bdadyslexia.org.uk/dyslexia … fficulties
Here you go, Mr. Engine Design. Now do some real work, and come up with an equation, in the form F=… , for the load on your beloved head bolts. All you have is:
T- peak torque
V- engine capacity
S- stroke
A- bore area
n- 2 bolts per cylinder
Those are the parameters you have been using. Now arrange them in a proper engineering expression. One line. No fluffy waffle. F=…
cav551:
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.
A 200 lbft torque drop at peak power from 1,850 at peak torque is anything but ‘‘dropping off a cliff’’.
As opposed to losing 141 lbft from a peak of 860 lbft.
[zb]
anorak: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.
You obviously still don’t believe that BMEP = Specific Torque nothing more nothing less.
At least tell it like it is.
I’m running down an obsolete ‘280 gross’ engine with no further development potential in it, made on worn out machinery, put in the Roadtrain in 1980 as a no option choice when RR were producing a 320 gross engine in 1979.
You clearly said the TL12 produced more torque than the RR not less.Now you’re saying it’s less make your mind up.
Then things just went downhill literally in the TL12’s output to the point where your piece of junk has lost 141 lbft at 2,000 rpm.
Meanwhile RR gets on with the 930 lbft development by 1983.
Some ‘extra’ 10 lbft at that point assuming that you can actually count ( doubtful )
Remind me again when was the TL12 knocked on the head.
Why didn’t the government want the 340 put in UK market vehicles.
It’s obvious that the sell out was planned much earlier in the day than 1988 and the government didn’t want Leyland treading on DAF’s toes in DAF’s stated largest UK market.
But they did want just enough sales to get the T45’s development budget back.
Carryfast:
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.
So Leyland launch the Roadtrain in 79/80 with only the TL12 engine. A 32 ton unit and the only option was a 273 bhp motor. Why would anyone blame the engine which by the way was on top of the job at 273 bhp for being the only option . Humans made that decision not the engine . The F10 was rated at 278 bhp at the time and many hauliers ran them on 32/38 ton work . Hauliers were still buying 250 ■■■■■■■ and 265 Rolls at 38 tons. The weight increase to 38 tons came about in 83 , oh wait a minute when did the TL12 cease to be produced. This idea that the engine was junk is absolute bollox, just like the new generation Rolls and the E290 they were a much of a muchness. As for the engine not been up to development how do you know what AECs engineers could come up with . How do you know they didn’t plan to increase the engine size , the one thing i do know is that Keith Roberts the TL12 designer knew the writing was on the wall so he left and went to Rolls to sort the Eagle out , so obviously the TL12 was having no more development or maybe he would have stayed You driving round a track in a fire engine allegedly test driving them knows more than fully qualified engineers . You know as much as the sweeper upper .
ramone:
So Leyland launch the Roadtrain in 79/80 with only the TL12 engine. A 32 ton unit and the only option was a 273 bhp motor. Why would anyone blame the engine which by the way was on top of the job at 273 bhp for being the only option . Humans made that decision not the engine . The F10 was rated at 278 bhp at the time and many hauliers ran them on 32/38 ton work . Hauliers were still buying 250 ■■■■■■■ and 265 Rolls at 38 tons. The weight increase to 38 tons came about in 83 , oh wait a minute when did the TL12 cease to be produced. This idea that the engine was junk is absolute bollox, just like the new generation Rolls and the E290 they were a much of a muchness. As for the engine not been up to development how do you know what AECs engineers could come up with . How do you know they didn’t plan to increase the engine size , the one thing i do know is that Keith Roberts the TL12 designer knew the writing was on the wall so he left and went to Rolls to sort the Eagle out , so obviously the TL12 was having no more development or maybe he would have stayed You driving round a track in a fire engine allegedly test driving them knows more than fully qualified engineers . You know as much as the sweeper upper .
Yes humans made the decisions like Edwardes and Thatcher to meet an obvious agenda.
So why would we want something which can provide no more than 280 ‘gross’ made on worn out production tooling.
While flogging off something, which can make 311 NET with lots more potential in it, to the lowest bidder.
Which part of the Eagle covered all bases from 265 didn’t you ( want to ) understand.311 NET from a 12 litre motor in 1979 wasn’t much of a muchness that was up there with the TD120 with lots more left in it after that.
