As a boy my father drove two Leyland Buffalos NWG734M and later a Buffalo 2 MSF605T, I’ve alway wondered what engine size would have been in these units. I remember seeing the literature before the vehicle was ordered and I seem to remember it came with a TL11 or an L12 engine would that be correct? Also I was wondering if someone could explain the difference between the Buffalo and the Lynx from around this time as both units look the same to me.
I can’t help you with engine size other than to suggest the 11 and 12 might well have referred to size in litres, someone else will know for sure.
What i will say, and i expect i’m alone in this, is that i enjoyed driving them, engine and Roadranger box worked together perfectly, a joy to get the motor singing and each gear step was perefctly spaced, revs dropped quickly so fast gearchanges the order of the day.
They handled well and pulled a comfortable 75mph, had the turning circle of fork truck too so no problems getting in anywhere, and with a York flat 40 footer could get a genuine 22 tons on @ 32t gross.
Only problem being the engines blew up regularly around 70k miles… 
The first firm I worked for had a '72 Buffalo with the infamous fixed head engine. FDF 471L, also had the 10 speed Fuller and no power steering. It never, ever missed a beat 
A brilliant lorry…
When it came to the end of its life, they parked it up in the corner of the yard and let it rot… About 5 years after that, a scrapman came to call and a deal was reached to clear out the old units and trailers. Me and the mechanic put a pair of batteries on the old girl and she started first piston up. Absolutely unbelievable 
I believe the difference between the Lynx and Buffalo was gross weight capacity but I’m not sure. Someone will know and I would also be interested to find out…
We had both at Banbury Buildings, the Lynx was a 26 ton artic maybe 28, but the Buffalo was a 32 tonner, not sure of the power ratings but the Buffalo sure did fly, Lynx’s topped out at about 62mph . The fixed head 500 engine would blow if you over ran them, I was in 2 of them when this happened but only as a mate.
Yeah I remember the Buffalo 2’s engine blew up not long after it was new and after much haggling it was replaced by Leyland free of charge. I can’t remember either of them being much bother really. I agree I thought the 11 & 12 stood for the litres and the T was possibly turbocharged. I’m also aware that the Marathon came with a TL12 and wondered if that was ever fitted to the Buffalo?
The buffalo with the TL11 was the turbo version of Leylands 11 litre engine which i think was originally the 680.The L12 was a reworked AV760 engine (AEC) or a non turbo TL12 (AEC) which Leyland introduced when AEC closed in an attempt to keep the buyers of Mandators happy but to no avail.The L12 was also available in the Marathon mainly for the oil companies.I think the TL11 was around 245 bhp and the L12 was around the 220bhp mark.I`m sure someone will correct me has these are only approximate ratings
the boffalo had a couple of engine up gades the 510 and 511 both fixed heads, power was about 240.my uncale and bad ran them for years. sounded nice with the exhaust up the back with a nice wistle to them.
the 680 was fitted to tha ace and was a none turbo.
Both of the above replies are correct about the different engine versions. The Lynx was a 16-tonne rigid or 26-tonne artic with normally aspirated fixed head 500 series engine. The Buffalo Mark 1 was a 32-tonne artic with turbo-charged 500 series engine, (502 version I think), then later versions were 510. Buffalo Mark 2 had either the TL11 engine (re-worked Leyland 680 with turbo-charger) or L12 engine (normally aspirated TL12, which in turn was a development of the AEC A760). After the disasters with the fixed head series Leyland had to introduce new engines very quickly. I drove a Lynx with a 500 and that was very good and reliable, but the good ones were the exceptions. Failures in service with the “500 series headless wonders” and massive warranty claims, plus a 35% rejection rate off the production line helped to bankrupt Leyland.
Here is a picture of Fred holidays Buffalo , he broke down and cryied in the workshop when we told him the engine was u/s , he knew they would give him a secondhand ex rental roadtrain but he did not want a sleeper cab because he would have to do nights away .
Fred did end up with this roadtrain and within a few days he was seen polishing and washing the cab up, he never did sleep in the cab but it was parked up near his house quite often overnight . 
