Wheel Nut:
Carryfast, your experience of the shop floor can only be of sweeping it in the 70’s
Would’nt have needed to spend time shut away in a zb baking hot factory with loads of heavy kit and gloves on welding bits of metal together amongst other choice jobs and spending valuable drinking time shut away in college getting qualifications ( often in the pub across the road whenever possible 
) during the Summer of 76 in that case. 
Cant believe im still writing on this thread but, look at the title of the tread can anyone see USA on there?.Continental i would read as european.So if we go down the CF road and as someone mentioned here earlier hindsight is a wonderful thing all lorries on the British roads in the early 70s running at maximum weights would be 350 - 400bhp.The only problem being was they would all be yanks which were totally inpractical for europe never mind the uk.In the late 60s right up to the F16 being launched high bhp meant an heavy vehicle with a heavy fuel consumption.I worked for a company up until recently which ran 410 - 430 bhp units grossing 23 tons but they gave between 9.8 mpg and 11 mpg .This wasnt because we had extra careful drivers its because the computer and the speed limiter was in charge.We did quite a few tests with different makes and found that a Scania 400 with the semi automatic gearbox and the overdrive top gave us the best combination.But put the gross weight up to 44 tons and the thing would be useless,like i keep saying its horses for courses .Back in the early 70s a 400 bhp lorry would have been a totally different vehicle,we had the 32 ton limit ,our motorway network was still in its early stages so no matter how much bhp you had under the bonnet you would still be limited to how fast you could go .Was speed the main factor in the early 70s ? Manufacturers have come up with new ideas constantly since the early 70s , air deflector kits simple but very effective,its called progress,so if Mr Stokes and his men in Lancs had reworked the 680 just like Daf did maybe just maybe they would be still here , but i doubt it .
Carryfast:
Wheel Nut:
Carryfast, your experience of the shop floor can only be of sweeping it in the 70’sWould’nt have needed to spend time shut away in a zb baking hot factory with loads of heavy kit and gloves on welding bits of metal together amongst other choice jobs and spending valuable drinking time shut away in college getting qualifications ( often in the pub across the road whenever possible
I think the drink has puddled your brain, or I am going for a stiff drink so I can follow your logic
sammyopisite:
If I remember correctly didn’t White start selling wagons over here and Paccar bought Foden out and both are now noticeable by their absence from the U K market nowadays so it makes one believe that they had the wrong products or poor sales staff and neither did much in Europe as well. I think White were bought out by Volvo and Western Star failed with E R F so the only success the yanks have had in Europe is with DAF and they did not change much there.There is further proof by todays announcement that jobs are being lost in Derby at the train makers as politicians ordered new ones from Germany and it was the same with the army tank transporters being bought from the U S when we had a superior product over here ( Scammell ) but they could have their shares in these company’s and therefore make our own work force jobless as they have been doing since the 80s with all our manufacturing industry. which I personally think is because all politicians are just incompetent at whatever they do.
cheers Johnnie
The reason why the yanks are usually still involved in,some way or another,in the truck manufacturing industry,is because of the advantages they’ve always had in the more progressive demands from their customers in their home market and therefore a guaranteed market for better products and therefore future development funds because they were lucky enough to be able to flog better wagons to their home buyers than the Brits could.
Think the relevant comparison in this case is that we had a truck manufacturing industry when the Australians did’nt but now the Australians have and we have’nt.All because the buyers in the Australian and New Zealand markets were a lot brighter than the British ones were. 