Fully qualified engineers like the ones who continuously upgraded the Eagle to the 400 mark and those who knocked your piece of AEC junk on the head in 1983 if not before.
Because unlike you they could understand what a 7% leverage deficit means in the torque race.
Carryfast:
860 lbft NET TL12 by your own figures.
V 870 lbft Eagle which part of 870 NET INSTALLED didn’t you understand…
Why are you saying the Eagle is superior to the TL12? Oh yes, it was lower head bolt loads. Have you managed to calculate them yet?
Tell ya what- I’ll help you through it, with a series of very simple questions. Multiple choice, just like in the 1970s!
The engineers want to increase the torque of the engine, by making the fire in it bigger. Does that make the head bolt load:
A Smaller
B The same
C Bigger
Two 6 cylinder engines develop the same torque on the brake dyno. One of them is a big engine, the other a small engine. Both have a 1:1 bore:stroke ratio. Which has the higher heat bolts loads?
A The big one
B The small one
C Both the same
Two 6 cylinder engines have the same capacity, and develop the same peak torque on the brake. The blue one has a stroke 5% longer than the red one. Which has the higher head bolt loads?
A. Both the same
B. The red one
C. The blue one.
Edit no. 2: 5 hours and counting. Those questions must be really hard.
Carryfast:
ramone:
So Leyland launch the Roadtrain in 79/80 with only the TL12 engine. A 32 ton unit and the only option was a 273 bhp motor. Why would anyone blame the engine which by the way was on top of the job at 273 bhp for being the only option . Humans made that decision not the engine . The F10 was rated at 278 bhp at the time and many hauliers ran them on 32/38 ton work . Hauliers were still buying 250 ■■■■■■■ and 265 Rolls at 38 tons. The weight increase to 38 tons came about in 83 , oh wait a minute when did the TL12 cease to be produced. This idea that the engine was junk is absolute bollox, just like the new generation Rolls and the E290 they were a much of a muchness. As for the engine not been up to development how do you know what AECs engineers could come up with . How do you know they didn’t plan to increase the engine size , the one thing i do know is that Keith Roberts the TL12 designer knew the writing was on the wall so he left and went to Rolls to sort the Eagle out , so obviously the TL12 was having no more development or maybe he would have stayed You driving round a track in a fire engine allegedly test driving them knows more than fully qualified engineers . You know as much as the sweeper upper .Yes humans made the decisions like Edwardes and Thatcher to meet an obvious agenda.
So why would we want something which can provide no more than 280 ‘gross’ made on worn out production tooling.
While flogging off something, which can make 311 NET with lots more potential in it, to the lowest bidder.
Which part of the Eagle covered all bases from 265 didn’t you ( want to ) understand.311 NET from a 12 litre motor in 1979 wasn’t much of a muchness that was up there with the TD120 with lots more left in it after that.Fully qualified engineers like the ones who continuously upgraded the Eagle to the 400 mark and those who knocked your piece of AEC junk on the head in 1983 if not before.
Because unlike you they could understand what a 7% leverage deficit means in the torque race.
Didnt they drop the TL in 83 when the weights went up are you slightly in sane or completely. The bloke who upgraded the Eagle was an AEC man who designed the TL 280 was more than adequate at 32 tons 320 didnt become the norm until the late 80s early 90s
It would be interesting to see what the biggest sellers were in bhp terms in 1980 ie 200 to 220 230 to 250 260 to 280 300 to 320 i would wager around the 250 mark . I would guess Leyland pitched the Roadtrain just above that average
ramone:
It would be interesting to see what the biggest sellers were in bhp terms in 1980 ie 200 to 220 230 to 250 260 to 280 300 to 320 i would wager around the 250 mark . I would guess Leyland pitched the Roadtrain just above that average
+1
I’d go for the 250 mark too. A lot of standard general haulage 32-tonners ran at that. Think of the Merc NG 1625, DAF 2500 (not so common at that weight), 240 Gardners galore and of course the naturally-aspirated ■■■■■■■ 250 14litre which was popular in so many Brit wagons (think Guy, ERF, Atkinson, Sed-Atki later on, Foden, Ford, Bedford etc) - and you could have the turbo-charged version of the same engine if you needed performance as well as slog. Dennis would probably have a better overview than most of us on this one.