Thanks for the info, looking at the picture that Jakey has posted, it was a good looking motor the Buffalo 2, unfortunately my old boy’s one ended up on it’s side spilling a load of empty whiskey bottles onto the Markinch by-pass after someone decided to do a U-turn without warning in front of him. It made the front page of the local rag, I will try and find a picture and post it. The chassis was twisted and after the insurance was settled it was sold off for spares.
We had 5 Buffolos at J A WILKINSON they where an absolute disaster we had them 1 year and sold them they went to either Cyprus or Malta ,if British Leyland had screwed its loave they could have had a good lorry but sadly due to all the political and union problems they went the wrong direction ,to me the Leyland 680 was a very good engine but that is Labour party for you,to me it is a pity Maggie Thatcher did not follow on from Winston Churchill then we would have had a good lorry building industry,But that is my opion
The R plate Buffalo wagon and drag I drove in 1981/82 remains one of the best wagons I’ve ever used, so I’m pleasantly surprised with some of the other replies.Not withstanding it was on its third 502 engine, cut back to 2200 rpm but still good for 60mph and with that 9spd Fuller box worked well,a couple of minor breakdowns-which could have happened to any wagon-were fixed at the roadside. A Leyland salesman I spoke to in 1978 said the final version of that engine (511?) was still no good and to keep clear of it,he was trying to flog ■■■■■■■ engined Marathons and later went to Volvo.
When I worked for Spillers Milling we had at least 50 Buffalos in the fleet, but all the Mark ones still working had been re-engined with TL11s except for a couple of 502 examples which did achieve high mileages and they had also been cut back to about 2200 rpm. The TL11s were reasonable lorries. We also had a few late model Octopuses with the TL11.
JAKEY:
Here is a picture of Fred holidays Buffalo , he broke down and cryied in the workshop when we told him the engine was u/s , he knew they would give him a secondhand ex rental roadtrain but he did not want a sleeper cab because he would have to do nights away .Fred did end up with this roadtrain and within a few days he was seen polishing and washing the cab up, he never did sleep in the cab but it was parked up near his house quite often overnight .
I think that’s terrible Steve defrauding the company in that way just so he can have a hot-bath, home-cooked meal & any other fringe-benefits
I never did it !!! , well once , well once or twice , every other week
Anyone know how they compared with the last of the Mandators, the oil companies seemed to favour the AECs?
The Mandators that the Haulier I worked for ran some AV.760 engines with the straight six speed box One of the drivers reckoned they were a better motor than the old Buffalos, but of course the were more powerful than the Leyland, but there was still nothing wrong with the Buffalo if you got a goodin, a pal of mine at Seaton Burn ran a one on distance work & it was trouble free, this was L Reg, Regards Larry.
Lawrence Dunbar:
The Mandators that the Haulier I worked for ran some AV.760 engines with the straight six speed box One of the drivers reckoned they were a better motor than the old Buffalos, but of course the were more powerful than the Leyland, but there was still nothing wrong with the Buffalo if you got a goodin, a pal of mine at Seaton Burn ran a one on distance work & it was trouble free, this was L Reg, Regards Larry.
By the sound of it the mandator was hindered with a 6 speed box ,they must have been a better motor with the Fuller
ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC TRUCK in the early eighties when we had a very cold spell up in the derbyshire peaks our volvos,saviems and leyland marathons were seizing up left , right and centre oil was so thick to do any circulating my old man put his faith in 4 leyland buffalos from metal box transport and they are why we are still going today the old headless wonders were fantastic don’t think you would get many of todays drivers in one ,rusty old silencers up the back of the cabs wouldn’t be good enough i have still got the old badges of ours
I had two new Buffalos and I never liked either.
They may have been OK on general work but the fire screen on the ones I had on tankers kept a lot of heat in.
Very often the pipe from the twin spitter switch to the gear box would melt and leave you stuck in high or low range.
The cabs were cramped and uncomfortable and our workshops always had one in bits.
I had come off a Marathon to the Buffalo and wondered who I had upset.
