Commer TS3 opposed piston 2 stroke

[News]

This remarkable engine was built from 1954 to 1972. I would like to know
some details of this truck. They were common when I was a boy. Even as a 4
years old this truck stood out because of the whine of the engine (probably
the rootes blower) and exhaust note. It sounded wonderful. It sounded class
and quality even to a 4 years old.

Many were still around in the late 1980s/early 90s.

Some questions;

1. Where these engines cheap to run compared to the equivalent trucks of the
time?
2. Where they reliable? (I believe they had mainly transmission problems
rather than engine, (well there was little to the engine)
3. Did drivers like them? Where they nice to drive?
4. I believe Chrysler of the USA bought out Rootes and dropped the Comer
brand and engines in 1972. (I believe the Commer commercial vehicles
division was making a profit) A 4 cylinder prototype was being developed at
the time, and near complete. Why did Chrysler drop an obviously successful,
efficient (in cc terms as it was only 3.5 litres) and ultra simple engine
with near 20 years of development behind it?
5. Does anyone know if this type of engine is being brought back? With new
engine technology and synthetic lubricants, this design would be a great
success.

TIA

[William G.]

http://www.oldengine.org/members/diesel/Technical/TS3.htm
Looks awkward to me.......

Post by News
This remarkable engine was built from 1954 to 1972. I would like to know
some details of this truck. They were common when I was a boy. Even as a 4
years old this truck stood out because of the whine of the engine (probably
the rootes blower) and exhaust note. It sounded wonderful. It sounded class
and quality even to a 4 years old.
Many were still around in the late 1980s/early 90s.
Some questions;
1. Where these engines cheap to run compared to the equivalent trucks of the
time?
2. Where they reliable? (I believe they had mainly transmission problems
rather than engine, (well there was little to the engine)
3. Did drivers like them? Where they nice to drive?
4. I believe Chrysler of the USA bought out Rootes and dropped the Comer
brand and engines in 1972. (I believe the Commer commercial vehicles
division was making a profit) A 4 cylinder prototype was being developed at
the time, and near complete. Why did Chrysler drop an obviously successful,
efficient (in cc terms as it was only 3.5 litres) and ultra simple engine
with near 20 years of development behind it?
5. Does anyone know if this type of engine is being brought back? With new
engine technology and synthetic lubricants, this design would be a great
success.
TIA

[redbeard45]

Post by News
This remarkable engine was built from 1954 to 1972. I would
like to know
some details of this truck. They were common when I was a boy.
Even as a 4
years old this truck stood out because of the whine of the
engine (probably
the rootes blower) and exhaust note. It sounded wonderful. It
sounded class
and quality even to a 4 years old.
Many were still around in the late 1980s/early 90s.
Some questions;
1. Where these engines cheap to run compared to the equivalent
trucks of the
time?
2. Where they reliable? (I believe they had mainly
transmission problems
rather than engine, (well there was little to the engine)
3. Did drivers like them? Where they nice to drive?
4. I believe Chrysler of the USA bought out Rootes and
dropped the Comer
brand and engines in 1972. (I believe the Commer commercial
vehicles
division was making a profit) A 4 cylinder prototype was being
developed at
the time, and near complete. Why did Chrysler drop an
obviously successful,
efficient (in cc terms as it was only 3.5 litres) and ultra
simple engine
with near 20 years of development behind it?
5. Does anyone know if this type of engine is being brought
back? With new
engine technology and synthetic lubricants, this design would
be a great
success.
TIA

Hi, I live in the South Island of New Zealand and like you, grew up
with the sound of the TS3, as my father was a truck driver who drove
TS3s and I often accompanied him. I have never driven one, but as a
result of my interest in Commer trucks and TS3s, I produce a
newsletter for about 50+ Commer enthusiasts in NZ, as well as sending
them to England, Norway, the Netherlands and Australia. To answer your
questions;
I have heard from two sources that the engine was originally developed
by Tillings - Stevens, a company that used to make petrol-electric
buses used in England around WW1. They were taken over by the Rootes
Group, makers of Commers. This is where the motor designation comes
from TS 3 = Tillings Stevens 3 cylinder. It was designed for
underfloor mounting, originally for English self-righting life boats.
It was also mounted underfloor in the Commer Avenger bus chassis.
They were significantly cheaper to run than other equivalent diesel
motors of the time, my father quoting 12-14mpg on difficult hilly
going. What was really appreciated was their instant power compared to
other (lumbering?) diesels of the time. They were always easy
starters, and if they didn’t start first push on the button, it was an
indication that all was not well. In New Zealand, they were never used
within their design limitations as a 7 tonner. I have a photo from my
father’s collection which shows his Commer with not one but 2 trailers
on behind. It has been estimated that it had to have a least 20+ ton
of sheep on board. This was fairly usual of the time. An engineer from
Rootes in England came out to visit NZ and was horrified by what he
saw. They were designed for milk and beer deliveries on local runs on
smooth roads, but he saw them as tractor units pulling logging jinkers
with huge logs out of the bush (there were no heavy trucks in NZ after
WW2 until the 1970s). They took this punishment but the trouble was
that while they could pull up one side of the hill, they didn’t have
the brakes for going down the other side with these sort of loads on -
no engine braking from the two-stroke engine! In New Zealand, there
were all sorts of modifications made (which would now be illegal) to
increase the truck and trailer braking, including the fitting of 3
compressors on the motor. This lack of down hill braking led to engine
problems - particularly the breaking up of the ’fire rings’ at the top
of the pistons. One expert says that if drivers stopped at the top of
the hill for a while after a long hard slog and let the engine cool
down, it wouldn’t have been a problem, but another expert says that it
was due to over-revving going down the hill with a heavy (over) load
and lack of suitable braking. The interesting thing is that they would
still start and do a hard days work, even if suffering cracked liners
from this mistreatment.
It was also fairly easy to alter the fuel pump through various means
to provide more fuel (and hence more power) than intended, although
this often lead to melted pistons! One trick involved fitting 14mm
spark plug washers over the fuel pump ramp to extend its travel. The
transmission problem you note related to Commer’s bad idea of fitting
the 5 speed synchro box from the petrol to the diesel which wasn’t up
to the job and lead to 1st and reverse failure. This was eventually
sorted and the later 6 spd Commer box was really loved by drivers. I
don’t know about nice to drive but drivers and operators still swear
by them and the concensus is that they helped an awful lot of
businesses get off the ground. One of the drivers that worked with my
father was put on a Mercedes (which was just getting a foot hold in NZ
- it may have been an early 1418 or the L series bonnetted model
before) on trial loan from the dealer. I can remember this truck it
was darkish red. The 1418 was generally considered a huge improvement
on the Commer but when the trial was over, the driver wanted his
Commer back as he reckoned the Merc had no-where near the instant
power on the hills.
I worked on farm work where a local firm’s driver used a TS 3 powered
tractor unit to collect the peas from our pea-viners. Eventually, it
was replaced by a Perkins 6354 powered version (they fitted this
engine in NZ after 1972) and he hated the gutless thing - he wanted
his tired TS 3 back!
Chrysler bought Rootes Group in 1966/67 and were staggered at what
they found in the TS4 - the 4 cylinder version. 14 prototypes had been
built and they were an incredible motor and would have been ahead of
anything at the time 200hp, etc. Chrysler had a deal with Cummins in
England so they ordered the 14 destroyed. Luckily 4 survive (mainly in
museums in England) and a friend has just found one in a barn in
Ireland and imported it to NZ. He is in regular contact with Don
Kitchen, the designer of the TS 3/4 and the facts he has on what this
motor achieved in testing is amazing. The motor that replaced the TS4
in Commers, the Cummins Vale 170/185hp was a disaster - it was a high
revving, low torque hand grenade!
I don’t know of any thoughts of bringing this motor back. Noise would
be a huge problem but with new technologies this could probably be
cured.
The TS3 found a lot of use in stationery engines, in fact Lister
combined with Commer to produce a ’power-pack’ for multiple use -
there is a link to this in the other posting on this topic. I have
heard heaps of stories of how, if they were kept at 1500rpm, given a
change of oil and air filter occasionally, they went for ever. They
were popular in the Australian outback where farmers filled a 44 drum
of diesel connected to the TS 3 and visited it to refuel it once a
week. It was always still going! Another story I have from 1st hand
concerns a sand barge on a NZ river where the TS 3 wasn’t touched for
15 years. They were quite a popular boat motor (which probably isn’t
surprising since that is what they were designed for.
Don’t forget though that they were a copy of a pre-war design by
Sulzar (Swiss). There are a number of people in NZ who have restored
and running TS3s. There is a later model one for sale at the moment
with only 63000 miles on the clock.
If you want to get in touch, I would be happy to send you the
newsletter I put out, which includes photos of the TS 4 and pictures
and stories of the TS 3
Cheers from NZ

