"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 03/02/2012 10:53, Doctor Drivel wrote:

It is best you keep quiet as the OP is wanting proper advice, not the
ramblings of DIYers.

Since he asked the question in a DIY group its fairly safe to say that is
exactly what he did want.

As long as you tell him you are a DIYer will no experience of these matters
that is fine.

"Tim" wrote in message
...
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

It is best you keep quiet as the OP is wanting proper advice, not the
ramblings of DIYers. First port of call in boilers, as of now, is
Intergas. They do not cover all of the rerquirements, but most. Want a
high output combi? Go for the ATAG 51kW. Few match it, few make one with
that output.

Actually, that's the first combi that I might be prepared to let through
my
front door, IF its construction & quality are up to scratch. The design is
way more sensible than the usual combi design

Which one? ATAG or Intergas?

"gremlin_95" wrote in message
...
On 03/02/2012 16:55, Tim wrote:
"Doctor wrote:

It is best you keep quiet as the OP is wanting proper advice, not the
ramblings of DIYers. First port of call in boilers, as of now, is
Intergas. They do not cover all of the rerquirements, but most. Want a
high output combi? Go for the ATAG 51kW. Few match it, few make one
with that output.
Actually, that's the first combi that I might be prepared to let through
my
front door, IF its construction& quality are up to scratch. The design
is
way more sensible than the usual combi design and should in theory make
it
much more reliable. (it has two separate heat exchanging coils, one for
CH, one for HW. No diverted valves needed).

Tim
ATAG boilers seem to be held in high esteem by a lot of installers.

One of the RRs.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...

Yes, and also at constant power, given the direct coupling to the
propellers. The makers all state 60 - 200 rpm as the operating speeds,
though, without mentioning efficiency at the lower speeds. Even in the
1950s, they were doing over 40% thermal efficiency at best speed/ power,
and are now up to 54% for the best of them. Train diesels aren't all that
far behind, which leads to the interesting thought that unless you're
generating your electricity by nuclear power, a diesel locomotive may well
generate less pollution overall than an electric one.

Highly unlikely.You also have soot and they pollute where people are.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Condensing boilers are no different to
regular boilers. All they have extra is a condensate drain.

Good grief. Even an intelligent 10 year old knows different.

To what?

If I add a condensate drain to an old boiler it becomes a condensing one?

You are a plantpot.

In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Bikes and boats don't have to meet the same emissions as cars.

But not far off. They are a world away from the 1950s two-strokes.

The orbital engine isn't used on cars

More to the lawmower image of the two-stoke it was not used in cars.
Chrysler did some R&D on two-strokes for cars and came up with a
direct injection with normal pressurised oil crankshaft engine. Only
image stopped it being used - by the marketing men.

Image? You think the average car driver cares what type of engine is in
use?

The marketing men did.

You certainly take notice of them. others have more sense.

It's not possible to make a two stroke meet emissions regs in practice.

It is.

Their fuel consumption is also poor.

Not so. They are half the size ans weight.

Size makes a difference to fuel consumption? Weight does to some extent -
but if it was that important, all diesels would be less economical than
petrol because like for like they weigh more.

Just why do you think every car maker in the world sticks to four stokes,

Because they are Luddites who are a part of near cartel.

Now you know.

Quite the opposite of you, then.

--
*You never really learn to swear until you learn to drive *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Large diesels used for this sort of application aren't comparable to
what is suitable for road use.

There are two-stroke diseel trucks. The Commer TS-3 was two-stroke.

You seem to have a problem with are and was. Commer went out of business
in 1979.

--
*I can see your point, but I still think you're full of ****.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 04/02/2012 11:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Doctor wrote:
Large diesels used for this sort of application aren't comparable to
what is suitable for road use.

There are two-stroke diseel trucks. The Commer TS-3 was two-stroke.

You seem to have a problem with are and was. Commer went out of business
in 1979.