On the subject of DAF it was the head start that they were given in development and guaranteed sales of the 300 hp + 2800 range in it’s home market,followed by the Brits when they got their act together, that put it where it is today and made it a firm which the yanks thought,that using the money earnt by flogging 300-450 hp Kenworths etc etc,in their home market, during the 1960’s/70’s,was worth spending,to invest in,not Leyland.
ramone:
Cant believe im still writing on this thread but, look at the title of the tread can anyone see USA on there?.Continental i would read as european.So if we go down the CF road and as someone mentioned here earlier hindsight is a wonderful thing all lorries on the British roads in the early 70s running at maximum weights would be 350 - 400bhp.The only problem being was they would all be yanks which were totally inpractical for europe never mind the uk.In the late 60s right up to the F16 being launched high bhp meant an heavy vehicle with a heavy fuel consumption.I worked for a company up until recently which ran 410 - 430 bhp units grossing 23 tons but they gave between 9.8 mpg and 11 mpg .This wasnt because we had extra careful drivers its because the computer and the speed limiter was in charge.We did quite a few tests with different makes and found that a Scania 400 with the semi automatic gearbox and the overdrive top gave us the best combination.But put the gross weight up to 44 tons and the thing would be useless,like i keep saying its horses for courses .Back in the early 70s a 400 bhp lorry would have been a totally different vehicle,we had the 32 ton limit ,our motorway network was still in its early stages so no matter how much bhp you had under the bonnet you would still be limited to how fast you could go .Was speed the main factor in the early 70s ? Manufacturers have come up with new ideas constantly since the early 70s , air deflector kits simple but very effective,its called progress,so if Mr Stokes and his men in Lancs had reworked the 680 just like Daf did maybe just maybe they would be still here , but i doubt it .
If yank trucks are/were totally inpractical for British Eurpean operations how the zb did the Kenworths in the uk topic get on here if it never happened and how is it the New Zealanders have been big customers for US and then Ozzy built KW’s on roads that are’nt much,if any,different to ours 
.
You still don’t seem to have got the idea that more specific power means more specific torque in the context of big capacity diesels which means less revs which means more fuel efficiency that’s the basis of engine design here now and since the 1960’s in the States.Try to keep up with the lessons or we’ll have to let you go from the training scheme. 
Carryfast:
ramone:
Cant believe im still writing on this thread but, look at the title of the tread can anyone see USA on there?.Continental i would read as european.So if we go down the CF road and as someone mentioned here earlier hindsight is a wonderful thing all lorries on the British roads in the early 70s running at maximum weights would be 350 - 400bhp.The only problem being was they would all be yanks which were totally inpractical for europe never mind the uk.In the late 60s right up to the F16 being launched high bhp meant an heavy vehicle with a heavy fuel consumption.I worked for a company up until recently which ran 410 - 430 bhp units grossing 23 tons but they gave between 9.8 mpg and 11 mpg .This wasnt because we had extra careful drivers its because the computer and the speed limiter was in charge.We did quite a few tests with different makes and found that a Scania 400 with the semi automatic gearbox and the overdrive top gave us the best combination.But put the gross weight up to 44 tons and the thing would be useless,like i keep saying its horses for courses .Back in the early 70s a 400 bhp lorry would have been a totally different vehicle,we had the 32 ton limit ,our motorway network was still in its early stages so no matter how much bhp you had under the bonnet you would still be limited to how fast you could go .Was speed the main factor in the early 70s ? Manufacturers have come up with new ideas constantly since the early 70s , air deflector kits simple but very effective,its called progress,so if Mr Stokes and his men in Lancs had reworked the 680 just like Daf did maybe just maybe they would be still here , but i doubt it .If yank trucks are/were totally inpractical for British Eurpean operations how the zb did the Kenworths in the uk topic get on here if it never happened and how is it the New Zealanders have been big customers for US and then Ozzy built KW’s on roads that are’nt much,if any,different to ours
You still don’t seem to have got the idea that more specific power means more specific torque in the context of big capacity diesels which means less revs which means more fuel efficiency that’s the basis of engine design here now and since the 1960’s in the States.Try to keep up with the lessons or we’ll have to let you go from the training scheme.
If youre right in the head im glad i`m daft
Does anyone know how to get rid of the virus that seems to have infected this thread.