[Classic Car Fair]

Post by redbeard45

Post by News
This remarkable engine was built from 1954 to 1972. I would
like to know
some details of this truck. They were common when I was a boy. Even as a 4
years old this truck stood out because of the whine of the
engine (probably
the rootes blower) and exhaust note. It sounded wonderful. It sounded class
and quality even to a 4 years old.
Many were still around in the late 1980s/early 90s.
Some questions;
1. Where these engines cheap to run compared to the equivalent trucks of the
time?
2. Where they reliable? (I believe they had mainly
transmission problems
rather than engine, (well there was little to the engine)
3. Did drivers like them? Where they nice to drive?
4. I believe Chrysler of the USA bought out Rootes and
dropped the Comer
brand and engines in 1972. (I believe the Commer commercial vehicles
division was making a profit) A 4 cylinder prototype was being developed at
the time, and near complete. Why did Chrysler drop an
obviously successful,
efficient (in cc terms as it was only 3.5 litres) and ultra
simple engine
with near 20 years of development behind it?
5. Does anyone know if this type of engine is being brought
back? With new
engine technology and synthetic lubricants, this design would be a great
success.
TIA

Hi, I live in the South Island of New Zealand and like you, grew up
with the sound of the TS3, as my father was a truck driver who drove
TS3s and I often accompanied him. I have never driven one, but as a
result of my interest in Commer trucks and TS3s, I produce a
newsletter for about 50+ Commer enthusiasts in NZ, as well as sending
them to England, Norway, the Netherlands and Australia. To answer your
questions;
I have heard from two sources that the engine was originally developed
by Tillings - Stevens, a company that used to make petrol-electric
buses used in England around WW1. They were taken over by the Rootes
Group, makers of Commers. This is where the motor designation comes
from TS 3 = Tillings Stevens 3 cylinder. It was designed for
underfloor mounting, originally for English self-righting life boats.
It was also mounted underfloor in the Commer Avenger bus chassis.
They were significantly cheaper to run than other equivalent diesel
motors of the time, my father quoting 12-14mpg on difficult hilly
going. What was really appreciated was their instant power compared to
other (lumbering?) diesels of the time. They were always easy
starters, and if they didn’t start first push on the button, it was an
indication that all was not well. In New Zealand, they were never used
within their design limitations as a 7 tonner. I have a photo from my
father’s collection which shows his Commer with not one but 2 trailers
on behind. It has been estimated that it had to have a least 20+ ton
of sheep on board. This was fairly usual of the time. An engineer from
Rootes in England came out to visit NZ and was horrified by what he
saw. They were designed for milk and beer deliveries on local runs on
smooth roads, but he saw them as tractor units pulling logging jinkers
with huge logs out of the bush (there were no heavy trucks in NZ after
WW2 until the 1970s). They took this punishment but the trouble was
that while they could pull up one side of the hill, they didn’t have
the brakes for going down the other side with these sort of loads on -
no engine braking from the two-stroke engine! In New Zealand, there
were all sorts of modifications made (which would now be illegal) to
increase the truck and trailer braking, including the fitting of 3
compressors on the motor. This lack of down hill braking led to engine
problems - particularly the breaking up of the ’fire rings’ at the top
of the pistons. One expert says that if drivers stopped at the top of
the hill for a while after a long hard slog and let the engine cool
down, it wouldn’t have been a problem, but another expert says that it
was due to over-revving going down the hill with a heavy (over) load
and lack of suitable braking. The interesting thing is that they would
still start and do a hard days work, even if suffering cracked liners
from this mistreatment.
It was also fairly easy to alter the fuel pump through various means
to provide more fuel (and hence more power) than intended, although
this often lead to melted pistons! One trick involved fitting 14mm
spark plug washers over the fuel pump ramp to extend its travel. The
transmission problem you note related to Commer’s bad idea of fitting
the 5 speed synchro box from the petrol to the diesel which wasn’t up
to the job and lead to 1st and reverse failure. This was eventually
sorted and the later 6 spd Commer box was really loved by drivers. I
don’t know about nice to drive but drivers and operators still swear
by them and the concensus is that they helped an awful lot of
businesses get off the ground. One of the drivers that worked with my
father was put on a Mercedes (which was just getting a foot hold in NZ
- it may have been an early 1418 or the L series bonnetted model
before) on trial loan from the dealer. I can remember this truck it
was darkish red. The 1418 was generally considered a huge improvement
on the Commer but when the trial was over, the driver wanted his
Commer back as he reckoned the Merc had no-where near the instant
power on the hills.
I worked on farm work where a local firm’s driver used a TS 3 powered
tractor unit to collect the peas from our pea-viners. Eventually, it
was replaced by a Perkins 6354 powered version (they fitted this
engine in NZ after 1972) and he hated the gutless thing - he wanted
his tired TS 3 back!
Chrysler bought Rootes Group in 1966/67 and were staggered at what
they found in the TS4 - the 4 cylinder version. 14 prototypes had been
built and they were an incredible motor and would have been ahead of
anything at the time 200hp, etc. Chrysler had a deal with Cummins in
England so they ordered the 14 destroyed. Luckily 4 survive (mainly in
museums in England) and a friend has just found one in a barn in
Ireland and imported it to NZ. He is in regular contact with Don
Kitchen, the designer of the TS 3/4 and the facts he has on what this
motor achieved in testing is amazing. The motor that replaced the TS4
in Commers, the Cummins Vale 170/185hp was a disaster - it was a high
revving, low torque hand grenade!
I don’t know of any thoughts of bringing this motor back. Noise would
be a huge problem but with new technologies this could probably be
cured.
The TS3 found a lot of use in stationery engines, in fact Lister
combined with Commer to produce a ’power-pack’ for multiple use -
there is a link to this in the other posting on this topic. I have
heard heaps of stories of how, if they were kept at 1500rpm, given a
change of oil and air filter occasionally, they went for ever. They
were popular in the Australian outback where farmers filled a 44 drum
of diesel connected to the TS 3 and visited it to refuel it once a
week. It was always still going! Another story I have from 1st hand
concerns a sand barge on a NZ river where the TS 3 wasn’t touched for
15 years. They were quite a popular boat motor (which probably isn’t
surprising since that is what they were designed for.
Don’t forget though that they were a copy of a pre-war design by
Sulzar (Swiss). There are a number of people in NZ who have restored
and running TS3s. There is a later model one for sale at the moment
with only 63000 miles on the clock.
If you want to get in touch, I would be happy to send you the
newsletter I put out, which includes photos of the TS 4 and pictures
and stories of the TS 3
Cheers from NZ
--
http://www.AutoForumz.com/ This article was posted by author's request
Articles individually checked for conformance to usenet standards
Topic URL: http://www.AutoForumz.com/Classic-Trucks-Commer-TS3-opposed-piston-stroke-ftopict58429.html
Visit Topic URL to contact author (reg. req'd). Report abuse: http://www.AutoForumz.com/eform.php?p=312347

