[zb]
anorak:
Do you want a longer handle?0
Typical Council Walla’s brush i.e. Brand new and unused 
But I’m sure CF will convince us that it has had 3 new heads and two new shafts during the time he used it around Leatherhead 
Bit like his mate Trig off Only Fools ! Cheers Bewick. PS all this technical Blx is way above my pay grade---- I only ran them !
Bewick:
[zb]
anorak:
Do you want a longer handle?0
Typical Council Walla’s brush i.e. Brand new and unused
Aye Dennis, The same as me plus lots of other hauliers, 
, Who had lots of differant views and oppinions of motors, And ran what they wanted to make money , Everyone had a choice, In my case it was To begin with a Foden 150 Gardner 12 speed box and this got me going and made me a very good living I must say, Plus Im still here , Take care my friend and stay safe, Regards Larry.
Bewick:
Typical Council Walla’s brush i.e. Brand new and unused
Only ran em but for some reason seemed to prefer the 8 LXB to the TL12. 
Lawrence Dunbar:
Aye Dennis, The same as me plus lots of other hauliers,
Ironically I’ve actually said the choice between TL12 v 8LXB was a no brainer.
I think he’s looking for allies now , but don’t forget how much he hates Gardners , because he couldn’t drive one
Carryfast:
Bewick:
Typical Council Walla’s brush i.e. Brand new and unusedOnly ran em but for some reason seemed to prefer the 8 LXB to the TL12.
I think you will find Lawrence was a big fan of AECs and Dennis openly admitted he couldn’t afford one when he started which was probably a good thing for him in the long run
ramone:
I think you will find Lawrence was a big fan of AECs and Dennis openly admitted he couldn’t afford one when he started which was probably a good thing for him in the long run
I’m sure Bewick wasn’t running at 32t let alone 38t gross trucks when ‘he started’.
AEC’s bus derived motors could obviously handle the 4/6/8 wheeler weights of the day with fuel prices at around a bob or two for a gallon.AEC made great rigids just as even the V8 might have done if it had been derated to 6 wheelers max.
Not much use though when the emphasis rightly shifted to peak power at less than 2,000 rpm to get the fuel returns and then as close to 10hp and 30 + lbft per tonne at 32-38t gross as makes not much difference.
For that you need a lugger in either case and that means maximising the leverage advantage.
Carryfast:
ramone:
I think you will find Lawrence was a big fan of AECs and Dennis openly admitted he couldn’t afford one when he started which was probably a good thing for him in the long runI’m sure Bewick wasn’t running at 32t let alone 38t gross trucks when ‘he started’.
AEC’s bus derived motors could obviously handle the 4/6/8 wheeler weights of the day with fuel prices at around a bob or two for a gallon.AEC made great rigids just as even the V8 might have done if it had been derated to 6 wheelers max.
Not much use though when the emphasis rightly shifted to peak power at less than 2,000 rpm to get the fuel returns and then as close to 10hp and 30 + lbft per tonne at 32-38t gross as makes not much difference.
For that you need a lugger in either case and that means maximising the leverage advantage.
No it doesn’t. It means anything. In the context of 1960s and '70s engine technology, increasing the bore is just as valid a method. Increasing the turbocharger boost and/or adding a charge cooler are the other methods. Don’t quote 21st century engine specifications in your favour. If you do, you are a brush attachment.
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
I get it. On this occasion, du hast rechts: the yard is the piston, the brush is the rod and you’re the crank.Blimey you can’t even get the sweeper upper analogy right.That’s even better than 2 x BMEP = peak cylinder pressure.
I never said that, at all. You’re resorting to lies now.
[zb]
anorak:
No it doesn’t. It means anything. In the context of 1960s and '70s engine technology, increasing the bore is just as valid a method. Increasing the turbocharger boost and/or adding a charge cooler are the other methods. Don’t quote 21st century engine specifications in your favour. If you do, you are a brush attachment.
