gingerfold:
ERF-NGC-European:
Lots of good info and evidence there! I think the NTK 350 was the small-cam 350 built in Britain under licence. Robertit was built at ■■■■■■■ own factory at Shotts, which opened in 1956 / 1957.
Yes, that’s the one! Robert
kevmac47:
gingerfold:
^^^^^^^^
Well it’s stirred things up again after a quiet few weeks on TN.Dennis is looking to add another trophy to his ‘stirring spoon’ collection!
Or even the coveted ‘golden ladle’
Regards Kev.
Aye wor Kev I’ve had to take the Ladle out of it’s glass case to add the bar and ribbon I’ve just been awarded by “H” ! 
Cheers Dennis.
It’s super when somebody kicks this cow n off we go! My thoughts on the matter, such as they are, it would be easier to list the engines Guy didn’t put in their motors. Law of averages says there must be some 240s n pics. Shame if someone finds em though cheers Coomsey
P S Is Larry alright? Haven’t heard much from him recently.
Morning all,
putting my head above the parapet here!
I know the title says unit, but I have it on very good authority that W W Drinkwater of Willesden, a waste haulier, had a six wheel double drive muck tipper, a Guy Big J, with a 240 Gardner. Drinkwaters were certainly not known for buying high power motors back then, so Im guessing it was a cancelled order, possibly for export.Im not sure but I think there was a long lead time getting Gardner engines at the time, Drinkwaters were forced to but an S21 Foden with a ■■■■■■■■ which was almost immediately swapped in house for a 150 lw. They ran a big fleet of Guys and had a large stock of Gardner spares so maintenance wouldn’t have been an issue.My friend was a charge hand fitter at the time for Drinkwaters and remembers it well because it was such an oddball compared to the rest of the fleet.His cousin, now sadly deceased was its driver.Apparently it went like stink!
Hard hat on, gum shield in
gingerfold:
And the NTC 335 (AKA CU335) became an option in the 6x4 Leyland Marathon in 1976, which begs the question, if the NTC 350 was available then why wasn’t that option offered? …0
The NTC/K 335 seemed to have become ■■■■■■■■ top of the range offering in GB by about 1973. In 1970, however, there was much discussion of weight increases, so all the home manufacturers were showing 6x4 tractors with big power. Don’t know why Guy would have put the engine in a rigid eight. Back then, Antipodean operators were still happy with less than 300bhp, as far as I can see. Does anyone know what happened to that show exhibit?
[zb]
anorak:
In 1970, however, there was much discussion of weight increases, so all the home manufacturers were showing 6x4 tractors with big power. Don’t know why Guy would have put the engine in a rigid eight. Back then, Antipodean operators were still happy with less than 300bhp, as far as I can see.
Having read the article closely in this case Guy seems to have been going for a proto type design exercise to meet a logically envisaged potential massive increase in UK gross weights based on axle weights being the relevant criterea.Nothing to do with an Australian market prime mover.Assuming a 56 t gross target it’s obvious that an artic was never going to meet any sensible axle weight requirement at that type of weight as opposed to a 4 axle rigid pulling a drawbar trailer.While the article also makes it clear that they wanted to provide a realistic power to weight by the standards of the day.If the government had gone along with it we’d probably still have a Brit truck manufacturing industry.In addition to a more efficient road transport industry.
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
In 1970, however, there was much discussion of weight increases, so all the home manufacturers were showing 6x4 tractors with big power. Don’t know why Guy would have put the engine in a rigid eight. Back then, Antipodean operators were still happy with less than 300bhp, as far as I can see.Having read the article closely in this case Guy seems to have been going for a proto type design exercise to meet a logically envisaged potential massive increase in UK gross weights based on axle weights being the relevant criterea.Nothing to do with an Australian market prime mover.Assuming a 56 t gross target it’s obvious that an artic was never going to meet any sensible axle weight requirement at that type of weight as opposed to a 4 axle rigid pulling a drawbar trailer.While the article also makes it clear that they wanted to provide a realistic power to weight by the standards of the day.If the government had gone along with it we’d probably still have a Brit truck manufacturing industry.In addition to a more efficient road transport industry.