That was interesting. The Otago Vintage Machinery Club at Outram, near
Dunedin, has one of these motors on display, sectioned so you can see
inside it. I also remember the distinctive whining scream those trucks
made, and haven't heard one for decades. Cheers, another NZer


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Ken Booth]

I remember working on this engine but only to fit a blower.I remember it was
not a very nice job to do I seem to remember that the blower drive shaft
would shear also. Drivers tell me that you had to drive them hard and in
the dark when how they would fire up and blow out the hot carbon particles.

Ken

Post by Classic Car Fair

Post by redbeard45

Post by News
This remarkable engine was built from 1954 to 1972. I would like to know
some details of this truck. They were common when I was a boy. Even as a 4
years old this truck stood out because of the whine of the
engine (probably
the rootes blower) and exhaust note. It sounded wonderful. It sounded class
and quality even to a 4 years old.
Many were still around in the late 1980s/early 90s.
Some questions;
1. Where these engines cheap to run compared to the equivalent trucks of the
time?
2. Where they reliable? (I believe they had mainly
transmission problems
rather than engine, (well there was little to the engine)
3. Did drivers like them? Where they nice to drive?
4. I believe Chrysler of the USA bought out Rootes and
dropped the Comer
brand and engines in 1972. (I believe the Commer commercial vehicles
division was making a profit) A 4 cylinder prototype was being developed at
the time, and near complete. Why did Chrysler drop an
obviously successful,
efficient (in cc terms as it was only 3.5 litres) and ultra simple engine
with near 20 years of development behind it?
5. Does anyone know if this type of engine is being brought back? With new
engine technology and synthetic lubricants, this design would be a great
success.
TIA

Hi, I live in the South Island of New Zealand and like you, grew up
with the sound of the TS3, as my father was a truck driver who drove
TS3s and I often accompanied him. I have never driven one, but as a
result of my interest in Commer trucks and TS3s, I produce a
newsletter for about 50+ Commer enthusiasts in NZ, as well as sending
them to England, Norway, the Netherlands and Australia. To answer your
questions;
I have heard from two sources that the engine was originally developed
by Tillings - Stevens, a company that used to make petrol-electric
buses used in England around WW1. They were taken over by the Rootes
Group, makers of Commers. This is where the motor designation comes
from TS 3 = Tillings Stevens 3 cylinder. It was designed for
underfloor mounting, originally for English self-righting life boats.
It was also mounted underfloor in the Commer Avenger bus chassis.
They were significantly cheaper to run than other equivalent diesel
motors of the time, my father quoting 12-14mpg on difficult hilly
going. What was really appreciated was their instant power compared to
other (lumbering?) diesels of the time. They were always easy
starters, and if they didn't start first push on the button, it was an
indication that all was not well. In New Zealand, they were never used
within their design limitations as a 7 tonner. I have a photo from my
father's collection which shows his Commer with not one but 2 trailers
on behind. It has been estimated that it had to have a least 20+ ton
of sheep on board. This was fairly usual of the time. An engineer from
Rootes in England came out to visit NZ and was horrified by what he
saw. They were designed for milk and beer deliveries on local runs on
smooth roads, but he saw them as tractor units pulling logging jinkers
with huge logs out of the bush (there were no heavy trucks in NZ after
WW2 until the 1970s). They took this punishment but the trouble was
that while they could pull up one side of the hill, they didn't have
the brakes for going down the other side with these sort of loads on -
no engine braking from the two-stroke engine! In New Zealand, there
were all sorts of modifications made (which would now be illegal) to
increase the truck and trailer braking, including the fitting of 3
compressors on the motor. This lack of down hill braking led to engine
problems - particularly the breaking up of the 'fire rings' at the top
of the pistons. One expert says that if drivers stopped at the top of
the hill for a while after a long hard slog and let the engine cool
down, it wouldn't have been a problem, but another expert says that it
was due to over-revving going down the hill with a heavy (over) load
and lack of suitable braking. The interesting thing is that they would
still start and do a hard days work, even if suffering cracked liners
from this mistreatment.
It was also fairly easy to alter the fuel pump through various means
to provide more fuel (and hence more power) than intended, although
this often lead to melted pistons! One trick involved fitting 14mm
spark plug washers over the fuel pump ramp to extend its travel. The
transmission problem you note related to Commer's bad idea of fitting
the 5 speed synchro box from the petrol to the diesel which wasn't up
to the job and lead to 1st and reverse failure. This was eventually
sorted and the later 6 spd Commer box was really loved by drivers. I
don't know about nice to drive but drivers and operators still swear
by them and the concensus is that they helped an awful lot of
businesses get off the ground. One of the drivers that worked with my
father was put on a Mercedes (which was just getting a foot hold in NZ
- it may have been an early 1418 or the L series bonnetted model
before) on trial loan from the dealer. I can remember this truck it
was darkish red. The 1418 was generally considered a huge improvement
on the Commer but when the trial was over, the driver wanted his
Commer back as he reckoned the Merc had no-where near the instant
power on the hills.
I worked on farm work where a local firm's driver used a TS 3 powered
tractor unit to collect the peas from our pea-viners. Eventually, it
was replaced by a Perkins 6354 powered version (they fitted this
engine in NZ after 1972) and he hated the gutless thing - he wanted
his tired TS 3 back!
Chrysler bought Rootes Group in 1966/67 and were staggered at what
they found in the TS4 - the 4 cylinder version. 14 prototypes had been
built and they were an incredible motor and would have been ahead of
anything at the time 200hp, etc. Chrysler had a deal with Cummins in
England so they ordered the 14 destroyed. Luckily 4 survive (mainly in
museums in England) and a friend has just found one in a barn in
Ireland and imported it to NZ. He is in regular contact with Don
Kitchen, the designer of the TS 3/4 and the facts he has on what this
motor achieved in testing is amazing. The motor that replaced the TS4
in Commers, the Cummins Vale 170/185hp was a disaster - it was a high
revving, low torque hand grenade!
I don't know of any thoughts of bringing this motor back. Noise would
be a huge problem but with new technologies this could probably be
cured.
The TS3 found a lot of use in stationery engines, in fact Lister
combined with Commer to produce a 'power-pack' for multiple use -
there is a link to this in the other posting on this topic. I have
heard heaps of stories of how, if they were kept at 1500rpm, given a
change of oil and air filter occasionally, they went for ever. They
were popular in the Australian outback where farmers filled a 44 drum
of diesel connected to the TS 3 and visited it to refuel it once a
week. It was always still going! Another story I have from 1st hand
concerns a sand barge on a NZ river where the TS 3 wasn't touched for
15 years. They were quite a popular boat motor (which probably isn't
surprising since that is what they were designed for.
Don't forget though that they were a copy of a pre-war design by
Sulzar (Swiss). There are a number of people in NZ who have restored
and running TS3s. There is a later model one for sale at the moment
with only 63000 miles on the clock.
If you want to get in touch, I would be happy to send you the
newsletter I put out, which includes photos of the TS 4 and pictures
and stories of the TS 3
Cheers from NZ
--
http://www.AutoForumz.com/ This article was posted by author's request
Articles individually checked for conformance to usenet standards
http://www.AutoForumz.com/Classic-Trucks-Commer-TS3-opposed-piston-stroke-ftopict58429.html
http://www.AutoForumz.com/eform.php?p=312347

