The 7ltr engine you describe was only fitted to your beloved TM and F86 Volvos, the 180hp ish British engines were all much larger capacity, therefore had a bit more drivability 
Evening all, I do not know about you but I am getting a bit fed up of speeding along this siding,being led furiously and blindly, to the exclusion of the larger, and more interesting picture by our excentric and singularly obssesed friend Carryfast from the original, and and potentially most interesting thread proposed by Sammyoposite. Let us examine the larger picture, not just maximum capacity articul;ated units, What of 7.5,11, 13,16, and 20 22 and 24, and later on 30 and 32 ton rigid units?? Overall a considerably larger, and perhaps more important market segment. Was a Dodge Commando 7.5 (fitted with a Perkins 6.354 ) a poorer quality and operational vehicle than a Fiat, or Magirus 4cylinder, (despite the latters assured 24/26mpg average fuel consumption)? If you were in the market for a 10/ 16ton rigid then you would have been looking at the mainstream providers, Bedford, Ford, Dodge, what were your options? Mercedes1317, Fiat 130NC, later Saviem JN75/90,Roman,(ho, ho,), Where did you go? 16tons, well, Mercedes 1418, (no payload) Fiat 159, (a UNIC design) Scania 80, extended F86, think on you need a minimum 10 ton payload, the importers are not doing so well here!! Lets look at 6wheelers, oh boy could you improve on the "wonderful " AEC Marshall, (505, or Marshall Major 760 powered), Yes, a Big J, 505, (it did not boil up)! What about a Leyland Retriever, 0.600, or even a Hippo 0.680. Remember how comfortable that Ergomatic cab really was! Warm, quiet, the wonderful “one action” side window winder. Bliss, oh bliss. Hello… whats this, a Volvo F86, 192hp!! 6x2, oh that will get stuck.(remember the delights of an AEC Marshall 6x2? could get stuck on any kerb entrance when empty) . Bogie lift, Diff lock, what are these?? I well remember the reaction of the drivers at Shrewsburys Morgan Edwards used to Marshalls, when they were first given a F86 to try, 12 months later there were no AECs to be seen! I have deliberatly excluded reference to the “premium rigids” Atkinson, ERF, Foden, as I think there volumes are less significant in the context of this area of the battlefield. What do you think?? Come on, this is where the real war was, there was supply of home produced product unlike the tractor market. What are your feelings, experiences, and opinions. You gentlemen have the knowledge, I look forward to hearing what you think. Cheerio, bye bye.
I just did a Google on 1964 American tractor units, and surprise surprise, the engines were generally between 170 and 270 HP
Are you “supping” your homebrew before its ready ,or what Saviem??Anon.
newmercman:
The 7ltr engine you describe was only fitted to your beloved TM and F86 Volvos, the 180hp ish British engines were all much larger capacity, therefore had a bit more drivability
But 180-250 hp 14 Litre engines proved to be just as inefficient in terms of productivety,like time spent hauling empty trailers up hills let alone full ones,as trying to thrash a little 7 Litre motor to within an inch of it’s life pulling that same full trailer up that same big hill 
.
The 7 Litre motor was only fitted in the TM because the management knew they could’nt have flogged the thing to British guvnors with a 400 hp motor in it . 
While the Swedes could’nt care less what the Brit guvnors bought because it was all money for them to put into the kitty for developing even better motors for their home market until they then took over the British market when those British guvnors (eventually) got the idea.
No Dennis, home brews out, my good lady used to do Damson wine, like rocket fuel, velvet going down,two large glasses used to see most wondering if their legs were “fly by wire”. Once left our recycling crew 270 empty bottles! We gained a certain reputation!! Our Irish Draught , Jacob liked a drop, but it used to give him wind, (if you know what I mean)!! Off to bed , Cheerio now.
Wheel Nut:
I just did a Google on 1964 American tractor units, and surprise surprise, the engines were generally between 170 and 270 HP
youtube.com/watch?v=bq44o-Jy … re=related
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkTeB-TCs54&feature=related
But they were also putting the 450 hp 12V71 in 1968 ones and a guvnor’s wagon is always a guvnor’s wagon wherever you are in the world.
