aronline.co.uk/commercials/ … thon-task/
I expect you have all seen this?
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
The ■■■■■■■ E’290’ wasn’t even actually putting out ‘290’ unlike the Rolls 290.RR quoted gross bhp, like all of the other proprietary suppliers. How could they quote net bhp, when the installed power output depended on the installation? The Scammell brochure shows the power output of the RR305 version to be 300ps DIN, which is about 295bhp.
The torque figure for the 290L RR engine was 880 lbft gross. What was the number for the TL12 Flexitorque?
273 hp at 2,000 rpm = less than 720 lbft.
290 hp at 1,950 = 782 lbft.
311 at 2,100 = 780 lbft.
It’s clear which one was the real ‘flexitorque’ here and it deffo wasn’t the former.
The TL 12 not only having less peak torque but also laughable torque drop at peak power going by the usual expected around 10 %.Flexitorque bs.
While it’s clear that the Eagle had lots more torque potential in it from those conservative ratings.
To the tune of 1,216 lbft.
I knew that in the early 1980’s just from the driving seat’s shove in the back between 1,200 rpm and 1,900 rpm when climbing Reigate Hill.
The fact that people were actually using the 265 at 32t gross says it all about what the thing could do when it was given more boost and the right fuelling to go with it.
essexpete:
Commercial Vehicles : Leyland Marathon - AROnlineI expect you have all seen this?
As opposed to this.
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … too-little
Brearing in mind that RR diesels had been handed over to Vickers less than 1 year previously.
Rather than one public owned firm being merged with another thereby providing Leyland with the engine it needed at no cost.
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
The ■■■■■■■ E’290’ wasn’t even actually putting out ‘290’ unlike the Rolls 290.RR quoted gross bhp, like all of the other proprietary suppliers. How could they quote net bhp, when the installed power output depended on the installation? The Scammell brochure shows the power output of the RR305 version to be 300ps DIN, which is about 295bhp.
The torque figure for the 290L RR engine was 880 lbft gross. What was the number for the TL12 Flexitorque?
273 hp at 2,000 rpm = less than 720 lbft.
290 hp at 1,950 = 782 lbft.
311 at 2,100 = 780 lbft.
It’s clear which one was the real ‘flexitorque’ here and it deffo wasn’t the former.
The TL 12 not only having less peak torque but also laughable torque drop at peak power going by the usual expected around 10 %.Flexitorque bs.
While it’s clear that the Eagle had lots more torque potential in it from those conservative ratings.
To the tune of 1,216 lbft.
I knew that in the early 1980’s just from the driving seat’s shove in the back between 1,200 rpm and 1,900 rpm when climbing Reigate Hill.
The fact that people were actually using the 265 at 32t gross says it all about what the thing could do when it was given more boost and the right fuelling to go with it.
You have ignored the fact that the RR engine’s rating is gross, and the Leyland’s is net. Please quote the peak torque figures for both engines, stating whether they are gross or net. You would be on the gangplank, in any ordinary design office, for not doing it in the first place. What sort of cretin gives torque figures at maximum power speed?
Edit- done it myself. The TL12, in its 1980 version, gave 270bhp net, at 2000rpm, and 860lbft at 1200, net. That’s 280 bhp gross, 891 lbft. More torque than the 290L. Was the 290L’s maximum torque developed at 1300 rpm? I thought it was. Either way, Leyland’s in-house engine was the best British-built engine available in 1980, and would remain so until they added the ■■■■■■■ E320 to the options list. Of course, the Eagle’s later (Perkins) versions were very impressive but, at the start of the 1980s, Leyland was Britain’s best engine builder. That’s what the numbers say.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
The ■■■■■■■ E’290’ wasn’t even actually putting out ‘290’ unlike the Rolls 290.RR quoted gross bhp, like all of the other proprietary suppliers. How could they quote net bhp, when the installed power output depended on the installation? The Scammell brochure shows the power output of the RR305 version to be 300ps DIN, which is about 295bhp.
The torque figure for the 290L RR engine was 880 lbft gross. What was the number for the TL12 Flexitorque?
