newmercman:
It could be a downspeeded 92…
Not likely. Here is the power curve of the detuned 92TTA:
It would have to be derated to 1400rpm to give 340bhp max. Either that or a further reduction in fuel, but why bother- what’s wrong with 365bhp?
It would have to be derated to 1400rpm to give 340bhp max. Either that or a further reduction in fuel, but why bother- what’s wrong with 365bhp?
365 is spot on for the Italian regs, bloody lorries will drive you mad, look at those MW ERFs, everyday some new info turns up.
newmercman:
365 is spot on for the Italian regs, bloody lorries will drive you mad, look at those MW ERFs, everyday some new info turns up.
Somewhere on these threads, there is a report of the European debut (I assume) of that engine- at the Turin Show in 1977. Allowing for observed differences between SAE J whatever and DIN, it would just squeak above the 352bhp minimum. By the time of the 1979 show, it had been replaced by the 422bhp version, at 400 DIN. I wonder why GM did not make more of an effort to flog the 92 series Detroit in the TM. The TA (422 SAE) version was the ideal flagship, given that it was the most powerful engine in Europe, while the TTA (365 SAE) cannot have been far behind the others on fuel consumption. The latter engine is not even listed in the GB brochure. GM missed a trick with the 6 and 8 cylinder TTA engine, IMO. It could have set itself up as a bona fide competitor to ■■■■■■■■ The 8v92 weighs 1095kg dry, according to the brochure, which is about 200kg less than a ■■■■■■■ 14 litre. Why did GM just roll over and let ■■■■■■■ have its business?
The official figures provided in Detroit literature are SAE not DIN.While logically the TM’s attack on the Euro market would have needed to make sure that ze Germans etc couldn’t say ah but zose Americans are using dodgy figures to make ze Bedford look better being that ■■■■■■■ were no longer the main enemy in that environment.Hence the idea of lets knock the figures back to something that reflects Detroit SAE ratings but in terms of DIN. 
In which case the idea of using the non turbo 71 series in the UK market was bad enough but using it in the Euro one would have been like taking a knife to a gun fight.
Meanwhile the SAE figures provided for products like the Saviem/MAN V8,at a time if/when a derated 340 DIN 92 series TM was ( arguably ) running around on French roads,‘might’ have ‘possibly’ just been a panic reaction to the fact that the reality was,by the standards of the 1970’s,GM had an in house nuclear weapon ( or at least a BAR or .50 Cal machine gun v an MP40 or a Spandau 
) in the form of the 92.Which unfortunately GM/Bedford obviously didn’t have a clue how to use to greatest effect in the TM by not standardising on it by at least 1977. 
The result being the question of what if/if only Bedford had gone for a turbo 92 series only TM line up as of at least the mid 1970’s until the 60 series arrived on the scene.
Carryfast:
The official figures provided in Detroit literature are SAE not DIN.
More piffle:
- The last page has been discussing which of the SAE standards they used. The numbers are different. Do you know which one it was?
- They quote DIN in Europe, SAE gross in France and BSAu in the GB literature. The pics are on here, if you look for them.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
The official figures provided in Detroit literature are SAE not DIN.More piffle:
- The last page has been discussing which of the SAE standards they used. The numbers are different. Do you know which one it was?
- They quote DIN in Europe, SAE gross in France and BSAu in the GB literature. The pics are on here, if you look for them.
The ‘figures’ ‘quoted’ ‘in Europe’ would logically be a DIN type representation/correction of the actual dyno readings taken in the US which were ------SAE not DIN.So 340 = 365 SAE with a decent amount knocked off to keep ze Germans quiet.The relevant bit being that the turbo 92 had the reserves of output needed to meet the required spec and then some.
Which sounds like a better explanation than the idea/possibility of a 340 hp 8v71 N. 
As for which standard the 92 was actually dyno’d to,as a mid 1970’s product,by your own info,that would/should have been SAE Net.As opposed to SAE Gross for the early 1960’s 8v71. Which was obviously then just an educated guess as to where that would actually end up translated as DIN etc.The relevant bit in that case being that it was in no one’s interest,let alone being any need,to over exaggerate the 92’s output in that regard.
