Carryfast:
I provided the evidence in the figures.Do you really think that the TL12 could have gone onto match the specific output of the Eagle without compromising its head sealing and end bearing life.
The fact that they chose to ditch it within 10 years of its introduction while the Eagle went on to be a 400 hp power house is good enough evidence.
Did you read what you posted there?..Are you actually trying to make yourself look silly?
Blah
Here we go again , the TL12 was an excellent engine that was very reliable in service unlike the early RR . Leyland had no money read the book. The engine was developed and built at Southall , , no money to develop it further but from 1973 up until it was phased out it pushed out 273bhp virtually identical to the E290 . Again no money to develop it . TL12 engine production moved to Leyland where they improved it slightly with more torque but that was it. The tooling needed replacing Leyland didn’t have the money to replace it , they were skint . According to Gingerfold Leyland produced a 320 bhp version but for reasons already mentioned they decided to end production purely for fnancial reasons , unfortunately we wont get anymore information on this due to your total disrespect for Grahams years of research and his decision to ditch this thread , well done CF
On the taking RR into the fold idea you had , where was the money going to come from to develop their engines when Leyland were skint ?
That sums it up as well as anyone would want, I think.
ramone:
Here we go again , the TL12 was an excellent engine that was very reliable in service unlike the early RR . Leyland had no money read the book. The engine was developed and built at Southall , , no money to develop it further but from 1973 up until it was phased out it pushed out 273bhp virtually identical to the E290 . Again no money to develop it . TL12 engine production moved to Leyland where they improved it slightly with more torque but that was it. The tooling needed replacing Leyland didn’t have the money to replace it , they were skint . According to Gingerfold Leyland produced a 320 bhp version but for reasons already mentioned they decided to end production purely for fnancial reasons , unfortunately we wont get anymore information on this due to your total disrespect for Grahams years of research and his decision to ditch this thread , well done CF
On the taking RR into the fold idea you had , where was the money going to come from to develop their engines when Leyland were skint ?
The last sentence is absolutely spot on, it also warrants the question about sales figures for the Rolls T45 versus the ■■■■■■■ T45 ?
Regarding the TL12 and the recorded condition of the tooling brings to mind a vaguely similar initial situation with the Packard Merlin. Packard are on record as saying that they could not produce the Merlin to the drawings provided by Rolls Royce since the tolerances were not compatible with mass production (actually too wide). As engines have developed so have tolerance become tighter. One possibility for abandonment may have been that the experimental department’s machine tooling, which obviously would have been in much better condition for its hand built engines, but that production tooling was too worn to achieve the necessary standard required. At that point the cost of replacing production machinery could not be justified.
It is worth noting that Gardner’s uprating of the LX to LXB to LXC to LXCT involved far more than just increasing the fueling and the revolutions
[zb]
anorak:
Fine so long as I can also put the figures for Anglia, Cortina and Triumph Herald.
1968 car sales totals, by type. Yes please.
[/quote]
Come on- if you can find three of the numbers, the others will be in the same place.
[/quote]
I posted it all a few pages back.Try to keep up. bestsellingcarsblog.com/1972/01 … -position/
1100/1300 regains top position yeah right if you take out every other rwd choice except the Cortina on its own.Just the Corsair with the Cortina was enough.
Cortina 137,636
Anglia 13,951
Herald/Vitesse 29,926
A combined total of 181,513.
Might as well add the 31,014 for the Corsair to that figure.
Best ignore the Rootes Arrows we don’t want the fwd fan boys going into melt down.
dazcapri:
The only problem with that is the new 2.3/2.6 didn’t fit the 2.0/2.5 body shell (too long apparently) that’s why Triumph were going to replace it with the Puma. All this was planned before 1971 when Stokes chose the SD1 hatchback in preference to the Triumph design.
Really who told you that.The new 2.3 and 2.6 engines were both tested in the 2.5 saloon before the SD1 went into production.I’d post the photos of the Triumph 2.5 saloon development car in question fitted with it but it would bust copy write unfortunately.
Sounds like more bs to add to the Rover V8 wouldn’t fit either.