273 hp at 2,000 rpm = less than 720 lbft.
290 hp at 1,950 = 782 lbft.
311 at 2,100 = 780 lbft.
It’s clear which one was the real ‘flexitorque’ here and it deffo wasn’t the former.
The TL 12 not only having less peak torque but also laughable torque drop at peak power going by the usual expected around 10 %.Flexitorque bs.
While it’s clear that the Eagle had lots more torque potential in it from those conservative ratings.
To the tune of 1,216 lbft.
I knew that in the early 1980’s just from the driving seat’s shove in the back between 1,200 rpm and 1,900 rpm when climbing Reigate Hill.
The fact that people were actually using the 265 at 32t gross says it all about what the thing could do when it was given more boost and the right fuelling to go with it.You have ignored the fact that the RR engine’s rating is gross, and the Leyland’s is net. Please quote the peak torque figures for both engines, stating whether they are gross or net. You would be on the gangplank, in any ordinary design office, for not doing it in the first place. What sort of cretin gives torque figures at maximum power speed?
Edit- done it myself. The TL12, in its 1980 version, gave 270bhp net, at 2000rpm, and 860lbft at 1200, net. That’s 280 bhp gross, 891 lbft. More torque than the 290L. Was the 290L’s maximum torque developed at 1300 rpm? I thought it was. Either way, Leyland’s in-house engine was the best British-built engine available in 1980, and would remain so until they added the ■■■■■■■ E320 to the options list. Of course, the Eagle’s later (Perkins) versions were very impressive but, at the start of the 1980s, Leyland was Britain’s best engine builder. That’s what the numbers say.
You’re talking bs as usual.Remind me what year was the TL12 put out of its misery.
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … ps-heavies
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … agle-dares
All your insult has done is prove that you’ve never heard of torque drop at peak power being as important as BMEP.Not surprising from somone who thinks that BMEP means cylinder pressure not specific torque.
So what lies are you now going to come up with to get out of 311 hp at 2,100 and 870 lbft net installed in 1979.
Carryfast:
You’re talking bs as usual.Remind me what year was the TL12 put out of its misery.
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … ps-heaviesarchive.commercialmotor.com/arti … agle-dares
All your insult has done is prove that you’ve never heard of torque drop at peak power being as important as BMEP.Not surprising from somone who thinks that BMEP means cylinder pressure not specific torque.
So what lies are you now going to come up with to get out of 311 hp at 2,100 and 870 lbft net installed in 1979.
All your insult has done is prove that you’ve never heard of torque drop at peak power being as important as BMEP.
Hahaaaa!!! What prat would even half-think such made-up guff. I told you to show me the peak torque figures, but you misunderstood the simple instruction. No one wants what you said. At peak power, they have a more useful number- peak power. LOL.
The 1979 article says:
"Eagle 320 sixcylinder engine, rated at 232kW (311bhp) at 2100 rpm producing a maximum torque of 1180Nm (870Ibft) at 1300rpm "
Only one year to wait, and you could have an extra 20lbft at 100rpm lower engine speed, from Leyland.
The 1083 article says:
“The 300Li has a nimum full-load specific fuel nsumption of 206g/kW/h (0.34 'bhp/h) at 1,500rpm.”
That’s a 1983-introduced engine, with worse SFC than the 1980 Leyland engine.
The Rolls engine might have been a good competitor for ■■■■■■■■ especially later on, but the Leyland engine was just that little bit more advanced, I think.
Carryfast:
ramone:
Carryfast:
Your bias is laughable.Anything which can beat the TL12 must be ignored.
Yes I know the 14 litre E290 was derated to the point of counter productivety.Which makes the case for the TL12 how.
The 265 RR was also just a de rated option.You know like for use in 6 wheeler rigids.Trust me the thing pulled like a train even at that rating and weight.
Why would anyone want the 265 in a 38 tonner.The difference is that the RR could handle more much more unlike the TL12.
You think that the buying choice had to be limited to only what the TL12 could handle.
