Carryfast ,
It really is not worth the effort of replying to your stupid, and unrealistic ravings.
Cheerio for now.
Saviem:
Carryfast ,It really is not worth the effort of replying to your stupid, and unrealistic ravings.
Cheerio for now.
Just an answer to the questions would be fine. 
What is the point in answering your questions if you will only argue the answers if they don’t agree with you…
newmercman:
What is the point in answering your questions if you will only argue the answers if they don’t agree with you…
Has he EVER agreed with any poster’s comment’s on any topic? I wonder if in reality he is an Automated Message Service… 
Pete.
He would argue with his own shadow [emoji38]
Ah, yet another excellent thread trickles out into the desert wastelands via the conduit of mind of Surrey…
I liken our Leartherhead colleague sorry “irritant” to a Jack Russell terrier,he always has to have the last “yap” Cheers Bewick.
newmercman:
What is the point in answering your questions if you will only argue the answers if they don’t agree with you…
To be fair the idea of anyone throwing away £50,000,000 to design a new heavy truck range just to offload an obsolete old engine range ( 71N ),when they’ve introduced a new state of the art one to go with the truck ( 92T ),let alone the idea that state of the art one left Bedford in the same situation as Leyland were in with the TL12,seems worthy of argument.But if the forum rules are now that everyone must agree with whatever Saviem says I’ll buy it just to save all the aggro. 
Just like the D/D-V. 
-
Those yankee hedgehogs don’t half motor with D/D in them! Robert
Carryfast:
newmercman:
What is the point in answering your questions if you will only argue the answers if they don’t agree with you…To be fair the idea of anyone throwing away £50,000,000 to design a new heavy truck range just to offload an obsolete old engine range ( 71N ),when they’ve introduced a new state of the art one to go with the truck ( 92T ),let alone the idea that state of the art one left Bedford in the same situation as Leyland were in with the TL12,seems worthy of argument.But if the forum rules are now that everyone must agree with whatever Saviem says I’ll buy it just to save all the aggro.
You can learn a lot more from listening than you can from talking…
newmercman:
Carryfast:
newmercman:
What is the point in answering your questions if you will only argue the answers if they don’t agree with you…To be fair the idea of anyone throwing away £50,000,000 to design a new heavy truck range just to offload an obsolete old engine range ( 71N ),when they’ve introduced a new state of the art one to go with the truck ( 92T ),let alone the idea that state of the art one left Bedford in the same situation as Leyland were in with the TL12,seems worthy of argument.But if the forum rules are now that everyone must agree with whatever Saviem says I’ll buy it just to save all the aggro.
You can learn a lot more from listening than you can from talking…
And when people who’d like to think they know it all resort to personal insults having run out of answers to relevant,civil,although obviously awkward for their argument,questions,that tells me that they are the ones doing too much of the talking.On that note,assuming the engine choices made regarding the TM were all about GM trying to dump their non eco friendly engines,I ‘could’ also have asked Saviem to explain the difference in Scammell’s previous use of at least no less than the 8v71 at 32t gross,as opposed to Bedford’s decision to use the 6v71 in both the KM and TM. 
Carryfast:
newmercman:
What is the point in answering your questions if you will only argue the answers if they don’t agree with you…To be fair the idea of anyone throwing away £50,000,000 to design a new heavy truck range just to offload an obsolete old engine range ( 71N ),when they’ve introduced a new state of the art one to go with the truck ( 92T ),let alone the idea that state of the art one left Bedford in the same situation as Leyland were in with the TL12,seems worthy of argument.But if the forum rules are now that everyone must agree with whatever Saviem says I’ll buy it just to save all the aggro.
Now, being a patronising ■■■■ does not suit your true persona one bit “CF” particularly when directed at one of the most knowlegable and informative contributors on the TNUK site.I,personally,do not reckon much to all things French particularly their wine and Bollinger 
but I hold “Saviem” in the highest regard as he was able to ascend,against probably all the odds,to the top of the French heavy vehicle industry and that achievement alone puts him head and shoulders above most of us(probably not you of course 
)on the site and I would never dare to critisize his opinions,maybe he hasn’t got the same expertise with regard to growing “taters” to the same high standards as “ROF” 
but he can always buy a bag at another farm gate in Shropshire So “CF” for what my no doubt unacceptable advice is worth you should climb out of your pram and collect your dummy from the floor then climb back in and don’t be so childish you soft ■■■■ Bewick.
Carryfast:
newmercman:
Carryfast:
newmercman:
What is the point in answering your questions if you will only argue the answers if they don’t agree with you…To be fair the idea of anyone throwing away £50,000,000 to design a new heavy truck range just to offload an obsolete old engine range ( 71N ),when they’ve introduced a new state of the art one to go with the truck ( 92T ),let alone the idea that state of the art one left Bedford in the same situation as Leyland were in with the TL12,seems worthy of argument.But if the forum rules are now that everyone must agree with whatever Saviem says I’ll buy it just to save all the aggro.