BS no balls up yes that should have said didn’t EASILY fit the 20/2.5 bodyshell my bad.
According to this link ateupwithmotor.com/model-histor … 500-mk2/2/
Rover-Triumph considered fitting the new engine possibly accompanied by a facelift and a few prototypes were built but
" the new engine was rapidly diverging from its roots and neither redesigning it to make it fit the 2000’s engine bay nor redesigning the sedans front end to accomodate a longer engine was an attractive option"
Carryfast:
I don’t get the idea of the A110 not being special.
The law don’t generally use no hopers as traffic patrol/squad cars.
So using your own standard that must make the SD1 a good car the law used loads of them. The met police stockpiled them when they found out they were phasing them out
The law never had the choice of a 3.9 V8 Triumph for us to ever know which way that choice would have gone.
Which leaves the question why wouldn’t the law have preferred the 800 to the SD1 if Edwardes was right that the fwd Rover badged Honda was the way to go ?.
Stockpiling SD1’s says more about a vote of confidence in the 800 replacement than the Triumph.
There are also numerous other examples which suggest that the law preferred 3 box rwd saloons when they could get them.
My memory is plenty of 2.5 PI’s and Rover V8 P6’s still in use after the SD1 was introduced.
While Hampshire and Thames Valley had gone over to the BMW E3 in 2.5 or 3.0 litre form before that.
A few others bought the Jag XJ or Granada.
While as we all know the 3.0 Opel Senator reigned supreme later on.
My guess is that a V8 Triumph would have done the same job for Leyland as the Senator did for Opel and the Triumph 2.5/Rover P6/Farina 6110 had done previously in police sales.
newmercman:
Carryfast, do you argue with your own shadow?
Spen King said this, Webster said that, blah, blah, blah. Remind me again who their boss was, you know, the man at the top, the big cheese, the head honcho, chairman of the board, the CEO, the man that was supposed to make use of the abundance of talent and resources at his disposal and create a market leader in every segment.
Again I’ll give you a clue, it was the same man that allowed internal fighting and squabbling to the detriment of both parties in the case of the Stag and SD1, Rover engines, Triumph suspension respectively and both would have benefited immensely. The same man that didn’t recognize brand loyalty and let Austin and Morris, AEC and Leyland fight it out while backing what he considered to be the winning horse. The same man that failed to recognize the golden egg that was the Range Rover, the one that is to this day one of the top ten desirable brands in the automotive world. The same man that oversaw the bad decisions that led to an unhappy workforce which led to the unions gaining strength. The same man that allowed those unions to take control of the whole empire, that man.
And that’s a small example to keep this post from crashing the servers.
Spen King ( he’s lying ) tells Stokes that there won’t be enough supplies of the V8 for both Triumph and Rover.
What is Stokes supposed to do at that point.Overrule him.Oh wait what if King is telling the truth how does he know for sure.
The Range Rover was actually designed and introduced on Stokes’ watch how does that supposedly translate as Stokes saw no business case for it.
There was rightly no brand loyalty for Austin Morris from the time that Issigonis’ heaps were allowed to displace the rwd Farina ranges.Stokes had nothing to do with that.It happened under BMH not Leyland Group.
As opposed to Lyons tying Issigonis’ fwd millstone around Jaguar’s kneck.Possibly because he saw cars like the bleedin Westminster as being ‘internal competition’ to a 3.8 S type and an XJ6 FFS.When it’s a joint bank account.
Meanwhile Ford sell more Cortinas and Corsairs let alone Escorts combined than BMC’s fwd crap while the fwd fan boys say lets ignore the Corsair and ■■■■■■ it didn’t happen because that would obviously have been ‘internal competition’ athat’s nd Ford would never have allowed that.
Unions trying to maintain the wages of the workers without who you’ve got no production at all.Trying to stop the type of race to the bottom which we’ve seen destroy the road transport industry.Those unions and that Stokes.