Carryfast as has been pointed out before when it comes to power rating the Dutch have ran in the majority with very modest power ratings for many years even now it is common to see Dutch 40t attics with 360 to 380 bhp
kr79:
Carryfast as has been pointed out before when it comes to power rating the Dutch have ran in the majority with very modest power ratings for many years even now it is common to see Dutch 40t attics with 360 to 380 bhp
But.The relevant issue,from the point of view of having a competitive edge in the market place,is fuel efficiency and productivety.Large capacity turbocharged engines with more torque using less revs for more work output is where the state of the art stands now as has been the case since the 1960’s when the American engine manufacturers came up with the idea.It’s just that it took the european operators a bit longer and brit operators a lot longer to understand that.
Which is why DAF offer an engine range running to more than just 380 hp these days although even the 2800 when it was introduced at 32 or 38 t and even a modern wagon with as little as 360 or 380 at 40 t the torque to weight ratio is still a lot better than that of a typical Brit operator specced naturally aspirated ■■■■■■■ or Gardner or 7-8 Litre screamer type 32 t heap of the 1960’s/70’s and often even the early 1980’s while the Brit answer to all that was the too little too late TL12 in a T 45.
And Zebedee said time for bed zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
the mechanic 51:
Does anyone know how to get rid of the virus that seems to have infected this thread.
Give the men in white coats a bell,they’ve been looking for him for a while but he’s always managed to dodge them as he recognises the van they drive!! Bewick.
Carryfast:
kr79:
Carryfast as has been pointed out before when it comes to power rating the Dutch have ran in the majority with very modest power ratings for many years even now it is common to see Dutch 40t attics with 360 to 380 bhpBut.The relevant issue,from the point of view of having a competitive edge in the market place,is fuel efficiency and productivety.Large capacity turbocharged engines with more torque using less revs for more work output is where the state of the art stands now as has been the case since the 1960’s when the American engine manufacturers came up with the idea.It’s just that it took the european operators a bit longer and brit operators a lot longer to understand that.
Which is why DAF offer an engine range running to more than just 380 hp these days although even the 2800 when it was introduced at 32 or 38 t and even a modern wagon with as little as 360 or 380 at 40 t the torque to weight ratio is still a lot better than that of a typical Brit operator specced naturally aspirated ■■■■■■■ or Gardner or 7-8 Litre screamer type 32 t heap of the 1960’s/70’s and often even the early 1980’s while the Brit answer to all that was the too little too late TL12 in a T 45.
The TL12 was introduced in 73-74 at 273 bhp
Bewick:
the mechanic 51:
Does anyone know how to get rid of the virus that seems to have infected this thread.Give the men in white coats a bell,they’ve been looking for him for a while but he’s always managed to dodge them as he recognises the van they drive!! Bewick.
Is it a KW with a 650 bhp engined converted to a van because those men in white coats realised the benefits of big engines■■?
ramone:
Carryfast:
kr79:
Carryfast as has been pointed out before when it comes to power rating the Dutch have ran in the majority with very modest power ratings for many years even now it is common to see Dutch 40t attics with 360 to 380 bhpBut.The relevant issue,from the point of view of having a competitive edge in the market place,is fuel efficiency and productivety.Large capacity turbocharged engines with more torque using less revs for more work output is where the state of the art stands now as has been the case since the 1960’s when the American engine manufacturers came up with the idea.It’s just that it took the european operators a bit longer and brit operators a lot longer to understand that.
Which is why DAF offer an engine range running to more than just 380 hp these days although even the 2800 when it was introduced at 32 or 38 t and even a modern wagon with as little as 360 or 380 at 40 t the torque to weight ratio is still a lot better than that of a typical Brit operator specced naturally aspirated ■■■■■■■ or Gardner or 7-8 Litre screamer type 32 t heap of the 1960’s/70’s and often even the early 1980’s while the Brit answer to all that was the too little too late TL12 in a T 45.