The Commer two stroke opposed piston engine is well worth checking out -
it's quite amusing.

In article ,
Clive George wrote:
You seem to have a problem with are and was. Commer went out of business
in 1979.

The Commer two stroke opposed piston engine is well worth checking out -
it's quite amusing.

My father sold trucks at the time the Commer was current - and it was a
very good performer compared to trucks of the day. So much so that they
were chosen to transport fish from Aberdeen to London, in a 'door to door'
time which was competitive with rail, but cheaper. Sadly, they were pretty
unreliable.

--
*Santa's helpers are subordinate clauses*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Clive George wrote:
You seem to have a problem with are and was. Commer went out of
business in 1979.

The Commer two stroke opposed piston engine is well worth checking
out - it's quite amusing.

My father sold trucks at the time the Commer was current - and it was
a very good performer compared to trucks of the day. So much so that
they were chosen to transport fish from Aberdeen to London, in a
'door to door' time which was competitive with rail, but cheaper.
Sadly, they were pretty unreliable.

I seem to recall that they ran two stroke engined buses in Dublin.
Certainly when I was there in 2002, many of the buses sounded much higher
reving than normal bus engines. In fact, a bit like this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IBdZoE5H9Y

Tim

On 04/02/2012 10:34, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 03/02/2012 10:53, Doctor Drivel wrote:

It is best you keep quiet as the OP is wanting proper advice, not the
ramblings of DIYers.

Since he asked the question in a DIY group its fairly safe to say that
is exactly what he did want.

As long as you tell him you are a DIYer will no experience of these
matters that is fine.

And what are you dribble? You claim to be an expert on all manner of
things, and yet rarely post anything which would give credibility to
your many pompous claims (in fact typically doing the reverse).


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"John Williamson" wrote in
message ...

Yes, and also at constant power, given the direct coupling to the
propellers. The makers all state 60 - 200 rpm as the operating speeds,
though, without mentioning efficiency at the lower speeds. Even in the
1950s, they were doing over 40% thermal efficiency at best speed/
power, and are now up to 54% for the best of them. Train diesels
aren't all that far behind, which leads to the interesting thought
that unless you're generating your electricity by nuclear power, a
diesel locomotive may well generate less pollution overall than an
electric one.

Highly unlikely.You also have soot and they pollute where people are.

Please read what I wrote, not what you wish I'd written. *Overall*
pollution from a diesel train may be less than *overall* pollution from
an electric train. Fuel efficiency from fuel supply to wheel in a diesel
train is better then fuel efficiency from fuel supply to wheel on an
electric train, especially in this country, where a sizeable proportion
of the electricity used is generated by burning coal.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John Williamson wrote:

It's not possible to make a two stroke meet emissions regs in
practice.
Their fuel consumption is also poor. This is why they're only used for
purposes where their low production costs outweigh this. In countries
where it doesn't matter.

Almost all large diesels as used in ships are two stroke. They also have
the highest fuel efficiencies of all internal combustion engines,
currently over 50%. Two stroke engines scale up better than four stroke
engines.

Large diesels used for this sort of application aren't comparable to what
is suitable for road use.

There are two-stroke diseel trucks. The Commer TS-3 was two-stroke.

Abandoned by the makers half a century ago as too complex, too expensive
to produce and too inefficient. Next...

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Clive George wrote:
On 04/02/2012 11:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Doctor wrote:
Large diesels used for this sort of application aren't comparable to
what is suitable for road use.

There are two-stroke diseel trucks. The Commer TS-3 was two-stroke.

You seem to have a problem with are and was. Commer went out of business
in 1979.

The Commer two stroke opposed piston engine is well worth checking out -
it's quite amusing.


Especially the way that the supercharger was driven off the crankshaft
by a differential gear arrangement which meant that the harder it
worked, the higher the boost pressure got. Three cylinders, six pistons,
two crankshafts...

