There’s plenty of mention of the 8 pot Percy on here, some good some bad, but the few pictures nearly all show Seddon Atkinsons and B/C series ERFs. The Mk2 Atki and the A series ERF don’t seem to feature, let alone semi rear or profile views which show the lump poking out the back. I am also guessing that what comments there are about driving the things probably refer to the later vehicles.
Can anyone rectify the situation?
This was my Dad’s A Series it was the first A Series in Scotland to be fitted with the Gardner 8LXB 240 it was shown on the ERF stand at the 1972 Kelvin Hall Motor Show
Hey, by the side was an 8 in line Gardner as good as a 6 in line, and was it powerful for its 240hp ■■?
Because it never have given many 8 in lines.
Eric,
I found the 240 had to be driven in a different style compared to ■■■■■■■ & Rollers to get the best out of them, an example was on slight down hills it was best to keep your foot of the throttle as it would build up speed quicker, I know it sounds crazy but true…
I had a 240 in a Mk2 Atki while the regular driver was sick. He was a steady old boy and drove it like a car, never using full throttle unless he was climbing a hill. I found that it was completely gutless but after driving it “flat to the floor” for a couple of weeks it went a lot better.
The only other 240 I drove was in a B-series ERF, which went a lot better, although by that time I had been used to more pokey motors. The ERF was a day-cabbed model and the two rear cylinders did indeed stick out of the back. If only I’d thought to take photos!
tiptop495:
Hey, by the side was an 8 in line Gardner as good as a 6 in line, and was it powerful for its 240hp ■■?
Because it never have given many 8 in lines.Eric,
The idea itself is a reasonable solution to increasing engine capacity without the need for a totally new engine design and architecture.IE just extend the block by adding more cylinders with no other changes needed to the basic design.While also containing the usual inline advantage that each big end bearing can be wider because two cylinders don’t have to share a crank journal as a V configuration.The problem being crankshaft whip/torsional vibration which obviously increases with crankshaft length.The result just being the need for a proportionally longer block to allow for the increased crank length and main bearing provision.While those that have been produced seem to have punched above their weight from car designs like the Merc race engines to the Rolls B80/81 truck engines.Although unfortunately in the case of the Gardner the increase also magnified the downsides of the Gardner’s basic under stressed design in being a lot of engine for the output.
Carryfast:
The idea itself is a reasonable solution to increasing engine capacity without the need for a totally new engine design and architecture.IE just extend the block by adding more cylinders with no other changes needed to the basic design…The problem being crankshaft whip/torsional vibration which obviously increases with crankshaft length…
Which is why Hugh Gardner redesigned the entire bottom end of the engine for the 8LXB. It shares no interchange parts at all with the 6 cylinder LX(B) variants. The crankshaft was stiffened and journal diameters increased accordingly, which of course necessitated new connecting rods to connect to pistons, which were indeed shared with the 6 cylinder.
Your statement above implies that no changes were needed to the basic engine design other than ‘adding two cylinders’, which is entirely incorrect. The 8LXB was a thoroughly re-engineered design, which no doubt benefited from Gardner’s previous experience with their larger straight-eight designs.
ERF:
Carryfast:
The idea itself is a reasonable solution to increasing engine capacity without the need for a totally new engine design and architecture.IE just extend the block by adding more cylinders with no other changes needed to the basic design…The problem being crankshaft whip/torsional vibration which obviously increases with crankshaft length…Which is why Hugh Gardner redesigned the entire bottom end of the engine for the 8LXB. It shares no interchange parts at all with the 6 cylinder LX(B) variants. The crankshaft was stiffened and journal diameters increased accordingly, which of course necessitated new connecting rods to connect to pistons, which were indeed shared with the 6 cylinder.
Your statement above implies that no changes were needed to the basic engine design other than ‘adding two cylinders’, which is entirely incorrect. The 8LXB was a thoroughly re-engineered design, which no doubt benefited from Gardner’s previous experience with their larger straight-eight designs.
