Hey, was the 400hp (386DIN ■■) sold eleswhere in Europ from the start in Italy. Then it must have been the strongest because at that moment Scania had only 375HP or … only from '81 on 388HP.
Eric,
tiptop495:
Hey, was the 400hp (386DIN ■■) sold eleswhere in Europ from the start in Italy. Then it must have been the strongest because at that moment Scania had only 375HP or … only from '81 on 388HP.Eric,
IIRC from the other TM thread, it was 386 to BSau141 @ 1900rpm, 395 to the same standard at 1950rpm and 400 DIN at 1950. On that basis, you would have to say it was a genuine 400bhp, ex-factory. The earliest record of it I can find is a CM report of the May 1979 Turin Show, so you are right- the TM was “King of the road” and it took Scania until 1982 to make more power.
[zb]
anorak:tiptop495:
Hey, was the 400hp (386DIN ■■) sold eleswhere in Europ from the start in Italy. Then it must have been the strongest because at that moment Scania had only 375HP or … only from '81 on 388HP.Eric,
IIRC from the other TM thread, it was 386 to BSau141 @ 1900rpm, 395 to the same standard at 1950rpm and 400 DIN at 1950. On that basis, you would have to say it was a genuine 400bhp, ex-factory. The earliest record of it I can find is a CM report of the May 1979 Turin Show, so you are right- the TM was “King of the road” and it took Scania until 1982 to make more power.
You have right it must have been the King for a while, but can’t remember if it was sold here before Scania’ 388 or 420 ■■? Of course some other dilivered more power before already but only for heavies ( as MAN had 400/440 ±)
And now on the road AND before traffic jams. 
Eric,
.
I remember an O/D with a mauve TM that he said was 440HP and “Swiss” spec. Whether he was just saying that to out pip the 430 of ECT’s Kenworth…
I did a Bedford engine course when I was a nipper and we covered the DD. This had a blower but no turbo (6V71T?). We also managed to get it running backwards (by miss timing the injection).
.
Carryfast: The engine concerned had no turbo…not needed in a T…(what was the beefed up TK?) before being used in the rigid TM series. I think the artic TM’s had turbos as well as the blower…was there not a TTA version (aftercooled?). Long time ago at Millbrook!
.
Have you considered it may not of been a massive unbelievable mistake by Bedford to fit the 71 series first or that they were dictated to by parent GM which engines they were prepared to offload on them and use up an existing production ?
.
.
Bedford TM with the Long Haul cab. Robert
there is a lhd TM staring in a new program on the tv ower here its about drilling for JADE…looks ex army 4x4 and to be honest the young boy driving it makes me want to hit the screen!. 
Here’s a heart-warming tale for Detroit Diesel admirers:
mtu-report.com/History/Detro … hing-going
Regarding GM’s decision to fit the 71 series in the first TMs, the obvious answer is that they were just being cautious. The 92 series was a new engine when the TM was launched, and the TM was taking GM into a new market, IE European heavy lorries. They needed one engine at around 200bhp and another at 300bhp, so the 6v71 and 8v71 were the obvious choice. They were known to be reliable. This strategy has come to be the norm nowadays- no manufacturer launches a complete new vehicle, because they want to protect their reputation for reliability. The forthcoming “new” Scania will be a new cab, nothing more.
This cautious approach continued- the 92 series TMs were sneaked into the market with little fanfare, some four years after the engine was introduced in USA:
viewtopic.php?f=35&t=124365
At this point, maybe it would have been worth the risk to make the 6v92 the standard engine, but they decided to offer the more familiar (to European eyes) ■■■■■■■ engine, and that became the popular choice. That must have been a hard decision for GM to make. They must have realised that ■■■■■■■ had Detroit beat on fuel consumption.
It is a shame that the TM was not more successful, and that the Detroit Diesel did not establish itself in the Euro lorry market, but the notion that GM were trying to destroy Bedford is daft- by fitting the proven 71 series engine to the TM, then offering a competitor’s engine, in an attempt to make it more attractive to a conservative market, they were doing their best to give it a chance.
Here’s a screenshot of the 92 Series brochure:
The power is SAE gross, so I reckon the 1979 “400cv” TM had the TA 1950rpm engine, while the 1977 Turin show TM may have had the TTA version, with “SAE” changed to “DIN” in the press release.
In the April edition of TRUCKING magazine, from p76 onwards there is a very interesting six-page feature on Detroit Diesels with plenty of references (and pictures) to the LHD Bedford TM and the export Scammell Crusader. 
Robert
.
You have to take into account that turbo diesels were still in their infancy when the TM was launched. Especially on the British market.
Introduction of a two stroke and a turbo would’ve been a bit far out in the days of brown polyester.
newmercman:
You have to take into account that turbo diesels were still in their infancy when the TM was launched. Especially on the British market.Introduction of a two stroke and a turbo would’ve been a bit far out in the days of brown polyester.
That was especially true in GB. The Swedish makes had used them for over a decade, but British operators were still happy with n/a. Why not, when Gardners had superior efficiency without the complication of the blower?
When was the first production turbo Detroit 71 series made? I bet GM themselves had not had much experience of the things in 1974. They were dead right to put an n/a 71 in the TM. They would not want the new model soiled with a reputation for engine failure- such a reputation would become the vehicle’s signature, and all the investment would be wasted. Better to keep the oily bits simple at first, then experiment later. The idea of putting a new engine, with a new means of forced induction (with the expected increase in cylinder pressure), into a new chassis cab for a new market sounds even more ridiculous, the longer I think about it.
.