Ro
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
860 lbft NET TL12 by your own figures.
V 870 lbft Eagle which part of 870 NET INSTALLED didn’t you understand…1
That Eagle is the 320bhp version; you comparing it to the 280bhp Leyland. 0.11% more torque, from an engine in the next power category up. It doesn’t matter how much you shout and stomp, that is one weak argument there.Why are you saying the Eagle is superior to the TL12? Oh yes, it was lower head bolt loads. Have you managed to calculate them yet?
0Tell ya what- I’ll help you through it, with a series of very simple questions. Multiple choice, just like in the 1970s!
The engineers want to increase the torque of the engine, by making the fire in it bigger. Does that make the head bolt load:
A Smaller
B The same
C BiggerTwo 6 cylinder engines develop the same torque on the brake dyno. One of them is a big engine, the other a small engine. Both have a 1:1 bore:stroke ratio. Which has the higher heat bolts loads?
A The big one
B The small one
C Both the sameTwo 6 cylinder engines have the same capacity, and develop the same peak torque on the brake. The blue one has a stroke 5% longer than the red one. Which has the higher head bolt loads?
A. Both the same
B. The red one
C. The blue one.
So which TL12 could offer more than 280.That’s right it couldn’t.So you’re saying we musn’t fit anything better.Which is actually exactly what Leyland did.They lumbered it with the ‘280’ TL12 at launch instead of the Eagle ‘320’.
Having flogged off RR to the lowest bidder.Why would you want to do that instead of ditching the TL12 and bringing RR in house for no charge.That’s sabotage ordered at the top.Not militant workers.
How much torque was the Eagle ‘320’ making at 1,200 rpm as opposed to 1,300 rpm.The fact that it was making more than the TL12 at 1,300 doesn’t mean that it was making less than the TL12 at 1,200 rpm.
The 311 rating was made by taking ( a lot ) more torque, than the TL12 made at 2,000 rpm, up to 2,100 rpm.What’s that got to do with the peak torque figure.It has everything to do with the TL12’s laughable torque drop at peak power.
1 Define making ‘the fire bigger’ ?.
You mean the engineers want to increase torque by increasing cylinder pressure ?.That obviously proportionately increases the load on the head fastenings.They want to increase piston area that obviously doesn’t.
2 More piston area means less cylinder pressure so less head fastenings load for the equivalent torque output.So it’s the smaller engine.Who would have thought it.
3 The TL 12 had 7% less stroke not 5%.It had a 4.6 % piston area advantage.So zb your trick question.
Oh wait in addition to the TL12’s piston area v leverage deficit what happened to the end bearing loads in all cases regards increasing torque by anything other than leverage.
So AEC made a lemon by the standards of 1979 and its production tooling was worn out anyway. You’re saying that we musn’t fit anything better in the form of the 320 Eagle in the Roadtrain.Why would you want do that.
ERF-NGC-European:
ramone:
It would be interesting to see what the biggest sellers were in bhp terms in 1980 ie 200 to 220 230 to 250 260 to 280 300 to 320 i would wager around the 250 mark . I would guess Leyland pitched the Roadtrain just above that average+1
I’d go for the 250 mark too. A lot of standard general haulage 32-tonners ran at that. Think of the Merc NG 1625, DAF 2500 (not so common at that weight), 240 Gardners galore and of course the naturally-aspirated ■■■■■■■ 250 14litre which was popular in so many Brit wagons (think Guy, ERF, Atkinson, Sed-Atki later on, Foden, Ford, Bedford etc) - and you could have the turbo-charged version of the same engine if you needed performance as well as slog. Dennis would probably have a better overview than most of us on this one.Ro
The Roadtrain was supposed to be the truck for the 1980’S not 1980.Manufacturers by necessity don’t make products based on what’s selling today. 
From memory the aspiration of 10 hp per tonne, or as close to it and more importantly the torque output needed to deliver that at reasonable engine speeds, was well under way by 1980 if not before.
250 at that point in time would be way under estimating where things were heading and way below par for the time.
At least in terms of the thinking of the manufacturers.If not operators.