So exactly what’s your problem with the 290 Rolls which unlike the ‘E290’ actually produced 290.
Oh wait your obsolete piece of AEC junk can’t match it so we have to ignore it.
That’s exactly what Edwardes ( deliberately ) did in 1979.The rest is history.So when comparing engines surely you would look at the nearest outputs to compare. If you were looking for a new unit now and you wanted a 460 hp engine would you be comparing say a Merc 450 with a Daf 520 and then slate the Mercs performance and say it was crap ( it is incidentally) You would go out and compare like for like.
The TL12 was hastily developed from the 760 and hit the roads in72 and at 273 hp it was and proved a good reliable and economic engine. At the time Rolls were still producing the 220/280 troublesome thirsty leaky engines. It was another 5 years before they introduced the 265/290 Eagle and things move on and remind us who redesigned the Rolls, the man who designed the TL12 . The TL12 was never touched in development terms for almost its total production life until just before the Roadtrain launch when they introduced the Flexitorque . Like i keep repeating , there was no money to develop the engine even though people much more informed and more experienced than yourself mentioned a 320 hp engine had been produced . You can scoff and make up [zb] all the time but those are the facts. The two things that killed the TL12 were the lack of funds to further develop it and more funds to replace the completely worn out machinery used to build it. THE MONEY WASNT THERE. Ideally Leyland should have left AEC to developing the engine into a modern power unit for the Roadtrain but THE MONEY WASNT THERE. The propriety engine route didnt work and as history proves no European manufacturers use them now.
You have compared the TL12 to the bigger ■■■■■■■ Rolls Daf and even ridiculously the F12 , put the comparisons like for like . If you still want to go down that road put the Rolls 265 or 290 against the F12 385 , and see how the comparisons add up. You talk [zb]When ‘comparing’ engines we use BMEP ( specific torque ).
Your idea of comparing engines is to just ignore any rating of any engine that beats your piece of AEC junk.So why the double standards in ignoring customers who wanted 290 + ?.Why only those who were satisfied with the TL12’s output.
The Eagle and the TD120 were both smaller capacity motors than the TL12.
Why would anyone who wanted 290+ ignore the higher rated Eagle options and make the choice only between 265 RR and TL12 just to suit your silly fan boy arguments.So put the Volvo TD120 against the 400 Eagle.Your point being what.Where is the TL12 in that comparison.
The only total zb being talked here is from those backing Edwardes’ and the government’s case for putting the TL12 in the Roadtrain instead of the 290 RR with the option of 340 + to follow within 2 years.You know bs arguments like the TL12 can only make less than 900 lbft and 273hp so why should anyone want anything more than that and why should we offer anything more.
The money was ‘there’ because no money was needed to change hands to bring RR on board as Leyland’s in house engine supplier.
While the fact is you ain’t going to get 100 lbft per litre from the TL12 without unsustainable warranty claims regardless of how much money was thrown at it.That’s why it had to be knocked on the head when 38t arrived.
If AEC had stayed with the bore stroke ratios laid down by the 173 or 590 for the 760/TL12 history would have been very different in that regard.The only logical conclusion being an agenda of sabotage because that type of stupid just doesn’t happen.