That was interesting. The Otago Vintage Machinery Club at Outram, near
Dunedin, has one of these motors on display, sectioned so you can see
inside it. I also remember the distinctive whining scream those trucks
made, and haven't heard one for decades. Cheers, another NZer
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[gregr]

Post by Ken Booth
I remember working on this engine but only to fit a blower.I
remember it was
not a very nice job to do I seem to remember that the blower
drive shaft
would shear also. Drivers tell me that you had to drive them
hard and in
the dark when how they would fire up and blow out the hot
carbon particles.
Ken
 >>
  >> > This remarkable engine was built from 1954
to 1972. I would
  >> > like to know
  >> > some details of this truck. They were common
when I was a boy.
  >> > Even as a 4
  >> > years old this truck stood out because of
the whine of the
  >> > engine (probably
  >> > the rootes blower) and exhaust note. It
sounded wonderful. It
  >> > sounded class
  >> > and quality even to a 4 years old.
  >> >
  >> > Many were still around in the late
1980s/early 90s.
  >> >
  >> > Some questions;
  >> >
  >> > 1. Where these engines cheap to run compared
to the equivalent
  >> > trucks of the
  >> > time?
  >> > 2. Where they reliable? (I believe they had
mainly
  >> > transmission problems
  >> > rather than engine, (well there was little
to the engine)
  >> > 3. Did drivers like them? Where they nice
to drive?
  >> > 4. I believe Chrysler of the USA bought out
Rootes and
  >> > dropped the Comer
  >> > brand and engines in 1972. (I believe the
Commer commercial
  >> > vehicles
  >> > division was making a profit) A 4 cylinder
prototype was being
  >> > developed at
  >> > the time, and near complete. Why did
Chrysler drop an
  >> > obviously successful,
  >> > efficient (in cc terms as it was only 3.5
litres) and ultra
  >> > simple engine
  >> > with near 20 years of development behind it?
  >> > 5. Does anyone know if this type of engine
is being brought
  >> > back? With new
  >> > engine technology and synthetic lubricants,
this design would
  >> > be a great
  >> > success.
  >> >
  >> > TIA
 >>
 >> Hi, I live in the South Island of New Zealand and
like you, grew up
 >> with the sound of the TS3, as my father was a truck
driver who drove
 >> TS3s and I often accompanied him. I have never driven
one, but as a
 >> result of my interest in Commer trucks and TS3s, I
produce a
 >> newsletter for about 50+ Commer enthusiasts in NZ, as
well as sending
 >> them to England, Norway, the Netherlands and
Australia. To answer your
 >> questions;
 >> I have heard from two sources that the engine was
originally developed
 >> by Tillings - Stevens, a company that used to make
petrol-electric
 >> buses used in England around WW1. They were taken
over by the Rootes
 >> Group, makers of Commers. This is where the motor
designation comes
 >> from TS 3 = Tillings Stevens 3 cylinder. It was
designed for
 >> underfloor mounting, originally for English
self-righting life boats.
 >> It was also mounted underfloor in the Commer Avenger
bus chassis.
 >> They were significantly cheaper to run than other
equivalent diesel
 >> motors of the time, my father quoting 12-14mpg on
difficult hilly
 >> going. What was really appreciated was their instant
power compared to
 >> other (lumbering?) diesels of the time. They were
always easy
 >> starters, and if they didn't start first push on the
button, it was an
 >> indication that all was not well. In New Zealand,
they were never used
 >> within their design limitations as a 7 tonner. I have
a photo from my
 >> father's collection which shows his Commer with not
one but 2 trailers
 >> on behind. It has been estimated that it had to have
a least 20+ ton
 >> of sheep on board. This was fairly usual of the time.
An engineer from
 >> Rootes in England came out to visit NZ and was
horrified by what he
 >> saw. They were designed for milk and beer deliveries
on local runs on
 >> smooth roads, but he saw them as tractor units
pulling logging jinkers
 >> with huge logs out of the bush (there were no heavy
trucks in NZ after
 >> WW2 until the 1970s). They took this punishment but
the trouble was
 >> that while they could pull up one side of the hill,
they didn't have
 >> the brakes for going down the other side with these
sort of loads on -
 >> no engine braking from the two-stroke engine! In New
Zealand, there
 >> were all sorts of modifications made (which would now
be illegal) to
 >> increase the truck and trailer braking, including the
fitting of 3
 >> compressors on the motor. This lack of down hill
braking led to engine
 >> problems - particularly the breaking up of the 'fire
rings' at the top
 >> of the pistons. One expert says that if drivers
stopped at the top of
 >> the hill for a while after a long hard slog and let
the engine cool