The Rolls Eagle and Mack Maxidyne and CAT 3406 and 3408 and Volvo TD120 and Rolls Eagle and 12.7 litre Detroit 60 series, and even the ■■■■■■■ ISX obviously wasn’t ‘designed’ in the 21st century.
Yeah right you increase the boost to compensate for your net leverage deficit v piston area and you add 7% load to your end bearings for the equivalent torque output.
Here’s a clue that’s not 2% and 7% of 2 x BMEP.
More like it’s enough to hammer your ends and stretch your head fastenings.
You do know that we are talking about equivalents.
Where did anyone say that the Eagle, TD120 and the Maxidyne won’t also have enough boost and aftercooling.
The difference is your leverage deficit is always going to keep you on the back foot regarding more head fastener and end bearing loads for the equivalent output.
To the point where in the case of the TL12 v Eagle or TD120 your head gasket will probably blow before your end bearings wear out prematurely.
Enjoy your AEC badged broom.
Carryfast:
ramone:
I think you will find Lawrence was a big fan of AECs and Dennis openly admitted he couldn’t afford one when he started which was probably a good thing for him in the long runI’m sure Bewick wasn’t running at 32t let alone 38t gross trucks when ‘he started’.
AEC’s bus derived motors could obviously handle the 4/6/8 wheeler weights of the day with fuel prices at around a bob or two for a gallon.AEC made great rigids just as even the V8 might have done if it had been derated to 6 wheelers max.
Not much use though when the emphasis rightly shifted to peak power at less than 2,000 rpm to get the fuel returns and then as close to 10hp and 30 + lbft per tonne at 32-38t gross as makes not much difference.
For that you need a lugger in either case and that means maximising the leverage advantage.
There we go again leverage a massive 8mm dream in your head . 1 wheel brace at 1.3m to tighten a wheel nut then a wheel brace at 1.308m will make a massive difference to the tyre man , i think not. You can times your theory by as many as you like 1 piston 1 8mm longer stroke no difference 6 x 0 = 0 .
AEC bus engines in lorries , didnt leyland use the 680 in buses , Volvo use the 9.6 in buses , they are usually derived engines. The AV760 became the horizontal underfloor AH760 in the Reliance the only thing i didn’t get was it was downrated
.
[quote=“Carryfast”
Does 137 x 169 ring any bells.
So 2.1 % reduction in piston area for a 5.8% increase in leverage.How does that translate into anorak’s supposed increase in cylinder pressures for the equivalent specific torque output.As opposed to the exact opposite.
What class action over what ?. 
[/quote]
It does and it also rings bells North Amercian operators would rather not hear. There seem to be several claims against both ■■■■■■■ for the ISX 15 and Paccar for the MX13. ■■■■■■■ had to recall half a million ISX engines for a separate issue.
Paccar , ■■■■■■■■ Peterbilt and Kenworth are named as defendants to actions claiming that in UK terminology: ‘they continued to market and promote a product of unmerchantable quality in the full knowledge that it was defective and predisposed to constant failure even after repeated warranty repairs’. The substance of the claims being variously that the exhaust emission system was defective which apart from disabling vehicles resulted in severe engine damage. In the case of Paccar repairs to the emissions system consisted of parts replacement to the same design which failed again. It seems that the dealers when asked specifically if there were issues with the engines claimed that there were none.
The current production engines from both manufacturers are substantially different from those mentioned in that the ISX now no longer has an injector camshaft and the MX in now an overhead cam rather than a pushrod design.
Carryfast:
Bewick:
Typical Council Walla’s brush i.e. Brand new and unusedOnly ran em but for some reason seemed to prefer the 8 LXB to the TL12.
As per normal CF you immediately seize upon the wrong end of the ■■■■■■■ stick ! I was talking in general terms if that is the right word and I was only pointing out that I only operated HGV’s and didn’t spend my time crawling up the ■■■■■■■ exhaust pipes to check if the tolerances etc were OK .