Ironically finding confirmation of my memory in products like the RR ‘320’ and the CM article ‘’ Too Little’’ which I posted.
In the case of RR we’ve got a product which covers all the bases from 265 to 300 + .
The TL12 had obvious flaws in its output capabilities and even the tooling to produce it was already reputedly past its sell by date.To which Anorak’s answer is Leyland must stay with the TL12 and not use anything which exceeds the TL12’s limited capability.Why ■■.
There was literally no business case whatsoever to use the TL12 in the T45/Roadtrain at that point in time.
There was every business case to bring RR on board with Leyland to replace the TL12.
The 250 bhp sector was certainly where the main area of sales were at the time.
As the shouting about the recently introduced ■■■■■■■ E290 had started to die down towards the middle of 1979 ■■■■■■■ must have realised that the engine did not appeal to a large section of the UK market and sought to attract potential customers looking for 240/250 bhp. The trade press at the time was full of the small cam NT 250 turbo - later to be called the NT 240 - offered in direct competition with the n/a NH 250, but incorporating various parts from the E290. Reprints from the various road tests were combined into an advertising newsheet " ■■■■■■■ Economy what the press tests say" ready for the Commercial Motor Show. This was clearly aimed at those who were concerned by the stories relating to the fuel returns for the E290 if not driven as intended. This campaign was on a similar scale to the one conducted several years before featuring an NH 180 which had been stripped down for examination at 500,000 miles only to find that they had selected an engine which had been in a roll-over and run while upside down. The feature provided good publicity for Morris Lubricants whose oil had been used since the vehicle was new.
cav551:
The 250 bhp sector was certainly where the main area of sales were at the time.
Which makes the case for the ‘280’ TL12 made on its worn out production tooling v RR 265 how.
So the launch photo with the bird in the shorts has 16-320 on the side customers can have 265 if they want it. 
cav551:
The 250 bhp sector was certainly where the main area of sales were at the time.As the shouting about the recently introduced ■■■■■■■ E290 had started to die down towards the middle of 1979 ■■■■■■■ must have realised that the engine did not appeal to a large section of the UK market and sought to attract potential customers looking for 240/250 bhp. The trade press at the time was full of the small cam NT 250 turbo - later to be called the NT 240 - offered in direct competition with the n/a NH 250, but incorporating various parts from the E290. Reprints from the various road tests were combined into an advertising newsheet " ■■■■■■■ Economy what the press tests say" ready for the Commercial Motor Show. This was clearly aimed at those who were concerned by the stories relating to the fuel returns for the E290 if not driven as intended. This campaign was on a similar scale to the one conducted several years before featuring an NH 180 which had been stripped down for examination at 500,000 miles only to find that they had selected an engine which had been in a roll-over and run while upside down. The feature provided good publicity for Morris Lubricants whose oil had been used since the vehicle was new.
■■■■■■■ had several bites at the 1970s 250bhp market, IIRC:
ramone:
Carryfast:
ramone:
So Leyland launch the Roadtrain in 79/80 with only the TL12 engine. A 32 ton unit and the only option was a 273 bhp motor. Why would anyone blame the engine which by the way was on top of the job at 273 bhp for being the only option . Humans made that decision not the engine . The F10 was rated at 278 bhp at the time and many hauliers ran them on 32/38 ton work . Hauliers were still buying 250 ■■■■■■■ and 265 Rolls at 38 tons. The weight increase to 38 tons came about in 83 , oh wait a minute when did the TL12 cease to be produced. This idea that the engine was junk is absolute bollox, just like the new generation Rolls and the E290 they were a much of a muchness. As for the engine not been up to development how do you know what AECs engineers could come up with . How do you know they didn’t plan to increase the engine size , the one thing i do know is that Keith Roberts the TL12 designer knew the writing was on the wall so he left and went to Rolls to sort the Eagle out , so obviously the TL12 was having no more development or maybe he would have stayed You driving round a track in a fire engine allegedly test driving them knows more than fully qualified engineers . You know as much as the sweeper upper .Yes humans made the decisions like Edwardes and Thatcher to meet an obvious agenda.
So why would we want something which can provide no more than 280 ‘gross’ made on worn out production tooling.