The TL12 was introduced as a 273 bhp engine it ended its life in the same guise , it was never changed developed or uprated for production . What part of that cant you get into your head. It is totally irrelevant if Volvo Rolls ■■■■■■■ and whoever is in your mind decided to offer different outputs. The TL12 was what it was a 273 bhp engine .Leyland never developed it for reasons that don’t fit with your warped mindset . It wasn’t a 350 because it was never developed . It wasn’t a 400 because it was never developed it was left like every other AEC product under Leyland control as the first edition , never improved on . Why does this make an engine that was reliable powerful in 72 and economical a piece of junk . Its not the engines fault that Leyland didn't have any money , its not the engines fault that Red Robbo the commie ■■■■ was hell bent on destroying BL , the engine didnt do anything it wasn’t asked to , it was an engine. It couldn’t produce more power or torque because the engineers at Southall weren’t allowed to develop it for reasons we keep going round in circles mentioning. It wasn’t the TL12s fault that Leyland decided to launch the Roadtrain with just that engine, again it wasn’t the engines fault that when uprated to 320bhp but not put out for production Leyland decided to drop it. Leyland had spent millions on the new Roadtrain but put a Spicer in it and , the Leyland back end and an 8 year old engine which was slightly tuned on launch .What part of that could be the TL12s fault . The Roadtrain was a poorly thought out vehicle , not because the TL12 was the only option but that there was no Fuller or even a synchro option . And if they wanted to save money why didn`t they go the whole hog and put a Rockwell on the back end , the reasons are unknown , the fact is that the TL12 could hold its own against any engine with similar outputs , it was never developed . The TL12 was dropped due to tooling and development costs they couldn’t cover ffs
Just as an aside here. Don’t forget that although the domestic Marathon and T45 units tended to have TL engines with Fuller boxes or Spicer in the case of the T45, export models differed significantly. The French in particular, but also the Dutch, bought both in fairly large numbers. LDH Marathons were offered with the TL, ■■■■■■■ and Rolls 290s with 9-sp Fullers. T45s were offered with Rolls or TL and Rolls seemed to be the standard, coupled to 9-sp Fullers. The Dutch even ran T45s with Rolls 350s and Twin-splitters. All the evidence is on the LHD Marathon and LHD Roadtrain threads. 
Ro
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
You’re talking bs as usual.Remind me what year was the TL12 put out of its misery.
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … ps-heaviesarchive.commercialmotor.com/arti … agle-dares
All your insult has done is prove that you’ve never heard of torque drop at peak power being as important as BMEP.Not surprising from somone who thinks that BMEP means cylinder pressure not specific torque.
So what lies are you now going to come up with to get out of 311 hp at 2,100 and 870 lbft net installed in 1979.
All your insult has done is prove that you’ve never heard of torque drop at peak power being as important as BMEP.
Hahaaaa!!! What prat would even half-think such made-up guff. I told you to show me the peak torque figures, but you misunderstood the simple instruction. No one wants what you said. At peak power, they have a more useful number- peak power. LOL.
The 1979 article says:
"Eagle 320 sixcylinder engine, rated at 232kW (311bhp) at 2100 rpm producing a maximum torque of 1180Nm (870Ibft) at 1300rpm "
Only one year to wait, and you could have an extra 20lbft at 100rpm lower engine speed, from Leyland.
The 1083 article says:
“The 300Li has a nimum full-load specific fuel nsumption of 206g/kW/h (0.34 'bhp/h) at 1,500rpm.”
That’s a 1983-introduced engine, with worse SFC than the 1980 Leyland engine.The Rolls engine might have been a good competitor for ■■■■■■■■ especially later on, but the Leyland engine was just that little bit more advanced, I think.
Yes the 1983 engine with 930 lbft gross at 1,200 rpm.Had a bit worse specific fuel consumption than the deceased dead parrot TL12 which was putting out considerably less who would have thought it.
Torque drop at peak power.You know the same torque drop which is going to determine the difference between a seemingly 290 gross v 280 gross.Or 311 net installed v 280 net installed.The TL12 has the same laughable torque drop at peak power whether you quote it as gross or net.
How is 870 net installed supposedly less than 860 net installed.
Yeah right the Leyland engine which was sold as a 280 to the customers.
But we’re not allowed to use the same gross 290 rating for the RR then it conveniently has to be quoted net.Just to make it lok like the TL12 was a viable motor.
That’s why it was knocked on the head in 1983.
You’ve got your peak torque figures and the only way that your piece of junk will get even close to them is by comparing TL12 gross figures with RR net figures.
It’s clear that the Eagle was more than capable of a NET INSTALLED rating of at least 311 hp and 870 lbft in 1979 followed not long after by more in the form of the ‘340’ etc.
Your bs and lies won’t change that fact.