As for the 71 something doesn’t sound right in 318 SAE Gross,or even SAE Net for that matter,supposedly translating as 300 + DIN.While as I said even the Pope couldn’t have persuaded the 8v71 to put out 340 hp even by the standards of SAE Gross. 
Evening all,
Would anybody mind if I had a little wander around my rapidly shrinking little grey cells, in relation to the dear old TM. Surely a lorry whose potential was never truly realised, and it really was not a bad design.
Des Savage,Bedfords Marketing Director, and his team out thought Bob Lutz at Ford by offering versions of the TM range to suit most market sectors in the European “heavy” market, unlike Ford who simply offered the Transcontinental range as a top weight range product. This is born out by comparing sales figures across the markets where GM and Ford competed head on, clearly at that stage GM were in front in volume terms. Back in 1975 GM were talking to the Polish Government with a view to establishing a joint venture to produce 3.5 to 7.5 tonne vehicles for sale throughout Europe including the Eastern Bloc. TMs would be produced at Luton/Dunstable for sale in the same markets, (the idea being to cut cost of production of the volume products to undercut Ford, and the emerging Italian, and German combines.
General Motors investment in the TM range, back in the 70s was in excess of 50 million pounds. The design studio at Luton/Dunstable had created a handsome cab to fit the range, but it was totally at the insistence of the US parent that the “core” engine for the premium vehicles be the Detroit V6. Not the loose engine option from US rival ■■■■■■■■ Also the Detroit engine was accepted in mainland Europe, both as a retro fit, and also in the GMC chassis. The Americans, (bless them), simply looked at the performance figures, and decided that the figures were similar in output, and perceived economic terms to those of the “accepted” engines in the United Kingdom market…and as we know they were totally wrong! TM tractor sales in the UK, (still at that time the strongest market in Europe), only took off in 1979, when the 14 litre E290 ■■■■■■■ option was introduced, along with an axle change from SOMA to Eaton,…but then to perhaps claw back a little of the ■■■■■■■ weight penalty over the Detroit V8, Bedford substituted a Spicer box, and clutch assembly. …But it has to be said that the Bedford engineers had created, (in the case of the Fuller, and also the Spicer), perhaps the slickest, easiest, operator friendly gear linkage imaginable. To change gear in a “big” TM, was a joy…whatever the engine.
The 78 Birmingham show had seen the launch of the TM Long Haul concept tractor. Somewhat impracticable it could not couple to the average TIR spec trailer, non the less it really delivered a high quality “living” environment for the driver, and really was a radical rethink of what could be expected in terms of cab environment for the long haul. The concept won an award from the BritishCarriage and Automobile Manufacturers, and was heavily featured in mainland European commercial vehicle press…But I wonder why GM chose to show a GMC Brigadeer on the same show stand?
The Italian press featured the concept vehicle heavily…then came 8bhp per tonne…and bingo at last Bedford rang the bell!!! The Italian heavy tractor/drawbar market was unique in that the majority of operators were “small” hauliers, or owner drivers. And as such personal pride in vehicle acquisition was the overriding factor. And did not every one in the Italian market rush around “enhancing” or introducing “new” models for the market! And there was a degree of “optimism” in the HP quoted…by everyone bar none!
Along came Mercedes with that executive express V10, as did MAN, …oh and Magirus…but there admirable machine, (and it really was a good un), always sounded like a flatulent Hoover. We cranked up the hp on the last few Saviem 340 V8s, and breathed a little in the shops at Venissieux on the Berliet V8…as did our Swedish friends from Scania, (you could always tell they used to black smoke like mad…whilst disappearing up the mountains)! But the real fun was with Fiat, whose 190.35 V8 was the one to beat…but there were not enough to go around, so off went the enterprising Fiat Dealers and began to “repatriate”, Unic 190s, OM 190s, and of course the UKs 170.35s! Fiat in Acton imported more 170.35s in 78/79, than ever before…but only a few were registered…they all went back to dear old Italy!!! Red faces all round…
Bedford were in the right place at the right time in Italy, V8 yowling Detroit, superb dream like 13 speed Fuller installation, 13 tonne SOMA axle, a drivers dream…and a free little Opel car if you order today!!!1 Oh yes they sold, if I remember correctly the 44 tonne market share was 1.8% in 79, against Fiat/OM @48% A strong performance from such a limited range.
