AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Petrol Come-back?

20th October 1961
Page 43
Page 43, 20th October 1961 — Petrol Come-back?
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

yESTERDAY'S controversies invariably seem less significant, with the passing of time, than they were felt to be when they were raging, but rarely does a controversy show signs not only of returning, but of actually reversing itself. This could be the case with the old "petrol versus diesel" argument.

The growth of the diesel engine has virtually blanketed heavy powerunits. In 1935, only 1.2 per cent. of all goods vehicles had diesel engines —a total of 5,429 units. In 1960, the figure had risen to 302,221 vehicles —21.6 per cent. of the country's total fleet. With the growth of small diesel engines, those figures must by now be considerably exceeded. On hackneys (the Ministry statistical term which includes buses, coaches and taxis), the percentage has risen from 6.5 (5,541 vehicles) in 1935 to 75.6 (71,517 vehicles) last year, Since it was introduced for commercial vehicles in this country in 1928, the diesel engine has, it can be seen, literally taken over the heavy field. No large buses, and few heavy goods vehicles are now put in service with , petrol engines. Last May, the chief designer (vehicles) of Leyland Motors, Ltd., Mr. J. McHugh, told the Public Transport Association that Leyland could see no successor to the present four-cycle diesel engine.

A formidable, almost impregnable, position for diesels, without doubt—in fact they are even eating their way into the American haulage field, so long a petrol stronghold. So why is it even possible to speculate whether the petrol engine will make a come-back in the heavy fields? An article on page 385 of this issue examines this question.

It is known that at least two manufacturers are expending certain research on the potentialities of big petrol engines. Earlier this year, The Commercial Motor tested a petrol-engined E.R.F. eight-wheeled tanker. That test showed that a payload of about 17 tons could be carried at an average speed of 47 m.p.h. Fuel consumption averaged 4.7 m.p.g.

The author of the article in this week's issue states: "Recent discussions . . . indicated that petrol engines will be available in the near future, the specific fuel consumption of which will match that of established types of diesel at loads exceeding 50 to 60 per cent."

The advent of motorways, and the possibility of longer runs, as more British vehicles are used on Continental journeys, favours a suitable petrol unit—there are practically none available now, incidentally, because of the value of existing diesel units which undoubtedly offer a high standard of efficiency at sustained high speeds.

If, in the future, more advantageous petrol engines are offered, they will then have to pass the acid (and only practical) test which operators impose: "Which unit gives me the best return on my capital?" It was on this balance of price, power output, fuel consumption, part-load efficiency, and maintenance costs that the diesel power unit rose to its present position. Competitive petrol engines would have to meet diesels on their own ground, and surpass all the diesel could offer, to break back into the transport fields they have lost.

Obviously, there are some authorities who think petrol engines might do this and are prepared to examine the possibility more closely. It is equally obvious that British diesel engines have established a very strong appeal in this country, and are rapidly becoming a major export item. Their popularity is still growing.

Whether the petrol engine does, in fact, make a return in the heavier vehicle ranges or not, the fact remains that road transport operators will not lose. Whatever happens, they are assured of a future supply of reliable, economical power units that are second to none.

Tags

People: J. McHugh

comments powered by Disqus