The TL12 was introduced in 73-74 at 273 bhp
And Volvo responded by increasing the output for the F88 to 290bhp and with it reliability issues which are often ignored when the legendary F88 is discussed.
gingerfold:
ramone:
Carryfast:
kr79:
Carryfast as has been pointed out before when it comes to power rating the Dutch have ran in the majority with very modest power ratings for many years even now it is common to see Dutch 40t attics with 360 to 380 bhpBut.The relevant issue,from the point of view of having a competitive edge in the market place,is fuel efficiency and productivety.Large capacity turbocharged engines with more torque using less revs for more work output is where the state of the art stands now as has been the case since the 1960’s when the American engine manufacturers came up with the idea.It’s just that it took the european operators a bit longer and brit operators a lot longer to understand that.
Which is why DAF offer an engine range running to more than just 380 hp these days although even the 2800 when it was introduced at 32 or 38 t and even a modern wagon with as little as 360 or 380 at 40 t the torque to weight ratio is still a lot better than that of a typical Brit operator specced naturally aspirated ■■■■■■■ or Gardner or 7-8 Litre screamer type 32 t heap of the 1960’s/70’s and often even the early 1980’s while the Brit answer to all that was the too little too late TL12 in a T 45.
The TL12 was introduced in 73-74 at 273 bhp
And Volvo responded by increasing the output for the F88 to 290bhp and with it reliability issues which are often ignored when the legendary F88 is discussed.
And guess who it was here who said that the F88 was overrated .The TL 12 might have been ‘introduced’ in the early 1970’s but the thing was obviously down on output even then compared to a turbocharged ■■■■■■■ (or Detroit,especially the 92 series of equivalent capacity) and then they decided to put that already sub standard motor in the T45 at the end of the 1970’s while DAF already had the 2800 in production with the 3300 and 3600 to follow. No contest.Which just reinforces my idea that the T45 was just a lash up to get some money in quick to cut the outstanding development and production costs up to that time before throwing in the towel.
.However it’s obvious that AEC’s engineers were only working to the type of output specs that would have been considered as acceptable in the home market when they designed the TL12 which is why there were’nt many turbocharged ■■■■■■■ (and certainly no turbocharged big Detroit powered wagons which Scammell or Bedford could have provided if asked ) specced by British customers during the 1970’s and there were’nt many British buyers even using the 2800 when it was first released on the market.
Having worked in a fleet using both the underpowered small engined 2300/2500 and 2800 my experience was that it took the guvnors until the mid 1980’s before the all the advantages of using the larger engined more powerful 2800 over the 2500 were realised with a bit of help of the simple comparison of fuel consumption figures and journey times at equivalent weights by me.
I drove a 2300 and a 2500 at 38tonne and it took no prisoners. It was an ideal lorry especially with a bulk powder tanker as I had almost a tonne extra payload to the bigger lorries.
DAF sold plenty of 2800 motors in the UK from its launch. David Mansell set Marlow up and DAF’s mantra to the salesman was simply “go and do it”
By 1975 they were building a specialist middle East truck with a cab conversion done by Devon Conversions in Sidmouth
That lorry was known as the DAF 2800 Super Continental which was jointly designed by PIE for a proper desert lorry.
To say there weren’t many DAF operators in the beginning is a bit misleading, who was that huge operator out back end of Wales with the blue ones, or almost every tanker operator, LPG, Rankin, Cleveland, Brennan and many many others.
Wheel Nut:
I drove a 2300 and a 2500 at 38tonne and it took no prisoners. It was an ideal lorry especially with a bulk powder tanker as I had almost a tonne extra payload to the bigger lorries.DAF sold plenty of 2800 motors in the UK from its launch. David Mansell set Marlow up and DAF’s mantra to the salesman was simply “go and do it”
By 1975 they were building a specialist middle East truck with a cab conversion done by Devon Conversions in Sidmouth
That lorry was known as the DAF 2800 Super Continental which was jointly designed by PIE for a proper desert lorry.
To say there weren’t many DAF operators in the beginning is a bit misleading, who was that huge operator out back end of Wales with the blue ones, or almost every tanker operator, LPG, Rankin, Cleveland, Brennan and many many others.
Entress from Llansamlett near Swansea ran a lot of Daf’s Malc.
Cheers Dave.