While flogging off something, which can make 311 NET with lots more potential in it, to the lowest bidder.
Which part of the Eagle covered all bases from 265 didn’t you ( want to ) understand.311 NET from a 12 litre motor in 1979 wasn’t much of a muchness that was up there with the TD120 with lots more left in it after that.Fully qualified engineers like the ones who continuously upgraded the Eagle to the 400 mark and those who knocked your piece of AEC junk on the head in 1983 if not before.
Because unlike you they could understand what a 7% leverage deficit means in the torque race.Didnt they drop the TL in 83 when the weights went up are you slightly in sane or completely. The bloke who upgraded the Eagle was an AEC man who designed the TL 280 was more than adequate at 32 tons 320 didnt become the norm until the late 80’s early 90’s
It wasn’t 280 it was 273 just like it wasn’t 320 it was 311.As Anorak is so keen to point out.
You said the production tooling was knackered.
Now you say the TL12 couldn’t handle 38t which is exactly what I said.Make your mind up which is it that you mean…
The same 38t which was foreseeable in 1980.
So the RR could handle anything from 265 to 311 then and more later.Remind me why do we need the TL12 and why lumber the Roadtrain with it at all.
Why flog off RR instead of giving it to Leyland.
We’re not arguing about 320 it’s the 273 which is the issue which more supposedly didn’t become the ‘norm’ until ‘late 1980’s’.But you also said after the weights went up in 1983.Which is it.
32t went out within 3 years after the introduction of the Roadtrain.
Why do we need any so called bs ‘norm’ anyway when the RR covered all bases from 265 to 311.
As for supposedly anything more than 280 ( 273 ) not being the ‘norm’ until 'late ‘80’s’ this says it all and that’s why your piece of junk had to be knocked on the head.All foreseeable in 1979.
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … 12-rockets
Sweeper upper.At least that’s better than a know nothing liar talking utter bs who thinks you’re brighter than you are.
[zb]
anorak:
■■■■■■■ had several bites at the 1970s 250bhp market, IIRC:
- NHC250- 14 litre(?) N/A
- NT240- I think this is the one christened 250 Turbo
- NT250- later version of above.
- Super 255 (?) 15 litre N/A, fitted to Mk1 Transcons, EG HA3424
- E250 ■■ Derated E290, as fitted to Mk2 Transcons. Can’t remember its ■■■■■■■ name, or its actual power output.
Which is relevant to the 1980’s and 38t gross from '83 how.
[zb]
anorak:cav551:
The 250 bhp sector was certainly where the main area of sales were at the time.As the shouting about the recently introduced ■■■■■■■ E290 had started to die down towards the middle of 1979 ■■■■■■■ must have realised that the engine did not appeal to a large section of the UK market and sought to attract potential customers looking for 240/250 bhp. The trade press at the time was full of the small cam NT 250 turbo - later to be called the NT 240 - offered in direct competition with the n/a NH 250, but incorporating various parts from the E290. Reprints from the various road tests were combined into an advertising newsheet " ■■■■■■■ Economy what the press tests say" ready for the Commercial Motor Show. This was clearly aimed at those who were concerned by the stories relating to the fuel returns for the E290 if not driven as intended. This campaign was on a similar scale to the one conducted several years before featuring an NH 180 which had been stripped down for examination at 500,000 miles only to find that they had selected an engine which had been in a roll-over and run while upside down. The feature provided good publicity for Morris Lubricants whose oil had been used since the vehicle was new.
■■■■■■■ had several bites at the 1970s 250bhp market, IIRC:
- NHC250- 14 litre(?) N/A
- NT240- I think this is the one christened 250 Turbo
- NT250- later version of above.
