The Carryfast engine design discussion

[carryfast]

ramone:
You keep refering to TL12s as junk but you have no figures

Which part of you ultimately need 43% more specific torque from 7% less leverage and 5% more piston area didn’t you understand.
How many other 12 litre + engines were only putting out less than 70 lbft per litre and 22 hp per litre in 1983.Don’t even think of using the stupidly derated ■■■■■■■ 290.
How did you intend to pull 38t with that output.
No awaits they supposedly never foresaw 38t in 1973.Nor did RR.
Yes I know the government wanted rid of our automotive industry.So you think the tax payer is better off now without it and all the rest of our industry which was sacrificed to the advantage of the foreign competion to meet a geopolitical aim.

[carryfast]

dazcapri:
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.

You’re confusing concept with product.
The Puma never even got close to production it was just pie in the sky no more than that.

The 2.3 and 2.6 engines did go into production and they were fitted in the 2.5 Mk2 Innsbruck body you didn’t even know that it fitted until I told you.It’s obvious at that point what the intention was and it wasn’t let’s just go with the SD1.
As for the internal competition bs, the fact that Ford was happy to produce the Corsair with the Cortina is the smoking gun that the whole internal competition red herring was part of the sabotage plan.
It’s all products of the same Group a Triumph sale was as good as a Rover sale.I don’t believe that Stokes would have been that stupid and the fact that the 2.5 was still in production when he left the job proves it.

[carryfast]

newmercman:
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.

The Volvo 850 was all about fwd compromise to save cash.
Like we’ve got 185 hp Merc diesel ambulances 0-50 mph in 35 seconds ( about the same as our 38 tonner fire trucks did ).Good luck with that.
Given the funding priorities most forces replaced the Opel Senator with BMW.

As for RR how do you equate just using your own tools to save your own firm’s in house production business plan with selling them to yourself.There was no sale needed nor any cash to change hands they already owned the thing.
So they flogged off the engine which could have saved the firm instead of keeping it.

Good call.At least if you really want to trash the firm.

[zb_anorak]

Carryfast:

[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.

Do you really think that rehashing 20 year old car designs was a superior strategy? That sounds like a mistake, even by your standards.

[essexpete]

Carryfast:

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.

That’s the thing with design I guess. When it it comes to absolute function there may be the right/best way but with esthetics often a matter of opinion. The BMC products sometimes were appalling in the latter but sometimes tried to step outside the box. Which ever way you look at it the job was hindered by lack of development finance at the time of Leyland merger and beyond.
I note CF you mention Corsair running alongside the Cortina in a comparison to Triumph and Rover. The latter bares no comparison, there were two separate design teams coming from two separate historic companies.

[zb_anorak]

essexpete:
…
I note CF you mention Corsair running alongside the Cortina in a comparison to Triumph and Rover. The latter bares no comparison, there were two separate design teams coming from two separate historic companies.

Ford having two competing cars in the same size category seems like a daft idea but, given the amount of shared engineering, is not: they were testing the European market, to see how much sophistication it would stand. Their answer was- not a lot, so the Corsair died its death and the simpler Cortina carried on. Seems the Americans do cheap-and-simple better than the Europeans, while the Europeans, including BL, have historically done the more sophisticated products.

[dazcapri]

Carryfast:

[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.

You weren’t forced to have the TL12 according to this link at launch the T45 was also offered with the Rolls Royce Eagle engine as an option

aronline.co.uk/facts-and-fi … turns-35./

[cav551]

Carryfast:
[
By then news had got around that a gear box can’t be lubricated by engine oil

Absolute complete bollox.

Fuller Roadranger RT 609/10
Fuller Roadranger RT 9509
Spicer SST 8010
Spicer SST 1010
Volvo 16 speed F. FL early FH
SCG epicyclic

all listed engine oil, either SAE 30,40 or 50 as recommended lubricants. I’ve still got some SAE 40 for the Volvo box ofthe 1980/90s SR 1600 or something like that ■■?

[dazcapri]

Carryfast:

dazcapri:
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.

You’re confusing concept with product.
The Puma never even got close to production it was just pie in the sky no more than that.

