Were The Continental Lorry's Much Better?

[newmercman]

Carryfast, again you seem to be inhabiting a parallel universe

I’m a driver through and through, I’m also a lover of powerful engines, my vehicle history in both cars and lorries supports that, I like to feel a rush of power when I put my toe down, but this is where we differ, I can differentiate between a car and a lorry, a lorry is designed to move stuff down the road, the diesel engines they use are all about torque, now before you play your broken record again, I know that torque is relative to power, so save your breath and my ears

Even being a power crazy nut like I am, I accept that a lorry will slow down on a hill, it will be slow to pick up speed from a standing start blah blah blah, yes a 2800 was a better motor than a 2300, my own experience of the 2300 are not among my best memories, but it did the job, I never had to get out and push it

All this high horsepower talk is just ■■■■■■■■, back in the days of the 5LW or similar the 6LX was a vast improvement, a 290 88 was an improvement over a 240, a 2800 was better than a 2600 etc etc etc. Now we have drivers over on the UK forum moaning that their 450hp is not enough

My current motor has a 550 in it, on a hill I fly past most other trucks, but even in a 700 mile day I’m no more than 10 or 15mins ahead of the bloke with a 400hp engine, he probably didn’t have a grin on his face as I passed him, but he would if he was buying the diesel, that I can guarantee, I can guarantee it, because, like many others who contributed to this thread, I’ve paid the fuel bill, all my big hp flying machines were a pleasure to drive, no doubt about that, but I’d rather take a 430 to the diesel pump than a 540, I’d rather buy a 430 than a 540 because they’re cheaper, they’re also cheaper to run, tyres, brakes and wear and tear, not just fuel costs

If, by a miracle, you had managed to put your dream high horsepower yankee supertruck on the road we would all have read about you in T&D or that birdcage liner Trucking (shouldn’t that get [zb]'ed by the autosensor ) six months later you’d have been skint, the old story of all flash and no cash would do that, you couldn’t compete with a company paying out half the money you are, that’s why the F88/F10/FH12 were far more successful than the F89/F12/FH16, same in any manufacturers line up, there’s a reason too, because successful operators buy a lot more lorries than unsuccessful ones

[carryfast]

newmercman:
Carryfast, again you seem to be inhabiting a parallel universe

I’m a driver through and through, I’m also a lover of powerful engines, my vehicle history in both cars and lorries supports that, I like to feel a rush of power when I put my toe down, but this is where we differ, I can differentiate between a car and a lorry, a lorry is designed to move stuff down the road, the diesel engines they use are all about torque, now before you play your broken record again, I know that torque is relative to power, so save your breath and my ears

Even being a power crazy nut like I am, I accept that a lorry will slow down on a hill, it will be slow to pick up speed from a standing start blah blah blah, yes a 2800 was a better motor than a 2300, my own experience of the 2300 are not among my best memories, but it did the job, I never had to get out and push it

All this high horsepower talk is just ■■■■■■■■, back in the days of the 5LW or similar the 6LX was a vast improvement, a 290 88 was an improvement over a 240, a 2800 was better than a 2600 etc etc etc. Now we have drivers over on the UK forum moaning that their 450hp is not enough

My current motor has a 550 in it, on a hill I fly past most other trucks, but even in a 700 mile day I’m no more than 10 or 15mins ahead of the bloke with a 400hp engine, he probably didn’t have a grin on his face as I passed him, but he would if he was buying the diesel, that I can guarantee, I can guarantee it, because, like many others who contributed to this thread, I’ve paid the fuel bill, all my big hp flying machines were a pleasure to drive, no doubt about that, but I’d rather take a 430 to the diesel pump than a 540, I’d rather buy a 430 than a 540 because they’re cheaper, they’re also cheaper to run, tyres, brakes and wear and tear, not just fuel costs

If, by a miracle, you had managed to put your dream high horsepower yankee supertruck on the road we would all have read about you in T&D or that birdcage liner Trucking (shouldn’t that get [zb]'ed by the autosensor ) six months later you’d have been skint, the old story of all flash and no cash would do that, you couldn’t compete with a company paying out half the money you are, that’s why the F88/F10/FH12 were far more successful than the F89/F12/FH16, same in any manufacturers line up, there’s a reason too, because successful operators buy a lot more lorries than unsuccessful ones

.You’ve already said it’s all about torque but then you don’t want to keep hearing about it’s relationship to power.Probably because it’s an inconvenient truth (like it was’nt Stokes’ fault that Leyland went down the tubes with all the rest).