- Super 255 (?) 15 litre N/A, fitted to Mk1 Transcons, EG HA3424
- E250 ■■ Derated E290, as fitted to Mk2 Transcons. Can’t remember its ■■■■■■■ name, or its actual power output.
acd1202:
[zb]
anorak:cav551:
The 250 bhp sector was certainly where the main area of sales were at the time.As the shouting about the recently introduced ■■■■■■■ E290 had started to die down towards the middle of 1979 ■■■■■■■ must have realised that the engine did not appeal to a large section of the UK market and sought to attract potential customers looking for 240/250 bhp. The trade press at the time was full of the small cam NT 250 turbo - later to be called the NT 240 - offered in direct competition with the n/a NH 250, but incorporating various parts from the E290. Reprints from the various road tests were combined into an advertising newsheet " ■■■■■■■ Economy what the press tests say" ready for the Commercial Motor Show. This was clearly aimed at those who were concerned by the stories relating to the fuel returns for the E290 if not driven as intended. This campaign was on a similar scale to the one conducted several years before featuring an NH 180 which had been stripped down for examination at 500,000 miles only to find that they had selected an engine which had been in a roll-over and run while upside down. The feature provided good publicity for Morris Lubricants whose oil had been used since the vehicle was new.
■■■■■■■ had several bites at the 1970s 250bhp market, IIRC:
- NHC250- 14 litre(?) N/A
- NT240- I think this is the one christened 250 Turbo
- NT250- later version of above.
- Super 255 (?) 15 litre N/A, fitted to Mk1 Transcons, EG HA3424
- E250 ■■ Derated E290, as fitted to Mk2 Transcons. Can’t remember its ■■■■■■■ name, or its actual power output.
- NTE255. Most did go into Transcontinentals but I recall when I was in traffic at Northwest Freighters at Haydock we had one in a Seddon Atki 400 day cab, LED637W to be exact. It went very well compared to an NT240 but pretty poor (make that even worse) on fuel high sixes to low sevens so about 0.5 down on the NT240 and not on hard work, days was Lancs/Yorks with margarine so about 11t and nights was empty or returns to Wootton Bassett and about 6-10t of various dairy goods back to Worsley.
I don’t recall, if I ever knew, it’s Net power,
While NT250 was actually a 1981 launch. 
A Shotts made turbocharged 14 litre small cam all that to get 250 hp.A couple of years before the move to 38t when the F12 was going to be Volvo’s best seller.They couldn’t make it up.
Then they still say the Brits weren’t being sabotaged.
Carryfast:
ramone:
Carryfast:
ramone:
So Leyland launch the Roadtrain in 79/80 with only the TL12 engine. A 32 ton unit and the only option was a 273 bhp motor. Why would anyone blame the engine which by the way was on top of the job at 273 bhp for being the only option . Humans made that decision not the engine . The F10 was rated at 278 bhp at the time and many hauliers ran them on 32/38 ton work . Hauliers were still buying 250 ■■■■■■■ and 265 Rolls at 38 tons. The weight increase to 38 tons came about in 83 , oh wait a minute when did the TL12 cease to be produced. This idea that the engine was junk is absolute bollox, just like the new generation Rolls and the E290 they were a much of a muchness. As for the engine not been up to development how do you know what AECs engineers could come up with . How do you know they didn’t plan to increase the engine size , the one thing i do know is that Keith Roberts the TL12 designer knew the writing was on the wall so he left and went to Rolls to sort the Eagle out , so obviously the TL12 was having no more development or maybe he would have stayed You driving round a track in a fire engine allegedly test driving them knows more than fully qualified engineers . You know as much as the sweeper upper .Yes humans made the decisions like Edwardes and Thatcher to meet an obvious agenda.
So why would we want something which can provide no more than 280 ‘gross’ made on worn out production tooling.
While flogging off something, which can make 311 NET with lots more potential in it, to the lowest bidder.
Which part of the Eagle covered all bases from 265 didn’t you ( want to ) understand.311 NET from a 12 litre motor in 1979 wasn’t much of a muchness that was up there with the TD120 with lots more left in it after that.Fully qualified engineers like the ones who continuously upgraded the Eagle to the 400 mark and those who knocked your piece of AEC junk on the head in 1983 if not before.
Because unlike you they could understand what a 7% leverage deficit means in the torque race.Didnt they drop the TL in 83 when the weights went up are you slightly in sane or completely. The bloke who upgraded the Eagle was an AEC man who designed the TL 280 was more than adequate at 32 tons 320 didnt become the norm until the late 80’s early 90’s
It wasn’t 280 it was 273 just like it wasn’t 320 it was 311.As Anorak is so keen to point out.
You said the production tooling was knackered.