Dave the Renegade:
Carryfast:
ramone:
Carryfast:
ramone:
If Carryfasts theory of british hauliers not buying high bhp engined vehicles is right then why was there such excitement at the original launch of the V8 AEC engine which was destined for great things but unfortunately just like the Marathon was starved of the money to develop it properly? The V8 did sell and this was in68 so the hauliers were willing to buy high powered vehicles even then but probably that engine and Leylands interference did more to kill 1 great manufacturer than any haulier could ever have done.Gingerfold as already mentioned on this thread that AEC sorted the problems and wanted to relaunch it but Leyland said no!!!We’ve already established earlier in the topic that at the time when it all mattered 250 hp was considered a reasonable power output by the customers which does’nt take a genius to work out leaves absolutely no room in the market place for development of a decent V8,or six cylinder motor,putting out 350-400 hp or more which is what is needed to provide the levels of torque output required to make a fuel efficient diesel for hauling 30 t + gross weights.
Bedford did’nt put an inefficient gutless 7 Litre bus engine in the TM by choice when their engineers knew that putting a much more fuel efficient,but much more powerful,engine in it would have been better.The issue is that the guvnors at the time just could’nt get their heads around the fact that they needed to overlook the headline max power outputs and look at BMEP and the torque figures instead.
My ‘theory’ is based on the solid fact that operators at the time preferred to put a naturally aspirated 7 Litre engine in a 32 tonner giving them less mpg and productivety than they would have got by using a 12 Litre turbocharged 400 hp one instead like their US counterparts would have done.
Going round in circles here…you said that british hauliers wouldn
t buy high powered lorries but when the V8 AEC came out in around68 at 247 bhp and 270 bhp+ these very same hauliers bought them ,the same hauliers you said wouldnt buy them so AEC must have known what you are saying now back in the 60s how clever were they?It might have been that those output figures just about scraped into what those operators were prepared to accept just like the naturally aspirated 8V71 Detroit in the Crusader and those clever engineers at Tolpits Lane etc saw what Southall were doing and told head office of the likely results on fuel consumption by simple comaprison with the similarities between both engines in outputs
Check out the specific torque output and how high up the rev range max power was produced at and it’s as bad as,if not even worse than,the 8V71 considering the size of the Detroit and considering that the yanks were already well on their way to production of the 8V92.
In which case why did’nt Scammell put the 8V92 in the Crusader from the early 1970’s on instead of the 8V71 and Rolls if Leyland thought that the market would accept a big but really powerful V8
.
Ifs buts and maybes are littered along the way in most walks of life Carryfast
No it was just sheer bloody minded ignorance and ■■■■■■ thinking by the Brit customers and that 1965 KW I’ve posted in the vid says everything about just how backward and primitive they were in their thinking considering that would have had an 8V92 in it by the mid 1970’s. 
Carryfast, homework. Find, read, and comprehend the financial accounts of AB Volvo, AB Scania, YEARS 68, 70, 72, 73, 76, 78, 80. Then tell us all your findings. I think you may have a surprise, and need a little rethink on your theories. Bedford, I really think that gingerfold has sumerised things adequately here, quoting Peter Davies excellent work. To put it into context perhaps you would care to scruitinize Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders statistics regarding registrations and sales 70,74,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84, These will give you a true insight into the UK HGV market, trends, production. registrations, which may help you to understand what a awful lot of very good people were doing, and working to achieve.Perhaps whilst you have some free time you should also visit and examine European Union Intra Community transit comparisons, (76, 78, 83, I would recommend) to give you some background depth to freight movements in community members. I almost forgot, Chuck Piggotts “aims statement” 1980. (Paccar), Francois Zanotti, " the future" (RVI) 1979. Its not all about “blowing doors off a Scania up Blanc”. May I ask, in your fantasy were you going up, or down the Blanc, French, or Italian side, old road, or the new elevated section, its all very relevant you know! (To those who have done it)!
Saviem:
Carryfast, homework. Find, read, and comprehend the financial accounts of AB Volvo, AB Scania, YEARS 68, 70, 72, 73, 76, 78, 80. Then tell us all your findings. I think you may have a surprise, and need a little rethink on your theories. Bedford, I really think that gingerfold has sumerised things adequately here, quoting Peter Davies excellent work. To put it into context perhaps you would care to scruitinize Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders statistics regarding registrations and sales 70,74,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84, These will give you a true insight into the UK HGV market, trends, production. registrations, which may help you to understand what a awful lot of very good people were doing, and working to achieve.Perhaps whilst you have some free time you should also visit and examine European Union Intra Community transit comparisons, (76, 78, 83, I would recommend) to give you some background depth to freight movements in community members. I almost forgot, Chuck Piggotts “aims statement” 1980. (Paccar), Francois Zanotti, " the future" (RVI) 1979. Its not all about “blowing doors off a Scania up Blanc”. May I ask, in your fantasy were you going up, or down the Blanc, French, or Italian side, old road, or the new elevated section, its all very relevant you know! (To those who have done it)!