 >> down, it wouldn't have been a problem, but another
expert says that it
 >> was due to over-revving going down the hill with a
heavy (over) load
 >> and lack of suitable braking. The interesting thing
is that they would
 >> still start and do a hard days work, even if
suffering cracked liners
 >> from this mistreatment.
 >> It was also fairly easy to alter the fuel pump
through various means
 >> to provide more fuel (and hence more power) than
intended, although
 >> this often lead to melted pistons! One trick involved
fitting 14mm
 >> spark plug washers over the fuel pump ramp to extend
its travel. The
 >> transmission problem you note related to Commer's bad
idea of fitting
 >> the 5 speed synchro box from the petrol to the diesel
which wasn't up
 >> to the job and lead to 1st and reverse failure. This
was eventually
 >> sorted and the later 6 spd Commer box was really
loved by drivers. I
 >> don't know about nice to drive but drivers and
operators still swear
 >> by them and the concensus is that they helped an
awful lot of
 >> businesses get off the ground. One of the drivers
that worked with my
 >> father was put on a Mercedes (which was just getting
a foot hold in NZ
 >> - it may have been an early 1418 or the L series
bonnetted model
 >> before) on trial loan from the dealer. I can remember
this truck it
 >> was darkish red. The 1418 was generally considered a
huge improvement
 >> on the Commer but when the trial was over, the driver
wanted his
 >> Commer back as he reckoned the Merc had no-where near
the instant
 >> power on the hills.
 >> I worked on farm work where a local firm's driver
used a TS 3 powered
 >> tractor unit to collect the peas from our pea-viners.
Eventually, it
 >> was replaced by a Perkins 6354 powered version (they
fitted this
 >> engine in NZ after 1972) and he hated the gutless
thing - he wanted
 >> his tired TS 3 back!
 >> Chrysler bought Rootes Group in 1966/67 and were
staggered at what
 >> they found in the TS4 - the 4 cylinder version. 14
prototypes had been
 >> built and they were an incredible motor and would
have been ahead of
 >> anything at the time 200hp, etc. Chrysler had a deal
with Cummins in
 >> England so they ordered the 14 destroyed. Luckily 4
survive (mainly in
 >> museums in England) and a friend has just found one
in a barn in
 >> Ireland and imported it to NZ. He is in regular
contact with Don
 >> Kitchen, the designer of the TS 3/4 and the facts he
has on what this
 >> motor achieved in testing is amazing. The motor that
replaced the TS4
 >> in Commers, the Cummins Vale 170/185hp was a disaster
- it was a high
 >> revving, low torque hand grenade!
 >> I don't know of any thoughts of bringing this motor
back. Noise would
 >> be a huge problem but with new technologies this
could probably be
 >> cured.
 >> The TS3 found a lot of use in stationery engines, in
fact Lister
 >> combined with Commer to produce a 'power-pack' for
multiple use -
 >> there is a link to this in the other posting on this
topic. I have
 >> heard heaps of stories of how, if they were kept at
1500rpm, given a
 >> change of oil and air filter occasionally, they went
for ever. They
 >> were popular in the Australian outback where farmers
filled a 44 drum
 >> of diesel connected to the TS 3 and visited it to
refuel it once a
 >> week. It was always still going! Another story I have
from 1st hand
 >> concerns a sand barge on a NZ river where the TS 3
wasn't touched for
 >> 15 years. They were quite a popular boat motor (which
probably isn't
 >> surprising since that is what they were designed for.
 >> Don't forget though that they were a copy of a
pre-war design by
 >> Sulzar (Swiss). There are a number of people in NZ
who have restored
 >> and running TS3s. There is a later model one for sale
at the moment
 >> with only 63000 miles on the clock.
 >> If you want to get in touch, I would be happy to send
you the
 >> newsletter I put out, which includes photos of the TS
4 and pictures
 >> and stories of the TS 3
 >> Cheers from NZ
 >>
 >> --
 >> http://www.AutoForumz.com/ This article was posted
by author's request
 >> Articles individually checked for conformance to
usenet standards
 >>
http://www.AutoForumz.com/Classic-Trucks-Commer-TS3-opposed-piston-stroke-ftopict58429.html
 >> Visit Topic URL to contact author (reg. req'd).
 >> http://www.AutoForumz.com/eform.php?p=312347

Post by Classic Car Fair
That was interesting. The Otago Vintage Machinery Club at

Outram, near

Post by Classic Car Fair
Dunedin, has one of these motors on display, sectioned so

you can see

Post by Classic Car Fair
inside it. I also remember the distinctive whining scream

those trucks

Post by Classic Car Fair
made, and haven't heard one for decades. Cheers, another

NZer

Post by Classic Car Fair
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News

=-----

Post by Classic Car Fair
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers!