But support was poor, lack of parts, and a not very switched on support package. The lorries were quite robust, really silly things fell apart, trim, electrics, that sort of thing. But because they had been sold “deep” at the front end, residual values were low, and the TM operator ended up shopping around to find someone to take his old lorry off his hands…and by then the bogie of high fuel consumption had really hit home!
But as a blood curdling, screaming, drivers dream, those V8 Tms took some beating…just a pity they missed the mark…and even more so, that GM lost it in a big way with Bedford, and cost so many British jobs.
Italy…8bhp er tonne…exciting times, I was lucky to be there,
Cheerio for now.
Well “CF” how are you going to “top” this last post ! 
The point that I’ve been making here Saviem ( partly based on some first hand connections in the day ) was that firstly,as you’ve also referred to,the business case for the TM project was based on the use of GM’s in house engine production.Obviously in the form of the Detroit two stroke at that time.
In which case the fact is the use of ■■■■■■■ was never really going to be a viable option.‘But’ the fact is the turbo 92 was anything but a howling screamer.IE,unlike its much lesser predecessor,it was the best of all worlds in being more of a torquey lugger with improved fuel efficiency to match ( ‘if’ driven and/or rated accordingly ).But still obviously keeping the trademark soundtrack and unstressed nature of the two stroke principle.
In which case it wasn’t really an issue of if/when the use of ■■■■■■■ power but why the erratic,over limited,use of the turbo 92 v the already obsolete at the time of the TM’s introduction non turbo 71.When it was obvious that standardisation on the turbo 92 was the only realistic way of meeting both the combined requirements of engine efficiency and commercial viability of the project.
It was that mistake which arguably played the biggest part in the TM’s demise.Bearing in mind that any move to outsourcing from arch rival ■■■■■■■ was just going to bring that demise forward by defeating the original commercial object of the exercise.While also bearing in mind the level of competition from the main target competitor for the TM in the form of the Germans and/or the Scandinavians at the time.In which case there’s no way that the turbo 92 series TM could be viewed objectively as anything less than at least a Volvo and/or a Merc and MAN killer in the day.
Unfortunately Bedford’s answer to that open goal was to fit too many TM’s with the ‘wrong’ Detroit in the domestic market,not that they ‘rightly’ didn’t want to use ■■■■■■■■
Bewick:
Well “CF” how are you going to “top” this last post !
Job done albeit ironically with some agreement that they put the wrong engine in too many of them.It’s just that we probably disagree on the idea of the ‘right’ engine for the job.In this case that certainly not being ■■■■■■■■
While even more ironically it seems like Anorak is starting to understand my point in that regard.IE turbo 6v92 and/or derated TTA spec 8v92 in the UK market early enough would have ticked all the right boxes both in terms of efficiency and the commercial object of the exercise from GM’s point of view.
Carryfast:
While even more ironically it seems like Anorak is starting to understand my point in that regard.IE turbo 6v92 and/or derated TTA spec 8v92 in the UK market early enough would have ticked all the right boxes both in terms of efficiency and the commercial object of the exercise from GM’s point of view.
You’re just parroting the points I made earlier. If that is what you need to do, to make sense, carry on. In the meantime, try to find out which SAE standard Detroit used to rate their engines.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
While even more ironically it seems like Anorak is starting to understand my point in that regard.IE turbo 6v92 and/or derated TTA spec 8v92 in the UK market early enough would have ticked all the right boxes both in terms of efficiency and the commercial object of the exercise from GM’s point of view.You’re just parroting the points I made earlier. If that is what you need to do, to make sense, carry on. In the meantime, try to find out which SAE standard Detroit used to rate their engines.