What’s relevant is that if any British guvnor had bought one of those KW’s in that vid in 1965 are you saying that any driver would have preferred to be driving anything else in service anywhere else at the time and especially most of what the Brits had to put up with.But if you’re running to Italy and back and if you’re going over the Blanc,Mont Cenis,Simplon or the Brenner, you’ve generally got to go up and down them on either side in either direction depending on wether you’re going outward or coming home.
But I’d have preferred to have been using a KW Aerodyne with an 8V92 in it than a Volvo F88 or even a DAF 2800.
Saviem, there’s no point trying to convince dear old Carryfast the error of his ways by using facts
You make a good point with the rigid comparison, there was an earlier thread here about groundbreaking lorries, I nominated the Merc 1617 and 814 (LN2) as such, they changed the rigid market forever, before they arrived the rigid lorry was very much the poor relation to its articulated brothers
Oh and Carryfast’s journey over Monte Bianco would have taken a different route to anyone else, he would be in a two stroke DD powered airship, he wouldn’t need to worry about mpg as he would supply all the hot air
newmercman:
Saviem, there’s no point trying to convince dear old Carryfast the error of his ways by using factsYou make a good point with the rigid comparison, there was an earlier thread here about groundbreaking lorries, I nominated the Merc 1617 and 814 (LN2) as such, they changed the rigid market forever, before they arrived the rigid lorry was very much the poor relation to its articulated brothers
Oh and Carryfast’s journey over Monte Bianco would have taken a different route to anyone else, he would be in a two stroke DD powered airship, he wouldn’t need to worry about mpg as he would supply all the hot air
I’d have taken the same ‘route’ as all those Italians who were using their TM 4400’s and V8 FIAT’s and stopped at the same place for fuel as them
But it was the Swedes and the Dutch (and Tricentrol Chassis Developments at Bedford 
) who changed the (european) rigid market forever by making decent drawbar prime movers with a (lot) more power than most British tractor units had at the time and guess what when the trailers were taken off and they were running as a lighter rigid they were as,if not more,economical on fuel and a (lot) faster than that typical Brit artic would have been at the same weight.
Just as a matter of interest Carryfast, how many TMs were sold in Italy?
Having spent a fair bit of time driving around down there, I can tell you that they were thin on the ground in the late 80s, there were plenty of older lorries about though, a good number of which were 619 or 684 FIATs, these had little engines in them, I don’t know the power ratings, but the exhausts were the size of McDonald’s straws, these used to run around as an 8x2 prime mover with 4 axle trailer, fast they were not, FIAT remember was the home market manufacturer, they didn’t appear to be listening to the power crazy customers either and they never had a particularly good reputation for making decent lorries in any other country, even today the Stralis (which is as good as anything else out there) is seen as a poor man’s lorry when compared to the Volvo/Scania/Daf.
Pretty much the same as these so called super swedes I’d bet for every 140 and 141 the swedes were using with there mega drawbars there were five 110s or 111s doing the same job.
Even today you see plenty of rather modestly powered r420 r480 scanias and fh12s pulling 60 ton rigs up that way.
newmercman:
Just as a matter of interest Carryfast, how many TMs were sold in Italy?Having spent a fair bit of time driving around down there, I can tell you that they were thin on the ground in the late 80s, there were plenty of older lorries about though, a good number of which were 619 or 684 FIATs, these had little engines in them, I don’t know the power ratings, but the exhausts were the size of McDonald’s straws, these used to run around as an 8x2 prime mover with 4 axle trailer, fast they were not, FIAT remember was the home market manufacturer, they didn’t appear to be listening to the power crazy customers either and they never had a particularly good reputation for making decent lorries in any other country, even today the Stralis (which is as good as anything else out there) is seen as a poor man’s lorry when compared to the Volvo/Scania/Daf.
I’m not sure how many 8V92 engined TM 4400 they sold.All the ones that I knew of were,as I’ve put there, developed by Tricentrol as drawbar prime movers so it’s not surprising that ‘some’ of those ‘found’ their way into being turned into fire trucks in addition to more than a few 7 Litre ones.
I know that the Italians were still often running around with those gutless old type FIATs long after Bedford had disapperared and even long after the late 1980’s.I can remeber getting held up behind one of those old eight wheelers pulling a trailer on a trip to Enna in Sicily and that did’nt seem to be the only one still being used there and that was less than 10 years ago. .