Why would Spen King lie, he was by then the Chief Engineer at Triumph so if Triumph fail his jobs at risk. Triumph and Rover (and later Jaguar) had merged into the same group and they weren’t that stable financially so if Triumph failed it could possibly take Rover with it. After serving his apprenticeship at Rolls Royce King started at Rover (he retired from BL in 1985) why would he risk a company that he worked so long for
.
It’s ON RECORD that Triumph engineers said the Rover V8 wouldn’t fit. You even said Harry Webster( THE ONLY ENGINEER AT TRIUMPH WORTH LISTENING TO AS YOU DESCRIBE HIM) said it would be a difficult fit.
Why would KIng doubt a Man of Webster’s experience ,King is on record as saying “They told me it Wouldn’t fit and I believed them” Are you now saying Webster was an Idiot and not to be trusted.
King said afterwards there MAY have been supply issues that’s MAY have been and not like you said because they fitted them to the MG it wasn’t released until 1973. They did fit them to the Morgan but that was hardly A common car.
The Stag was in development from 1963-4 and launched a year later than planned in 1970 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_S … Michelotti.
Rover only joined Leyland in 1967 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rover_Company
and the Rover V8 engine was only launched in 1967 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rover_V8_engine
so the Stag was already well developed by the time the Rover engine would become available and fitting the Rover as WEBSTER said was difficult.
For a start the Rover was half the weight of the Triumph engine which would mean redesigning the front suspension of the Stag and any changes this late in development would have pushed the launch even further back.
Changing the engine on the Stag wasn’t a simple as getting old Ted from the garage down the road to drop an engine in, as a new Car it would need type approval,testing,Road tests, crash tests etc.
Here’s an interesting article in Club Triumph club.triumph.org.uk/menu/6982/item/316749/view
It says that US Market research meant a V8 was a must and that after all the time and money spent developing the V8 TRIUMPH were NOT willing to throw it away.
It also deals with the lack of supply saying that “by the time Rover could meet production demands for it’s own cars the and those at Land Rover and (eventually) MG the Stag was well and truly in production” so Spen KIng told Stokes the truth.
Carryfast:
Let’s get this right the Eagle Mk111 and TL12 both introduced in 1973.
10 years later the Eagle is putting out 300 hp + nearer to 350 actually.10 years after that it’s still there putting out 400 hp.
Remind me again what happened to the TL12 in 1983.How much was it putting out.
So what did Edwardes and the government do.
Here we go again , the TL12 was an excellent engine that was very reliable in service unlike the early RR . Leyland had no money read the book. The engine was developed and built at Southall , , no money to develop it further but from 1973 up until it was phased out it pushed out 273bhp virtually identical to the E290 . Again no money to develop it . TL12 engine production moved to Leyland where they improved it slightly with more torque but that was it. The tooling needed replacing Leyland didn’t have the money to replace it , they were skint . According to Gingerfold Leyland produced a 320 bhp version but for reasons already mentioned they decided to end production purely for fnancial reasons , unfortunately we wont get anymore information on this due to your total disrespect for Grahams years of research and his decision to ditch this thread , well done CF
On the taking RR into the fold idea you had , where was the money going to come from to develop their engines when Leyland were skint ?
Leyland weren’t skint because the 350m ploughed into the T45 says so.
All that cash and they lumbered it with the TL12 no hoper.
The Eagle was already putting out a true 290 before the launch of the Roadtrain.So what did the government do.They let Vickers take it.
Leyland never at any point ‘produced’ a 320 Version of the TL12.
At best someone saw that figure for an instant on a Dyno then said quick shut it down it won’t hold it without something letting go and/or it was obtained at silly rpm not with more torque.
Matching the Eagle with the TL12 was never going to happen even with an unlimited budget because the maths, relating to stress loadings involved v the Eagle, say so.
You just ain’t going to find all that extra specific torque required with that leverage deficit.
Carryfast:
You do know that the Westminster wasn’t the same car in 1954 that it was in 1968 or would have been in 1973 …
The 3 litre Landcrab replaced it in 1968. Just take a step back, and imagine who, in his right mind, would want one of those instead of an SD1.