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article , John Williamson johnwilli
scribeth thus
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John Williamson wrote:

It's not possible to make a two stroke meet emissions regs in
practice.
Their fuel consumption is also poor. This is why they're only used for
purposes where their low production costs outweigh this. In countries
where it doesn't matter.

Almost all large diesels as used in ships are two stroke. They also have
the highest fuel efficiencies of all internal combustion engines,
currently over 50%. Two stroke engines scale up better than four stroke
engines.

Large diesels used for this sort of application aren't comparable to what
is suitable for road use.

There are two-stroke diseel trucks. The Commer TS-3 was two-stroke.

Abandoned by the makers half a century ago as too complex, too expensive
to produce and too inefficient. Next...


Napier Deltic anyone .. Two stroke IIRC;?...
--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
There are two-stroke diseel trucks. The Commer TS-3 was two-stroke.

Abandoned by the makers half a century ago as too complex, too expensive
to produce and too inefficient. Next...

Commer was part of the Rootes Group which went near bankrupt. Car makes
they owned included Humber, Hillman, Singer, Sunbeam and Talbot. Were
taken over by Chrysler who also failed. The European side was sold to
Peugeot.
Another classic example of a UK car company who failed because they didn't
invest in enough new models. The one which they did - the Imp - had many
design flaws when introduced. Which, of course, were blamed on the
workforce. Although there were problems there - the government of the day
forced them to build a new factory in a part of the world not used to car
building - Linwood, Glasgow.

--
*I get enough exercise just pushing my luck.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
There are two-stroke diseel trucks. The Commer TS-3 was two-stroke.

Abandoned by the makers half a century ago as too complex, too expensive
to produce and too inefficient. Next...

Commer was part of the Rootes Group which went near bankrupt. Car makes
they owned included Humber, Hillman, Singer, Sunbeam and Talbot. Were
taken over by Chrysler who also failed. The European side was sold to
Peugeot.
Another classic example of a UK car company who failed because they didn't
invest in enough new models. The one which they did - the Imp - had many
design flaws when introduced. Which, of course, were blamed on the
workforce. Although there were problems there - the government of the day
forced them to build a new factory in a part of the world not used to car
building - Linwood, Glasgow.

not quite sure I understand the logic of that. is there an inherited gene
which makes car building easier? If so, how did Toyota succeed at Derby?

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

In article ,
charles wrote:
Although there were problems there - the government of the day
forced them to build a new factory in a part of the world not used to
car building - Linwood, Glasgow.

not quite sure I understand the logic of that. is there an inherited
gene which makes car building easier? If so, how did Toyota succeed at
Derby?

As with anything, proper training of the workforce.

--
*I'm planning to be spontaneous tomorrow *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

charles wrote:
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
There are two-stroke diseel trucks. The Commer TS-3 was two-stroke.

Abandoned by the makers half a century ago as too complex, too expensive
to produce and too inefficient. Next...

Commer was part of the Rootes Group which went near bankrupt. Car makes
they owned included Humber, Hillman, Singer, Sunbeam and Talbot. Were
taken over by Chrysler who also failed. The European side was sold to
Peugeot.
Another classic example of a UK car company who failed because they didn't
invest in enough new models. The one which they did - the Imp - had many
design flaws when introduced. Which, of course, were blamed on the
workforce. Although there were problems there - the government of the day
forced them to build a new factory in a part of the world not used to car
building - Linwood, Glasgow.

not quite sure I understand the logic of that. is there an inherited gene
which makes car building easier? If so, how did Toyota succeed at Derby?

Not a gene as such, no, but in the Derby area, there is a history of car
and aircraft building, so the workforce were used to working at that
scale before Toyota opened the plant. In Glasgow, the engineering
background was in shipbulding, and the skills aren't so easily transferable.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
There are two-stroke diseel trucks. The Commer TS-3 was two-stroke.

Abandoned by the makers half a century ago as too complex, too
expensive to produce and too inefficient. Next...


Napier Deltic anyone .. Two stroke IIRC;?...

