Jump to content

Griffon engine and gen set


Chris Hall

Recommended Posts

If I remember correctly the SF65 range of engines were a wet sump partly re engineered C series still with the option's of N/A, Turbo charging or positive displacement Roots type blower but lighter and higher reving. For their day they had a good power output with good torque.  I only came accross them in Terrex TS24 motor scrapers. Two scrapers that I knew were eventually re engined with Cummins straight six big cams, as parts became harder to get as RR changed to the Eagle Range of engines. They were not as incontinent as the Eagles.  I think I still have a workshop manual for them. I think when they were new they were about £1000 pounds each. International only paid about £600 each for a C6  a lot less than Vickers paid for the same engine.

Edited by john1950
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, radiomike7 said:

From the Rolls Royce Motors servicing manual 1972:

'The SF65C is a lower rated version of the C range 6 cylinder vertical engineand comes within the scope of C range component rationalization.  It may be na or turbocharged and is supplied for industrial and marine applications'.

I have both the servicing manual, EMER and parts manual for the C6 if anyone needs any info.

The one with the genset is a conventional wet sump, dry sumps were fitted to the 30 ton Scammell Constructors and Vigor crawlers.

 

Edited by radiomike7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My recollection was wrong, All of the RR engines I worked on were C4 both Turbo and Supercharged, I cannot remember the power outputs. Working compressors, generators, or Vickers Vicon  or C6's various marks and power outputs from I80 bhp up to 265 bhp I did not come across any SF65 fitted to Vickers tractors they were all C6 engined or I believe some Cummins engined ones were built. Those Cummins engines had the PT fuel system. I think the main difference of the SF65 (Falcon) was it ran with the reduced bore of 5 inch and higher compression ratio in the N/A of 17 to 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...