Anyway another Saviem type war and peace story to reach the conclusion that the 2300 at 32 t or 38 t,or a Gardner 180 powered Atki,or a 7 Litre V6 TM , at 32 t,was just as good as,if not better than,a new state of the art 500 hp + Merc at 40-44 t,because in your universe less power always means less fuel consumption and less costs overall .

Which,if you’re right, has just wiped out the previous 50 years or so,of so called ‘progress’,in heavy truck design .

But a few pages ago you said that everyone else is silly because Detroit powered wagons are in high demand worldwide.Would that be because they are downsizing power outputs to Gardner type levels or because they are,as always,ahead in the horsepower/torque race,and therefore can do the same,if not more,work for less fuel consumption .

By the way if you were to run across the states solo would you be able to run at the same,or even a bit higher,speed for a lot less fuel consumption than if you had a fully freighted trailer on.If so why assuming that you’ve still got exactly the same amount of power/torque as before under the hood and the next time you want to test the fuel consumption difference between that 400 and your 550 instead of ‘flying’ past it on the hills or anywhere else just let the thing go by a bit slower using the extra power that you’ve got at lower revs .

Having said all that that 2800 was a ‘lot’ further than just 10 minutes down the road at the end of a 400 + mile run to Dewsbury and back let alone 700 miles and used less fuel doing it which is why the guvnor replaced them with 2800 ATI’s not because they wanted to throw money away in fuel and wear and tear.

[wheel_nut]

Dave the Renegade:

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.

Cheers Dave, it was but did it become Roberts?

[wheel_nut]

You must have had much bigger hills on your night trunk than I did.

My list of trucks at the time in order was.

Bedford KM - Drawbar 32t
Volvo F717 - Artic Tanker 38t
Volvo F1017 - Artic Tanker 38t
DAF 2100 - Drawbar 32t
DAF 2300 - Artic Tipper 32t
Scania 86 - Drawbar 32t
DAF 2500 - Artic Tanker 38t
Scania 92 - Artic Tanker 38t

Now if you wants to start slagging European motors off, take your pick as long as it is a Scania

The deadest on the hills was the Scania, the one that gave me my bad back was the Scania and probably the two other Scanias I had after the Bedford.

[newmercman]

Carryfast:
.You’ve already said it’s all about torque but then you don’t want to keep hearing about it’s relationship to power.Probably because it’s an inconvenient truth (like it was’nt Stokes’ fault that Leyland went down the tubes with all the rest).

My 550hp produces the same amount of torque as the same engine rated at 474hp or even the fleet spec 435hp version A modern electronically controlled engine can produce torque that isn’t relative to the horsepower, that’s why I didn’t need another explanation from you, I understand the principle

Anyway another Saviem type war and peace story to reach the conclusion that the 2300 at 32 t or 38 t,or a Gardner 180 powered Atki,or a 7 Litre V6 TM , at 32 t,was just as good as,if not better than,a new state of the art 500 hp + Merc at 40-44 t,because in your universe less power always means less fuel consumption and less costs overall .

