ramone:
I really dont know what this means but the last TL12s ran at 2000rpm and produced 860lbft , the Flexitorque
It means that its best shot was 69. lbft per litre.It ran out of talent at that point.
As opposed to Gardner 6 LXB’s 51 lbft per litre and the ‘last’ Eagle’s 98 lbft per litre.
The TL12 was obviously closer to the Gardner’s specific torque output than the Eagle’s. 
newmercman:
So would I be correct in assuming that most con rod failures are a result of tensile loads rather than compressive loads, at least the ones that fail at high rpm?As to the question of why are head bolts and main bearing fastenings stronger, well logic tells me that like big and little end fastenings, size matters, to create the same clamping force on a you either need more fastenings or stronger ones. Right or wrong?
What high rpm.
Good luck with thinking that the tensile strength of the main bearing cap bolts only needs to match the difference in the clamping area v the big end bearing caps.
newmercman:
So would I be correct in assuming that most con rod failures are a result of tensile loads rather than compressive loads, at least the ones that fail at high rpm?As to the question of why are head bolts and main bearing fastenings stronger, well logic tells me that like big and little end fastenings, size matters, to create the same clamping force on a larger area you either need more fastenings or stronger ones. Right or wrong?
I do not have actual data to hand, but I would say that nearly all failures of the rod itself, the big end cap and bolts are tensile (fatigue). If the rod has any other damage on it, it is the result of other things going wrong in a big way- water in the bore (result- rod bends under colossal compressive overload), bearings overheating and brazing themselves to the pins (rod gets a bending moment in it, then fails, either by bending, or cracking, or tearing the bolts out, whatever.
Dunno about the head bolts/main cap bolts being stronger than the big end ones. Who said that? 
Talking about the thread’s titular subject, what has happened to him?
Carryfast:
Great feel free to describe all the points when a con rod is under tension.
Carryfast:
Cut the bs just tell us why the head bolts and main bearing cap bolts add up to a lot more strength than the big end bearing cap bolts.
Carryfast:
It’s obvious that there were loads of caveats and qualifications attached to that statement nor is it saying that no tensile ( inertial ) load exists.
It was intended to make anyone think.
Let’s hope this period of silence is short, before we can move onto stage “5”. 
the world renowned expert on absolutely everything is on
pdf dishing out legal advice .God help them if they take it cheers Ray
Carryfast:
ramone:
I really dont know what this means but the last TL12s ran at 2000rpm and produced 860lbft , the FlexitorqueIt means that its best shot was 69. lbft per litre.It ran out of talent at that point.
As opposed to Gardner 6 LXB’s 51 lbft per litre and the ‘last’ Eagle’s 98 lbft per litre.
The TL12 was obviously closer to the Gardner’s specific torque output than the Eagle’s.
So what did the 290L push out in the early 80s?
ramone:
Carryfast:
The TL12 was obviously closer to the Gardner’s specific torque output than the Eagle’s.So what did the 290L push out in the early 80’s?
Why the 290 why not the 300 and 340 ?.You know more than 300 hp at less than 2,000 rpm and more than 900 lbft torque.Obviously with a lot more potential than that for the ‘last’ versions.
But no Edwardes decided that Leyland needed the Acclaim, 800 and the TL12 all the no hopers together to deliberately wreck the firm. 
stargazer148:
the world renowned expert on absolutely everything is on
pdf dishing out legal advice
Why post on this topic if all you want to do is whinge about someone posting on an employment conditions topic.If the OP had wanted legal advice he’s have gone to a Solicitor.So how many others who replied were legal advisors.There is no legal advice section on here it’s a truck forum.
Carryfast:
stargazer148:
the world renowned expert on absolutely everything is on
pdf dishing out legal adviceWhy post on this topic if all you want to do is whinge about someone posting on an employment conditions topic.If the OP had wanted legal advice he’s have gone to a Solicitor.So how many others who replied were legal advisors.There is no legal advice section on here it’s a truck forum.
“CF” Law LLP, Carryfast Chambers, Oil Drum Lane, Leatherhead. Specialists in ALL ( and we mean ALL) aspects of Law — no case too small or too large we will tackle anything, provided it can be googled ! Reasonable fees cash only thank you. Testimonies to our success are all over this particular site ! 