The 2.3 and 2.6 engines did go into production and they were fitted in the 2.5 Mk2 Innsbruck body you didn’t even know that it fitted until I told you.It’s obvious at that point what the intention was and it wasn’t let’s just go with the SD1.
As for the internal competition bs, the fact that Ford was happy to produce the Corsair with the Cortina is the smoking gun that the whole internal competition red herring was part of the sabotage plan.
It’s all products of the same Group a Triumph sale was as good as a Rover sale.I don’t believe that Stokes would have been that stupid and the fact that the 2.5 was still in production when he left the job proves it.

The Triumph saloon fitted with a Rover V8 was pie in the sky. It never went into production but you keep saying it would have saved BL.
In 1971 the Puma was at exactly the same point as the SD1 was a clay model and prototype design, they were pitched against each other for the competition to see which would become the new LARGE Rover saloon to REPLACE BOTH the P6 AND TRIUMPH 2000/2500 range. Here’s a link with PICTURES showing the models at that meeting
aronline.co.uk/cars/rover/s … ent-story/
It was at this 1971 meeting that STOKES and others chose the Hatchback Rover as the new model.
I never said it didn’t fit(apart from the balls up I’ve admitted to and since corrected) I PROVIDED a link which said either the engine or the car would have to redesigned for it to fit this link
ateupwithmotor.com/model-histor … 500-mk2/2/
The same limk also states that in 1971 the management, including STOKES, decided Triumph would only build sports cars and SMALLER SEDANS backing up what stokes said in his 1973 interview about Triumph and Rover not competing with each other.
You can now PROVIDE some evidence (like I have) to prove that Stokes didn’t intend to scrap the Triumph or I’m calling everything else you write .
about the V8 engined Triumph saloon BS.
Stokes is the man who mentions internal competition (Rover 2000 versus Triumph 2000) a sale for Triumph wasn’t a sale for Rover it was a sale Rover lost to Triumph. The garage I worked at was an Austin Morris (later BL then Rover) dealer if you wanted an Allegro or a Marina you came to us,if you wanted a Dolomite you went to a Dealer 6 miles away.
The Corsair (I’ve owned 2) was basically a stretched Cortina floorpan it used many of the same internal panels, strut top mounts were interchangeable as was the front windscreen and it was sold in the same dealership as the Cortina.
The Triumph and P6 were entirely different with no common parts and sold in seperate dealerships. The SD1,which was commissioned by STOKES and even you can’t deny that was supposed to replace both cars. Stokes and the management thought, wrongly as we now know, that the SD1 would sell to both sets of customers and sell in equal numbers as both cars together.
Listen to the radio programme in the link below when asked by the host why BL failed one of the participants, who started on the shop floor and worked up to management level, says WE HAD TOO MANY PRODUCTS TO SUPPORT. That’s why firstly Stokes and Latterly Edwardes started a rationalisation programme.
bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000lz6n

You have agreed that the P6 was replaced by the SD1 that was also in production until 1977 after Stokes had left what was the difference between the two

I know you don’t believe Stokes let the Triumph saloon go that’s why I’ve provide the links as proof but we all know you’ll never let the truth stand in the way of your opinion.
I’ll patiently wait for your proof otherwise

[cav551]

Carryfast:

ramone:
You keep refering to TL12s as junk but you have no figures

How many other 12 litre + engines were only putting out less than 70 lbft per litre and 22 hp per litre in 1983.Don’t even think of using the stupidly derated ■■■■■■■ 290…

So no -one is allowed to point out that the ■■■■■■■ E290 was not ‘a stupidly derated engine’ and we are supposed to ignore the fact that the Super E 320 was introduced as a NEW uprate which actually had a net installed rating of 304 bhp.

archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … super-ease

And while we are at it, when you habitually like to sing ■■■■■■■ praises, you seem to be keeping remarkably quiet about the bore size of the ■■■■■■■ 14 litre engine and its proportion to another dimension.

Would that be that it doesn’t fit in with the Leatherhead theorem. ISTR that the 14 litre ■■■■■■■ was a remarkably successful engine capable of significant output with careful tuning mods.