Which makes the case for not updating the Farina with Triumph IRS instead with the 7 bearing C series and Rover V8 option to replace the P5 and letting Rover have the Triumph estate with the same 2.3,2.6 and V8 options as SD1 how.I thought the firm was broke.So why not use what’s already there to greater effect.
So what loyal P5 or Triumph 2.5 saloon or estate customer was going to want an SD1.As opposed to ran off to the nearest BMW or Merc or Ford dealers for a proper 3 box saloon or an estate.
I have to agree with you here the launch of the SD1 didn’t take into account brand loyalty to the Triumph (which actually outsold the P6) so STOKES deciding to scrap the 2000/2500 range in favour of the SD1 was crazy really.
Apart from the link I’ve already provided which quotes Stokes in 1973 saying Rover and Triumph would no longer compete in the large saloon class here’s another interesting link entitled Triumph 2000 Class acts so they’re obviously fans ateupwithmotor.com/model-histor … 500-mk2/2/
it says in 1971 the Puma replacement for the 2.0/2.5 range lost an internal design competition to the hatchback SD1.
EVEN if the Puma ad Been chosen it’s unlikely it would have been sold as a Triumph because the board at that point (1971 so WHO was in charge then carryfast) had REAFFIRMED there previous conclusion that Triumph should focus on (and I QUOTE) SPORTS CARS AND SMALLER SEDANS"
so that is even more proof that it was STOKES who phased out your beloved Triumph
Wow. That prototype is absolutely gorgeous. I thought the Citroen CX was beautiful, but it is a rough diamond compared to the concept on which it is clearly based. BMC should have got there first, although the Princess was not a bad looker, at least compared to the scaled-down yank-tanks being churned out by Ford and Vauxhall.
Don’t forget the Volvo 850, that was a popular choice amongst Police Forces. Also there was a Buy British policy prior to the Volvos, so that dictated which cars were available to them.
I agree that RR should have been the in-house engine supplier, but only in the fantasy world, in reality as explained to you countless times, BL was skint, yes the two companies were owned by the NEB, but in which crazy world does it seem a sensible plan to sell a skint company to another skint company when you own both? You sell one, or both, to the highest bidder and stop the debt piling up, this is what any business would do.
The reason BL and RR were skint was basically the same, they were starved of operating capital by other divisions within the company, we all know the reasons why this happened and for the purposes of this thread, I’ll concentrate on BL, the man that kept on robbing Peter to pay Paul instead of telling Paul to FO was Donald Stokes, the man that had the right idea was Michael Edwardes.
Carryfast:
You do know that the Westminster wasn’t the same car in 1954 that it was in 1968 or would have been in 1973 …
The 3 litre Landcrab replaced it in 1968. Just take a step back, and imagine who, in his right mind, would want one of those instead of an SD1.
Which makes the case for not updating the Farina with Triumph IRS instead with the 7 bearing C series and Rover V8 option to replace the P5 and letting Rover have the Triumph estate with the same 2.3,2.6 and V8 options as SD1 how.I thought the firm was broke.So why not use what’s already there to greater effect.
So what loyal P5 or Triumph 2.5 saloon or estate customer was going to want an SD1.As opposed to ran off to the nearest BMW or Merc or Ford dealers for a proper 3 box saloon or an estate.
I’m going to guess the position of the full stops and capital letters. You’ve now decided to bin the 3 litre Landcrab, and reinstate its predecessor, the 1954-68 Westminster, with a great choice of engines: C series 3 litre lorry engine (Stirling Moss said it) and Rover 3.5 litre V8. This will “replace” the P5B, which was a more modern car than the Westminster. In addition, the Triumph 2000 shell would soldier on, with the choice of a different 2.6 litre straight six and the V8. I can imagine mid 1970s 5 series customers salivating over the choice- 1954 Austin, or 1963 Triumph. This is even worse than keeping the Landcrab on in place of the SD1. I challenge you to think of something even sillier. No, let me- I want a go! They should have binned the lot of it, except the boot off the Westminster, which they could easily have grafted on to the back of the FX4 Taxi, along with the suspension off the Triumph Herald. Engine choice- 2.6 Rover, 3 litre C series or Rover V8 (Sorry, I can’t think of anything dafter than that). What badge would go on the front? What else- Triumph, of course.
dazcapri:
The only problem with that is the new 2.3/2.6 didn’t fit the 2.0/2.5 body shell (too long apparently) that’s why Triumph were going to replace it with the Puma. All this was planned before 1971 when Stokes chose the SD1 hatchback in preference to the Triumph design.