ERF-NGC-European:
Just as an aside here. Don’t forget that although the domestic Marathon and T45 units tended to have TL engines with Fuller boxes or Spicer in the case of the T45, export models differed significantly. The French in particular, but also the Dutch, bought both in fairly large numbers. LDH Marathons were offered with the TL, ■■■■■■■ and Rolls 290s with 9-sp Fullers. T45s were offered with Rolls or TL and Rolls seemed to be the standard, coupled to 9-sp Fullers. The Dutch even ran T45s with Rolls 350s and Twin-splitters. All the evidence is on the LHD Marathon and LHD Roadtrain threads.Ro
It’s clear that the TL12 wouldn’t cut it at 38t + weights regardless of how much Anorak tries to selectively gerrymander its output figures.
Which leaves the question why only TL12 or nothing at launch and why let RR go when it could have been brought in house before the Roadtrain’s introduction.
The same RR which was unarguably producing a motor with 311 hp and 870 lbft NET INSTALLED in 1979.Thjose figures beating the E290 let alone the TL12.
Carryfast:
It’s clear that the TL12 wouldn’t cut it at 38t + weights regardless of how much Anorak tries to selectively gerrymander its output figures.Which leaves the question why only TL12 or nothing at launch and why let RR go when it could have been brought in house before the Roadtrain’s introduction.
The same RR which was unarguably producing a motor with 311 hp and 870 lbft NET INSTALLED in 1979.Thjose figures beating the E290 let alone the TL12.
Hahaha. Wrong on every count. How can I “gerrymander” the truth? By stating it? The figures are what they are- the !980 version of the TL12 had a higher net torque figure, at lower rpm, than the Eagle 320 that you brought up- your figures. LOLOL. You’re on the run now. I’ll get you to do some proper engineering deductions soon.
Anyone got any ideas who the geezer is stood in the back of this Trabant. The only partial info I have is that it was taken at the yearly Carnival in Leatherhead.
Carryfast:
ERF-NGC-European:
Just as an aside here. Don’t forget that although the domestic Marathon and T45 units tended to have TL engines with Fuller boxes or Spicer in the case of the T45, export models differed significantly. The French in particular, but also the Dutch, bought both in fairly large numbers. LDH Marathons were offered with the TL, ■■■■■■■ and Rolls 290s with 9-sp Fullers. T45s were offered with Rolls or TL and Rolls seemed to be the standard, coupled to 9-sp Fullers. The Dutch even ran T45s with Rolls 350s and Twin-splitters. All the evidence is on the LHD Marathon and LHD Roadtrain threads.Ro
It’s clear that the TL12 wouldn’t cut it at 38t + weights regardless of how much Anorak tries to selectively gerrymander its output figures.
Which leaves the question why only TL12 or nothing at launch and why let RR go when it could have been brought in house before the Roadtrain’s introduction.
The same RR which was unarguably producing a motor with 311 hp and 870 lbft NET INSTALLED in 1979.Thjose figures beating the E290 let alone the TL12.
There you go again a piece of junk , you really are a [zb] , how can an engine that was economical reliable and profitable be a piece of junk , the engine was never developed further because Leyland didn`t develop it due to having no money to spend on it due to your leftie mates coming out on strike every week wanting more money than was economic to pay
Bewick:
0Anyone got any ideas who the geezer is stood in the back of this Trabant. The only partial info I have is that it was taken at the yearly Carnival in Leatherhead.
Powered by a V8 Detroit?
ramone:
Bewick:
0Anyone got any ideas who the geezer is stood in the back of this Trabant. The only partial info I have is that it was taken at the yearly Carnival in Leatherhead.
Powered by a V8 Detroit?
Wrong “ramone” I believe it is powered by B. S. Gas ! 
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
It’s clear that the TL12 wouldn’t cut it at 38t + weights regardless of how much Anorak tries to selectively gerrymander its output figures.Which leaves the question why only TL12 or nothing at launch and why let RR go when it could have been brought in house before the Roadtrain’s introduction.