Two strokes are common in chain saws too. Doesn't make them ideal for a
road vehicle.

--
*What happens if you get scared half to death twice? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
Although there were problems there - the government of the day
forced them to build a new factory in a part of the world not used to
car building - Linwood, Glasgow.

not quite sure I understand the logic of that. is there an inherited
gene which makes car building easier? If so, how did Toyota succeed at
Derby?

As with anything, proper training of the workforce.

Which was made easier by using the transferred skills from other
manufacturers in the area.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
Although there were problems there - the government of the day
forced them to build a new factory in a part of the world not used to
car building - Linwood, Glasgow.

not quite sure I understand the logic of that. is there an inherited
gene which makes car building easier? If so, how did Toyota succeed at
Derby?

As with anything, proper training of the workforce.

That's got nothing to do with the location of the plant.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

tony sayer wrote:
In article , John Williamson johnwilli
scribeth thus
Doctor Drivel wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
It's not possible to make a two stroke meet emissions regs in
practice.
Their fuel consumption is also poor. This is why they're only used for
purposes where their low production costs outweigh this. In countries
where it doesn't matter.

Almost all large diesels as used in ships are two stroke. They also have
the highest fuel efficiencies of all internal combustion engines,
currently over 50%. Two stroke engines scale up better than four stroke
engines.
Large diesels used for this sort of application aren't comparable to what
is suitable for road use.
There are two-stroke diseel trucks. The Commer TS-3 was two-stroke.

Abandoned by the makers half a century ago as too complex, too expensive
to produce and too inefficient. Next...


Napier Deltic anyone .. Two stroke IIRC;?...

With three crankshafts, too, but a much more reliable design.

http://www.oldengine.org/members/die...terTS3/TS3.htm

Many more moving parts per cylinder.



--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:58:36 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
There are two-stroke diseel trucks. The Commer TS-3 was two-stroke.

Abandoned by the makers half a century ago as too complex, too
expensive to produce and too inefficient. Next...


Napier Deltic anyone .. Two stroke IIRC;?...

Two strokes are common in chain saws too. Doesn't make them ideal for a
road vehicle.

And the Doxford J opposed-piston marine engine.

--
Frank Erskine

In article ,
charles wrote:
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
Although there were problems there - the government of the day
forced them to build a new factory in a part of the world not used to
car building - Linwood, Glasgow.

not quite sure I understand the logic of that. is there an inherited
gene which makes car building easier? If so, how did Toyota succeed at
Derby?

As with anything, proper training of the workforce.

That's got nothing to do with the location of the plant.

If you start a new car plant in an area with others, you'll likely get a
high proportion of the new workforce that already have experience.
Do this in an area without car plants and you'll not. In those days people
weren't too keen on moving to work. That's why the new factory was sited
in an area of high unemployment.

--
*I love cats...they taste just like chicken.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...

Yes, and also at constant power, given the direct coupling to the
propellers. The makers all state 60 - 200 rpm as the operating speeds,
though, without mentioning efficiency at the lower speeds. Even in the
1950s, they were doing over 40% thermal efficiency at best speed/ power,
and are now up to 54% for the best of them. Train diesels aren't all
that far behind, which leads to the interesting thought that unless
you're generating your electricity by nuclear power, a diesel locomotive
may well generate less pollution overall than an electric one.

Highly unlikely.You also have soot and they pollute where people are.

Please read what I wrote, not what you wish I'd written. *Overall*
pollution from a diesel train may be less than *overall* pollution from an
electric train. Fuel efficiency from fuel supply to wheel in a diesel
train is better then fuel efficiency from fuel supply to wheel on an
electric train, especially in this country, where a sizeable proportion of
the electricity used is generated by burning coal.

