Longer life for trucks with auto gearboxes
Page 45
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
read with great interest your article leaded "Automatic satisfaction with !sso's extra" (CM November 29) and Kited the comments made by that ex 3ritish Leyland "gen man", Mr Geoff )ay, and fully endorse his statenents. As fleet engineer for a fleet of 3ritish Leyland vehicles (Triplex Safety 3Iass Co Ltd), I can tell you that we lave run semi-autos since 1967 with lo major breakdowns. The corr ion of the 680 engine and the semilute box gets a wide acceptance by irivers and I have found, over very xtended mileages, that it is much :inder to the rear axle, half-shafts, ;hackle pins, propshafts, etc, despite he fact these vehicles also have two;peed axles which, until drivers are ully conversant with their use, can :reate very bad "snatch".
Your article states: -There is now no similar box still in production" — this is not strictly correct. The Buffalo with the semi-automatic box is a current production vehicle and we have a number of these in service. If anything, the semi-auto box seems to suit the torque characteristics of the 510 engine even better than with the 680. The splitter is within the gearbox now and a two-speed axle is no longer required. (What a pity the semiautomatic gearbox is not available behind a 690 engine in a vehicle built like the Beaver or Buffalo).
It would be of interest if other users would comment.