newmercman:
The 8V71 is known as a 318 in the land of the free.
In summary, based on the guff I have posted on this thread:
297 to BSAu141 (Source- Commercial Motor).
306 to DIN 70020 (Source- my ailing memory).
318 to SAE J1349.
340 to SAE J245/J1995. (Deduction based on that early French demonstrator pictured above).
How can it be 318 SAE ‘Net’ when 318 was the max rating stated as of day 1 in the 1960’s.IE 318 SAE ‘gross’ .There never was a 340 8v71N at any rating. 
Although there ‘were’ some around 330 also obviously ‘gross’ marine versions but which took 2,300 rpm to make it.At which its anyone’s guess what the fuel consumption was at that speed. 
So no surprise that the 8v71T seems to have ( rightly ) been better regarded by the boating lot. 
As for the French 340 example it can only realistically be a derated version of the turbo 92 stated in more or less DIN type terms extrapolated from its US SAE Net type rating.Just like the ‘400’.
As for the Saviem maybe the V8 had its origins at the same time as most manufacturers were using the SAE gross standard.In which case,just like many other loose engine users including us,the figures relied on would have been as provided by the standards used by its manufacturer on its introduction.
Which is also why I’ve still got one of my employers’ sales brochures which couldn’t have been printed before the early-mid 1970’s but which still states Detroit 16v71 output as 635.Which trust me,like the 8v71’s 318,is/was SAE Gross not Net let alone DIN.Bearing in mind that stated figure never changed from the time of the vehicle’s introduction in 1971,nor the engine’s in the 1960’s and also bearing in mind a documented listing here of a max 318 rating for the 8v71 as of 1965.
Carryfast:
How can it be 318 SAE ‘Net’ when 318 was the max rating stated as of day 1 in the 1960’s.IE 318 SAE ‘gross’ .There never was a 340 8v71N at any rating.Although there ‘were’ some around 330 also obviously ‘gross’ marine versions but which took 2,300 rpm to make it.At which its anyone’s guess what the fuel consumption was at that speed.
As for the French 340 example it can only realistically be a derated version of the turbo 92 stated in more or less DIN type terms extrapolated from its US SAE Net type rating.Just like the ‘400’.
As for the Saviem maybe the V8 had its origins at the same time as most manufacturers were using the SAE gross standard.In which case,just like many other loose engine users including us,the figures relied on would have been as provided by the standards used by its manufacturer on its introduction.
Which is also why I’ve still got one of my employers’ sales brochures which couldn’t have been printed before the early-mid 1970’s but which still states Detroit 16v71 output as 635.Which trust me,like the 8v71’s 318,is/was SAE Gross not Net let alone DIN.Bearing in mind that stated figure never changed from the time of the vehicle’s introduction in 1971,nor the engine’s in the 1960’s.
Piffle.
[zb]
anorak:
Piffle.
We’re agreed that SAE Gross was the standard by by which the 71 series was rated in 1965 not SAE net ?.
We’re agreed that the ■■■■■■■ v Detroit comparison posted previously dates from that time and therefore couldn’t possibly be using an SAE standard which hadn’t yet been invented ?.
In which case feel free to explain as to (1) Why does it show a max rating for the 8v71 of 318 at 2,100 rpm. (2) Where is the missing 340.
The answer is there was no ‘340’ because 318 was the max possible rating ( SAE gross ) for the 8v71.
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
Piffle.We’re agreed that SAE Gross was the standard by by which the 71 series was rated in 1965 not SAE net ?.
We’re agreed that the ■■■■■■■ v Detroit comparison posted previously dates from that time and therefore couldn’t possibly be using an SAE standard which hadn’t yet been invented ?.
In which case feel free to explain as to (1) Why does it show a max rating for the 8v71 of 318 at 2,100 rpm. (2) Where is the missing 340.
The answer is there was no ‘340’ because 318 was the max possible rating ( SAE gross ) for the 8v71.
I’m not repeating myself. Read the numbers I have already posted, and compare them with similar numbers for other engines. If you want to bring something of value to the thread, find a document that states the power output and the number of the test standard to which it was measured. Simply blurting out opinions that are at odds with the known facts is not good enough, as I keep trying to explain.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
Piffle.We’re agreed that SAE Gross was the standard by by which the 71 series was rated in 1965 not SAE net ?.
We’re agreed that the ■■■■■■■ v Detroit comparison posted previously dates from that time and therefore couldn’t possibly be using an SAE standard which hadn’t yet been invented ?.
In which case feel free to explain as to (1) Why does it show a max rating for the 8v71 of 318 at 2,100 rpm. (2) Where is the missing 340.
The answer is there was no ‘340’ because 318 was the max possible rating ( SAE gross ) for the 8v71.
I’m not repeating myself. Read the numbers I have already posted, and compare them with similar numbers for other engines. If you want to bring something of value to the thread, find a document that states the power output and the number of the test standard to which it was measured. Simply blurting out opinions that are at odds with the known facts is not good enough, as I keep trying to explain.
You’ve got your ‘document’ in the form of a 1965 comparison of ■■■■■■■ v Detroit power outputs which can only possibly be stated in SAE Gross being that it pre dates the SAE Net standard.Of which the max possible SAE Gross output of the 8v71 is ( rightly ) stated as 318.