But the relevant comparison is that,unlike here, those buyers probably were’nt in the type of market that Bedford needed to be competing in.In which it proved to be products like the F10/12,DAF 2800 and big Scanias etc etc which were the relevant main comparisons and which eventually provided those manufacturers with the sales and know how to develop their heavy truck ranges up to date.The difference is that,unlike Bedford, FIAT found enough of a sufficient market for those types of products both at home and in the european export markets which then led to the IVECO range.
But regardless of all that it was the Brits general lagging behind in the buyers demands on the home market relative to those in the old British colonies that stopped our manufacturers level of competitiveness from progressing at the rate of those colonial manufacturers.If the Brit industry had been able to progress at the same rate as the US one during the 1950’s/60’s/70’s with a similar type of manufacturing base using US technology here as in Australia already established when we joined the EU then the outcome would probably have been very different.
kr79:
Pretty much the same as these so called super swedes I’d bet for every 140 and 141 the swedes were using with there mega drawbars there were five 110s or 111s doing the same job.
Even today you see plenty of rather modestly powered r420 r480 scanias and fh12s pulling 60 ton rigs up that way.
But it would be interesting to see what the fuel consumption figures would be like compared with something providing around 10 hp per tonne.But the ozzies have been using 600 hp at 80 t for years but with not many hills etc.It would also be interesting to compare the torque curve of that 480 with something like a 7 Litre naturally aspirated TM or 180-250 hp Gardner comparing the weight difference on a like with like basis.Max power is’nt everything which is why I said that an 8V92 was putting out more power at 1,200-1,400 rpm than a 7 litre TM was at 2000 rpm and still more than the Gardner 180-240 would have been at the same rpm.
I have never been to either but Australia is bigger than the USA and they are both bigger than Europe so I would say it is very difficult to compare the transport needs against each other. what we consider long distance in the U K they will both consider to be local work and the road networks will be different as well as the terrain and traffic conditions so you are not comparing like for like.
I reckon that the Continental Manufacturers survived at the cost of the British Manufacturers is down to two things, bad decisions and a bad attitude by the management, they thought they could dictate to the customers and given that the customer had little choice they thought they had us over a barrel, you’ll get what we want to give you and you’ll get it when we want to give it to you, then Volvo, Scania, Merc, Magirus, FIAT and Daf popped up with immediate delivery and the rest is history
The union problems at the Leyland plants put a serious dent in the reputation of the products they made, Scammell and AEC were premium products, Guy made a decent workhorse, Leyland had a few decent motors in their stable too, but all were starved of funds by the car division, so they got left behind, but don’t forget that they set the standards that the foreigners had to beat, even in the last days of Leyland they made some decent motors, the Constructor 6 and 8 wheelers were good and the Roadrunner was one of the best 7.5t vehicles on the market
The original question was, were the Continentals better? My answer is no, not at first, they may have had a few creature comforts, but they weren’t better, they were just available and they were cheap, the salesmen were hungry, so they listened to the customers, rather than telling them what they could have…if they waited, they got their foot in the door and that was that
Oh and Bedford didn’t even enter the equation, they were worse than Leyland for their attitude, look at their last lorry, the TL range, what a joke, it was a facelifted TK and was 20yrs behind the competition, any other manufacturer could’ve made a success of the TM range, but they decided to stick a two stroke bus engine in it, did they not have a market research team? The two stroke Commers and Fodens were unsuccessful for a reason, a two stroke doesn’t work, however good it looks on paper, yeah DD made hundreds of thousands in the US market, but the Americans still think a pushrod engine is the pinnacle of engineering and they’ll pick a Harley over a Honda
newnercman I recall it the same as you have posted in all aspects and regarding “Bedfords” I was allocated one at Pickfords but also spare driver and I rarely drove it as you were paid a different rate for each wagon so with people off sick and holidays and as I had young family and mortgage the higher rates of pay were welcome. I hardly ever saw it but it did go against me in qualifying for the H G V license when it came out as I did not have enough time on artics as I think it was 6 months out of 12 but I was on the Ballast box tractors and only qualified for a class 2 so I had to take the class one test no tuition just a booklet but all went well.
Suedehead I think it was you who asked how many Viewlines on general Haulage and I would say only a few but as I did very little general haulage until the late 80s I do not feel as if I am qualified to comment on something which I only knew a little about.
cheers Johnnie
newmercman:
but the Americans still think a pushrod engine is the pinnacle of engineering
So do I.