.
Anyone doubting Bedford’s decision to turn to ■■■■■■■ should read the above. About 27% more mpg, albeit at the expense of about 6% mph, is the ■■■■■■■■ advantage.
TNUK member Boris has posted a link to this on the “other” TM thread:
It seems that TMs did not get the aftercooled 92 engine until 1982, all the previous ones having TT and T versions. Were the aftercooled versions built before the Silver Series, I wonder? If not, that would explain Bedford’s reluctance to make the 92 the standard engine- without the aftercooler and the other economy-oriented upgrades mentioned in the article, it would have cemented the DD’s reputaion for bad fuel consumption.
[zb]
anorak:
1
0
Anyone doubting Bedford’s decision to turn to ■■■■■■■ should read the above. About 27% more mpg, albeit at the expense of about 6% mph, is the ■■■■■■■■ advantage.
If I’ve read it right they were basing the 3800 Detroit v ■■■■■■■ calculation on a comparison between 8v71N v turbo E290 ■■■■■■■ which is the point of the argument.Although the ■■■■■■■ fans relying on selective unrepresentative oranges v apples comparisons to make their choice look better v Detroit is obviously nothing new.
When the relevant comparison would/should have been turbo 6/8v92.In which we’ve already got a representative comparison at the start of the topic stating closer to 6 mpg than 5 at 40t gross with the road tester having admitted to downshifting it at no less than 1,500 rpm having a torque peak of well over 1,100 lbs/ft ( therefore considerably more than a turbo 14 litre ■■■■■■■ ) at his disposal at 1,400 rpm at least.The result on fuel consumption of which would have been obvious bearing in mind the ratio steps of a 9 speed box. 
Bearing in mind that type of bs was obviously taking place under GM’s own roof that just adds credibility to my idea that they walked away because not only did Bedford shoot themselves in the foot by sticking with 71 N series for too long they then added insult to injury by using an outsourced loose engine from an arch rival.Based on the obvious fact that they didn’t seem to understand the difference between Turbo 92 v 71N also as confirmed by Saviem’s comments in which he also obviously doesn’t seem to differentiate the two totally different engines.
On that note this article suggests no where near the so called ‘advantages’ for the ■■■■■■■ bearing in mind a real world variation of between 6.4 mpg-7.3 mpg,presumably at 32t gross,the latter figure obviously depending on it driven with a lot of discipline regards engine speeds.
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … mmins-e290
Now compare that with the performance of the 8v92 powered TM at 40t gross at the start of the topic bearing in mind the obviously 71 N series mindset taken by the road tester in question. It is my guess,on a like with like comparison of terrain,disciplined driving standards and gross weight,there would realistically be nothing in it between them in fuel consumption.While I’d guess that the Detroit would also live up to its output figures v ■■■■■■■ in terms of journey times.
As for aftercooling not being available ( if Bedford had chosen to use it ) before the Silver Series not by my memory.Confirmed by the fact that ratings shown,regards 365 TTA and 435 TA,all obviously relate to pre Silver Series and all therefore 1970’s type specs.The differences by 1970’s aftercooling standards not being massive anyway with the 8v92 T usually being stated as 430 in 2,100 rpm max form,as opposed to 435 for example.Bearing in mind that turning a T into a TA was never exactly rocket science in this case. 
Exports weren’t the ultimate target for Bedford, the UK market was and as such the engine choice they offered was a good fit. In the recent past they had seen the foreign competition invade with the F86, 80, 1418, 684 etc.
All low powered lightweights and they had been successful and led to the manufacturers introducing their heavyweight offerings. So it would make perfect sense for Bedford to use the same recipe and after the introduction of the lightweight TM (the one we got) they would up the ante and introduce a bigger version (like they did) maybe their insistence on using the two stroke design worked against them, maybe it was their reputation as the producer of the cheap and cheerful TK range that scared people away, maybe it was just too little too late, or a combination of them all?
However the philosophy they used was successful for everyone else, so why would they try anything else?
All this could’ve, would’ve, should’ve ■■■■■■■■ is just that, ■■■■■■■■. It would’ve taken a very brave man to have done things differently and the result would’ve seen even less success as it was only the power crazy Italians that showed any interest in the higher powered TM and that market was almost completely sewn up by Fiat.
