You might struggle to find a home under an ERGO cab for an AEC AV1100,its quite a bit bigger than a 760 along the lines of a KT19.
gingerfold:
…
AEC Super Mammoth supplied to South Africa
0
Phwoarr. I’ve never seen one of those before. It makes Yankee conventionals look like toys. I guess it was Southall’s competitior to the Leyland Buffalo (the proper one, not the 1970s abortion)?
railstaff:
You might struggle to find a home under an ERGO cab for an AEC AV1100,its quite a bit bigger than a 760 along the lines of a KT19.
We know that the MX 13 is 130 x 162 with an OHC/CIH type head stuck on top of it and will fit under a CF cab so a 130 x 156 block shouldn’t have been an impossibility to fit under a reasonably set cab ( obviously not the Ergo dustcart cab ).
Again it seems like the 1100 suffered from the usual AEC problem of a too low set crank centre line in the block while the KT seems to have had a similar issue.Although in either case it seems to been a massively excessive amount of overall block height for such a small stroke requirement,relative to the MX,regardless. 
Maybe this un, any engine you fancy n as large a steering as you’d like 
coomsey:
0
Maybe this un, any engine you fancy n as large a steering as you’d like
Yeah but how long was the stroke 
gingerfold:
gingerfold:
cav551:
IIRC Scammell did fit the AEC AV 1100 into some export chassis for I think Australia. If anyone has 2010 AEC Society Gazette copies there are some articles about this engine included in more than one issue.And South Africa where it was the AEC Super Mammoth.
AEC Super Mammoth supplied to South Africa
0
I probably have a copy in the attic, didn`t John Tweedie take an AV1100 to shows on the back of his V8 Mandator ?
ramone:
coomsey:
0
Maybe this un, any engine you fancy n as large a steering as you’d likeYeah but how long was the stroke
Bludy ell Ramone! Stroke were 4.7 with a piston speed approaching 22 foot lbs per inch at an unconstant notional 1300 revs.
ramone:
gingerfold:
gingerfold:
cav551:
IIRC Scammell did fit the AEC AV 1100 into some export chassis for I think Australia. If anyone has 2010 AEC Society Gazette copies there are some articles about this engine included in more than one issue.And South Africa where it was the AEC Super Mammoth.
AEC Super Mammoth supplied to South Africa
0I probably have a copy in the attic, didn`t John Tweedie take an AV1100 to shows on the back of his V8 Mandator ?
Yes he did. There are still believed to be a few AVT1100 standby engines dotted about the country in water pumping stations. Their purpose is to fire up if there’s an electricity outage. They were also used in several oil and coal fired power stations as start up generators, Ferrybridge C Power Station which closed in 2015 having them until the end. I also heard that there are some at Fiddlers Ferry Power Station which is still generating this winter, but I don’t know if that is true or not.
Carryfast:
railstaff:
You might struggle to find a home under an ERGO cab for an AEC AV1100,its quite a bit bigger than a 760 along the lines of a KT19.We know that the MX 13 is 130 x 162 with an OHC/CIH type head stuck on top of it and will fit under a CF cab so a 130 x 156 block shouldn’t have been an impossibility to fit under a reasonably set cab ( obviously not the Ergo dustcart cab ).
Again it seems like the 1100 suffered from the usual AEC problem of a too low set crank centre line in the block while the KT seems to have had a similar issue.Although in either case it seems to been a massively excessive amount of overall block height for such a small stroke requirement,relative to the MX,regardless.
Not that it makes any difference but an mx is still ohv,but seriously an AV1100 in a reasonably mounted cab,by that you don’t mean a road vehicle?
railstaff:
Not that it makes any difference but an mx is still ohv,but seriously an AV1100 in a reasonably mounted cab,by that you don’t mean a road vehicle?
Thanks for pointing that out railstaff.I’d mistakenly took it for granted that the MX was just another generic modern OHC/CIH design. 
That obviously puts its design higher in my personal estimation.Certainly to the point of making it a no brainer choice v the usual OHC/CIH suspects.
As I said the AV 1100 seems to have been lumbered with an impossibly ridiculous overall block height for its stroke measurement.Which would obviously have defeated any attempt by AEC to make the obvious move,suggested by cav,of combining the 1100’s and 690/691’s design for use in any type of general automotive use.Which is why I posted the MX example to show how it should be done and then some. 
This was the application for the AV1100 / AVT1100, the AEC HDK4 18 cu. yds. Dumptruk. Never, ever was it intended as a power unit for a “normal” road going lorry.
Carryfast:
railstaff:
Not that it makes any difference but an mx is still ohv,but seriously an AV1100 in a reasonably mounted cab,by that you don’t mean a road vehicle?Thanks for pointing that out railstaff.I’d mistakenly took it for granted that the MX was just another generic modern OHC/CIH design.