A 2300 Daf or anything with a 180 in it will be slow at 32t, fuel use will depend on how it’s driven, if you drive a 2300 like a 2300 then it will be fine, but if you put a leadfoot night trunker in it who dreams he’s in a two stroke KW belting up the Interstate and drives it trying to beat a 2800’s journey times, well need I say more…

But a few pages ago you said that everyone else is silly because Detroit powered wagons are in high demand worldwide.Would that be because they are downsizing power outputs to Gardner type levels or because they are,as always,ahead in the horsepower/torque race,and therefore can do the same,if not more,work for less fuel consumption

America is not worldwide The Americans may think otherwise, but it’s not The new DD series will be the world engine for all Daimler trucks, it was developed as a world engine, so there was input from all concerned, the Americans, the Europeans and the Asians The Detroit engine I refer to is the 60 series, that’s a plodder, much like a Gardner, it has good reliability and low maintenance costs, at least it did prior to EGR, it also gave good fuel returns, just like the old Gardners

You are under the impression that the American firms all run around at 90mph in 500+hp trucks, not even close mate, most of them are running around in 400-450hp trucks and all the big fleets run at 65mph maximum, the manufacturers are aware of this, that’s why the D16 Volvo that you lot in the UK can get at 700hp is topped out at 500hp over here, the new Paccar (Daf) MX engine is a 475hp, the most common ■■■■■■■ ISX is the 455hp version and you can’t get a big yeller engine anymore

Having said all that that 2800 was a ‘lot’ further than just 10 minutes down the road at the end of a 400 + mile run to Dewsbury and back let alone 700 miles and used less fuel doing it which is why the guvnor replaced them with 2800 ATI’s not because they wanted to throw money away in fuel and wear and tear.

No… They bought 2800s for a couple of reasons, you are close, but for the wrong reasons, they may have been more reliable, but that’s because they were being driven like 2800s and a 2800 can cope with that, a 2300 needs to be driven like a 2300 to last the same time, fuel usage is the same, thrash the arse off a Smart Car and you could get worse mpg than a properly driven Range Rover V8

[kr79]

What are you saying Mark it’s not really like smoky and the bandit over there.
Il give up on trying to get over there now lol.
The 60 series Detroit is a four stroke isn’t it?
I like the point about the all flash no cash. How many times over the years has editors choice in t&d been a owner driver starting out with a new blinged up v8 scania or fh 16 pulling boxes or unaccompanied trailers saying how the big engine is doing 15mpg as it’s not working hard. Three months later it’s in the classifieds in commercial motor.

[carryfast]

Wheel Nut:
You must have had much bigger hills on your night trunk than I did.

My list of trucks at the time in order was.

Bedford KM - Drawbar 32t
Volvo F717 - Artic Tanker 38t
Volvo F1017 - Artic Tanker 38t
DAF 2100 - Drawbar 32t
DAF 2300 - Artic Tipper 32t
Scania 86 - Drawbar 32t
DAF 2500 - Artic Tanker 38t
Scania 92 - Artic Tanker 38t

Now if you wants to start slagging European motors off, take your pick as long as it is a Scania

The deadest on the hills was the Scania, the one that gave me my bad back was the Scania and probably the two other Scanias I had after the Bedford.

Forget those if it’s the bad back that you’re worried about the Merc 2534 wins every time.

[kr79]

Merc axor is good for giving you back ache. A lot of people recon the scania four series p cab is bad. But never had a problem with one myself.

[carryfast]

newmercman:

Carryfast:
.You’ve already said it’s all about torque but then you don’t want to keep hearing about it’s relationship to power.Probably because it’s an inconvenient truth (like it was’nt Stokes’ fault that Leyland went down the tubes with all the rest).

My 550hp produces the same amount of torque as the same engine rated at 474hp or even the fleet spec 435hp version A modern electronically controlled engine can produce torque that isn’t relative to the horsepower, that’s why I didn’t need another explanation from you, I understand the principle

Anyway another Saviem type war and peace story to reach the conclusion that the 2300 at 32 t or 38 t,or a Gardner 180 powered Atki,or a 7 Litre V6 TM , at 32 t,was just as good as,if not better than,a new state of the art 500 hp + Merc at 40-44 t,because in your universe less power always means less fuel consumption and less costs overall .