As I read it I made the point pages ago that Bedford messed up big time in still using the non turbo 71 series in the TM at a point in time when they should have made the wholesale switch to turbo 92 series.IE if not from day 1 certainly by 1977.
To which your answer was that GM wouldn’t have wanted to use an ‘unproven’ design.In which case the only logical possible reasoning for that could have been that GM didn’t trust its own in house capabilities thereby choosing to let the loose engine market test it in service first. 
However the fact that it actually was put into service,during the required timeline,at least in the export markets,seems to suggest some other type of messed up thinking going on within Bedford’s management.In treating the most important domestic market as second best in terms of engine provision and spec.By not only continuing with the old obsolete 71 series,but by also adding insult to injury in bringing ■■■■■■■ into the frame,thereby wrecking GM’s business case for the whole project and thereby consigning it to inevitable collapse from that point. All of which seems a ‘bit’ more of a foul up than just ‘missing a trick’.
As for which standard Detroits were actually dyno’d to as I said the early 1960’s 71 series could obviously only have been dyno’d to SAE Gross while the 92 series was dyno’d to SAE Net going by your own provided information regards the SAE standards regime and dates regards same.While as I said loose SAE rated engine customers usually being happy to accept such ratings in their respective forms.With any corrections needed to reflect non US DIN etc type standards when/where/if required,being done on a basis of an educated guess/subtraction.In which case I think I’d rather trust the idea of a 340 DIN turbo 8v92,than 300 + DIN,let alone 340 SAE,8v71N.
While we obviously now seem to be agreed that there was obviously something wrong going on at Bedford in them not using such a de rated 8v92 for example in the domestic market instead of non turbo 8v71 or 14 litre ■■■■■■■■
Unfortunately that ‘something wrong’ arguably being a large contributor in the failure of the project.
Carryfast:
…failure of the project.
What failure?
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
…failure of the project.What failure?
I’d guess that going from £50,000,000 + investment at 1970’s terms,to GM walking away and closing the doors,all within around a 12 year timescale,from the point of the TM’s introduction,says it all in that regard.
Carryfast:
As I read it I made the point pages ago that Bedford messed up big time in still using the non turbo 71 series in the TM at a point in time when they should have made the wholesale switch to turbo 92 series.IE if not from day 1 certainly by 1977.
You did not say that.
.
Evening Gentlemen,
Just a few more memories from the depth of my Cranium, and perhaps a few facts, and answers to some previously posed questions, as we seem to be getting rather light on these vital bits of information.
Torino, 1978…The exhibited TM was a TM4400, powered by a Detroit 8V92TT “Fuel Squeezer” @380bhp, delivered 1750/1950 rpm. 1215 lb ft @1400 rpm, Eaton Fuller RTO12509 9 speed, Dana Spicer ceramic faced twin plate clutch. Sleeper cab, 1200.24 rubber. ALL of General Motors TMs to this spec were marketed with 400cv as a badge.
Bedford had been in the Italian market since 1975. Looking through some old diaries, 1976, they registered 2354 units, 1978 4997, (of which 250 units were TM versions). The "standard TM power unit prior to the `78 Torino show being the Detroit 8V71 9.3 litre 316bhp @2100 rpm, 864 lb ft @1400, driving through a Spicer SST . 10.10. 3A via a twin plate Spicer clutch assembly, (possessing an extremely good clutch brake), to a SOMA, (Dana Spicer 13 tonne axle. Taper leaf springing, and as a max weight tractor a very low unladen weight ready to roll of sub 7000 kgs .
This was also the standard specification for other European mainland countries, including France. French operators found the severe torque fall off either side of the ideal max torque rev range, and the inability of the Spicer box to compensate for this, and its consequential fuel useage rather off putting.
Newmercmans picture of the 340 badged TM, running on factory pre registration 92 plates could well be a 78 version, for as in Italy the standard specification became 8V92TT “Fuel Squeezer”, though I have to say the marketing methods, and power outputs promoted by General Motors France never seemed to have any logic to them
Where GM rang the bell in the Italian market, they really did not in France. Their main perceived rival was of course Ford, with its Transcontinental.Between 76, and 78 French Ministry of Equipment statistics show over 500 Transcontinentals registered in France, (100 in the first 6 months post launch). Bedford TMs at 220…As an aside, Mercedes Benz registered 9000 units of all weight ranges in the same period, and all UK vehicle manufacturers 2992 units…and that includes Mr Fords Transit!!!