=-----

What was so special about the 2-stroke Commer? It certainly wasn’t
cheap and rumours spread about its unconventional engine frightened
away a lot of potential buyers.
But you have to go back to the mid 60’s, a time of small cabs with
mechanical hands on the door and rubber bands around the 2 speed diff
switch to look at what was available in the 7-ton size truck.
Ford had their ostentatious V8 banger with wire holding the bonnet and
guards together or the dreadful Thames Trader. International had a
more serious range right up to the 190. Austin was there, Bedford,
and the Leyland, Albion, AEC, Seddon, etc. range. Dodge offered the
power giant, and the Rootes Group had the Commers.
I was 12 when we got our first 2 stroke Commer, a near new repossessed
single drive cab and chassis with all the extras. You tend to forget
that power steer was a luxury in those days, air over hydraulic brakes
instead of lousy vacuum and of course the big No 4 Eaton diff which
was indestructible. It was a 62 model; single piece windscreen and she
went straight to work pulling bulk sugar in 2x 6ton bins on a short
single axle semi.
By 1968 dad had bought another new version with the flash, but still
non-tilting cab. They both pulled 12 ton semis but soon we moved to
3x6ton bins using a 9ft wide-spread semi. This gave us a gross
combination weight greatly in excess of the designed load and we were
granted a special permit, as to move on to heavier rigs would have
exceeded the capacity of the town bridge. Main Roads Engineers
monitored the bridge and finally gave the all clear for 60ton
B-doubles. Sometimes our total weight would be 32 tons, due to over
zealous loaders at the mill, but the Commers kept on going and the
excellent brakes on the semi quickly pulled them up.
So as a kid, I worked on our as well as other owner’s trucks, and knew
them inside out. I think I could still neutralize the diff in my
sleep. (To grease the universals)
But they certainly had some faults, and I’ll have a go remembering as
it’s been 40 years.
Oils. As long as you used good quality 2-stroke diesel oil, no
worries. Unfortunately a lot of owners simply didn’t understand
2-strokes and therefore spent each weekend de-carbonising the exhaust
ports.
Exhaust manifold. The early engines had an aluminium exhaust manifold,
which when hot, drooped and sagged then fell to bits. Later ones had
cast iron and this was a necessary replacement.
Exhaust pipe. The exhaust gases exited straight into a long piece of
flexible pipe, which carboned up solid in no time, then proceeded to
either tear the flex apart or cause more grief to the manifold. The
mass of 2 big mufflers swinging on rubber mounts didn’t help.
Ancillaries. Given that excellent companies such as CAV or SIMMS were
available, it was unforgivable of Rootes to fit rubbish Lucas starters
and generators. Almost any Commer fire was caused by the starter
staying engaged after the engine had fired. As the engine was a bit
noisy, it was impossible to hear the starter screaming at unbelievable
revs until it’s fiery death, right adjacent to the glass fuel filter
bowl.
Air compressor. It must have been an after thought and just slipped
it’s big end onto the longer left rear rocker arm pin. Way too small
and due to the amazing amount of oil thrown around inside the
crankcase, it was impossible to stop oil sucking passed the
compressor’s rings and into the system. Despite increasing the piston
length on later models, they were still an oily air system. I could
never understand why they didn’t fit a decent 2-cylinder compressor
straight onto the timing case, just like GM.
Crankcase breather. The engines breathed a lot. The front axle would
be awash after a day’s work and I had the job of cleaning everything
in dieso each weekend.
Air cleaners. Two oil bath cleaners were probably the go back then but
on Australia’s roads, they were next to useless. The left front wheel
would throw up heaps of dust right where the filters were mounted,
clog the oily mesh and load up the engine. Performance dropped off and
if you didn’t fix the problem immediately, you ran the risk of
screwing off the blower shaft. Notably later models mounted the
filters high on the rear of the cab, but they were still only oil bath
cleaners.
Timing chain. Early models had a multi-row timing chain, which
stretched and stretched and of course, retarded your injector timing.
They had a hydraulic tensioner to keep it tight, and a rubbing block
for start up (until oil pressure) Once again, later models had timing
gears and designers took this opportunity to increase the blower speed
and thus give a bit more power.
Injector pump. The early engines had a vacuum governor control, which
used intricate butterflies mounted in the inlet tract before the
blower. Although the system performed admirably, I always thought the
butterflies were restricting the airflow. I think later models changed
to a DPA distributor type injector pump with hydraulic governor and of
course, they made more power.
Pistons. Our early engines had pistons with a removable steel crown,
which incorporated a stud to bolt it to the aluminium piston. I worked
on engines where the crowns had worked loose and some had even turned
sideways before being crushed at the next stroke. Because we worked in
confined spaces, to fit the pistons we made up a short tapered sleeve,
same diameter as the engines’, and fitted each piston into the sleeve
at the bench. Then we just offered the dummy sleeve up to the engine
sleeve and pushed the piston through into the engine. Very quick and
no damage to those pegged rings.
Rocker arms. I once worked on an engine that had somehow loosened the
big Nylok nuts holding the exhaust side rocker arm shafts. Imagine the
damage as in one blow, the arm and shaft came out a bit too far, then
the piston’s oil rings must have sprung out and the rocker just pushed
the whole lot across, sleeve, injector and all.
Gearbox. Our trucks had the standard 5-speed sliding mesh gearbox and
we never saw inside it, which says it all.
Clutch. We never had a slipping clutch but the awful mechanical
operation and light duty engine mounts gave the most jumpy starts
imaginable. Hydraulic actuation would have fixed the problem. We
always did a clutch reline at each timing chain replacement.
Chassis. The front springs were too skinny and too thin. Combined
with no shocks and terrible roads, we broke a spring every day, I kid
you not. As a youngster with good eyes, it was my job after school, to
crawl under and wipe off the oil to check for broken springs. I was
hated by the drivers who were keen to get home instead of changing
springs, but if you missed a broken leaf, next day the ones below it
would also be broken. We started to break the chassis when we moved
up to the 28-ton loads. They would start to break across the top, down
the side and then stop, holding by just the bottom flange. As it was
always slightly ahead of the turntable area, the truck was really
saying 28 ton is too much.
There is probably a lot more, but I don’t want to give the wrong
impression.
If ever an engine was ahead of it’s time, then this was it. Forget
about 4 cylinders, why not give the poor thing a decent bore, at least
4 inch, then turbo charge and after cool it. I think the power would
have been outstanding. Then add some more fuel to increase the boost,
what’s it going to do blow a head gasket? What a waste.
Compared to the 2-stroke GM of the day, it was just so simple and we
got 12mpg.
As it was always down on power, speeds were slower and therefore tyres
lasted forever with 100000 miles from a Michelin the norm.
People forget that registration was calculated on rated horsepower in
those days, which was a simple sum of bore squared x number of
cylinders divided by 2.5.
So a Commer with 3.125 bore and 3 cylinders had about 11 rated
horsepower. Compare that to a V8 petrol with some 60 rated horsepower
and a fuel economy of 4mpg.
As well as owning trucks, my dad managed a fleet of about 30 more in
the 60’s to 70’s and each night we kids would add the daily tonnages,
tally fuel bills etc, so we soon worked out who got the best economy.
The Commers were streets ahead each week.
It’s amazing how many successful truck operators owed their start to
this honest workhorse, and so incredibly sad that design TS3 was
dumped.

[kif]

actually i,v got one of these

[ghinzani]

Post by kif
actually i,v got one of these

Fascinatin stuff , I’ve always been intrigued by this engine but have
found very little about it on the Net. I cant beieve it was only 3.5
litres... what were the power outputs? To run at 32 tons it must have
been very strained - I always heard that 6.4bhp per ton was minimum (I
think that was the legal requirement here in the UK).

[redbeard46]

Greg, could you get in touch. I would love to have you contribute your
experiences to our newlsetter. Your observations would strike a note with
others in NZ
Cheers

[News]

Post by redbeard46
Greg, could you get in touch. I would love to have you contribute your
experiences to our newlsetter. Your observations would strike a note with
others in NZ
Cheers

Thanks to all who contributed to this thread Brilliant, the lot of you.

The opposed piston diesel two stoke is not dead. A new version is available
for aero use:
http://www.dair.co.uk/

Developing this to auto use can't be that difficult. Things have moved on
from the 50s and 60s.

[Boing]

i've just signed up, but I'd appreciate an email from Redbeard45 in
receiving his newsletter. Im from the NZ
South Island also, and enjoyed listening to and driving the
Commer TS3's in Dunedin and Central Otago. The sound of
O'Malleys TS3's on the long hauls on the Pigroot travelled
many miles into the night. I drove them with Brambles SCG
occassionally who inherited one from Crust and Crust, a semi
tractor. Running from the container base with a USS Co 15ton
seafreighter of Blackhead grit or general cargo produced that wonderful
howl under load. I was always sorry to miss out on No73 which was
delivered in April 73, and I think was one of the very last TS3's
delivered in NZ from Brambles Burnett in Ashburton who had a Commer agency
and ran them extensively in their transport fleet. Last year I missed out
on buying a couple up for auction at Nobbys Queensland, which I had
thoughts of restoring, but probably just as well the wife didnt come back
from holi's and find them in the yard.