A 2300 Daf or anything with a 180 in it will be slow at 32t, fuel use will depend on how it’s driven, if you drive a 2300 like a 2300 then it will be fine, but if you put a leadfoot night trunker in it who dreams he’s in a two stroke KW belting up the Interstate and drives it trying to beat a 2800’s journey times, well need I say more…

But a few pages ago you said that everyone else is silly because Detroit powered wagons are in high demand worldwide.Would that be because they are downsizing power outputs to Gardner type levels or because they are,as always,ahead in the horsepower/torque race,and therefore can do the same,if not more,work for less fuel consumption

America is not worldwide The Americans may think otherwise, but it’s not The new DD series will be the world engine for all Daimler trucks, it was developed as a world engine, so there was input from all concerned, the Americans, the Europeans and the Asians The Detroit engine I refer to is the 60 series, that’s a plodder, much like a Gardner, it has good reliability and low maintenance costs, at least it did prior to EGR, it also gave good fuel returns, just like the old Gardners

You are under the impression that the American firms all run around at 90mph in 500+hp trucks, not even close mate, most of them are running around in 400-450hp trucks and all the big fleets run at 65mph maximum, the manufacturers are aware of this, that’s why the D16 Volvo that you lot in the UK can get at 700hp is topped out at 500hp over here, the new Paccar (Daf) MX engine is a 475hp, the most common ■■■■■■■ ISX is the 455hp version and you can’t get a big yeller engine anymore

Having said all that that 2800 was a ‘lot’ further than just 10 minutes down the road at the end of a 400 + mile run to Dewsbury and back let alone 700 miles and used less fuel doing it which is why the guvnor replaced them with 2800 ATI’s not because they wanted to throw money away in fuel and wear and tear.

No… They bought 2800s for a couple of reasons, you are close, but for the wrong reasons, they may have been more reliable, but that’s because they were being driven like 2800s and a 2800 can cope with that, a 2300 needs to be driven like a 2300 to last the same time, fuel usage is the same, thrash the arse off a Smart Car and you could get worse mpg than a properly driven Range Rover V8

The only way that an engine with the same amount of torque can provide more power is if thing can then sustain that torque up to higher engine speeds in which case that extra power comes at the expense of extra pound coins (dollar notes ) being burnt and thrown out the exhaust .

It does’nt matter wether the thing is an electronically controlled engine or not power, torque,and engine speed are all mathematically linked and you can’t get a power figure unless you know the other two parts of the equation.However what you’re looking for is more power made by multiplying more torqe by less revs not more power by multiplying less torque by more revs.

But it does’nt matter how good that Smart car driver is if the thing is (trying to) pull the same loaded horse box as the V8 Range Rover is at the same average speed from Feltham to Dewsbury.

There’s 23 pages here so far of proof that it was’nt Stokes’ fault that Leyland went under.The same arguments as those that would have taken place between those engineers and their customers during the 1960’s/70’s are still going on here now in 2011.

I’m just proud to be the only one who’s defending them and that I’m on the right side.

[carryfast]

kr79:
What are you saying Mark it’s not really like smoky and the bandit over there.
Il give up on trying to get over there now lol.
The 60 series Detroit is a four stroke isn’t it?
I like the point about the all flash no cash. How many times over the years has editors choice in t&d been a owner driver starting out with a new blinged up v8 scania or fh 16 pulling boxes or unaccompanied trailers saying how the big engine is doing 15mpg as it’s not working hard. Three months later it’s in the classifieds in commercial motor.

But ironically,unless I’ve read it wrong ,it’s the DAF 3600 that’s one of wheelnut’s all time great wagons not the 2300.

Have you ever thought that the reason why that new V8 Sania or FH16 ended up in the classifieds three months later is because the rates don’t pay enough to cover the costs and depreciation of a brand new motor and there is a point where more than enough means too much.In which case that owner driver probably saw sense in time to flog the thing before the payments and depreciation lost him too much money and then bought an older,second hand, 400 hp + DAF instead .

[kr79]

You don’t need to be Alan Sugar to work out buying any kind of new truck to do subbing for the likes of martime etc is a mugs game.
But over the years I’ve seen it so many times in the truck magazines especially when there was lots of equity to remortgage in property of people trying to tell you this was the best truck to start with then see them been sold usually as finance ■■■■■■ backs.
My uncle was an owner driver for many years on European work starting with a 112 scania then a 143 then a 144 and then a 164. His last truck before retirement. was a man tga 430.
The man was about 20k cheaper and was better on fuel and left him with mire cash in his pocket.
There will be always be a place for trucks like v8 scanias and fh 16s but as a tool to earn money they are not always the best choice

[wheel_nut]

Carryfast:
But ironically,unless I’ve read it wrong ,it’s the DAF 3600 that’s one of wheelnut’s all time great wagons not the 2300.