Just a few memories of the `78 Torino Salon…
Leyland were there! Promoting the Sherpa van, and Redline models. Their head man…Dottore Aldo Marras proclaimed that in 79 they would bring in “heavies”…so why at the back of their stand they had a Marathon heaven only knows…but to give them credit, the Sherpa van became a volume seller in Italy, its narrow body proving ideal for Italian urban areas!
On “our” stand, we had an enormous mound of sand, on top of this artificial Dune was placed a Saviem SM8 4x4 8 tonner, one of the actual Crosserie des Sables expedition vehicles. (The SM8 would be the vehicle of choice for any arduous cross country adventure, the equal of, but having more refinement than Mr Bedfords superb RL).
Any of you that have had to endure working at a “show” will well realise just how tiring, (and sometimes boring), it can be. Having had a long day, ushering a “big Cheese” from Paris around the halls, I was at a somewhat low ebb…so I sat down on the sand at the non public side of the sand,…and built a sand castle…This was seen by one of our “hostesses”…who then built her own sand castle…and gradually, as each girl took her break, more, (and more elaborate), sand castles were created!
A day later we had a full blown competition on our hands…rival manufacturers stand staff were coming over and trying to out do Renault Veicoli Industriali…competition was fierce but we won…as judged by a representative of the Halls Management…great show that Torino `78!
Oh our star exhibit, (and she was ) was a TRH356 in deep gloss black, with discreet red pin stripes, and lots and lots of chrome…and “open” exhausts to let that V8 rumble…
The European TM was revamped as were the UK models in 1982, the standard engine being the Detroit 8V92TA @386 hp, or the ■■■■■■■ Big Cam 290 with either Fuller 9 or 13 speeds. In the UK the L10 became a 36 tonne rated option with a RTX11609.
1983 European TMs gained the Silver Series 8V92TA turbo aftercooled, @386 @1950 rpm with a Fuller RT14613 multimesh to handle the 1190 lb ft torque output. Then came the uprate to the 6x4 TM 60 series.
But by 86 Bedford was gone, (and if anyone would be interested I could go through the various stages of decline, and UK political meddling that caused this traedy, but for now I shall retreat to my Bollinger as the old "Arthur-ritus, is giving me some stick.
Cheerio for now.
Saviem:
Evening Gentlemen,Just a few more memories from the depth of my Cranium, and perhaps a few facts, and answers to some previously posed questions, as we seem to be getting rather light on these vital bits of information.
Torino, 1978…The exhibited TM was a TM4400, powered by a Detroit 8V92TT “Fuel Squeezer” @380bhp, delivered 1750/1950 rpm. 1215 lb ft @1400 rpm, Eaton Fuller RTO12509 9 speed, Dana Spicer ceramic faced twin plate clutch. Sleeper cab, 1200.24 rubber. ALL of General Motors TMs to this spec were marketed with 400cv as a badge.
Bedford had been in the Italian market since 1975. Looking through some old diaries, 1976, they registered 2354 units, 1978 4997, (of which 250 units were TM versions). The "standard TM power unit prior to the `78 Torino show being the Detroit 8V71 9.3 litre 316bhp @2100 rpm, 864 lb ft @1400, driving through a Spicer SST . 10.10. 3A via a twin plate Spicer clutch assembly, (possessing an extremely good clutch brake), to a SOMA, (Dana Spicer 13 tonne axle. Taper leaf springing, and as a max weight tractor a very low unladen weight ready to roll of sub 7000 kgs .
This was also the standard specification for other European mainland countries, including France. French operators found the severe torque fall off either side of the ideal max torque rev range, and the inability of the Spicer box to compensate for this, and its consequential fuel useage rather off putting.