Carryfast:
gingerfold:
ramone:
Carryfast:
kr79:
Carryfast as has been pointed out before when it comes to power rating the Dutch have ran in the majority with very modest power ratings for many years even now it is common to see Dutch 40t attics with 360 to 380 bhpBut.The relevant issue,from the point of view of having a competitive edge in the market place,is fuel efficiency and productivety.Large capacity turbocharged engines with more torque using less revs for more work output is where the state of the art stands now as has been the case since the 1960’s when the American engine manufacturers came up with the idea.It’s just that it took the european operators a bit longer and brit operators a lot longer to understand that.
Which is why DAF offer an engine range running to more than just 380 hp these days although even the 2800 when it was introduced at 32 or 38 t and even a modern wagon with as little as 360 or 380 at 40 t the torque to weight ratio is still a lot better than that of a typical Brit operator specced naturally aspirated ■■■■■■■ or Gardner or 7-8 Litre screamer type 32 t heap of the 1960’s/70’s and often even the early 1980’s while the Brit answer to all that was the too little too late TL12 in a T 45.
The TL12 was introduced in 73-74 at 273 bhp
And Volvo responded by increasing the output for the F88 to 290bhp and with it reliability issues which are often ignored when the legendary F88 is discussed.
And guess who it was here who said that the F88 was overrated
.However it’s obvious that AEC’s engineers were only working to the type of output specs that would have been considered as acceptable in the home market when they designed the TL12 which is why there were’nt many turbocharged ■■■■■■■ (and certainly no turbocharged big Detroit powered wagons which Scammell or Bedford could have provided if asked ) specced by British customers during the 1970’s and there were’nt many British buyers even using the 2800 when it was first released on the market.
Having worked in a fleet using both the underpowered small engined 2300/2500 and 2800 my experience was that it took the guvnors until the mid 1980’s before the all the advantages of using the larger engined more powerful 2800 over the 2500 were realised with a bit of help of the simple comparison of fuel consumption figures and journey times at equivalent weights by me.
Funnily enough i spoke to Chris Webb who got a new Marathon with a TL12 in it and asked how it compared with the ■■■■■■■ engined Marathons in the fleet, he said the TL12 did a piston after 100,000 miles but was a much better performer on the road compared to the ■■■■■■■ . Look at the Marathon thread on here a couple of lads had Marathon and Roadtrains with the TL12 in and both boasted about how good they were but what would they know they only actually drove them.Dont forget this was a vehicle “thrown” together by AEC under instruction from Leyland with very little funds
Wheel Nut:
I drove a 2300 and a 2500 at 38tonne and it took no prisoners. It was an ideal lorry especially with a bulk powder tanker as I had almost a tonne extra payload to the bigger lorries.DAF sold plenty of 2800 motors in the UK from its launch. David Mansell set Marlow up and DAF’s mantra to the salesman was simply “go and do it”
By 1975 they were building a specialist middle East truck with a cab conversion done by Devon Conversions in Sidmouth
That lorry was known as the DAF 2800 Super Continental which was jointly designed by PIE for a proper desert lorry.
To say there weren’t many DAF operators in the beginning is a bit misleading, who was that huge operator out back end of Wales with the blue ones, or almost every tanker operator, LPG, Rankin, Cleveland, Brennan and many many others.
That,together with my experience,seems like a contradiction which actually reinforces my case.A 2300/2500 was a nightmare at 32 t or less unless the road was totally flat so 38 t sounds like taking no prisoners in the Japanese WW2 or Taliban context of the word not Stalag Luft 10 like the Scania 93 .
Although payload might have been a priority in that case there still seems to be the contradiction in that idea of ■■■■■■■ and Detroit foreseeing,and obviously finding,a big market for much more power/torque in a similar type market to ours that was even tighter on payload margins than here but in which productivety (journey times) and lower revving engines providing more fuel efficiency and ever bigger,more comfortable,cab designs won out .
