Still waiting for a citation on JD’s involvement in the development of the Series 60.
Could the fact that you dreamt up that little gem have any bearing on you inability to find any reference and subsequent ignorance of the request?
Obviously you just ignore anything which doesn’t fit your version of history.
As I said GMC never thought that, or intended, an 11 litre tractor motor would replace a turbocharged 8v92 let alone 12v92 and preferred to sell up and walk away than to even bother trying to comply with impossible future emissions regs.
They must have written the bit about Series 60 being designed by JD in invisible ink.
There’s your “proof” blown right out of the water.
Using the same standard of proof and relevance I offer this picture as irrefutable evidence that JD was not the designer of the Series 60.
Water Cooled Scott also known as the kettle or flying squirrel before the Japs even arrived but by all accounts could keep up with a Vincent HRD or Ariel Square 4 .
Yamaha TZ 750 and before SDU even asks no I don’t even have or want a bike licence.
So Uniflow type, forced induction, two stroke diesels were sidelined for road use.
Not because they were ever proven as not being able to meet emissions legislation.
But because no manufacturer has so far tried by taking advantage of the inherent ability to produce more power at relatively lower engine speed and given comparable emissions technology as/than recent 4 stroke designs.
Instead of which the main two stroke diesel manufacturer chose to sell up and shut up shop regarding both truck manufacturing and engine manufacturing operations.
Including 4 stroke manufacture similar to the situation of Caterpillar.
More like your proof of the ‘supercharged’ naturally aspirated Detroit two stroke.
GM Detroit Diesel designing, let alone replacing, the two stroke with, the Series 60, to meet future legislation based on the recommendations of a clairvoyant and alternative history.
Volvo hasn’t stated an intent to use the Scandinavian type drawbar outfit configuration, as opposed to the tractor semi trailer configuration, to meet the requirements for long distance ‘European’ EV truck operations.
Did you miss the paragraph headed ‘Development’'.Obvuously.
I know it’s a big word, but do you know what collaboration means?
It’s amazing what you can extrapolate from what.
As time passes, and the availabilty of conflicting information of unclear provenance proliferates, who could truly be sure of what is right, especially when trying to determine if DeDEC engineers were former DDA engineers, or rivals, or new collegues…
Detroit chips in with an overhead camshaft six | 14th March 1987 | The Commercial Motor Archive
Though I see it has been said, that Arn Vanderbock was working for Cummins when the 60 was first conceived?
So now you admit that there was considerable JD ‘involvement’ ( ‘collaboration’ ) in the ‘design’ of essential componentry of the 60 series ?.
In addition to the fact that the 60 series as designed in ‘collaboration’ with JD couldn’t possibly have met comparable specific torque and power outputs of the Detroit two stroke.
Nor could it possibly be ‘designed’ to do so.
Nor were there any emissions regs on the table, banning the use of GM two stroke designs, at that point nor even after GMC walked away from the heavy truck and heavy truck engine manufacturing sectors.
You’re like a kid, a maybe becomes a promise. Considerable is your adjective, not mine. I have conceded collaboration, you extrapolate from that whatever suits you. Truth and accuracy were never your strong suits.
It’s probably more like GMC needed a quick 4 stroke fix in the inventory, not for any intent to ‘replace’ over half a century of successful two stroke adherence and development.
But because they rightly thought it would be an essential part of their exit strategy from the heavy truck manufacturing sector.At that point it would obviously be in GMC’s interests to keep everything concerning that as murky as possible…
The Penske 60 series powered Volvo, as opposed to the GM Detroit 92 series powered Astro is the unarguable, accurate truth here.
Just like Volvo’s clear stated intent, to push for European wide acceptance, of Scandinavian type drawbar outfits, to make EV trucks work in the real world.
SDU can concede or argue that to choice but it won’t alter history or the facts.
Amazing how you were the only person to see into the business secrets, despite the murkiness.
Maybe in your fantasy. How do you explain Volvo fitting Cummins and RoadRanger?
Just wondering if you can reference the “clear stated intent” or is it straight from your imagination again?
As seen by Carryfast, actual fact may differ.
Stop Googling 
.
If I was to meet either one of you in the pub tomorrow, could you still reel off what you’ve posted?
I could, but I need to reference any any statement I make, for Carryfast, who intersperses his imagination with occasional actual facts.
How old are they? We cannot buy anything two stroke, these days.
Probably getting on for 20 years old. Bought them when we lived in France.
1 Like
Ironically the topic actually started with SDU posting the unarguable proof of how to make an EV truck work.
Followed by me posting Volvo’s agreement and confirmation.
Inarguable proof? That explains your strange standard of proof. You are totally clueless.