I never singled out the two engines you have decided that I ran for comparison either ! But of the two you quote I never ever considered the Leyland/AEC engine but during my time as an operator I had probably around 20 8LXB’s & 8LXC’s through the fleet and I reckon I made the right call by a country mile ! So don’t give up your day job my Son sweeping the streets of Leatherhead !
cav551:
[quote=“Carryfast”Does 137 x 169 ring any bells.
So 2.1 % reduction in piston area for a 5.8% increase in leverage.How does that translate into anorak’s supposed increase in cylinder pressures for the equivalent specific torque output.As opposed to the exact opposite.
What class action over what ?.
It does and it also rings bells North Amercian operators would rather not hear. There seem to be several claims against both ■■■■■■■ for the ISX 15 and Paccar for the MX13. ■■■■■■■ had to recall half a million ISX engines.
Paccar , ■■■■■■■■ Peterbilt and Kenworth are named as defendants to actions claiming that in UK terminology: ‘they continued to market and promote a product of unmerchantable quality in the full knowledge that it was defective and predisposed to constant failure even after repeated warranty repairs’. The substance of the claims being variously that the exhaust emission system was defective which apart from disabling vehicles resulted in severe engine damage. In the case of Paccar repairs to the emissions system consisted of parts replacement to the same design which failed again. It seems that the dealers when asked specifically if there were issues with the engines claimed that there were none.
The current production engines from both manufacturers are substantially different from those mentioned in that the ISX now no longer has an injector camshaft and the MX in now an overhead cam rather than a pushrod design.
[/quote]
Daf have had problems with the emissions , every Daf unit we have has the emissions warning lights on , they go in to the dealer come out and the light is soon back on been like that for ages. Maybe a sensor fault but they haven’t cured it. Maybe the dowsing unit is 8mm too short !!!
Bewick:
Carryfast:
Bewick:
Typical Council Walla’s brush i.e. Brand new and unusedOnly ran em but for some reason seemed to prefer the 8 LXB to the TL12.
As per normal CF you immediately seize upon the wrong end of the [zb] stick ! I was talking in general terms if that is the right word and I was only pointing out that I only operated HGV’s and didn’t spend my time crawling up the [zb] exhaust pipes to check if the tolerances etc were OK .
I never singled out the two engines you have decided that I ran for comparison either ! But of the two you quote I never ever considered the Leyland/AEC engine but during my time as an operator I had probably around 20 8LXB’s & 8LXC’s through the fleet and I reckon I made the right call by a country mile ! So don’t give up your day job my Son sweeping the streets of Leatherhead !
With his extended brush … 8mm matters
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
I get it. On this occasion, du hast rechts: the yard is the piston, the brush is the rod and you’re the crank.Blimey you can’t even get the sweeper upper analogy right.That’s even better than 2 x BMEP = peak cylinder pressure.
I never said that, at all. You’re resorting to lies now.
Tell us more about what you meant by 2 x BMEP.Trying to pretend that you just wanted to see if I could multiply by two won’t cut it.I was deffo referring to cylinder pressures and piston/rod assembly loads.
You thought that BMEP was relevant in that.When it actually means the square root of zb all regarding anything other than specific peak torque measured at the flywheel.
While it’s obvious that you don’t know a crank from a piston if you think that the yard equates to the piston and the sweeper upper is the crank.
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
No it doesn’t. It means anything. In the context of 1960s and '70s engine technology, increasing the bore is just as valid a method. Increasing the turbocharger boost and/or adding a charge cooler are the other methods. Don’t quote 21st century engine specifications in your favour. If you do, you are a brush attachment.The Rolls Eagle and Mack Maxidyne and CAT 3406 and 3408 and Volvo TD120 and Rolls Eagle and 12.7 litre Detroit 60 series, and even the ■■■■■■■ ISX obviously wasn’t ‘designed’ in the 21st century.
Yeah right you increase the boost to compensate for your net leverage deficit v piston area and you add 7% load to your end bearings for the equivalent torque output.