As I said the AV 1100 seems to have been lumbered with an impossibly ridiculous overall block height for its stroke measurement.Which would obviously have defeated any attempt by AEC to make the obvious move,suggested by cav,of combining the 1100’s and 690/691’s design for use in any type of general automotive use.Which is why I posted the MX example to show how it should be done and then some.
There are good reasons for the height of the block being what it was.(156 x 156)
coomsey:
ramone:
coomsey:
0
Maybe this un, any engine you fancy n as large a steering as you’d likeYeah but how long was the stroke
Bludy ell Ramone! Stroke were 4.7 with a piston speed approaching 22 foot lbs per inch at an unconstant notional 1300 revs.
Is that good i get confused with long stroke and short stroke and piston speed … should Leyland have fitted it under a full width Marathon cab or maybe even a Big J or its taller brother the Crusader … no doubt the resident loon will put us right
Can I just point something out on this thread as certain posts are becoming a little bit swayed.Some people are comparing items from the 60,s/70,s with todays cutting edge technologies.When these engines were designed and produced todays advanced designs and more over tooling was not available.
ramone:
coomsey:
ramone:
coomsey:
0
Maybe this un, any engine you fancy n as large a steering as you’d likeYeah but how long was the stroke
Bludy ell Ramone! Stroke were 4.7 with a piston speed approaching 22 foot lbs per inch at an unconstant notional 1300 revs.
Is that good i get confused with long stroke and short stroke and piston speed … should Leyland have fitted it under a full width Marathon cab or maybe even a Big J or its taller brother the Crusader
You’ve obviously not been paying enough attention Ramone, you naughty boy!!! Here we go, for the last time mind. A long stroke is usually considered to be 6" at a piston speed of 1ft per 2secs, after initial warm up period this may rise to 4 strokes per 2 secs. Has the revs increase it’s quite normal for the stroke length to drop to less than 3" sometimes less than that, this, of course has a significant effect on the revs which can exceed 2100 per minute. This rise in revs almost certainly will have a detrimental effect on the thermal efficiency of the wet liner and nearly always will result in complete collapse. Strangely has the piston gets older it will take much longer for this to happen but if you persist the same result. Never under any circumstances fit it under a cab. Hope that’s cleared it up for you Ramone. Cheers Paul
Sorry Ramone forgot the dry liner issues. As you may imagine dry liners have a massive effect on piston travel. You cannot spend too much time lubricating dry liners, time well spent. If not attended to you will find initial stroke issues leading to possible conrod failure, this I’m sure you know, will ultimately result in your big end seizing up, while not considered catastrophic it will need attention in the short term. Cheers Paul
coomsey:
Sorry Ramone forgot the dry liner issues. As you may imagine dry liners have a massive effect on piston travel. You cannot spend too much time lubricating dry liners, time well spent. If not attended to you will find initial stroke issues leading to possible conrod failure, this I’m sure you know, will ultimately result in your big end seizing up, while not considered catastrophic it will need attention in the short term. Cheers Paul
Yep , I got all that , obviously AEC got it all wrong with their design at the time when quite frankly they should have been using technology that wasn`t available at the time but 50 odd years later is , what were they thinking, how did they manage to sell so many vehicles with flawed designs over the years , was there a conspiracy by hauliers to buy these flawed designs so they would become bankrupt then foreign hauliers could take over … no doubt we will find out all these answers from the loon at large very soon. Why did they build the Marathon a tall version of the Mandator when they had already done that with the Crusader a tall version of the Big J minus a step to get in it
railstaff:
Carryfast:
As I said the AV 1100 seems to have been lumbered with an impossibly ridiculous overall block height for its stroke measurement.Which would obviously have defeated any attempt by AEC to make the obvious move,suggested by cav,of combining the 1100’s and 690/691’s design for use in any type of general automotive use.Which is why I posted the MX example to show how it should be done and then some.There are good reasons for the height of the block being what it was.(156 x 156)
Does that mean that it would have been possible to combine the 130 bore of the 690/691 with the 156 stroke of the 1100 without needing the space of a bleedin power station to fit it ?.
Why would the silly 156 bore size have needed such an equally silly block height ?. IE the big bore would be expected to put size on the length and width of the block not the height.
What technology would it take that wasn’t available then,to cast a block that could have allowed a 130 bore and a 156 stroke with the same,if not less,overall dimensions of the MX and which would have fitted under something along the lines of the ERF NGC or SA 400 cab ?. Bearing in mind that’s a smaller bore and only 4 mm longer stroke than an 855 ■■■■■■■ and same bore and 4 mm longer stroke than the Rolls Eagle.In which case it wouldn’t/shouldn’t have been impossible rocket science by the standards of the day.
Oh wait according to AEC it was all about maximising the bore size because they thought that power was dependent on piston area not BMEP.
