.
Carryfast:
As you’re all about facts and evidence let’s see your ‘evidence’ that the turbo 92 wasn’t a sufficiently reliable/proven engine on,if not soon after,introduction, of the TM.
Both lorry and engine were launched at the same time, therefore there would have been no customer feedback or reliability data on production engines. That means “unproven”. You are telling lies which you cannot substantiate, whichever “argument” you waffle around.
.
You said they had a “proven” engine. If they did, you cannot provide evidence. Stop telling lies and make a positive contribution to the subject of the thread.
.
.
newmercman:
V8, 340hp.
0
Wow. That’s an interesting shot. I will hazard a guess that that is an 8v71 TM, with the power output “converted” into SAE numbers, to compete with Saviem and Unic, both of which boasted 340 SAE chevaux. It is on French plates.
[zb]
anorak:newmercman:
V8, 340hp.
0Wow. That’s an interesting shot. I will hazard a guess that that is an 8v71 TM, with the power output “converted” into SAE numbers, to compete with Saviem and Unic, both of which boasted 340 SAE chevaux. It is on French plates.
As far as I remember it 318 hp was about as SAE gross as the 8v71 got.
So more like derated 365 hp SAE 8v92.While the ‘400’ probably equates to the next de rated 422 SAE.Listed here.SAE usually being the relevant rating when comparing Detroit outputs with ■■■■■■■ and most export markets.Trust me a sub 2,000 rpm max power rating for any Detroit is some serious de rating going on.Which was all any turbocharged 92 series TM needed being that it was the torque which mattered.In which case it seems obvious that GM were ( rightly ) going for a compromise on engine speed/power in order to manage fuel consumption.Bearing in mind that,in the real world,the fuel consumption in going for the full 435 hp SAE at 2100 rpm,wouldn’t have been worth the extra fuel use. 
I came across a comparison between ■■■■■■■ and GM/DD via Walter Miller’s webshop.
For the interested enthousiast:
ebay.nl/itm/1965-■■■■■■■■■■■ … 5665dc0a5d
A-J
ERF-Continental:
I came across a comparison between ■■■■■■■ and GM/DD via Walter Miller’s webshop.For the interested enthousiast:
ebay.nl/itm/1965-■■■■■■■■■■■ … 5665dc0a5d
A-J
Interesting stuff. Although those documents were written as training manuals for ■■■■■■■ salesmen, there are bits in there that are unarguable (discounting the possibility of outright lies), like the SFC curve comparison, which favours ■■■■■■■ decisively. You could imagine arguments like that persuading a Bedford customer, a decade or so later, asking for an E290 instead of a 6v92.
Hey, formerly HP indicating was only in a short word, DIN, SAE, and so on. Only on the hills are the real HP’s to see.
To miltiply with consumtion and reliability.
So power X consumption X reliability = is the best or ■■?.
Eric,
tiptop495:
Hey, formerly HP indicating was only in a short word, DIN, SAE, and so on. Only on the hills are the real HP’s to see.
To miltiply with consumtion and reliability.So power X consumption X reliability = is the best or ■■?.
Eric,
Firstly the actual figures used by both ■■■■■■■ and Detroit to describe their outputs were generally the same.In which case their performance in the real world will just reflect those figures.While the comparison seems like a selective,biased set of statistics to make the ■■■■■■■ look better v Detroit.The conclusion of which seems to shoot themselves in the foot by having to make the apples v oranges comparison of non turbo 71 series v turbo ■■■■■■■■■■ which case the relevant point was just how close the 8v71,in 318 spec,was to the 14 litre turbo ■■■■■■■ at least in terms of output.
While the comparison also seemed to gloss over the relevant comparison of non turbo 14 litre ■■■■■■■ v 318 8v71.Which seems to change the power side of that equation at least.While also bearing in mind,that in the low fuel cost environment of the 1960’s/early 70’s,in most markets where they competed head on,the relevant/fair comparison was 12v71 v 14 litre ■■■■■■■■ 
While for the purposes of the topic the relevant comparison would ( should have been ) turbo 6/8v92 v big cam ■■■■■■■■■■ which case had the Detroit not been able to get as close as makes no difference in terms of fuel consumption,let alone unarguable superiority in specific outputs,then there never would have been a 60 series because Detroit would obviously have sunk before 1980.
While if the alleged ‘reliability’ ‘issues’ were correct then there never would have been a 92 series either because the firm would have sunk before 1970.
Make no mistake the Detroit v ■■■■■■■ fight was one of the most interesting matches in automotive history and ■■■■■■■ never got any better than a draw if that.
Regarding the power outputs quoted by Detroit, ■■■■■■■ et al, I have spotted an entirely plausible article in Wikipedia:
“Society of Automotive Engineers/SAE International
SAE gross power
Prior to the 1972 model year, American automakers rated and advertised their engines in brake horsepower (bhp), frequently referred to as SAE gross horsepower, because it was measured in accord with the protocols defined in SAE standards J245 and J1995. As with other brake horsepower test protocols, SAE gross hp was measured using a stock test engine, generally running with few belt-driven accessories and sometimes fitted with long tube test headers in lieu of the OEM exhaust manifolds. The atmospheric correction standards for barometric pressure, humidity and temperature for testing were relatively idealistic.
SAE net power
In the United States, the term bhp fell into disuse in 1971–72, as automakers began to quote power in terms of SAE net horsepower in accord with SAE standard J1349. Like SAE gross and other brake horsepower protocols, SAE Net hp is measured at the engine’s crankshaft, and so does not account for transmission losses. However, the SAE net power testing protocol calls for standard production-type belt-driven accessories, air cleaner, emission controls, exhaust system, and other power-consuming accessories. This produces ratings in closer alignment with the power produced by the engine as it is actually configured and sold…”
I reckon the ■■■■■■■ and Detroit ratings are to the latter standard, or something like it, while Saviem and Unic use the other, more generous, one. Neither standard is equivalent to the net installed standards- BSAu141 and DIN- so both SAE standards are still regarded as “gross” by Europeans. For example, the 8v71 was 306hp to BSAu141 and 318hp to (I guess) SAE J1349. That level of “exaggeration” is similar to the E290 having 273hp to BSAu141. On the other hand, the MAN V8 was 304hp DIN, but 340hp to SAE gross, as quoted on Saviem spec sheets.
From memory I think that the usual SAE figures for both small cam ■■■■■■■ and Detroit 71 series are all unrevised and stated as of the ‘gross’ standards of their day which would be pre 1970.While if I remember it right I’ve seen some Net type figures which rate the ‘318’ 8v71 at around 290 ?.Which suggests more or less 30 hp difference between bet case Euro standard v worst case SAE gross.
With the difference in the case of SAE v Euro obviously being less in the case of SAE Net.Which would be the relevant standard in the case of factory stated 92 series figures.In which case 340-400 seems about right in the case of derated Euro spec 8v92 TM’s.Bearing in mind an SAE net of around 365-420 something regards same by US standards in the day.
Carryfast:
From memory …
There’s your problem.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
From memory …There’s your problem.
Feel free to post a higher quoted output than 318 for the 8v71 bearing in mind the 71 v series was around long before the 1970’s.
The 8V71 is known as a 318 in the land of the free.
The clue was actually contained in the ‘original’ ‘1965’ sales literature comparison referred to above.IE 270-318 at 2,100 rpm depending on injector type and a further de rated version governed at 1950.Obviously quoted by the standards applying in 1965 not the 1970’s. 
In which case the idea that anyone who wanted one could have a more or less genuine 400 hp Bedford 
in the late 1970’s stands.Assuming that is 340 wasn’t enough. 