Saviem:
…Anorak, the more you study Detroit specific outputs for given engine types…the more confusing it becomes. In Milan we finally gave up trying to work out which power output related to any vehicles that we bought off operators…whatever the engine plate said could not be relied on…
Do I detect a degree of British sarcasm in the unusually precise and comprehensive list of specifications that Bedford offered?
Further to earlier posts regarding the introduction of the Silver Series Detroits, that brochure must date from that time, IE 1982.
Saviem:
…General Motors was an automobile orientated company. To work for the Truck business was not the path to the “executive wash room” in Detroit. General Motors employed a senior Executive rotation programme, which ensured that for any given role the maximum term in that role was 36/48 months. Executives were crossing paths constantly, and often “re-aligning” their predesors work!..
Grrr. If ever there was a sign that a company (GM, in this case) had grown too big, this is it- using a big-enough subsidiary (Bedford) as a training ground for corporate lickspittles. No wonder the European marketing of the TM was haphazard.
Saviem:
…1983 General Motors took the decision to stay in Trucks, and created a stand alone division from the automobile business, The World Truck Program, based in Pontiac Michigan. Despite anticipated world sales volume of circ 400,000 units, compared with a manufacturing capacity in excess of 600,000 units.
Was GM not big enough to go it alone in Europe? OK, the entire lorry range was ready for replacement, but to throw an entire continent’s sales away for the lack of a collaborator seems a bit drastic.
newmercman:
Exports weren’t the ultimate target for Bedford, the UK market was and as such the engine choice they offered was a good fit. In the recent past they had seen the foreign competition invade with the F86, 80, 1418, 684 etc.All low powered lightweights and they had been successful and led to the manufacturers introducing their heavyweight offerings. So it would make perfect sense for Bedford to use the same recipe and after the introduction of the lightweight TM (the one we got) they would up the ante and introduce a bigger version (like they did) maybe their insistence on using the two stroke design worked against them, maybe it was their reputation as the producer of the cheap and cheerful TK range that scared people away, maybe it was just too little too late, or a combination of them all?
However the philosophy they used was successful for everyone else, so why would they try anything else?
All this could’ve, would’ve, should’ve ■■■■■■■■ is just that, ■■■■■■■■. It would’ve taken a very brave man to have done things differently and the result would’ve seen even less success as it was only the power crazy Italians that showed any interest in the higher powered TM and that market was almost completely sewn up by Fiat.
Why would a turbo 6v92 or even a 340 8v92 v E290 be considered as ‘power crazed’.When the fact is as always it was/is all about torque anyway and the Detroit had that in spades compared to ■■■■■■■■
Meanwhile as we’ve seen and you’ve said yourself ‘vertically integrated’ ( or at least all in house as possible ) was/is the way to go ( if possible ).It seems obvious that Bedford ( with GM’s help and cash ) were more or less the only Brit based manufacturer with the resources to do that at least in terms of engines.Also bearing in mind that was also GM’s actual intention in this case as confirmed by Saviem.
It seems obvious in this case that what actually happened was that Bedford threw away all that based on typical Brit prejudice in favour of ■■■■■■■ and a lack of understanding of the capabilities and differences between turbo 92 v 71N.The result being that even ‘if’ the domestic market was going to be moved into Detroit power v ■■■■■■■ that chance and possibilty was obviously blown by using the worst possible choice of Detroit engine at the worst possible time.The rest for Bedford is/was inevitably history.
The real victims in all that being GM and their wasted investment. 
Meanwhile as for Robert’s idea of some sort of conspiracy theory.It was of course a fact that any large move by the domestic market into Detroit powered TM’s would have obviously been at the expense of the UK’s domestic ■■■■■■■ manufacturing operation.In which case ‘if’ there was any conspiracy theory that would be the most logical contender.
newmercman:
Exports weren’t the ultimate target for Bedford, the UK market was and as such the engine choice they offered was a good fit. In the recent past they had seen the foreign competition invade with the F86, 80, 1418, 684 etc.All low powered lightweights and they had been successful and led to the manufacturers introducing their heavyweight offerings. So it would make perfect sense for Bedford to use the same recipe and after the introduction of the lightweight TM (the one we got) they would up the ante and introduce a bigger version (like they did) maybe their insistence on using the two stroke design worked against them, maybe it was their reputation as the producer of the cheap and cheerful TK range that scared people away, maybe it was just too little too late, or a combination of them all?