The same RR which was unarguably producing a motor with 311 hp and 870 lbft NET INSTALLED in 1979.Thjose figures beating the E290 let alone the TL12.Hahaha. Wrong on every count. How can I “gerrymander” the truth? By stating it? The figures are what they are- the !980 version of the TL12 had a higher net torque figure, at lower rpm, than the Eagle 320 that you brought up- your figures. LOLOL. You’re on the run now. I’ll get you to do some proper engineering deductions soon.
860 lbft NET TL12 by your own figures.
V 870 lbft Eagle which part of 870 NET INSTALLED didn’t you understand. 
The TL12 also suffered catastrophic torque drop between peak torque and peak power.Which is why the piece of junk couldn’t better 273 hp NET or 280 hp gross at 2,000 rpm take your pick.Flexitorque yep all down hill from its peak.
While the RR could go to 311 hp NET INSTALLED at 2,100 rpm.That’s a difference of 61 lbft at peak power.
While the TL12 had the same output in 1983 as it had in 1980.
As opposed to which part of 930 lbft gross at that point for the RR didn’t you understand.Take off the same 20 lbft as you took off for the TL12 that’s 910 lbft NET.Call it 900 lbft if you really must.Heading for 1,216 lbft.
On the run you’re avin a larf bordering on trolling or you’re dislexic to numbers.
ramone:
Carryfast:
ERF-NGC-European:
Just as an aside here. Don’t forget that although the domestic Marathon and T45 units tended to have TL engines with Fuller boxes or Spicer in the case of the T45, export models differed significantly. The French in particular, but also the Dutch, bought both in fairly large numbers. LDH Marathons were offered with the TL, ■■■■■■■ and Rolls 290s with 9-sp Fullers. T45s were offered with Rolls or TL and Rolls seemed to be the standard, coupled to 9-sp Fullers. The Dutch even ran T45s with Rolls 350s and Twin-splitters. All the evidence is on the LHD Marathon and LHD Roadtrain threads.Ro
It’s clear that the TL12 wouldn’t cut it at 38t + weights regardless of how much Anorak tries to selectively gerrymander its output figures.
Which leaves the question why only TL12 or nothing at launch and why let RR go when it could have been brought in house before the Roadtrain’s introduction.
The same RR which was unarguably producing a motor with 311 hp and 870 lbft NET INSTALLED in 1979.Thjose figures beating the E290 let alone the TL12.There you go again a piece of junk , you really are a [zb] , how can an engine that was economical reliable and profitable be a piece of junk , the engine was never developed further because Leyland didn`t develop it due to having no money to spend on it due to your leftie mates coming out on strike every week wanting more money than was economic to pay
Personal insults doesn’t help your bs arguments.If I was [zb] that you say I am I’d go running to the mods whingeing about it calling for you to be put on pre mod.
It was a piece of junk FOR THE JOB IT WAS REQUIRED TO DO IN THE ROADTRAIN.
Leyland could never have developed it no matter how much money was spent on it.
While the government didn’t need to spend any money to bring RR in house.
You know the same RR which was putting out 311 hp NET in 1979 on the way to eventually 400 at 1,950 rpm.
Instead of which Tory hag Thatcher had other plans for the Group.Helped by her hatchet man sabateur stooge Edwardes.
I see you’ve got a new bullshine phrase to support your stance: torque drop. Every publication refers to how the engine the torque curve appears as torque ‘rise’ or torque ‘back up’ and then usually quotes a percentage portraying it as a positive feature. But since you’ve raised the matter in such a way just have a look at your beloved MX13 and notice how it drops off a cliff according to your Leatherhead interpretation.
Try as I might, I can’t find any reference to a “Carryfast engine” anywhere. Perhaps he just made it up?
Carryfast:
On the run you’re avin a larf bordering on trolling or you’re dislexic to numbers.
You can’t spell dyslexic. Hohoho! A disability to see numbers is dyscalculia. That should be the title of this thread. BMEP not pressure, in any way, shape or form? Do you agree?
You’re running down a 280bhp engine, by comparing it with a 320 bhp one now (gross figures). The more powerful engine makes an extra 10lbft of torque- wow! It even takes another 100rpm to get there. You admit it has worse SFC. That’s on the run, that is.