You are wrong. A diesel train "may" get 40% efficiency. Power stations are
at just over 50%. Line losses are less than 10%. You have also got to cost
in the transportation of the diesel fuel to the depots, refining,
maintaining a large fleet of diesel engines, the cost of making all these
diesel engines, etc. A gas powered power station easily beats on efficiency
in "fuel burn" to wheel. A nuclear station is even better.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Large diesels used for this sort of application aren't comparable to
what is suitable for road use.

There are two-stroke diesel trucks. The Commer TS-3 was two-stroke.

You seem to have a problem

Again..."There are two-stroke diesel trucks." Most ships engines are
two-stroke.

"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 04/02/2012 11:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Doctor wrote:
Large diesels used for this sort of application aren't comparable to
what is suitable for road use.

There are two-stroke diseel trucks. The Commer TS-3 was two-stroke.

You seem to have a problem with are and was. Commer went out of business
in 1979.

The Commer two stroke opposed piston engine is well worth checking out -
it's quite amusing.

The TS-3 went for 18 years and was ditched when Chrysler bought Rootes, who
wanted to push existing US engines not understanding the unique small, in
physical size, engine. The Commer engine was 3.5 litres with twice the mpg
of comparable HP trucks. It was not ditched because of inefficiency. In
fact Commer had 14 TS-4 engines successfully tested and were make the bigger
version. One is being put to reuse in NZ.

The Aussies and Kiwis loved the TS-3 wit the best restored examples here..

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,

Sadly, they were pretty
unreliable.

Not so. Maybe in the hands of poor Jock mechanics.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
Clive George wrote:
On 04/02/2012 11:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Doctor wrote:
Large diesels used for this sort of application aren't comparable to
what is suitable for road use.

There are two-stroke diseel trucks. The Commer TS-3 was two-stroke.

You seem to have a problem with are and was. Commer went out of business
in 1979.

The Commer two stroke opposed piston engine is well worth checking out -
it's quite amusing.

Especially the way that the supercharger was driven off the crankshaft by
a differential gear arrangement which meant that the harder it worked, the
higher the boost pressure got. Three cylinders, six pistons, two
crankshafts...

ONE crankshaft. It had rockers.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John Williamson wrote:

It's not possible to make a two stroke meet emissions regs in
practice.
Their fuel consumption is also poor. This is why they're only used
for
purposes where their low production costs outweigh this. In countries
where it doesn't matter.

Almost all large diesels as used in ships are two stroke. They also
have
the highest fuel efficiencies of all internal combustion engines,
currently over 50%. Two stroke engines scale up better than four stroke
engines.

Large diesels used for this sort of application aren't comparable to
what
is suitable for road use.

There are two-stroke diseel trucks. The Commer TS-3 was two-stroke.

Abandoned by the makers half a century ago as too complex, too expensive
to produce and too inefficient. Next...

Nonsense. It was exactly the opposite of what you wrote. Read my others post
on this. It was small and simple with a high HP.

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , John Williamson johnwilli
scribeth thus
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John Williamson wrote:

It's not possible to make a two stroke meet emissions regs in
practice.
Their fuel consumption is also poor. This is why they're only used
for
purposes where their low production costs outweigh this. In
countries
where it doesn't matter.

Almost all large diesels as used in ships are two stroke. They also
have
the highest fuel efficiencies of all internal combustion engines,
currently over 50%. Two stroke engines scale up better than four
stroke
engines.

Large diesels used for this sort of application aren't comparable to
what
is suitable for road use.

There are two-stroke diseel trucks. The Commer TS-3 was two-stroke.

Abandoned by the makers half a century ago as too complex, too expensive
to produce and too inefficient. Next...

Napier Deltic anyone .. Two stroke IIRC;?...

Three cranks. Suitable for marine and train uses.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Bikes and boats don't have to meet the same emissions as cars.

But not far off. They are a world away from the 1950s two-strokes.

The orbital engine isn't used on cars

More to the lawmower image of the two-stoke it was not used in cars.
Chrysler did some R&D on two-strokes for cars and came up with a
direct injection with normal pressurised oil crankshaft engine. Only
image stopped it being used - by the marketing men.