Rolls Royce/Perkins ultimately went successfully down a virtually diametrically opposed route which proves that there is more than one way to kill a cat.

[carryfast]

essexpete:

Carryfast:
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.

That’s the thing with design I guess. When it it comes to absolute function there may be the right/best way but with esthetics often a matter of opinion. The BMC products sometimes were appalling in the latter but sometimes tried to step outside the box. Which ever way you look at it the job was hindered by lack of development finance at the time of Leyland merger and beyond.
I note CF you mention Corsair running alongside the Cortina in a comparison to Triumph and Rover. The latter bares no comparison, there were two separate design teams coming from two seperate historic companies.

If it was just aesthetics and the Austin Wedge or Citroen CX was the way to go the classic car ads would be littered with cheap ‘ugly’ 1961 Chevy Impalas and 500 Galaxies and Mk3 Zodiacs etc.Yep there will always be exceptions proving rules like Edward V111 fancying Mrs. Simpson.Maybe an eyesight issue.

Why was Rover and Triumph any different to Corsair and Cortina.Both inter competing products but the sales cash all going into the same Company bank account.They weren’t seperate competing ‘companies’ only the products were competing it didn’t matter which the customer chose at the the end of the day.A Triumph sale was a good as a Rover sale as cash in the bank.
But taking away the customer’s choice of either or is more likely to mean that the customer will just say stuff it and go somewhere else.Rightly so as many ( too many ) loyal Triumph and P6 customers did.Both being more likely to prefer an upgraded 2.5 Triumph saloon/estate than SD1 let alone fwd Acclaim and 800.
Something stinks about what happened to Leyland, among others, with laughable excuses and downright lies being used to cover the tracks.Leyland effectively told its own customer base to do one among other commercially suicidal decisions.
That had nothing to do with Stokes or the workforce.It was a political move which was obviously all about driving customers into the arms of the foreign competition.

Also notice how the post 1973 environment effectively, although obviously gradually, removed the choice of importing non European made products and components here in that regard.
You want German no problem you want American or even Australian Holden oh wait.That obviously wouldn’t get Europe’s post war debts paid back either if it had been allowed.
classicsworld.co.uk/news/americ … in-the-uk/

[dazcapri]

Carryfast:

essexpete:

Carryfast:
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.

That’s the thing with design I guess. When it it comes to absolute function there may be the right/best way but with esthetics often a matter of opinion. The BMC products sometimes were appalling in the latter but sometimes tried to step outside the box. Which ever way you look at it the job was hindered by lack of development finance at the time of Leyland merger and beyond.
I note CF you mention Corsair running alongside the Cortina in a comparison to Triumph and Rover. The latter bares no comparison, there were two separate design teams coming from two seperate historic companies.

If it was just aesthetics and the Austin Wedge or Citroen CX was the way to go the classic car ads would be littered with cheap ‘ugly’ 1961 Chevy Impalas and 500 Galaxies and Mk3 Zodiacs etc.Yep there will always be exceptions proving rules like Edward V111 fancying Mrs. Simpson.Maybe an eyesight issue.

Why was Rover and Triumph any different to Corsair and Cortina.Both inter competing products but the sales cash all going into the same Company bank account.They weren’t seperate competing ‘companies’ only the products were competing it didn’t matter which the customer chose at the the end of the day.A Triumph sale was a good as a Rover sale as cash in the bank.
But taking away the customer’s choice of either or is more likely to mean that the customer will just say stuff it and go somewhere else.Rightly so as many ( too many ) loyal Triumph and P6 customers did.Both being more likely to prefer an upgraded 2.5 Triumph saloon/estate than SD1 let alone fwd Acclaim and 800.
Something stinks about what happened to Leyland, among others, with laughable excuses and downright lies being used to cover the tracks.Leyland effectively told its own customer base to do one among other commercially suicidal decisions.
That had nothing to do with Stokes or the workforce.It was a political move which was obviously all about driving customers into the arms of the foreign competition.