However the philosophy they used was successful for everyone else, so why would they try anything else?
All this could’ve, would’ve, should’ve ■■■■■■■■ is just that, ■■■■■■■■. It would’ve taken a very brave man to have done things differently and the result would’ve seen even less success as it was only the power crazy Italians that showed any interest in the higher powered TM and that market was almost completely sewn up by Fiat.
I cannot find any concrete evidence that the aftercooled 92 Series engines were produced before 1981. The article I posted above, plus this one, more or less confirm that the pre Silver Series engine was too thirsty for European hauliers, except Italians and the odd Frog. 
It seems that offering the E-series ■■■■■■■ engines was a decision made through gritted teeth, the only way that European customers could be persuaded to buy TMs. I guess that GM hoped their in-house engine would reassert its dominance, after the introduction of the Silver Series. It was, after all, 200+kg lighter than the ■■■■■■■ and, almost certainly, cheaper to make, if only by the cost of a quarter of a ton of cast iron!
If GM is to be criticised for any error, it must be that they did not develop a Euro-friendly engine in time for the launch of the TM. Maybe the model should have had a ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ option from the start.
Bedford being a vertically integrated manufacturer thought that loose engines were not the way to go. Ideally they would’ve designed and built their own 10/12 litre engine as their engines were pretty good in the rest of the range, but within the GM family they already had the DD range to shoe horn in the TM.
Using the same philosophy of Volvo, Scania, Merc, FIAT etc, the logical choice of the range was the low powered 6V71 at first.
Remember that years of planning come before the launch of a new range. Now I’m just guessing of course, but I’m leaning towards GM adopting the tried and tested methods used by the other newcomers to the >28t market of a lightweight tractor unit.
Ford went the other way with the Transcon and that didn’t turn out to be a roaring success either so I would say that Bedford was doomed from the start really.
If they had developed their own range of inline 6 engines from 200-300hp they may well have had greater success, but we’ll never know…
Trust me in the case of 365 TTA/435 TA at least we are talking about a pre 1981 spec Green series engines.With 6v92 options available in the same spec.
This is an example of a green series TTA.Just ignore the silly output claim which would take at least a last of the line DDEC HET spec motor.Or a twin turbo setup conversion on a 435 spec engine and still wouldn’t make that.
gumtree.com.au/s-ad/piggabee … 1061080413
The clue is in the engine number.7899.
It mentions here the silver 92 was introduced in the U.S. in 81 then here in the new TM’s in 82
2
1
0
newmercman:
Bedford being a vertically integrated manufacturer thought that loose engines were not the way to go. Ideally they would’ve designed and built their own 10/12 litre engine as their engines were pretty good in the rest of the range, but within the GM family they already had the DD range to shoe horn in the TM.Using the same philosophy of Volvo, Scania, Merc, FIAT etc, the logical choice of the range was the low powered 6V71 at first.
Remember that years of planning come before the launch of a new range. Now I’m just guessing of course, but I’m leaning towards GM adopting the tried and tested methods used by the other newcomers to the >28t market of a lightweight tractor unit.
Ford went the other way with the Transcon and that didn’t turn out to be a roaring success either so I would say that Bedford was doomed from the start really.
If they had developed their own range of inline 6 engines from 200-300hp they may well have had greater success, but we’ll never know…
I think you’re still missing the point that it wasn’t about the power at all it was all about the torque and efficiency of turbo 92 v 71N bearing in mind the timeline of a a vehicle specced for the late 1970’s and 80’s not the 1960’s.The fact is there was no place for either the 71 N or 14 litre ■■■■■■■ in the TM.As for Bedford developing its own heavy truck engine why would GM want to invest in yet another engine project when it already had more than a match for ■■■■■■■ in the form of the 92 series.Make no mistake the cash that GM wasted on Bedford’s bonkers management arguably probably played a significant part in GMC’s exit from the heavy truck sector both here and at home.