You can learn a lot more from listening than you can from talking…
And when people who’d like to think they know it all resort to personal insults having run out of answers to relevant,civil,although obviously awkward for their argument,questions,that tells me that they are the ones doing too much of the talking.On that note,assuming the engine choices made regarding the TM were all about GM trying to dump their non eco friendly engines,I ‘could’ also have asked Saviem to explain the difference in Scammell’s previous use of at least no less than the 8v71 at 32t gross,as opposed to Bedford’s decision to use the 6v71 in both the KM and TM.
I drove a fair few Scammells including several Crusaders but I cannot recall a 4x2 32 ton Crusader which had a D/D V8 they were all Rolls Royce 220, 280, 290, and 305 bhp , the V8 D/D was fitted to 6x4 crusaders which were not classed as 32 GVW wagons but 38 GVW or heavy haulage tractors
Carryfast:
[
And when people who’d like to think they know it all resort to personal insults…
What insults? List them, please.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
[
And when people who’d like to think they know it all resort to personal insults…What insults? List them, please.
This CF ■■■■■■ is an insult to this thread IMO, He knows everything about nothing, I wonder if he ever thinks about the famous engineers who developed British Engines who the British hauliers ran and made a good living out of them and employed people to drive them, I come from a family whom were haulage people and would have hated his bloody remarks as I do plus a lot more on this thread, Like Dennis said pick your dummy up and go back to sleep and try and dream of the real world of engines , Like Gardners from Paticroft and so on, Regards Larry.
Bewick:
Now, being a patronising [zb] does not suit your true persona one bit “CF” particularly when directed at one of the most knowlegable and informative contributors on the TNUK site.I,personally,do not reckon much to all things French particularly their wine and Bollinger
I never said anywhere that Saviem isn’t one of ‘the most’ knowledgeable contributors on here and long may he continue to be.However as part of that I’d expect him to be able to answer some civil questions in regards to arguing his points.While no one knows everything we can all learn something and if he is as confident in his views as he should be then there is obviously no need to reply to relevant,if obviously awkward for his points,questions with words like stupid and plonker blah blah.Instead of the educated answer expected.Just as I ( try to ) answer others. 
sammyopisite:
I drove a fair few Scammells including several Crusaders but I cannot recall a 4x2 32 ton Crusader which had a D/D V8 they were all Rolls Royce 220, 280, 290, and 305 bhp , the V8 D/D was fitted to 6x4 crusaders which were not classed as 32 GVW wagons but 38 GVW or heavy haulage tractors
The point was that the 8v71 was ‘an option’ that wasn’t just limited to 6x4’s.
But what ‘wasn’t’ ‘an option’ was the 6v71.Although ‘some say’ it was. But asking them to get even close to proving it is another matter.Although knowing Scammell I’d go with the former.Which then leaves the question of who,would choose the non turbo 8v71 over the turbo Rolls even at 32t gross let alone more.Assuming that is any understanding whatsoever of the relevance of torque in shifting a truck,as opposed to peak power output
Which puts the question of Bedford’s idea,of putting the 6v71,into a new 32 tonner or even 24 tonner,as of the mid '70’s,thereby adding to its reputation as a torqueless screamer,into perspective.
Lawrence Dunbar:
This CF ■■■■■■ is an insult to this thread IMO, He knows everything about nothing, I wonder if he ever thinks about the famous engineers who developed British Engines who the British hauliers ran and made a good living out of them and employed people to drive them, I come from a family whom were haulage people and would have hated his bloody remarks as I do plus a lot more on this thread, Like Dennis said pick your dummy up and go back to sleep and try and dream of the real world of engines , Like Gardners from Paticroft and so on, Regards Larry.
You do realise the question was all about the choice and decisions taken between using obsolete inefficient in house and/or outsourced loose turbo ■■■■■■■■■■ state of the art efficient in house engines,in the GM product referred to in ‘the thread’.None of which to my knowledge were ‘developed’ by ‘British engineers’.Bearing in mind that the use of in house engines was an instruction by GM at the outset of the operation.
As for me I’ve said plenty of times that the turbo Rolls Royce Eagle was more or less as good as the ■■■■■■■ ( or Detroit ) in the day.But (a) that wouldn’t fit the criterea in ‘this’ case and (b) I think your ‘issues’ are more about Gardner v everything else than ‘British’ v American.
Carryfast:
Bearing in mind that the use of in house engines was a documented instruction by GM at the outset of the operation.
What documents? Post them, or links to them, if you are citing them.