On the subject of 2800 sales at launch it’s obvious that some got sold but nowhere near enough to have provided the levels of sales needed to provide firms like Leyland with the development and sales incentive to build a much better competitor instead of just chucking the Marathon and T45 together to earn a few bob so as to leave the bean counters enough to pay off everyone when they eventually threw the towel in.
Which all seems to be confirmed by the fact that we were both still driving 2300/2500’s during the 1980’s,let alone the 1970’s,although obviously for different reasons in your case.But the fact remains in my experience it was found,belatedly by the guvnors,that the idea of using a big powerful wagon beats a small gutless one which is what Leyland needed in the market place at the time when engines like the TL12 were on the drawing board.However having said that there’s no reason as to why it would’nt be just as ‘beneficial’ now to prioritise the payload issue over the cab comfort and big low revving fuel efficient engine one if that equation is correct .In which case surely we’d still be seeing lots of bulker/tanker drivers struggling with a 44 tonner,with a small uncomfortable cab,at the same power/torque to weight ‘ratio’ as a 2300 had running at 38t .
ramone:
Carryfast:
gingerfold:
ramone:
Carryfast:
kr79:
Carryfast as has been pointed out before when it comes to power rating the Dutch have ran in the majority with very modest power ratings for many years even now it is common to see Dutch 40t attics with 360 to 380 bhpBut.The relevant issue,from the point of view of having a competitive edge in the market place,is fuel efficiency and productivety.Large capacity turbocharged engines with more torque using less revs for more work output is where the state of the art stands now as has been the case since the 1960’s when the American engine manufacturers came up with the idea.It’s just that it took the european operators a bit longer and brit operators a lot longer to understand that.
Which is why DAF offer an engine range running to more than just 380 hp these days although even the 2800 when it was introduced at 32 or 38 t and even a modern wagon with as little as 360 or 380 at 40 t the torque to weight ratio is still a lot better than that of a typical Brit operator specced naturally aspirated ■■■■■■■ or Gardner or 7-8 Litre screamer type 32 t heap of the 1960’s/70’s and often even the early 1980’s while the Brit answer to all that was the too little too late TL12 in a T 45.
The TL12 was introduced in 73-74 at 273 bhp
And Volvo responded by increasing the output for the F88 to 290bhp and with it reliability issues which are often ignored when the legendary F88 is discussed.
And guess who it was here who said that the F88 was overrated
.However it’s obvious that AEC’s engineers were only working to the type of output specs that would have been considered as acceptable in the home market when they designed the TL12 which is why there were’nt many turbocharged ■■■■■■■ (and certainly no turbocharged big Detroit powered wagons which Scammell or Bedford could have provided if asked ) specced by British customers during the 1970’s and there were’nt many British buyers even using the 2800 when it was first released on the market.
Having worked in a fleet using both the underpowered small engined 2300/2500 and 2800 my experience was that it took the guvnors until the mid 1980’s before the all the advantages of using the larger engined more powerful 2800 over the 2500 were realised with a bit of help of the simple comparison of fuel consumption figures and journey times at equivalent weights by me.
Funnily enough i spoke to Chris Webb who got a new Marathon with a TL12 in it and asked how it compared with the ■■■■■■■ engined Marathons in the fleet, he said the TL12 did a piston after 100,000 miles but was a much better performer on the road compared to the ■■■■■■■ . Look at the Marathon thread on here a couple of lads had Marathon and Roadtrains with the TL12 in and both boasted about how good they were but what would they know they only actually drove them.Dont forget this was a vehicle “thrown” together by AEC under instruction from Leyland with very little funds
Marathon zb cab and with horsepower ■■■■■■■ or TL12 versus 2800 .Leyland were already beat by that time and the end was inevitable.I know the Marathon and T45 were just chucked together with whatever happened to be left over from previous obsolete development that’s what I’ve been saying.Because they knew the writing was on the wall at that point.But what I’m saying is that it was’nt their,or Stokes’,fault. By that time what was needed was something with,at least 1970’s US ■■■■■■■ or Detroit 92 series levels of power outputs to compete with the DAF 2800/3300/3600 with ATI technology used before DAF did it.