Image? You think the average car driver cares what type of engine is in
use?

The marketing men did.

You certainly take notice of them.

So do the big auto makers.

snip drivel

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 04/02/2012 10:34, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 03/02/2012 10:53, Doctor Drivel wrote:

It is best you keep quiet as the OP is wanting proper advice, not the
ramblings of DIYers.

Since he asked the question in a DIY group its fairly safe to say that
is exactly what he did want.

As long as you tell him you are a DIYer with no experience of these
matters that is fine.

And what are you dribble? You claim to be an expert on all manner of
things,

That I am.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

the government of the day
forced them to build a new factory in a part of the world not used to car
building - Linwood, Glasgow.

The also did the same with Liverpool. Ford and Triumph were forced there.
The work force hated the repetitive auto jobs - they were not used to such
boring tasks, being involved in shipping and ship building. Again they were
poorly trained and automation was less than the USA and Germany, etc.

Liverpool and Glasgow were bound to have problems. They should have forced
the shipyards to modernise and build ships indoors, not like they did in
1850. The conditions in the UK shipyards was appalling. High wage France
built the QM2, when Liverpool or Glasgow could have built it and 1000s of
other advanced ships with an emphasis on quality and advancement.

But Thatcher decided to off-shore manufacturing and concentrate on the South
East -hence the crap we are in now.

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 21:43:16 +0000 (UTC) Andrew Gabriel wrote :
The Celsius 25 design came from a hugarian company
they took over, IIRC. It was one of the few in UK which had
a stainless steel heat exchanger at the time.

Romanian I think.

Hungary.

In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Large diesels used for this sort of application aren't comparable to
what is suitable for road use.

There are two-stroke diesel trucks. The Commer TS-3 was two-stroke.

You seem to have a problem

Again..."There are two-stroke diesel trucks."

Again. Name one current one. There are lead acid battery driven electric
trucks too - and steam ones. If you go back far enough.

Most ships engines are
two-stroke.

WTF has a ship engine got to do with the price of apples?

--
*He who laughs last, thinks slowest.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
The Commer two stroke opposed piston engine is well worth checking out -
it's quite amusing.

The TS-3 went for 18 years and was ditched when Chrysler bought Rootes,
who wanted to push existing US engines not understanding the unique
small, in physical size, engine.

Chrysler weren't interested in the UK market for trucks - far too well
covered by others. And given Rootes went effectively bankrupt,why would
they continue with their designs?

The Commer engine was 3.5 litres with
twice the mpg of comparable HP trucks.

That is total ********. It was more powerful than similar capacity truck
engines. But far less reliable.

It was not ditched because of
inefficiency. In fact Commer had 14 TS-4 engines successfully tested
and were make the bigger version. One is being put to reuse in NZ.

Who in their right mind would use a 60 year old design?

The Aussies and Kiwis loved the TS-3 wit the best restored examples
here..

Lots of relevance to the discussion - as usual.

--
*The problem with the world is that everyone is a few drinks behind *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,

Sadly, they were pretty
unreliable.

Not so. Maybe in the hands of poor Jock mechanics.

Aren't you capable of using Google?

--
*The problem with the world is that everyone is a few drinks behind *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

"John Williamson" wrote in
message ...
Clive George wrote:
On 04/02/2012 11:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Doctor wrote:
Large diesels used for this sort of application aren't comparable to
what is suitable for road use.

There are two-stroke diseel trucks. The Commer TS-3 was two-stroke.

You seem to have a problem with are and was. Commer went out of business
in 1979.

The Commer two stroke opposed piston engine is well worth checking
out - it's quite amusing.

Especially the way that the supercharger was driven off the
crankshaft by a differential gear arrangement which meant that the
harder it worked, the higher the boost pressure got. Three cylinders,
six pistons, two crankshafts...

ONE crankshaft. It had rockers.

Was that without the mods?

--
geoff