Really who told you that.The new 2.3 and 2.6 engines were both tested in the 2.5 saloon before the SD1 went into production.I’d post the photos of the Triumph 2.5 saloon development car in question fitted with it but it would bust copy write unfortunately.
Sounds like more bs to add to the Rover V8 wouldn’t fit either.
BS no balls up yes that should have said didn’t EASILY fit the 20/2.5 bodyshell my bad.
According to this link ateupwithmotor.com/model-histor … 500-mk2/2/
Rover-Triumph considered fitting the new engine possibly accompanied by a facelift and a few prototypes were built but
" the new engine was rapidly diverging from its roots and neither redesigning it to make it fit the 2000’s engine bay nor redesigning the sedans front end to accomodate a longer engine was an attractive option"
You need to seperate the proposed token facelift Mk 3 nose job, from the idea that meant the new 2.3/2.6 wouldn’t fit in the existing Mk2 engine bay.The latter being myth.
It fitted in the Mk2 just as easily as the Rover V8 did because that’s what it was originally designed for not the SD1.
In addition to strange orders from above to needlessly castrate the output of the new engine.Which by all accounts had more than 150 hp potential in it.
There has obviously been an ongoing rewriting of history and a lot of misinformation in that regard which adds weight to the suggestion of sabotage to the advantage of the foreign competition not ■■■■ up.
Stokes didn’t ever say take out Triumph in the form of the Acclaim.Webster never said the Rover V8 ‘won’t fit’ in the Stag/2.5 saloon.The 2.3 and 2.6 engines were designed to go into the Mk 2. The Mk 3 was just a styling exercise nose job.
It’s equally clear that the SD1 was never going to meet the demands of loyal Triumph and Rover P6 customers.
They/we wanted a 3 box replacement or just development.With Triumph also having the advantage over the Germans of a factory estate option to go with the Rover V8.Most Triumph fans didn’t even knew that the SD1 was a go myself included.We thought that the Rover V8 going into the Triumph would soon be just a no brainer formality.
The new 6 cylinder engines meant for the Mk2 were actually more rumour.Than the idea that Leyland would be stupid enough ‘not’ to put the Rover V8 in the 2.5 saloon let alone the Stag before it.Then we learn’t why.The government always intended to take out Triumph then obviously Rover.
Making the wrong call on the big Triumphs, the Acclaim, SD1, 800 and lumbering the T45 with the TL12, instead of bringing RR on board, can only be explained by orders from much higher in the chain of command than Stokes and mostly after he’d stepped down anyway, with all too predictable results.
Wow. That prototype is absolutely gorgeous. I thought the Citroen CX was beautiful, but it is a rough diamond compared to the concept on which it is clearly based. BMC should have got there first, although the Princess was not a bad looker, at least compared to the scaled-down yank-tanks being churned out by Ford and Vauxhall.
Could make you weep really. I think there may have been two sides as well. On the one hand through continually poor management the BMC side lacked funds. On the other side the British buying public were quite staid as demonstrated when other futuristic (on the face of it) cars were first available. Another proportion of buyers seemed in love with the American style uglies as well.
Carryfast:
…
It’s equally clear that the SD1 was never going to meet the demands of loyal Triumph and Rover P6 customers…
This is contrary to all popular opinion. Knocking British Leyland is meat and potatoes to any motor industry bore, but you have achieved the impossible- everything you say is immeasurably crapper than what BL actually did. Nice new Rover? Nah- we’ll give them the choice of a facelifted 1963 Triumph or a 1954 Austin. Michael Edwardes’ brief was rationalisation, IE cutting duplication of similar products. Not only have you gone in diametrically the opposite direction to that, you have turned the wheel of progress 180 degrees, replacing a new product with a choice of those of previous decades. This radical approach to the automotive business can have only one name- IRRATIONALISATION.
essexpete:
Wow. That prototype is absolutely gorgeous. I thought the Citroen CX was beautiful, but it is a rough diamond compared to the concept on which it is clearly based. BMC should have got there first, although the Princess was not a bad looker, at least compared to the scaled-down yank-tanks being churned out by Ford and Vauxhall.
