You appear to be completely unaware that pretty well ALL 32t units of that era on domestic work were SWB: it was the norm. It was partly the huge increase in the use of Continental long-pin tilts that eased UK into longer WBs - that and the improved ride, of course. But with your engineering insights you would have known all that, wouldn’t you?
1 Like
Pickfords put Cummins 14ltr NTC 335s in some of their units, which may explain the LWB, which shows that 8LXBs could in theory be accommodated likewise, surely.
Nothing in that article about “lost deposits”.
They ‘thought’ they were buying a 6+ litre V12.They got a V6 instead.Partly because the V12 wouldn’t fit.
The XJR15 got the V12.
It went to court over deposit payments.The rest is history.
The moral of the story seems to be if you want a V12 powered, mid engined, Jaguar supercar, buy an XJR15 not an XJ220.
If you want an 8LXB powered tractor unit buy a ( 10’ > wheelbase ) Atki not a > 9’6’’ wheelbase BigJ.
If you read the CM article you’ll see that the 8 LXB powered Atki Borderer predictably required a longer than usual wheelbase ( 10’ > ) to accommodate the longer motor.It wasn’t as easy as just dropping the thing into anything that the customer chose to.
It needed to be longer than usual.
The issue actually adds credence to the idea of failed 8LXB powered tractor unit orders reverting back to Cummins by default and necessity.
The Pickfords and ‘export’ market examples suggests sufficient wheelbase for both 8 LXB or Cummins.
All those obviously being longer than the shorter (‘9’6’’ ?) wheelbase of the ‘purported’ UK market examples that we’ve been shown and listed.
I think Bewick might have made some previous contradictory comments regarding wouldn’t fit in the ‘standard’ UK spec BigJ without after market modifications.Seemingly confirmed by retro fitted modified jobs.
But it supposedly fitted ok in the ‘standard’ UK spec Atki. Disproved by the CM article.Logically if anyone wanted an 8 LXB then they needed to spec a longer than ‘usual’ wheelbase and with it longer overall length for it to fit.
Either Bewick ‘forgot’ or didn’t know what he ordered, or he’s on a wind up.
From the article you posted:
“Many cancelled their orders. Some reportedly took legal action.”
Point me to anywhere in the article that says anything about deposits being retained as per your claim. I could just as easily claim that those who “reportedly” took legal action (they either did or they didn’t. It would not have been difficult for the author to verify this) did so in the hope of either getting compensation over and above their deposits returned. I wouldn’t though because, although it would not be an unreasonable step to take, it doesn’t say that anywhere in the article. Making things up doesn’t make them true.
Comparing apples with pears again: a Guy is not an Atkinson!
The article I posted clearly said they went to court to demand a refund ( ‘of their deposit’ ) and failed Jaguar won. This is all well known stuff as is the clause whereby a manufacturer can alter or substitute specifications and design before delivery.
10’ > wheelbase is 10’ > wheelbase whether it’s a BigJ or an Atki.
The Atki also looks like its radiator is mounted further forward of the front axle than the BigJ.
7ft 9 inches
I’ve read this article a number of times now and I can’t see that stated anywhere within the text. Now there is every possibility that I am word blind and just cannot see this text and what you are saying is correct. So, just to show me that you’re not making this up, please cut and paste the bits of the article that support your assertion.
Attached is the Atkinson Borderer spec sheet there was no different chassis lengths for all engine/ gearbox options. The 8xlb engine did have a bigger radiator this can be seen externally by a slightly wider engine grill.
Spotted on fb, think this is the Wall example but it not got the livery any more, i wonder if it was the one for sale recently in the mags…i assumed it was just a prank advert…
I did see it on the Racing Green link.
“Customers weren’t happy. Some went so far as to demand a refund. Jaguar refused, and the various parties argued their case in court. Jaguar won but the reputational damage had been done.”
There is more about it on the Wiki entry for the car. Jaguar XJ220 - Wikipedia
It started as a V12 prototype which drew many deposits.
Whatever contract they signed, and seeing as how it was only a prototype they saw, may have put them in the position of accepting almost anything offered.
But that is just an odd thought, not a statement of fact.
I didn’t doubt that it existed but I just wanted him to provide the proof - too often he does knee jerk reactions. He could have provided the link you have but he thinks that just as long as he says it, then it must be true. To be honest I’m just toying with him as he does my nut in on the Trump thread with his ranting and raving about communist infiltration into every fabric of life. I know I shouldn’t indulge him, and I try not to, but sometimes I just need a bit of light entertainment in my life 
3 Likes
Yeah, but in truth it was the Commies that killed the XJ220.
What with the financial chaos at the time of it’s launch (capitalism never fails by itself, so it must have been sabotage) and the Greens (who are part time commies) and their emissions laws,
it was entirely predictable (from decades afterwards) that it was a deliberate act by the Labour (commie) Party to do away a future money earner. Given a bit effort it would have been on every driveway.
I heard that it was capitalist infiltrators pretending to be communists who were pretending to be capitalists. They became so confused they started to “Reform” themselves to try and lull the gullible voters into believing that they were the answer to everything (obviously it was 42). Perhaps the 1922 committee should come into the 21st century and call themselves the “42 committee”. Bound to be a vote winner.
2 Likes