Also notice how the post 1973 environment effectively, although obviously gradually, removed the choice of importing non European made products and components here in that regard.
You want German no problem you want American or even Australian Holden oh wait.That obviously wouldn’t get Europe’s post war debts paid back either if it had been allowed.
classicsworld.co.uk/news/americ … in-the-uk/

Can you explain EXACTLY what Stokes did when he was in charge of Leyland because if your to be believed all the decisions, at least the ones that don’t fit your theories, were made by someone else.

Can you also explain why the government would drive customers into that Arms of the foreign competition when it was the same government that invested millions of pounds to save the company from ruin.

Rover was made by Rover
Triumph was made by Triumph
Corsair and Cortina by Ford
The Cortina was meant to be for the average Family man and the Corsair was meant to be an executive saloon, so one was aimed at the family market and one the executive market but they overlapped too much so Ford did the sensible thing and scrapped the lower selling Corsair.
The two Leyland models were both competing in the executive/sports market so Stokes did the least sensible thing and scrapped the best selling Triumph

Leyland were short of cash and couldn’t afford to make both cars so started a programme of rationalisation thinking that one model would sell twice as many units. Both the P6 and Triumph were well past there sell by date and both companies had plans to replace them.
Triumph with the Puma and Rover with the P10 which would become the SD1.
There were prototypes made of an estate and saloon SD1 why these weren’t produced is a mystery, they could even have carried A Triumph badge keeping both sets of customers happy

Building and designing a new model and the production lines to go with them is massively expensive which is why today many car manufacturers share the costs by using the same basic platform. Toyota/Citroën/Peugeot with the Aygo etc are just one example

[carryfast]

cav551:

Carryfast:
[
By then news had got around that a gear box can’t be lubricated by engine oil

Absolute complete bollox.

Fuller Roadranger RT 609/10
Fuller Roadranger RT 9509
Spicer SST 8010
Spicer SST 1010
Volvo 16 speed F. FL early FH
SCG epicyclic

all listed engine oil, either SAE 30,40 or 50 as recommended lubricants. I’ve still got some SAE 40 for the Volvo box ofthe 1980/90s SR 1600 or something like that ■■?

EP additives have nothing to do with viscosity grades.
Note TRANSMISSION FLUID v Engine fluid.Not the same things.
chevronlubricants.com/en_us/ … hange.html

Good luck with using engine oil in a gearbox.

Although you seem to have missed the point that the BMC’s ‘shared’ their engine oil with the gearbox.You’ll know from magnetic drain plugs that gearboxes produce a lot more metal particles in their wear process than engines do.So use the SAME oil for the gearbox as the engine good luck with metal particles pumped all through the engine bearings and oil pump.Blimey any self respecting car nut knew all this stuff in the day long before we got our driving licences.

[carryfast]

dazcapri:

Carryfast:
Why was Rover and Triumph any different to Corsair and Cortina.Both inter competing products but the sales cash all going into the same Company bank account.They weren’t seperate competing ‘companies’ only the products were competing it didn’t matter which the customer chose at the the end of the day.A Triumph sale was a good as a Rover sale as cash in the bank.
But taking away the customer’s choice of either or is more likely to mean that the customer will just say stuff it and go somewhere else.Rightly so as many ( too many ) loyal Triumph and P6 customers did.Both being more likely to prefer an upgraded 2.5 Triumph saloon/estate than SD1 let alone fwd Acclaim and 800.
Something stinks about what happened to Leyland, among others, with laughable excuses and downright lies being used to cover the tracks.Leyland effectively told its own customer base to do one among other commercially suicidal decisions.
That had nothing to do with Stokes or the workforce.It was a political move which was obviously all about driving customers into the arms of the foreign competition.

Also notice how the post 1973 environment effectively, although obviously gradually, removed the choice of importing non European made products and components here in that regard.
You want German no problem you want American or even Australian Holden oh wait.That obviously wouldn’t get Europe’s post war debts paid back either if it had been allowed.
classicsworld.co.uk/news/americ … in-the-uk/

Can you explain EXACTLY what Stokes did when he was in charge of Leyland because if your to be believed all the decisions, at least the ones that don’t fit your theories, were made by someone else.