Could make you weep really. I think there may have been two sides as well. On the one hand through continually poor management the BMC side lacked funds. On the other side the British buying public were quite staid as demonstrated when other futuristic (on the face of it) cars were first available. Another proportion of buyers seemed in love with the American style uglies as well.
Some weird ideas of beauty there.
Like the Citroen that thing looks like it’s run under a truck at the front then hit by another one from behind.Might as well finish the job of the ugliest car contest and also make a convertible of it.
The Austin Wedges were as bad.
There’s no accounting for taste.There’s nothing ugly about a Cresta PB or a '64 Ford Galaxie or 59-61Chevy Impala or a Merc 300 SEL.
dazcapri:
The only problem with that is the new 2.3/2.6 didn’t fit the 2.0/2.5 body shell (too long apparently) that’s why Triumph were going to replace it with the Puma. All this was planned before 1971 when Stokes chose the SD1 hatchback in preference to the Triumph design.
Really who told you that.The new 2.3 and 2.6 engines were both tested in the 2.5 saloon before the SD1 went into production.I’d post the photos of the Triumph 2.5 saloon development car in question fitted with it but it would bust copy write unfortunately.
Sounds like more bs to add to the Rover V8 wouldn’t fit either.
BS no balls up yes that should have said didn’t EASILY fit the 20/2.5 bodyshell my bad.
According to this link ateupwithmotor.com/model-histor … 500-mk2/2/
Rover-Triumph considered fitting the new engine possibly accompanied by a facelift and a few prototypes were built but
" the new engine was rapidly diverging from its roots and neither redesigning it to make it fit the 2000’s engine bay nor redesigning the sedans front end to accomodate a longer engine was an attractive option"
You need to seperate the proposed token facelift Mk 3 nose job, from the idea that meant the new 2.3/2.6 wouldn’t fit in the existing Mk2 engine bay.The latter being myth.
It fitted in the Mk2 just as easily as the Rover V8 did because that’s what it was originally designed for not the SD1.
In addition to strange orders from above to needlessly castrate the output of the new engine.Which by all accounts had more than 150 hp potential in it.
There has obviously been an ongoing rewriting of history and a lot of misinformation in that regard which adds weight to the suggestion of sabotage to the advantage of the foreign competition not ■■■■ up.
Stokes didn’t ever say take out Triumph in the form of the Acclaim.Webster never said the Rover V8 ‘won’t fit’ in the Stag/2.5 saloon.The 2.3 and 2.6 engines were designed to go into the Mk 2. The Mk 3 was just a styling exercise nose job.
It’s equally clear that the SD1 was never going to meet the demands of loyal Triumph and Rover P6 customers.
They/we wanted a 3 box replacement or just development.With Triumph also having the advantage over the Germans of a factory estate option to go with the Rover V8.Most Triumph fans didn’t even knew that the SD1 was a go myself included.We thought that the Rover V8 going into the Triumph would soon be just a no brainer formality.
The new 6 cylinder engines meant for the Mk2 were actually more rumour.Than the idea that Leyland would be stupid enough ‘not’ to put the Rover V8 in the 2.5 saloon let alone the Stag before it.Then we learn’t why.The government always intended to take out Triumph then obviously Rover.
Making the wrong call on the big Triumphs, the Acclaim, SD1, 800 and lumbering the T45 with the TL12, instead of bringing RR on board, can only be explained by orders from much higher in the chain of command than Stokes and mostly after he’d stepped down anyway, with all too predictable results.
No the new engine WAS NOT designed for the the 2000 it was designed for the Puma which had been on the drawing board from 1967.
The 2000/2500 range was always going to be replaced.