Newmercmans picture of the 340 badged TM, running on factory pre registration 92 plates could well be a 78 version, for as in Italy the standard specification became 8V92TT “Fuel Squeezer”, though I have to say the marketing methods, and power outputs promoted by General Motors France never seemed to have any logic to them
The European TM was revamped as were the UK models in 1982, the standard engine being the Detroit 8V92TA @386 hp, or the ■■■■■■■ Big Cam 290 with either Fuller 9 or 13 speeds. In the UK the L10 became a 36 tonne rated option with a RTX11609.
1983 European TMs gained the Silver Series 8V92TA turbo aftercooled, @386 @1950 rpm with a Fuller RT14613 multimesh to handle the 1190 lb ft torque output.
Firstly that suggests that at least the late 1970’s 8v92’s in question weren’t aftercooled spec ?.Which obviously knocks a bit off the torque/power outputs.Which would obviously be yet another failing in Bedford’s speccing being that deleting the after cooler just results in a less fuel efficient engine.While the idea of a using a higher rated TT at ‘380’ at a higher engine speed,than a TTA at ‘365’,also seems a strange idea. While the ‘340’ French rating example sounds like a more accurate DIN representation of around 360 ish SAE wether TT or TTA.Although it is anyone’s guess why they would still want to run the engine up to 1,950 rpm having obviously dumped most of the boost way before that engine speed in either case.Which seems to defeat the object of such drastic derating of it.
Which then leaves the next question are we dealing with the same spec in the case of the suggested higher output ‘400’ Italian example.In which all the clues suggest possibly either a slightly derated 1,950 rpm 8V92 T or a 422 SAE TA.Not a derated TT as in the ‘340’.
Meanwhile the point is that staying with the 71 series,especially in the domestic market,for too long obviously got the TM an undeserved name for being a torque less fuel guzzler.Which certainly wasn’t the case with the turbo 92 series.However by the 1980’s that name stuck in which case the silver series was just a case of too late.
While there’s no way that GM invested all that cash just for Bedford’s management to then put one of its biggest arch rival’s competitor’s products in it as a loose engine fit in the main uk domestic market.Let alone when that ‘competitor’ was something with the specific outputs of the 14 litre ■■■■■■■ by comparison with the turbo 92.Therefore if you really want to find a reason as to why GM walked away a few years later and closed up shop that is arguably a better one than any other.
While I can just imagine those GM execs moaning all the way home after closing up.As to why those stupid limeys couldn’t just spec the thing properly with the full fat 435 hp at 2,100 rpm for if when it was ever needed and just tell the driver to short shift the thing at around 1,800 or less when it wasn’t.Although that would probably have needed a month long US indoctrination programme to explain to them that the motor wasn’t the same thing as driving a non turbo 71 series.
Saviem:
Evening Gentlemen,Just a few more memories from the depth of my Cranium, and perhaps a few facts, and answers to some previously posed questions, as we seem to be getting rather light on these vital bits of information.
Torino, 1978…The exhibited TM was a TM4400, powered by a Detroit 8V92TT “Fuel Squeezer” @380bhp, delivered 1750/1950 rpm. 1215 lb ft @1400 rpm, Eaton Fuller RTO12509 9 speed, Dana Spicer ceramic faced twin plate clutch. Sleeper cab, 1200.24 rubber. ALL of General Motors TMs to this spec were marketed with 400cv as a badge.
Bedford had been in the Italian market since 1975. Looking through some old diaries, 1976, they registered 2354 units, 1978 4997, (of which 250 units were TM versions). The "standard TM power unit prior to the `78 Torino show being the Detroit 8V71 9.3 litre 316bhp @2100 rpm, 864 lb ft @1400, driving through a Spicer SST . 10.10. 3A via a twin plate Spicer clutch assembly, (possessing an extremely good clutch brake), to a SOMA, (Dana Spicer 13 tonne axle. Taper leaf springing, and as a max weight tractor a very low unladen weight ready to roll of sub 7000 kgs .
This was also the standard specification for other European mainland countries, including France. French operators found the severe torque fall off either side of the ideal max torque rev range, and the inability of the Spicer box to compensate for this, and its consequential fuel useage rather off putting.