Sorry CF, I think you’re ignoring the practicalities of artics. Drop a trailer, pick up another one… my opinion on where we went wrong is not employing double bottoms. We ran these successfully out in Saudi, where there were no laws about length in the Seventies and eighties. Even now when they talk about ‘platooning’ I can’t understand the logic. Why not simply run 3 trailers?
John.
John West:
Carryfast:
Having read the article closely in this case Guy seems to have been going for a proto type design exercise to meet a logically envisaged potential massive increase in UK gross weights based on axle weights being the relevant criterea.Nothing to do with an Australian market prime mover.Assuming a 56 t gross target it’s obvious that an artic was never going to meet any sensible axle weight requirement at that type of weight as opposed to a 4 axle rigid pulling a drawbar trailer.While the article also makes it clear that they wanted to provide a realistic power to weight by the standards of the day.If the government had gone along with it we’d probably still have a Brit truck manufacturing industry.In addition to a more efficient road transport industry.Sorry CF, I think you’re ignoring the practicalities of artics. Drop a trailer, pick up another one… my opinion on where we went wrong is not employing double bottoms. We ran these successfully out in Saudi, where there were no laws about length in the Seventies and eighties. Even now when they talk about ‘platooning’ I can’t understand the logic. Why not simply run 3 trailers?
John.
There are plenty of examples of operations which use the same trailer attached to the same unit to deliver a load and collect another especially in the case of tramping type work.Among other types of RDC type operations which spend hours in waiting time to tip and load artics.
While if interchangeability is essential then just use demount boxes/ISO mounts on the prime mover at least.Maybe even also pulling a normal semi trailer with a dolly job done.All obviously far more practical in UK road conditions than pulling two 40 + ft semi trailers with a unit anywhere away from motorways.Bearing in mind the 8 legger rigid and trailer configuration was rightly the default choice here before the motorway era and seems to have been taken forward to date in NZ at least with great success.I can understand Guy’s logic in that example and a shame that the government didn’t let it run.
In 1971/2 Seddon also offered the 8LXB in their units.
The only issue they foresaw was possible fouling with the front of the trailer on turns due to the length of the engine.
VALKYRIE:
1.
Guy Big J8 Rigid 8 Lorries in The Observer’s Book Of Commercial Vehicles,1971 Edition.Lower photograph Guy Big J8,■■■■■■■ NTK350 Turbocharged-Engined,R8x4 30-Ton GVW,56-Ton GTW Drawbar Trailer Lorry.Olyslager-Warne.1#
3
Guy Big J8,■■■■■■■ NTK350,350 BHP,950 LB FT Torque Diesel-Engined,Rigid 8x4 30-Ton GVW - 56-Ton GTW Drawbar Lorry.Prototype.Commercial Motor Show 1970.Commercial Motor.1#.
2As far as I know only the above prototype was built,there were no production models.
VALKYRIE
The one in the top phot is a different colour. Are we assuming that it had a repaint for the show? The other Leyland group vehicles in the lower phot all seemed to be in similar livery.
No one, so far, has come up with a credible potential market for a 56 ton GTW 8 wheeler, so that lends weight to the argument that they only built the one. Does anyone know what happened to it? Was it converted into a recovery vehicle, cut down to a 6x4, or what?
I drove a Guy Big J tractor unit for a while in the 70`s, it had a Rolls Royce engine, I think about 11 litres capacity, and a Fuller gearbox, not very fast but it was good on hills, and never let me down while I had it.
Another bit from Commercial Motor September 1970 about the 350bhp Guy 8 wheeler. Near the end it also mentions that the twin steer
34 ton tractor unit could be uprated to 38 tons and the engine quoted is the Gardner 8LXB 240 bhp engine.
Click on pages twice to read.
The Gardner 8LXB 246 bhp engine was announced as being available in the Guy Big J4T on 2nd November 1973 in the Commercial Motor magazine.