Here’s a clue that’s not 2% and 7% of 2 x BMEP.
More like it’s enough to hammer your ends and stretch your head fastenings.
You do know that we are talking about equivalents.
Where did anyone say that the Eagle, TD120 and the Maxidyne won’t also have enough boost and aftercooling.
The difference is your leverage deficit is always going to keep you on the back foot regarding more head fastener and end bearing loads for the equivalent output.
To the point where in the case of the TL12 v Eagle or TD120 your head gasket will probably blow before your end bearings wear out prematurely.
Enjoy your AEC badged broom.
Try to guess why you were asked to estimate double the BMEP. Have a look at graphs of cylinder pressure versus crank angle. Then look at some graphs of power required to drive a vehicle, versus its speed. The estimate some statistical distribution of its speed, over its life. Then get the fatigue curve of you beloved head bolt material, and read up on ■■■■■■■■■■ damage theory. If you’ve got any brains at all, you will work out why you have been doing it, and what to do next. You might decide on 2.5, or even 3, as your multiplier. I don’t care- it’s your design analysis. Do the job, instead of blurting about it.
Carryfast:
…So 2.1 % reduction in piston area for a 5.8% increase in leverage.How does that translate into anorak’s supposed increase in cylinder pressures for the equivalent specific torque output.As opposed to the exact opposite…
Wtf u talking about? I did not say any of that. I don’t even understand it. It is dictionary diarrhoea to me.
If you read my previous post- properly- you might get a clue just how hard it is, to design machinery.
ramone:
Carryfast:
Not much use though when the emphasis rightly shifted to peak power at less than 2,000 rpm to get the fuel returns and then as close to 10hp and 30 + lbft per tonne at 32-38t gross as makes not much difference.
For that you need a lugger in either case and that means maximising the leverage advantage.There we go again leverage a massive 8mm dream in your head . 1 wheel brace at 1.3m to tighten a wheel nut then a wheel brace at 1.308m will make a massive difference to the tyre man , i think not. You can times your theory by as many as you like 1 piston 1 8mm longer stroke no difference 6 x 0 = 0 .
AEC bus engines in lorries , didnt leyland use the 680 in buses , Volvo use the 9.6 in buses , they are usually derived engines. The AV760 became the horizontal underfloor AH760 in the Reliance the only thing i didn’t get was it was downrated
.
Tell us more about how this engine with it’s, as you rightly say, puny 152 mm lever is putting out 1,250 lbft at 1,200 rpm and the forces it needs to generate in its cylinders to make it.
It makes your 1.3 metre bar and tyre fitter look a bit silly even assuming he puts all of his weight on the end of the bar.
All ultimately dependent on the end bearings and cylinder head fastenings containing and standing up to those forces.
A 7% increase in leverage and 7% and 2% respectively reduction in those forces for the equivalent torque output is a lot.
No one is saying that it wasn’t a long learning process getting to 130 x 162 for example.
But some were obviously more ahead than others.Ironically AEC being closer with the Matador’s 146 mm than the TL12’s 142 mm.
Oh and 7% on a 1.3 m bar equates to more than 8mm.
More like an extra 100 lbft assuming he’s putting all his weight on the end of it. 
Bewick:
Carryfast:
Only ran em but for some reason seemed to prefer the 8 LXB to the TL12.I never singled out the two engines you have decided that I ran for comparison either ! But of the two you quote I never ever considered the Leyland/AEC engine but during my time as an operator I had probably around 20 8LXB’s & 8LXC’s through the fleet and I reckon I made the right call by a country mile ! So don’t give up your day job my Son sweeping the streets of Leatherhead !
Interestingly it seems that none of the assemblers offered/wanted the TL12 ?.
We know that Foden at least like Scammell used the 680 and RR.
The TL12 v 8 LXB comparison is interesting.In the case of the Gardner the longer stroke seemed to be all about reducing stress levels for a given output.Similar to the AEC 173.