Read the FACTS the Puma had it been chosen instead of the SD1 would have been badged as a Rover.
If making a wrong call on the big Triumph was the cause of the failure of BL then that’s down to Stokes it happened on his watch.
I never said Webster mentioned anything about fitting the Rover V8 in the saloon I quoted you by saying it would be a difficult fit in the Stag.
If it was a difficult fit in the Stag then surely it would be a difficult fit in the saloon.
Webster wanted the new Triumph engines to be fitted throughout the new range of cars which would have meant you would have got your V8 saloon but it would have been a Puma with a Triumph V8 engine.
This was all before Rover joined the group and stokes and the management decided to scrap big Triumphs
Carryfast:
Let’s get this right the Eagle Mk111 and TL12 both introduced in 1973.
10 years later the Eagle is putting out 300 hp + nearer to 350 actually.10 years after that it’s still there putting out 400 hp.
Remind me again what happened to the TL12 in 1983.How much was it putting out.
So what did Edwardes and the government do.
Here we go again , the TL12 was an excellent engine that was very reliable in service unlike the early RR . Leyland had no money read the book. The engine was developed and built at Southall , , no money to develop it further but from 1973 up until it was phased out it pushed out 273bhp virtually identical to the E290 . Again no money to develop it . TL12 engine production moved to Leyland where they improved it slightly with more torque but that was it. The tooling needed replacing Leyland didn’t have the money to replace it , they were skint . According to Gingerfold Leyland produced a 320 bhp version but for reasons already mentioned they decided to end production purely for fnancial reasons , unfortunately we wont get anymore information on this due to your total disrespect for Grahams years of research and his decision to ditch this thread , well done CF
On the taking RR into the fold idea you had , where was the money going to come from to develop their engines when Leyland were skint ?
Leyland weren’t skint because the 350m ploughed into the T45 says so.
All that cash and they lumbered it with the TL12 no hoper.
The Eagle was already putting out a true 290 before the launch of the Roadtrain.So what did the government do.They let Vickers take it.
Leyland never at any point ‘produced’ a 320 Version of the TL12.
At best someone saw that figure for an instant on a Dyno then said quick shut it down it won’t hold it without something letting go and/or it was obtained at silly rpm not with more torque.
Matching the Eagle with the TL12 was never going to happen even with an unlimited budget because the maths, relating to stress loadings involved v the Eagle, say so.
You just ain’t going to find all that extra specific torque required with that leverage deficit.
How do you know ? Were you up at Leyland ? The £350 million was spread over 7 years of development . The money Leyland were making went back into the big loss making JRT and BMC groups both losing millions through continuous unofficial strike action and lost production . You keep refering to TL12s as junk but you have no figures for claims against BL for this so that is an utter BS statement . If it was junk it would have the same tag as the Stag engine which was junk . You are not an engine designer or an engineer or a fully trained mechanic so what qualifications have you got to come out with the BS statements you keep repeating. The government wanted BL and RR off their payroll , why on earth would they put them together when the losses were adding up . Leyland could have used any of the 3 main engine suppliers and did without the risk of development costs and industrial action. The government wanted rid of both and thats what they did no hidden agenda or ridiculous conspiracy theory apart from saving tax payers money. When you can come up with some sensible proof of the TL12 being junk i for one would like to hear it.
You really haven’t got a clue how transport or for that matter basic business works
[zb]
anorak:
This is contrary to all popular opinion. Knocking British Leyland is meat and potatoes to any motor industry bore, but you have achieved the impossible- everything you say is immeasurably crapper than what BL actually did. Nice new Rover? Nah- we’ll give them the choice of a facelifted 1963 Triumph or a 1954 Austin. Michael Edwardes’ brief was rationalisation, IE cutting duplication of similar products. Not only have you gone in diametrically the opposite direction to that, you have turned the wheel of progress 180 degrees, replacing a new product with a choice of those of previous decades. This radical approach to the automotive business can have only one name- IRRATIONALISATION.
Great so you got your Acclaim, SD1, 800 and the TL12 went into the T45.
Remind me exactly what happened next.