Can you also explain why the government would drive customers into that Arms of the foreign competition when it was the same government that invested millions of pounds to save the company from ruin.

Rover was made by Rover
Triumph was made by Triumph
Corsair and Cortina by Ford
The Cortina was meant to be for the average Family man and the Corsair was meant to be an executive saloon, so one was aimed at the family market and one the executive market but they overlapped too much so Ford did the sensible thing and scrapped the lower selling Corsair.
The two Leyland models were both competing in the executive/sports market so Stokes did the least sensible thing and scrapped the best selling Triumph

Leyland were short of cash and couldn’t afford to make both cars so started a programme of rationalisation thinking that one model would sell twice as many units. Both the P6 and Triumph were well past there sell by date and both companies had plans to replace them.
Triumph with the Puma and Rover with the P10 which would become the SD1.
There were prototypes made of an estate and saloon SD1 why these weren’t produced is a mystery, they could even have carried A Triumph badge keeping both sets of customers happy

Building and designing a new model and the production lines to go with them is massively expensive which is why today many car manufacturers share the costs by using the same basic platform. Toyota/Citroën/Peugeot with the Aygo etc are just one example

Rover was made by Leyland Group.
Triumph was made by Leyland Group.
So the customer has the choice of different products with the win win that Leyland Group get the sales revenues either way which ever choice the customer makes.
Just like Ford in the case of Corsair v Cortina.
Why are you applying double standards to Leyland.
Corsair an executive saloon leave it out.What was the big difference between Cortina 1600 E v 1700 Corsair.
If the Corsair was the Executive sector product what was the Mk4 Zephyr and Zodiac all about.

Stokes didn’t scrap any Rover or Triumph executive product at all because both the P6 and the Triumph 2.5 were still both in production when he left the job of CEO.

As I said lies and misinformation all concocted after Stokes was unable to defend himself or the products.

Stokes at no time said SD1 instead of Triumph if he even said as well as.

No one said the Rover V8 wouldn’t fit in the Stag and thereby also the 2.5 saloon.While Stokes said fit it.Spen King raised ( spurious ) supply issues.

The 2.3 and 2.6 6 cylinder engines also fitted in the Innsbruck shell and were tested in it not the Puma which never reached prototype stage let alone went into production.

It’s obvious that the NEB had the final say in what Leyland did at the point when the SD1 was actually given the go for production under Stokes’ replacement around two years AFTER 1975.

As I said no one I knew in the Triumph enthusiast world could believe that the SD1 was going into production.Even moreso that there wasn’t going to be a V8 Rover option in the 2.5 saloon at that point.

Leyland was broke lots of expense to put a new model into production.
Taking a superior existing product out of production and replacing it with the Acclaim fixes that how.

Remind me again when did the last Triumph 2.5 saloon roll off the line and when did the Acclaim start production and what happened to Triumph next.

Bearing in mind that Stokes had stepped down in '75 and we know exactly ‘who’ made the deal with Honda for both the Acclaim and the SD1 replacement 800.

BMW ( and Honda ? ) go laughing all the way to the bank.

[ramone]

Carryfast:

ramone:
You keep refering to TL12s as junk but you have no figures

Which part of you ultimately need 43% more specific torque from 7% less leverage and 5% more piston area didn’t you understand.
How many other 12 litre + engines were only putting out less than 70 lbft per litre and 22 hp per litre in 1983.Don’t even think of using the stupidly derated ■■■■■■■ 290.
How did you intend to pull 38t with that output.
No awaits they supposedly never foresaw 38t in 1973.Nor did RR.
Yes I know the government wanted rid of our automotive industry.So you think the tax payer is better off now without it and all the rest of our industry which was sacrificed to the advantage of the foreign competion to meet a geopolitical aim.