Cheers Boing.

[redbeard46]

Ken, If you email me at ***@xtra.co.nz, I would be happy to
send you the newsletter. I have tried sending to your email address, but
it was rejected???
Cheers
Howard Pettigrew
P.S. I am now redbeard46 as I have forgotten my password for redbeard45!!!

[ghinzani]

Post by redbeard45
be happy to
send you the newsletter. I have tried sending to your email
address, but
it was rejected???
Cheers
Howard Pettigrew
P.S. I am now redbeard46 as I have forgotten my password for
redbeard45!!!

Greg - thanks for ur PM , very interesting stuff. Sounds like my dads
old AEC Mandator on the hills out of Cornwall!

Has anyone got a definitive power output, and what the 4 cyl might
have had? In Novembers Classic and Vintage Commercial theres a letter
from Mark Erskine in NZ who has a 4cyl plus lots of 3cyl spares.

[News]

Post by ghinzani

Post by redbeard46
send you the newsletter. I have tried sending to your email
address, but
it was rejected???
Cheers
Howard Pettigrew
P.S. I am now redbeard46 as I have forgotten my password for redbeard45!!!

Greg - thanks for ur PM , very interesting stuff. Sounds like my dads
old AEC Mandator on the hills out of Cornwall!
Has anyone got a definitive power output, and what the 4 cyl might
have had? In Novembers Classic and Vintage Commercial theres a letter
from Mark Erskine in NZ who has a 4cyl plus lots of 3cyl spares.

He has a 4 cylinder TS3? One of the prototypes that never made it to
production? Is it in a truck?

[ghinzani]

 > > Ken, If you email me at
 > > be happy to
 > > send you the newsletter. I have tried sending to
your email
 > > address, but
 > > it was rejected???
 > > Cheers
 > > Howard Pettigrew
 > > P.S. I am now redbeard46 as I have forgotten my
password for
 > > redbeard45!!!

Post by ghinzani
Greg - thanks for ur PM , very interesting stuff. Sounds

like my dads

Post by ghinzani
old AEC Mandator on the hills out of Cornwall!
Has anyone got a definitive power output, and what the 4 cyl

might

Post by ghinzani
have had? In Novembers Classic and Vintage Commercial theres

a letter

Post by ghinzani
from Mark Erskine in NZ who has a 4cyl plus lots of 3cyl

spares.
He has a 4 cylinder TS3? One of the prototypes that never made
it to
production? Is it in a truck?

hi

If you send me an email I will fwd you his email address

regards

steve
ghinzani at at @ at at o2.co.uk [[remove obvious at's - AutoForumz
editor]]

ps can you add me to the newsletter also please? Thanks

[redbeard46]

Hi gang.
Re power outputs of the TS3 motor. The early TS3s had a bore of 3&1/4" and
4" stroke which gave a cylinder capacity of 199ci / 3261ccs. With a 16:1
compression ratio, this gave 105bhp @ 2400rpm (quoted from the Commer
Maintenance Handbook for MkIII 5/7 ton trucks, Rootes Pub no 531)
Power output was uprated through 117bhp and later motors had an enlarged
bore of 3.375" with the same stroke which gave a capacity of 215ci or
3520cc. Eventual developments of this engine put out 135bhp, although it
is generally felt that this had 'stretched' the motor a little too far to
maintain its reliability.
Mark Erskine has quoted me that "as at 2001 (or 02??) no other truck in
the world had come close to regularly pulling the tonnes of freight per cc
of engine size or had returned as favourable fuel economy per tonnes of
freight carried as the Rootes TS3 powered Commers".....  It was apparently
published in a British Institute of Registered Motor Engineers publication
in 2001 or 02. I am currently writing to a contact in England to see if he
can confirm this. Certainly, the stories of loads carried in NZ and OZ are
legendary, with TS3 powered Commers regularly carrying 3 or 4 times their
designated loading.
Re the TS4 - I am unsure of capacity - will ask Mark but a simple bit of
maths suggest they were around 4.6 litres. They produced 200hp (in 1966!)
and were intended to cover 200 000 miles before rebuilding.
I quote the following from Mark Erskine - "The first 2 prototype TS4s
covered 20000 hrs each without failure! All the 14 prototype TS4s were
test bed run initially. Six stayed in test bed work and eight were put in
trucks for road evaluation, prior to going into production.The engines
that were put in trucks ran up to 1.2 million miles between the 8 of them,
trouble free, before being pulled out and scrapped on instructions from
Chrysler to protect Chrysler’s joint venture in England with Cummins."
4 of the 14 prototypes survived, 3 are in UK museums - one is in the
Leyland Collection, and Mark's was found in a barn in Ireland - he was
actually hunting down one of the rare turbocharged TS3. It is TS4 number
065 which is the 5th or 6th one built and was TIllings Stevens 'spare
engine' so had minimal use. Mark has recently had the injector pump
serviced and he is determined to put the motor into a truck, probably a
Maxiload Commer. (Many people think the Maxiload is the last higher
capacity / horsepower Commer but it is a totally different truck to other
VC Commers having a heavier chassis, front axle, wider track / front
guards, etc)
Also interesting is that Mark has just discovered his TS4 was developed as
a multi-fuel motor. Commer developed multi-fuel versions of the TS3 in a
4x4 VC Commer for military use, designed to be run on what ever was handy
- diesel, petrol, avgas, melted butter, magarine even whisky! (I'm not
joking!) Unfortunately, they lost out on the military contract to Bedford.
I bet a Bedford wouldn't run on all these fuels!
Hope this helps
Cheers
Redbeard


 

[Brian Orion]

X-No-archive:yes
WHo asked?
Who cares?

********************

[redbeard46]

In reply to the questions about the TS4, here is the lastest info Mark has
just sent me to be published in my newsletter. If you wish to see photos
of the TS4 on the trolley mentioned in the article, please get in touch
via email. Hope you enjoy this. What is interesting is to find sats on
today's diesels of similar capacity. The TS4 is still right up there
beating most of the them hands down. What a shame it never went into
production. Where would we be now - 6cyl / 8 cyl versions?


Prototype Rootes TS4 (Stage I design)
Engine number TS OE 65 (spare engine)
Model Number 4D-287
Number of cylinders 4
Displacement 287 cu in
Performance 200 hp @ 2,600 rpm
Torque 465 ft lb.'s @ 1,800 rpm
Manufacturer Tillings Stevens Ltd, Maidstone, Kent, UK.
Year of manufacture 1966
Total TS4 prototypes built 14

Introduction:
written by Mr Donald Kitchen (last surviving member of the TS3/4 design
team)

The build of the Rootes TS4 prototypes and subsequent development was
undertaken by Rootes Group Diesel Engineering Division (part of Central
Design, Coventry) which was located with the Rootes Group Manufacturing
Plant, Tillings Stevens at Maidstone Kent.