However,as I said,feel free to provide any information anywhere which rates any version of the 8v71N at 340.
Just a thought, but could those 340 cheveau been from ■■■■■■■ and not Detroit?
I just read a testimonial of the 318 DD, I’ve got some new material courtesy of the comments.
My favourite was “It couldn’t pull the hat off your head”
newmercman:
I just read a testimonial of the 318 DD, I’ve got some new material courtesy of the comments.My favourite was “It couldn’t pull the hat off your head”
Must have been an American. They can be a bit prim about rice-puddings and foreskins! Robert
Yes it was, the lorry in question had 4.44 rear axle ratios so it was likely a screamer too.
The greasy stick out of a dog’s arse phrase raises eyebrows in the bible belt too, so touchy [emoji38]
newmercman:
Just a thought, but could those 340 cheveau been from ■■■■■■■ and not Detroit?
Not unless the big V8 badge was a joke or even worse someone put a 903 in it instead of the de rated 92.
Oh yeah, forgot about the V8 badge [emoji38]
newmercman:
Yes it was, the lorry in question had 4.44 rear axle ratios so it was likely a screamer too.The greasy stick out of a dog’s arse phrase raises eyebrows in the bible belt too, so touchy [emoji38]
My current favourite, courtesy of harry Gill and explained by Lawrence Dunbar is ‘wouldn’t pull your granny off the netty!’
Wonderful mental image!
Newmercman, you’re right about American sensibilities. There were about half a dozen septics in our saudi office.
In the early seventies film ‘that’ll be the day’ with David Essex, he uses the phrase ‘well, bugger me!’ several times, so I sort of picked it up as a catch phrase.
Americans see this in its literal sense. It was certainly a silence inducing showstopper in the meeting I first casually used it in!
John
You’re lucky there wasn’t anyone from San Francisco there John, it might have been an offer too good to refuse [emoji38]
robert1952:
newmercman:
I just read a testimonial of the 318 DD, I’ve got some new material courtesy of the comments.My favourite was “It couldn’t pull the hat off your head”
Must have been an American. They can be a bit prim about rice-puddings and foreskins!
To be fair a non turbo 568 ci motor was never going to set the tarmac on fire at 30t gross +.Let alone a typical Brit poverty spec 6v71.While it might have been a bankrupt owner driver who’s reference point was a repo’d KTA or 12v71 powered Pete before having to go employed. 
newmercman:
Just a thought, but could those 340 cheveau been from ■■■■■■■ and not Detroit?
Nah, I reckon that’s the first TM in France, hence the make-no-mistake livery. If the 8v71 was around 300bhp DIN, then it would have been about 340-odd SAE, so that is what they put on the badge, so as to compete with the other French makes.
What our “learned” friend is failing to appreciate is that the tests are done at different times, in different places, on different dynamometers, with different examples of the “same” engine. It is not as if the white-coat blokes do a test to one standard, then change all the parameters- exhaust manifolds off etc. etc.- to do another test run. There are variabilities everywhere. The “net vs. gross” argument is worthless, because net and gross are just words. The current standard, ISO1585, is a “net” standard, yet the numbers are similar to old fashioned BS gross ratings, as is SAE J1349, another so-called “net” standard. The descriptions of the standards run into reams, so comparing their actual conditions is a minefield of contradiction. Considering that GM had a habit of rating the same engine at different maximum speeds, from one year to the next, the numbers are always subject to qualification. The conversion factors between the standards are notional averages.
newmercman:
Oh yeah, forgot about the V8 badge [emoji38]
Seriously I’m guessing that someone might have got their figures messed up with those DIN v SAE figures in both the case of the Saviem/MAN V8 and the 8v71.IE a bit too much in the case of the former and not quite enough in the case of the 8v71.So around 332 SAE Gross or 312 DIN depending on which standard it had actually been dyno’d to in the case of the former and 290 DIN the latter.While as I’ve said the logical explanation is that the 340 and V8 badge relate to a derated turbo 92 at around a genuine 340 DIN.
[zb]
anorak:
If the 8v71 was around 300bhp DIN, then it would have been about 340-odd SAE, so that is what they put on the badge, so as to compete with the other French makes.Considering that GM had a habit of rating the same engine at different maximum speeds, from one year to the next, the numbers are always subject to qualification. The conversion factors between the standards are notional averages.
I don’t think that the engines in question were ever literally actually dynoed to all the different standards.They were just dyno’d and rated to the chosen standard then the figures had the required margins applied to suit the different rating comparisons.The different engine speeds actually being a reflection of the different required intended max ratings in the case of Detroits.
While what is certain is that even the Pope couldn’t get an 8v71N to read 340 on any dyno to any standard.
It could be a downspeeded 92, previous attempts with the howling 71 may have scared off the French, they were after all very fond of their low revving Berliet. A slower revving 92 would bring rpms down to “normal” and 340hp to the standards of the day certainly seems plausible, but then the 71 at 318 Yankee ponies is going to push out 340 to the French standard of measurement.
Unfortunately I don’t have a date for the photo, but Saviem may be able to date it from the registration plate?
Here’s another French TM, pictured in 1981, according to the caption:
flickr.com/photos/65005481@ … otostream/