So really your answer should have been that you don’t know what you are talking about.
How do you know what plans AEC would have liked to put in place for redeveloping the TL12 , maybe they wanted to increase the size to 13.5 litres liked when the developed the 12.47 from the 11.3. It is all BS statements you come out with , now it wasn’t long ago you were championing the E290 but on the road it was virtually identucal to the TL12 only it had to be driven carefully to match the TL12s mpg figures, The E290 was a very good engine as was the TL12 . For the umpteenth time AEC didn’t have money to improve an already excellent 273 bhp motor

[carryfast]

dazcapri:
You weren’t forced to have the TL12 according to this link at launch the T45 was also offered with the Rolls Royce Eagle engine as an option

aronline.co.uk/facts-and-fi … turns-35./

That’s up there with the Rover V8 and Triumph 2.3/2.6 engines wouldn’t fit in the Stag/Innsbruck shell and AEC stopped producing trucks before 1977.The Michael Edwardes defence team in action again.

archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … too-little

‘‘Roadtrain customers were faced with the choice of TL12 or not’’.

''■■■■■■■ and RR would appear LATER ‘’.

[carryfast]

ramone:

Carryfast:
Which part of you ultimately need 43% more specific torque from 7% less leverage and 5% more piston area didn’t you understand.
How many other 12 litre + engines were only putting out less than 70 lbft per litre and 22 hp per litre in 1983.Don’t even think of using the stupidly derated ■■■■■■■ 290.
How did you intend to pull 38t with that output.
No awaits they supposedly never foresaw 38t in 1973.Nor did RR.
Yes I know the government wanted rid of our automotive industry.So you think the tax payer is better off now without it and all the rest of our industry which was sacrificed to the advantage of the foreign competion to meet a geopolitical aim.

So really your answer should have been that you don’t know what you are talking about.
How do you know what plans AEC would have liked to put in place for redeveloping the TL12 , maybe they wanted to increase the size to 13.5 litres liked when the developed the 12.47 from the 11.3. It is all BS statements you come out with , now it wasn’t long ago you were championing the E290 but on the road it was virtually identucal to the TL12 only it had to be driven carefully to match the TL12s mpg figures, The E290 was a very good engine as was the TL12 . For the umpteenth time AEC didn’t have money to improve an already excellent 273 bhp motor

You wanted figures you got them.They obviously mean nothing to you.

They couldn’t have ‘improved’ it even if they’d wanted to without the thing blowing head gaskets and eating it’s ends prematurely and regularly.As history proves.
They obviously had the cash to buy in loose engines so being given the Eagle free was a no brainer.The state owned both firms so what’s the problem.
Or for that matter increasing the stroke not the bleedin bore of the TL12.
To which your solution is we can’t afford to do an even larger bore short stroke piece of junk so let’s use the short stroke piece of junk we’ve got.

The ■■■■■■■ E290 was a counter productive derated 14 litre sledgehammer to crack a nut at its stupid, anything but ‘290’, low output.Which is why it was so difficult to get good mpg figures from it.The E320 was a game changer especially at 38t gross.

At which point we’ve also got the ‘340’ Eagle but Leyland obviously wanted to keep that rationed to limited export sales because they obviously didn’t want to damage DAF’s UK market takeover plans too much.
Just like Bedford in the case of the 92 series powered TM before that.

[zb_anorak]

Carryfast:

ramone:
You keep refering to TL12s as junk but you have no figures

Which part of you ultimately need 43% more specific torque from 7% less leverage and 5% more piston area didn’t you understand.

The Volvo TD120 had a stroke of 150mm, versus the TL12’s 142mm. Not a great difference. The TD120 had a 920lbft peak torque figure, which is a greater advantage. The difference can only be due to higher turbocharger pressure. In other words, the Volvo engine had higher combustion loads, despite a smaller bore. That is the difference, little to do with the bore/stroke ratio- the Volvo was simply more advanced, in terms of torque per litre. It was also more advanced than Scania’s DS14, in the same regard. The moral of the tale is that bore/stroke ratio was not a driving variable in the 1970s.

Of course, 50 years later, combustion pressures are much higher, and rated speeds are lower. Engines are a different shape, as a result. Only an idiot would denigrate the work of the engineers half a century ago, based on half a century of change. That’s my last sensible word on this thread. Subsequent posts will be silly.

[wheel_nut]

Is all this wind and ■■■■ really to do with Geoffrey getting a knock back. Maybe she didn’t want to talk about bearings and was only interested in thrust.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wheel_nut]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk