[silversteed]

Just saw this new addition in the trucks portfolio:

http://www.ashokleyland.com/node/1402

From the specs, it looks like AL has used a 4-cyl engine with an inline FIP.

The power and torque outputs make it look underrated and a step backwards. IMO 120hp is not enough for a 16 tonner, considering overloading.

Is AL trying to make up for the loss in revenue caused by offering the less frugal 1616il BS-3 in place of 1613 BS-2?

[julupani]

Originally Posted by silversteed

Just saw this new addition in the trucks portfolio:

http://www.ashokleyland.com/node/1402

From the specs, it looks like AL has used a 4-cyl engine with an inline FIP.

The power and torque outputs make it look underrated and a step backwards. IMO 120hp is not enough for a 16 tonner, considering overloading.

Is AL trying to make up for the loss in revenue caused by offering the less frugal 1616il BS-3 in place of 1613 BS-2?

This is more of a reaction to Tata LPT1613. Unlike Leyland, Tata were able to offer a low hp engine even in the BS3 era. Leyland H-series 6-cylinder engine is not available in anything lower than 160hp with BSIII norms. The low hp and slightly higher mileage engine of the Tata is definitely having an effect. If Tata had not been able to offer a 135hp BSIII variant of Cummins engine, this 1612il would be rather pointless.

The effect is actually more profound in the buses segment, where the 1512Ex and 1612Ex have been gaining ground on Leyland.

But like you said, the 4-cylinder engine will just not be able to manage to generate the sort of torque that most truckers would be expecting.

[silversteed]

Originally Posted by julupani

This is more of a reaction to Tata LPT1613.

Most probably that's the way it is.

But like you said, the 4-cylinder engine will just not be able to manage to generate the sort of torque that most truckers would be expecting.

This engine and chassis combination might help bus operators, but definitely not truckers who need more torque than the 415Nm that's on offer.

[julupani]

Originally Posted by silversteed

This engine and chassis combination might help bus operators, but definitely not truckers who need more torque than the 415Nm that's on offer.

It will depend on what sort of mileage figures. The 4-cylinder engine is obviously smaller, but it is also running in a higher state of tune to manage that much power. Also the smaller engine is likely to be pushed harder to do the same work compared to a 6-cylinder engine.

Also, there is the issue of vibrations of a 4-cylinder engine.

[Ashley2]

But why so serious about 1612il.
This is basically a replacement product of BSII.
None of these gyans like, that doesn't suit over loading, to counter TML low hp engines, the specs are low for a 16T are true. This is used for short range low density applications. People are matured to buy / sell product suiting to application.
Also there are no cases of Leyland loosing over Tata in buses. Infact Tata is severely loosing market share especially with Eicher as they are like to like in power.

[silversteed]

Originally Posted by Ashley2

But why so serious about 1612il.
This is basically a replacement product of BSII.
None of these gyans like, that doesn't suit over loading, to counter TML low hp engines, the specs are low for a 16T are true. This is used for short range low density applications. People are matured to buy / sell product suiting to application.
Also there are no cases of Leyland loosing over Tata in buses. Infact Tata is severely loosing market share especially with Eicher as they are like to like in power.

It's been a while since AL launched a 16 tonner, hence this discussion. Good to know that 1612il is targeted at a mature market and I hope it finds takers.

However, I do stand by my comment that 120 hp might just not be good enough for a 16 ton GVW, because even 135 or 160hp engines struggle and lose steam on slight inclines, and I doubt the drivers would be enjoying that.

[Ashley2]

You may understand that, until otherwise there is a market pull for 4 cylinder MDV truck no body will be willing to launch these products. People in MAN should have more answer. They came with 4 cylinder initially and there were no takers. Primary reason being the fear of 4 cylinder engine being less. So subsequently they moved to 6 cylinder.
Also by having 1616 in various loading span options (and ofcourse for overload, rated load, parcel and scooter carrier), its very clear that this is launched to take select applications like petroleum tanker etc.
some images for you.

[SAE40 in veins]

Originally Posted by silversteed

However, I do stand by my comment that 120 hp might just not be good enough for a 16 ton GVW, because even 135 or 160hp engines struggle and lose steam on slight inclines, and I doubt the drivers would be enjoying that.

Unfortunately there are many who enjoy it. They are not the drivers but the fleet owners who would value fuel efficiency over comfort, speed and even safety.
To bring a comparison in the Bee Aitch Pee stakes, there was a hot favorite in the Southern market in Euro I/ Euro II days called the 2214 truck from AL which had a 114 HP engine. That vehicle was a multi axle and was selling well in all kinds of applications. By that yardstick, 120 HP for a 16 ton GVW vehicle can give it decent performance or even better performance.
Yes, i do agree that the engine life and Peace of mind which comes with a 6 cylinder will be missing as public perception will be that of a bloated up ICV.

[Ashley2]

Originally Posted by SAE40 in veins

...
..as public perception will be that of a bloated up ICV.

You are exactly right. This is basically a 16T ICV - aka Ecomet.