Was the DD dropped ? This brochure from Oct 84 doesn’t even give the engine a mention 
1
0
LOL! That snippet from Engineering news: “A Transcon fitted with an 8V71!!” Now an 8V92TTA would make it a real truck!
Carryfast:
… it already had more than a match for ■■■■■■■ in the form of the 92 series.
More piffle. The 92TTA, a 1982 engine, had a min SFC figure of 360lb/bhp.h, according to GM’s adverts. The corresponding figure for the E290, a 1978 engine, was about 345. That’s 5% less fuel for the same torque, in the same gear ratio, at the same road speed, if you choose the ■■■■■■■ over the Detroit. The 92 series, even with the improvements it gained in 1982, was just not suitable for Europe, with its high fuel prices. GM knew what it was doing, offering the ■■■■■■■ engine.
Carryfast:
Make no mistake the cash that GM wasted on Bedford’s bonkers management arguably probably played a significant part in GMC’s exit from the heavy truck sector both here and at home.
Do you think the decisions on vehicle specification were made in secret? Imagine the horror on the faces of the sensible Yanks, when they found out what those bonkers Brits had been building for the past 12 years! Your understanding of the workings of vehicle manufacturing is the biggest joke on this forum. Please keep it up.
gazzer:
LOL! That snippet from Engineering news: “A Transcon fitted with an 8V71!!” Now an 8V92TTA would make it a real truck!
One was fitted with a 8v92- there was a misprint, the vehicle was PNH 2R , the other was TJL 562S which had the 6v92 & was last mentioned here :
viewtopic.php?f=35&t=88927
gazzer:
LOL! That snippet from Engineering news: “A Transcon fitted with an 8V71!!” Now an 8V92TTA would make it a real truck!
The common link in most/all the applications where Detroits made an appearance in non US based vehicles seems to be mostly either a deliberate policy of diversion from the turbo 92 series to the retrograde 71N.Or just that most of those running the show in the day didn’t understand the difference between turbo 92 v 71N.Or possibly a combination of both.
However as I’ve said ■■■■■■■ UK were obviously the winners in that and as such would obviously have been zb’ing themselves as to the possibility of Detroit getting a large foothold amongst any of the manufacturing users that they obviously depended on.Let alone ‘if’ an in house Detroit operation based on sole use of the turbo 92 had been implemented at the right time by Bedford.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
… it already had more than a match for ■■■■■■■ in the form of the 92 series.More piffle. The 92TTA, a 1982 engine, had a min SFC figure of 360lb/bhp.h, according to GM’s adverts. The corresponding figure for the E290, a 1978 engine, was about 345. That’s 5% less fuel for the same torque, in the same gear ratio, at the same road speed, if you choose the ■■■■■■■ over the Detroit. The 92 series, even with the improvements it gained in 1982, was just not suitable for Europe, with its high fuel prices. GM knew what it was doing, offering the ■■■■■■■ engine.
Carryfast:
Make no mistake the cash that GM wasted on Bedford’s bonkers management arguably probably played a significant part in GMC’s exit from the heavy truck sector both here and at home.Do you think the decisions on vehicle specification were made in secret? Imagine the horror on the faces of the sensible Yanks, when they found out what those bonkers Brits had been building for the past 12 years! Your understanding of the workings of vehicle manufacturing is the biggest joke on this forum. Please keep it up.
Feel free to show how an E290 could possibly match the supposed ‘same’ torque figures of an 8V92 TT/A/T/TA at any equivalent point in rev range or probably even any point for that matter.
While assuming that GM wanted a ■■■■■■■ powered TM that’s obviously what they’d have told Bedford to put in it fom day 1.
boris:
Was the DD dropped ? This brochure from Oct 84 doesn’t even give the engine a mention
1
0
The clue in that case being that GM nuked Bedford within around 2 years fom that point. 
Carryfast:
Feel free to show how an E290 could possibly match the supposed ‘same’ torque figures of an 8V92 TT/A/T/TA at any equivalent point in rev range or probably even any point for that matter.
My attempt to explain the significance of the SFC figures using baby talk have failed. What I meant was, “it uses less fuel to do the same thing”.
Your grasp of engineering is even worse than your understanding of business.