The Rootes TS4 prototypes have the same bore and stroke as the Rootes
3DB-215 model TS3 (with an additional cylinder added) and use the same
liners, pistons, conrods and rockers as the TS3.

It was however in the program to introduce improved material in production
engines for the liners and fire rings and nitriding of crankshaft journals
and rocker pins to extend the working life of the engine to a projected
250,000 miles .

Although the TS3 and TS4 are of the same basic design, the TS4 included
many improvements - the most significant being the introduction of twin
through bolts at either end of the rocker shafts (replacing studs that
were used in the TS3). This modification ensured the crankcase was always
uniformly in compression.

The improvements also included the installation of a Holset harmonic
damper to the front of the TS4 crankshaft (internally), which permitted
maximum revs to increase to 2,600rpm.

The scavenge blower, water and oil pumps and oil filter were also upgraded
to cover the increased capacity....

The History of TS OE 65 (Two-Stroke, Oil Engine, #65) now owned by
Mark Erskinse Otahuhu, Auckland, New Zealand


TS OE 65 was made at Tillings Stevens, Maidstone in 1966 and is one of 4
surviving prototype Rootes TS4, opposed piston, 2-stroke, scavenge blown,
twin rocker beam, direct injection, water cooled diesel engines in the
world today.

It is the only Rootes TS4 prototype in the world in private ownership,
with the other three prototypes being in the care of significant British
Museums.

The Diesel Engineering Division designated OE 65 as a "spare engine",
which meant it received only initial test bed running-in during the entire
prototype program that saw the five other test bed engines set a target of
20,000 hrs running apiece and the eight Experimental Road Test Vehicles
set a target of 300,000 miles apiece to complete.

The Rootes TS4 prototypes represent the pinnacle of achievement in
high-speed diesel engine design from the mid to late 1960's and even
today, 200 hp and 465 ft lb.'s of torque from a 287 cubic inch diesel
engine together with exceptional reliability, fuel efficiency and
longevity is a remarkable achievement.

Had the TS4 made it to production, they were intended to replace the
legendary Rootes TS3 opposed piston diesel engine in Commer trucks from
the early 1970's onwards, however Rootes Group's deteriorating financial
position in the 1960's saw American automotive giant, Chrysler taking full
control of the group in 1967, and this take-over brought about the demise
of the Rootes TS4 project.

In addition to the Rootes take-over, Chrysler had also invested millions
of pounds in a UK joint venture with Cummins to produce new diesel engines
(the disastrous Cummins VALE V6 and V8) and had lucrative supplier
agreements in place with Perkins for the supply of their 6.354 inline six
cylinder and new 185 hp 510 cubic inch V8 diesel engines.

When Chrysler's Management became aware of the prototype Rootes TS4's
extraordinary:

Horsepower
Torque
Power to weight ratio
Reliability
Fuel efficiency
Low manufacturing cost

….they realised there was nothing they (or other engine manufacturers)
could offer that came remotely close to matching the Rootes TS4's
thoroughbred qualities.

Chrysler knew they would not sell Dodge / Commer heavy trucks with their
new Cummins VALE V6 or V8 (or Perkins V8) engines fitted if the TS4 became
a production option, so Chrysler's management of the day decided to
terminate the TS4 project to safeguard their investment with Cummins and
Perkins.

As a result, all Rootes TS4 prototype engines, parts, dies, patterns,
plans, drawings, test records, photo's and fuel injection equipment were
ordered to be scrapped under strict supervision by Chryslers management.

The actions of Chrysler’s management were profoundly unacceptable to
Diesel Engineering Division personnel and key managers thankfully managed
to save four prototype TS4 engines from destruction.

Three engines were eventually gifted to significant UK museums and the
fourth engine (OE 65) was located by Chryslers Engine Development
Department at Coventry.

Because the special pre-production C.A.V rotary/DPA pumps for the TS4
prototypes's had already been scrapped, C.A.V (now Delphi) provided a
pre-production TS4 spec inline F.I pump to Chrysler that was also modified
to Diesel Engineering Division's military specifications as a multi-fuel
pump (enabling the engine to run on diesel, petrol, kerosene / jet fuel).


The inline pump was untidily adapted to the engine by Chrysler and the
engine was run up on an engine dynamometer to insure correct horsepower
and torque outputs were being achieved. To add insult to injury, OE 65 was
then adapted to a generator to provide stand-by power in the Coventry
factory in the event of winter power cuts!

With the generator requirement completed (and with less than 1,000 hours
running completed), Chrysler once again consigned OE 65 to be scrapped.

Remarkably, OE 65 was rescued once again (by a former Diesel Engineering
Division manager) and the engine was coated internally and externally with
a paraffin based wax sealer to prevent corrosion and it went into storage.


It was then acquired by an engine design and development company in 1982
where it sat unused in their warehouse on its mobile engine trolley for
over 20 years.

Even OE 65's engine trolley is significant. It was originally built by
Diesel Engineering Division at Maidstone, to wheel Rootes TS3 prototypes
around their test-bed bay at Maidstone during the 1950's and 1960's.

This particular trolley was lengthened in the middle by Diesel Engineering
Division in the mid 1960's to accommodate the longer TS4 prototypes and is
the only TS3/4 engine trolley known to have survived.

Although OE 65 is in "as-new" condition, it will be stripped to be
extensively cleaned, checked and rebuilt with new oil seals and gaskets
fitted prior to running up on a local engine dynamometer.

Once initial testing is completed, TS OE 65 will be installed into a fully
restored Commer truck to receive regular use as originally intended by
the Management and staff at Diesel Engineering Division. It will also be
presented at truck shows as a working display.


Acknowledgement:

The current owners of TS OE 65 are most grateful for the ongoing and
invaluable assistance provided by former Diesel Engineering Division,
Design Manager, Mr Donald Kitchen.

During the last two years, Mr Kitchen has kindly provided the current New
Zealand owners of TS OE 65 with a wide range of completely unique
technical and historical items and information on the Rootes TS4
prototypes and in particular, information specifically about the history
of TS OE 65 (as described above).

Recently, Mr Kitchen also discovered several sets of extraordinarily rare,
genuine, pre-production TS4 gaskets and has gifted them to the engines
owners for use in TS OE 65's imminent refurbishment.

At 80 years old, Mr Kitchen remains very active in his retirement,
enjoying a wide variety of interests and maintains regular contact with a
number of his former colleagues from Diesel Engineering Division.

[redbeard46]

Ken, tried twice to contact you. Email keeps bouncing. Can you email me at
howard.pettigrew_at_xtra.co.nz? with the -at- changed to the usual.
redbeard