Carryfast:
ramone:
Carryfast:
The TL12 was obviously closer to the Gardner’s specific torque output than the Eagle’s.So what did the 290L push out in the early 80’s?
Why the 290 why not the 300 and 340 ?.You know more than 300 hp at less than 2,000 rpm and more than 900 lbft torque.Obviously with a lot more potential than that for the ‘last’ versions.
But no Edwardes decided that Leyland needed the Acclaim, 800 and the TL12 all the no hopers together to deliberately wreck the firm.
The Honda engineering was brought in because the car side of BL were not competent to design cars. The design office was full of promoted-up skilled tradesmen, the plan to recruit professional engineers was nowhere near a result and the senior management had spent 10 years battling populist politicians. I agree with you that they should have done rear wheel drive upmarket versions of the Honda cars, but that would have taken a bit more work than the facelifts we ended up with.
Edwardes’ brief was rationalisation. The TL12 was the only 12 litre engine made by the firm. It had no big reliability issues or warranty overhead. Why would he cull that, when there were whole factories producing outdated cars? Have you read his autobiography yet? It would probably give you plenty of food for thought.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
ramone:
Carryfast:
The TL12 was obviously closer to the Gardner’s specific torque output than the Eagle’s.So what did the 290L push out in the early 80’s?
Why the 290 why not the 300 and 340 ?.You know more than 300 hp at less than 2,000 rpm and more than 900 lbft torque.Obviously with a lot more potential than that for the ‘last’ versions.
But no Edwardes decided that Leyland needed the Acclaim, 800 and the TL12 all the no hopers together to deliberately wreck the firm.
The Honda engineering was brought in because the car side of BL were not competent to design cars. The design office was full of promoted-up skilled tradesmen, the plan to recruit professional engineers was nowhere near a result and the senior management had spent 10 years battling populist politicians. I agree with you that they should have done rear wheel drive upmarket versions of the Honda cars, but that would have taken a bit more work than the facelifts we ended up with.
Edwardes’ brief was rationalisation. The TL12 was the only 12 litre engine made by the firm. It had no big reliability issues or warranty overhead. Why would he cull that, when there were whole factories producing outdated cars? Have you read his autobiography yet? It would probably give you plenty of food for thought.
The big Triumph saloons were anything but dated they were more than a match for the BMW 5 series with the new 2.3 and 2.6 6 cylinder and the Rover V8 engines.
You really think the Acclaim and 800 were the way to go v that.
The RR was ‘made by the firm’ ultimately the two state owned assets Leyland and RR Diesels, that like the Leyland Truck and Bus divisions, was flogged off.
You do know that Edwardes did ( eventually ) ‘cull’ the TL12 unless you’re saying that the decision to end its production and implementation happened simultaneously.
No surprise in the knowledge that the RR 290/300/340 were all there in the ’ early 80’s’.The question being why not cull the TL12 ‘before’ launch of the T45 rather than after and why did the government flog off RR diesels to Vickers at that point in the late 70’s instead of taking it into Leyland Group.
To which your bs answer is that Acclaim and 800 were great cars and the RR couldn’t have survived at 1,900 rpm without throwing con rods.
newmercman:
ERF launched the CP range which was exclusively ■■■■■■■ powered
No it wasn’t. CP stood for common parts, which reflected the production methods for the entire vehicle chassis - not just the drivetrain. There were other engines still available for the end of life C Series (CP), but the purchaser was surcharged heavily if it wasn’t ■■■■■■■■
marky:
newmercman:
ERF launched the CP range which was exclusively ■■■■■■■ poweredNo it wasn’t. CP stood for common parts, which reflected the production methods for the entire vehicle chassis - not just the drivetrain. There were other engines still available for the end of life C Series (CP), but the purchaser was surcharged heavily if it wasn’t ■■■■■■■■
Copied from the REVS web page.