Newmercmans picture of the 340 badged TM, running on factory pre registration 92 plates could well be a 78 version, for as in Italy the standard specification became 8V92TT “Fuel Squeezer”, though I have to say the marketing methods, and power outputs promoted by General Motors France never seemed to have any logic to them
Where GM rang the bell in the Italian market, they really did not in France. Their main perceived rival was of course Ford, with its Transcontinental.Between
76, and78 French Ministry of Equipment statistics show over 500 Transcontinentals registered in France, (100 in the first 6 months post launch). Bedford TMs at 220…As an aside, Mercedes Benz registered 9000 units of all weight ranges in the same period, and all UK vehicle manufacturers 2992 units…and that includes Mr Fords Transit!!!Just a few memories of the `78 Torino Salon…
Leyland were there! Promoting the Sherpa van, and Redline models. Their head man…Dottore Aldo Marras proclaimed that in 79 they would bring in “heavies”…so why at the back of their stand they had a Marathon heaven only knows…but to give them credit, the Sherpa van became a volume seller in Italy, its narrow body proving ideal for Italian urban areas!
On “our” stand, we had an enormous mound of sand, on top of this artificial Dune was placed a Saviem SM8 4x4 8 tonner, one of the actual Crosserie des Sables expedition vehicles. (The SM8 would be the vehicle of choice for any arduous cross country adventure, the equal of, but having more refinement than Mr Bedfords superb RL).
Any of you that have had to endure working at a “show” will well realise just how tiring, (and sometimes boring), it can be. Having had a long day, ushering a “big Cheese” from Paris around the halls, I was at a somewhat low ebb…so I sat down on the sand at the non public side of the sand,…and built a sand castle…This was seen by one of our “hostesses”…who then built her own sand castle…and gradually, as each girl took her break, more, (and more elaborate), sand castles were created!
A day later we had a full blown competition on our hands…rival manufacturers stand staff were coming over and trying to out do Renault Veicoli Industriali…competition was fierce but we won…as judged by a representative of the Halls Management…great show that Torino `78!
Oh our star exhibit, (and she was ) was a TRH356 in deep gloss black, with discreet red pin stripes, and lots and lots of chrome…and “open” exhausts to let that V8 rumble…
The European TM was revamped as were the UK models in 1982, the standard engine being the Detroit 8V92TA @386 hp, or the ■■■■■■■ Big Cam 290 with either Fuller 9 or 13 speeds. In the UK the L10 became a 36 tonne rated option with a RTX11609.
1983 European TMs gained the Silver Series 8V92TA turbo aftercooled, @386 @1950 rpm with a Fuller RT14613 multimesh to handle the 1190 lb ft torque output. Then came the uprate to the 6x4 TM 60 series.
But by 86 Bedford was gone, (and if anyone would be interested I could go through the various stages of decline, and UK political meddling that caused this traedy, but for now I shall retreat to my Bollinger as the old "Arthur-ritus, is giving me some stick.
Cheerio for now.
Most illuminating, ‘Saviem’. What strikes me about all your posts is that they have ‘heart’ - ie a human element: I loved the story about the sandcastles! Robert
newmercman:
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?
I just had another look through that DD brochure. It seems that they did indeed do a 335hp version of the 92TTA:
The 335hp rating is not mentioned anywhere else in the document- the rest of the text focusses on the 365 and 424/435 versions. If that is the engine in the French TM, I wonder when that lorry went on the road?
The earliest 92-engined TM we have seen so far is the 365hp (DIN?) one in Tiptop’s 1977 Turin Show report. The overriding point of all of this is that Bedford’s “launch” of the 92 engine could not have been more low-key- different versions into different countries, no advertising (that I am aware of) in GB, until the 386/400hp version came along in at the 1979 Turin Show. You might have expected them to make a great song and dance about the “high torque rise” characteristic of the TTA engine, but they did not. That 1977 show exhibit preceded the European launch of the big cam E290 ■■■■■■■ by about 18 months- what an opportunity missed, for GM to stick one on its rival.