Now you say the TL12 couldn’t handle 38t which is exactly what I said.Make your mind up which is it that you mean…The same 38t which was foreseeable in 1980.
So the RR could handle anything from 265 to 311 then and more later.Remind me why do we need the TL12 and why lumber the Roadtrain with it at all.
Why flog off RR instead of giving it to Leyland.
We’re not arguing about 320 it’s the 273 which is the issue which more supposedly didn’t become the ‘norm’ until ‘late 1980’s’.But you also said after the weights went up in 1983.Which is it.
32t went out within 3 years after the introduction of the Roadtrain.Why do we need any so called bs ‘norm’ anyway when the RR covered all bases from 265 to 311.
As for supposedly anything more than 280 ( 273 ) not being the ‘norm’ until 'late ‘80’s’ this says it all and that’s why your piece of junk had to be knocked on the head.All foreseeable in 1979.
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … 12-rockets
Sweeper upper.At least that’s better than a know nothing liar talking utter bs who thinks you’re brighter than you are.
Now you are putting words in my mouth i never said the TL12 couldnt handle 38 tons i said they stopped producing it when the 38 ton limit came in .What was the best selling Roadtrain when the TL was dropped , i bet it wasnt a 290 Rolls. You get something stupid in your head and wont let it go like a spoilt child in a playground .What part of Leyland were skint dont you understand
. They weren’t in a position to take over another company they were rationalising the one they had. Where would this ficticious Rolls be made? AEC were closed they couldn’t afford to run the London factory on a small capacity .
So what was the average bhp at 32 tons when the Roadtrain was launched, how did the 265 compare to the TL12 and how did the 290 compare what was the difference in perfomance and productivity these are the things oerators look at when buying new vehicles. I remember reading a post from a well respected member who is sadly no longer with us that he made a very good living out of the TL12 in the vehicles he supplied with maintenance costs at a minimum. So put your sweeping brush down stop playing on your monster truck scalextric and come up with some answers . What was the best selling power range between 75 and 83 and what did it go up to from 83 to 90 taking into account new technology
acd1202:
[zb]
anorak:
■■■■■■■ had several bites at the 1970s 250bhp market, IIRC:
- NHC250- 14 litre(?) N/A
- NT240- I think this is the one christened 250 Turbo
- NT250- later version of above.
- Super 255 (?) 15 litre N/A, fitted to Mk1 Transcons, EG HA3424
- E250 ■■ Derated E290, as fitted to Mk2 Transcons. Can’t remember its ■■■■■■■ name, or its actual power output.
- NTE255. Most did go into Transcontinentals but I recall when I was in traffic at Northwest Freighters at Haydock we had one in a Seddon Atki 400 day cab, LED637W to be exact. It went very well compared to an NT240 but pretty poor (make that even worse) on fuel high sixes to low sevens so about 0.5 down on the NT240 and not on hard work, days was Lancs/Yorks with margarine so about 11t and nights was empty or returns to Wootton Bassett and about 6-10t of various dairy goods back to Worsley.
I don’t recall, if I ever knew, it’s Net power,
Aha!E255. That’s sparked a memory. Thanks! Now I remember that the 15 litre was called Super 252, and was rated at 242bhp net, or something like that. Dunno why Ford didn’t just fit the NHC250, like everyone else. The rest of the Mk1 Transcon engines were odd- NTC355 instead of 350, NTC355E instead of 335, NTC335E instead of 290.
Edit- some of my questions are answered here:
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … f-its-time
"As the American frames were already engineered to accept ■■■■■■■ engines, Ford of Europe took them as well. The first ■■■■■■■ engines were based on the 14-litre ■■■■■■■ lump. The base model, however, took a naturally-aspirated unit from America stroked to 15.2 litres and named the Super 252. This unit gave 180kW (242hp) installed, and was fitted at the insistence of Ford of Germany to compete with the naturally-aspirated Mercedes engines. The other four engines were all blown derivatives of the ■■■■■■■ NTC 355E engine, were rated at 201,227 and 265kW (269hp, 304hp, and 335hp) when installed.
Ford soldiered on with the Super 252 for just over a year, whereupon the company dropped the naturally-aspirated engine in favour of a de-rated version of the NTC 290 turbocharged engine, developing around 179kW (240hp nett)…"