Click on pages twice to read.
gingerfold:
Bewick:
I’ve just had a tasty shot of a 1969 Big J 8 wheeler sent to me ( which I can’t put on TNUK) it has a ■■■■■■■ NHT14 350 BHP engine and double drive bogie plated at 56 ton pulling a trailer ! Some machine that ! Eric and me would have been “The dogs” up and down the road on that but maybe that engine hump in the Big J was a bit intrusive compared to the Octopus ! Cheers Dennis.Erm… could be another ‘wild goose chase’ here…■■■■■■■ introduced the Big Cam NHT350 in 1976…so was there a ‘Small Cam’ version available in 1969? Over to the ■■■■■■■ experts
In Australia at least, there was a small cam 350, it sold along side the 335. The difference between the two was the larger had an intercooler and IIRC, oil cooled pistons.
Very few Guys were sold here, but they had a precarious toehold in the West, by way of Westfarmers.
hcvc.com.au/forum/OldTruck/ … cks?start=%1$d
Note the spec sheet in the first post.
[zb]
anorak:VALKYRIE:
1.
Guy Big J8 Rigid 8 Lorries in The Observer’s Book Of Commercial Vehicles,1971 Edition.Lower photograph Guy Big J8,■■■■■■■ NTK350 Turbocharged-Engined,R8x4 30-Ton GVW,56-Ton GTW Drawbar Trailer Lorry.Olyslager-Warne.1#
3
Guy Big J8,■■■■■■■ NTK350,350 BHP,950 LB FT Torque Diesel-Engined,Rigid 8x4 30-Ton GVW - 56-Ton GTW Drawbar Lorry.Prototype.Commercial Motor Show 1970.Commercial Motor.1#.
2As far as I know only the above prototype was built,there were no production models.
VALKYRIEThe one in the top phot is a different colour. Are we assuming that it had a repaint for the show? The other Leyland group vehicles in the lower phot all seemed to be in similar livery.
No one, so far, has come up with a credible potential market for a 56 ton GTW 8 wheeler, so that lends weight to the argument that they only built the one. Does anyone know what happened to it? Was it converted into a recovery vehicle, cut down to a 6x4, or what?
Word from my Guy Motors contact is that the show motor, which was little more than a concept vehicle, was sent to Leyland a few months after the motor show where he thinks it was eventually dismantled. He puts the idea into context for its time; home market eight-wheelers had a design weight of 28 tons and the majority ran at 26 tons gross, and 32 tons with a trailer. It wasn’t until 1972 that eight-wheelers could legally run in the UK at 30 tons. Within the Leyland Group at the time AEC offered a Mammoth Major Six for drawbar work that could operate at 56 tons gross overseas (and also on MoD property, such as airfields i.e. the MM6 refueller plus trailer). Obviously the AEC with an AV760 was a lot less powerful than the big ■■■■■■■■ Also, Guy had no presence with its heavy models in overseas markets where 56 tons gvw drawbar combinations were operated. To sum up my friend, “it was a well designed and engineered lorry that got useful publicity for Guy, but ultimately it had no commercial application in any of our usual markets”.
gingerfold:
… Guy had no presence with its heavy models in overseas markets where 56 tons gvw drawbar combinations were operated. To sum up my friend, “it was a well designed and engineered lorry that got useful publicity for Guy, but ultimately it had no commercial application in any of our usual markets”.
…in which there was a huge pent-up demand for 240-250bhp tractor units- an assertion which sees us rejoin the motorway after a very pleasant detour .
[zb]
anorak:gingerfold:
… To sum up my friend, “it was a well designed and engineered lorry that got useful publicity for Guy, but ultimately it had no commercial application in any of our usual markets”.…in which there was a huge pent-up demand for 240-250bhp tractor units- an assertion which sees us rejoin the motorway after a very pleasant detour
Which Guy thought would be best served by offering two 6 cylinder turbocharged options of 270 hp +.
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:gingerfold:
… To sum up my friend, “it was a well designed and engineered lorry that got useful publicity for Guy, but ultimately it had no commercial application in any of our usual markets”.…in which there was a huge pent-up demand for 240-250bhp tractor units- an assertion which sees us rejoin the motorway after a very pleasant detour
Which Guy thought would be best served by offering two 6 cylinder turbocharged options of 270 hp +.
Now we appear to be heading into a particularly smelly farmyard…
Bewick:
0
Anyone got any shots like this one of a Guy Big J
Looks like that Guy has been photoshopped