Even as an almost 30 something the 3600 certainly had its good points, the least of them being the posing factor. I actually preferred my own 2800 FTG or maybe I just preferred the places I went in it. It certainly didn’t let me down, well not until it let me down in Hungary.

I never owned a 3600, only drove them for someone else. My own 3300 was new, the 2800 was bought for the extra axle.

While I had my 2800 John Williams was pottering round Europe & Asia in a 2500 and I would have driven that, almost did in fact.

[dave_the_renegade]

Wheel Nut:

Dave the Renegade:

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.

Cheers Dave, it was but did it become Roberts?

Roberts bought most of Entress Daf’s when they packed up Malc.Roberts had a depot at W G Davies at Swansea at one time.
There main depot was near here at Knighton.The Dafs they ran certainly served them well and were used until Gordon Roberts retired in the early 90’s.
Cheers Dave.

[wheel_nut]

the mechanic 51:
Does anyone know how to get rid of the virus that seems to have infected this thread.

I have worked out, it is not a virus, Carryfast is an automaton that is crap at Chess. He was the prototype who was only taught Draughts.

[sammyopisite]

I think I am partly responsible for using "Continental " instead of “European” in the title of this thread as it seems to have been misinterpreted by some contributors as meaning world wide.
I hope you will accept my sincere apologies
cheers Johnnie

[wheel_nut]

sammyopisite:
I think I am partly responsible for using "Continental " instead of “European” in the title of this thread as it seems to have been misinterpreted by some contributors as meaning world wide.
I hope you will accept my sincere apologies
cheers Johnnie

It is not you, this thread could have been about cricket and bowler hats and curryfuddle would bring in yanks, detroit and double drive into it

[newmercman]

Two references to it now Malc,

I never owned a 3600, only drove them for someone else. My own 3300 was new, the 2800 was bought for the extra axle.

It is not you, this thread could have been about cricket and bowler hats and curryfuddle would bring in yanks, detroit and double drive into it

Let’s see if he takes your bait

This could get messy now

[carryfast]

Wheel Nut:

Carryfast:
But ironically,unless I’ve read it wrong ,it’s the DAF 3600 that’s one of wheelnut’s all time great wagons not the 2300.

Even as an almost 30 something the 3600 certainly had its good points, the least of them being the posing factor.I never owned a 3600, only drove them for someone else. My own 3300 was new, the 2800 was bought for the extra axle.

While I had my 2800 John Williams was pottering round Europe & Asia in a 2500 and I would have driven that, almost did in fact.

Europe and Asia with a 2500.

Don’t think I’ve put anything anywhere here that says a wagon needs to be specced based on ‘it’s posing factor’.

But maybe it was that extra tonne of payload and the added ‘fuel efficiency’ of using the smaller,gutless,engine and who cares about the smaller cab,that made all the difference.I bet all those old Leyland engineers are turning in their graves thinking of what might have been if only they’d made the T45 cab a bit smaller and put a small screamer engine in it instead of the TL12 etc and DAF must be really zb’d off about wasting all that money,time,and effort in developing the 2800/3300/3600,and all the even bigger and even more powerful developments that followed,when the 2500 was more than up to the job in all respects.

[carryfast]

newmercman:
Two references to it now Malc,

I never owned a 3600, only drove them for someone else. My own 3300 was new, the 2800 was bought for the extra axle.

It is not you, this thread could have been about cricket and bowler hats and curryfuddle would bring in yanks, detroit and double drive into it

Let’s see if he takes your bait

This could get messy now

You mean like it’s better to be a loser at chess than a winner at draughts.

[newmercman]

The only draught around here Carryfast is the one blowing unimpeded through your ears