long motorway journeys. 
While it’s obviously unfair to then blame the truck for being a fuel guzzler because it’s manufacturer and customers didn’t know how to gear it properly.
robert1952:
[zb]
anorak:
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
…which does not tally with the other thing, which said that the the NGC was governed to 92km/h, but was fitted with the overdrive 'box. It must be a mistake, or there was some inhibitor device or other on the NGC.
It could be a mistake. If the reporter was led to believe that the NGC was geared to a comfortable rpm at 92kph, he may have mis-chosen the word ‘governed’ to get the concept across. After all he would have been burning the midnight oil to get thousands of facts into the catalogue before the show. I’ll scrutinise all my other data about the NGC and see if I can find any other references to it. It also occurs to me that Pat Kennett would almost have certainly referred to any such arrangement in his Euro Test. Cheers, Robert
Realistically it could only have either been correctly geared for a much higher road speed than 92 kmh and then road speed limited ( unlikely if not impossible in the day ).
Or it was literally geared low enough to hit the ‘engine governor’ at around 92 kmh in which case the word ‘governed’ can be taken literally and at face value.As can references to it having the direct top RT box not overdrive RTO.In which case given the direct top of the RT the figures and the reference to being ‘governed’ to around 92 kmh all match up. 
robert1952:
I’ve just looked up the 1974 ERF Earls Court brochure itself. It states quite clearly that the NGC had an RT9509A split torque 'box with direct top gear. Oh, and a wheelbase of 3.4 m. Robert
0
I can understand Anorak’s disbelief but it’s safe to assume that they really did gear a 335 ■■■■■■■ to hit the engine governor at around 92 kmh.Partly it seems as a way of providing the NGC with a speed limiting facility. 
Thereby producing by accident a niche heavy haulage tractor. 
robert1952:
Here’s a more precise/accurate version of the 3/5MW slowing down debacle straight from the horse’s mouth. This the NGC designer, Jack Cooke himself, being quoted in an interview in Motor Transport 20/05/77 by reporter Phil Reed. Robert
0
Ironically operations on the continent were anything but ‘high speed’ with their silly motorway limits.While notwithstanding that,some how between design office and shop floor,they obviously missed the bit that the direct top box was supposed to be matched with a supposedly suitable higher final drive ratio to compensate. Which still would have left the problem of the contradiction between the driving habits of foot to floor Belgian drivers v continental speed limits even if they had have fitted the right final drive ratio.
robert1952:
tiptop495:
robert1952:
The ^^^above Jack Cooke bit, more importantly, goes on to state that resolving this problem led directly to a policy of standardising on direct top gearboxes for all models, including the NGC, with suitably higher ratio rear axles. Robert
Hey Robert thanks for the solution, that looks better, and by seeing this brochure the ERF was the most torquey
engine on the continent at that time.
It shows max 1261 NM nett at 1300, against Scania with 1225 @1450 revs and the F89 with 1245@1300.
Eric,
Cheers Eric. To sum up: I reckon the CM reporter knew something of the history of this gearbox/axle development and simply used the word ‘governed’ to convey the idea of clipping the beast’s wings a little. Forty-three years later we have been left to do our homework to ascertain what he meant by ‘govern’. I think we’ve probably arrived at a conclusion! Robert
Unfortunately there was no way of ‘clipping its wings’ in the day other than by what the evidence shows in the form either ridiculous under gearing.Or using the disciplinary process to make drivers drive at a reasonable speed and make best use of the high torque nature of the engine with the high peak power output just being a by product of that and usually avoided.Unfortunately for the NGC’s fuel consumption figures they obviously chose the former.
Which leaves the question why didn’t any of the trade journalists in the day raise the issue of the gearing.Bearing in mind that the supposed higher final drive,to compensate for the direct top box,obviously didn’t happen. 
Probably explained by ERF’s customer driven decision,to deliberately use the engine governor as a speed limiter and because of confusion among all concerned,regarding the finer points of ultimate running speed gearing,based on the most advantageous use of the torque curve,as opposed to power peak. 
Carryfast:
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,
Firstly it seems clear that they were using excessive under gearing to hit the engine governor as a type of speed limiter.
While I could understand the need for higher revs in the case of a naturally aspirated Merc or small engined high revving F7 or DAF 2500 etc which needed to be geared to make use of what low torque and power output they provided.But it won’t work in the case of a large capacity big power turbo motor like the ■■■■■■■■
I’d guess the idea points to a total misunderstanding in the day of how to gear a big power high torque truck in that they often saw peak power as the relevant mark for running at max motorway speeds.Combined with the even worse idea of then also applying that to silly low continental motorway speed limits to the point of using under gearing as a form of speed limiting device.Which leaves the question what type of fuel consumption was a Scania 140,let alone a 335 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ at 2,000 rpm + over long motorway journeys. While it’s obviously unfair to then blame the truck for being a fuel guzzler because it’s manufacturer and customers didn’t know how to gear it properly.
It wasn’t a fuel guzzler in its day and was more frugal than some of the others including the Scania 140. It was only regarded as ‘thirsty’ towards the end of its production run in the late '70s when more frugal trucks were beginning to appear in response to the perceived fuel crisis. This is where the B-series came into its own. Robert