Late 1981 - Saw the launch of the C Series. It was a slightly revised B Series, but the main update was the SP3 cab. C40 refers to a tractor unit but there were also C32, C28 and other models but this designation badge was dropped from the cab doors in 1984 which was the year the CP range was launched. CP stands for ‘Common Parts’ not ‘■■■■■■■ Powered’ as some people think, although all CP’s were ■■■■■■■ engined. The CP’s were all tractor units and all built to a standard set of specifications depending on what the customer wanted. You could have 10 or 14 litre ■■■■■■■ engine, an Eaton Fuller 9 speed RTX11609A gearbox and Rockwell rear axles. They were all 4 x 2, 6 x 2 or 6 x 4 units with a choice of day or sleeper cabs.
newmercman:
marky:
newmercman:
ERF launched the CP range which was exclusively ■■■■■■■ poweredNo it wasn’t. CP stood for common parts, which reflected the production methods for the entire vehicle chassis - not just the drivetrain. There were other engines still available for the end of life C Series (CP), but the purchaser was surcharged heavily if it wasn’t ■■■■■■■■
Copied from the REVS web page.
Late 1981 - Saw the launch of the C Series. It was a slightly revised B Series, but the main update was the SP3 cab. C40 refers to a tractor unit but there were also C32, C28 and other models but this designation badge was dropped from the cab doors in 1984 which was the year the CP range was launched. CP stands for ‘Common Parts’ not ‘■■■■■■■ Powered’ as some people think, although all CP’s were ■■■■■■■ engined. The CP’s were all tractor units and all built to a standard set of specifications depending on what the customer wanted. You could have 10 or 14 litre ■■■■■■■ engine, an Eaton Fuller 9 speed RTX11609A gearbox and Rockwell rear axles. They were all 4 x 2, 6 x 2 or 6 x 4 units with a choice of day or sleeper cabs.
All well & good, but I had it quite literally from the horse’s mouth on the stand at the Motor Show (Peter Foden himself) that if you wanted a Rolls-Royce or a Gardner engine, you could have one. “If you really want one it’ll cost you, but you can still have one!” were his very words. ERF continued to offer Rolls-Royce and Gardner powerplants beyond the CP series as we all know, but it was the CP Series which introduced the surcharging system for anything which wasn’t a ■■■■■■■■
ERF’s ■■■■■■■ Preferred (That’s what I thought it stood for!) policy must have been watered down later, when Perkins finally got their hands on the Eagle, and made it into a stronger competitor. Until the M11 came along (1994, according to Wiki), ■■■■■■■ had quite a gap in its range, ably filled by those 375/400 Tx engines in the E series ERF.
[zb]
anorak:
ERF’s ■■■■■■■ Preferred (That’s what I thought it stood for!) policy must have been watered down later, when Perkins finally got their hands on the Eagle, and made it into a stronger competitor. Until the M11 came along (1994, according to Wiki), ■■■■■■■ had quite a gap in its range, ably filled by those 375/400 Tx engines in the E series ERF.
ERF C16 Gardner 6LYT as operated by Lowes of Paddock Wood. ERF also offered ERF C12 Gardner 6LXDT.
As you are saying gents, other engines were available in ERFs, but they weren’t CP series, just plain old C series and pretty much a special order with the associated financial penalty incurred by such models.
cav551:
[zb]
anorak:
ERF’s ■■■■■■■ Preferred (That’s what I thought it stood for!) policy must have been watered down later, when Perkins finally got their hands on the Eagle, and made it into a stronger competitor. Until the M11 came along (1994, according to Wiki), ■■■■■■■ had quite a gap in its range, ably filled by those 375/400 Tx engines in the E series ERF.ERF C16 Gardner 6LYT as operated by Lowes of Paddock Wood. ERF also offered ERF C12 Gardner 6LXDT.
Were the 16 litre Gardners he 320/350s?
ramone:
cav551:
[zb]
anorak:
ERF’s ■■■■■■■ Preferred (That’s what I thought it stood for!) policy must have been watered down later, when Perkins finally got their hands on the Eagle, and made it into a stronger competitor. Until the M11 came along (1994, according to Wiki), ■■■■■■■ had quite a gap in its range, ably filled by those 375/400 Tx engines in the E series ERF.ERF C16 Gardner 6LYT as operated by Lowes of Paddock Wood. ERF also offered ERF C12 Gardner 6LXDT.
Were the 16 litre Gardners he 320/350s?
Grille says Gardner 320. C-series also had the then new ■■■■■■■ 320 on offer.