My ‘statement’ ‘implied’ that it used the same bore and stroke as the 6 LXB and basic block architecture regards cylinder and crankshaft centre lines relative to the block as part of that ?.Everything else is consistent with the idea that it then obviously needed other modifications to cater for the different stresses imposed by the longer crankshaft.
That’s told 'im. 
ERF:
Carryfast:
The idea itself is a reasonable solution to increasing engine capacity without the need for a totally new engine design and architecture.IE just extend the block by adding more cylinders with no other changes needed to the basic design…The problem being crankshaft whip/torsional vibration which obviously increases with crankshaft length…Which is why Hugh Gardner redesigned the entire bottom end of the engine for the 8LXB. It shares no interchange parts at all with the 6 cylinder LX(B) variants. The crankshaft was stiffened and journal diameters increased accordingly, which of course necessitated new connecting rods to connect to pistons, which were indeed shared with the 6 cylinder.
Your statement above implies that no changes were needed to the basic engine design other than ‘adding two cylinders’, which is entirely incorrect. The 8LXB was a thoroughly re-engineered design, which no doubt benefited from Gardner’s previous experience with their larger straight-eight designs.
I was going to post something similar to what you’ve posted but when discussing anything related to Gardner engines on here a certain person hijacks the topic with very little knowledge of Gardner engines so I thought I’m not going to correct the certain person
I’m glad you ERF have corrected the matter
When I was driving for Vic Wild,(The Wild Group), he was always a Gardner man, with a fleet of Atkis and ERF’s, the driveline was always Gardner 6LXB,Davis Brown 6 speed.
With having an all Gardner fleet, he was just starting to upgrade when the 8 pot came out. The Atkis were OK, but he questioned the “Chicken shed” arrangement fitted by ERF to cover the exposed two rear cylinders, and refused to have any more ERF’s.
When Gardner went on strike and no one could get an 8 pot, Vic was most ■■■■■■ off when he saw one of Herman Tideswell’s , an ERF with a Gardner 8 pot, as Herman had always been an AEC man, Vic rang Gardner and told them to stick their 8LXB up their arse, and he never bought another Atki or ERF but went on to DAF!
gazsa401:
ERF:
Carryfast:
The idea itself is a reasonable solution to increasing engine capacity without the need for a totally new engine design and architecture.IE just extend the block by adding more cylinders with no other changes needed to the basic design…The problem being crankshaft whip/torsional vibration which obviously increases with crankshaft length…Which is why Hugh Gardner redesigned the entire bottom end of the engine for the 8LXB. It shares no interchange parts at all with the 6 cylinder LX(B) variants. The crankshaft was stiffened and journal diameters increased accordingly, which of course necessitated new connecting rods to connect to pistons, which were indeed shared with the 6 cylinder.
Your statement above implies that no changes were needed to the basic engine design other than ‘adding two cylinders’, which is entirely incorrect. The 8LXB was a thoroughly re-engineered design, which no doubt benefited from Gardner’s previous experience with their larger straight-eight designs.
I was going to post something similar to what you’ve posted but when discussing anything related to Gardner engines on here a certain person hijacks the topic with very little knowledge of Gardner engines so I thought I’m not going to correct the certain person
I’m glad you ERF have corrected the matter
Which is precisely why some people who have some good input to give us very rarely post comments on here now. Trucknet is rapidly becoming a searchable historical archive, with many many really good posts by highly skilled and experienced contributors, some of which are sadly no longer with us. A lot of very accurate and informed comments have been made in the past, but unfortunately many of these have been ‘swamped’ by multiple self opinionated subsequent posts contradicting their input (myself included, I must say), which I think is a shame for those searching these pages for accurate historical information in the years to come.
bestbooties:
?..he was just starting to upgrade when the 8 pot came out. The Atkis were OK, but he questioned the “Chicken shed” arrangement fitted by ERF to cover the exposed two rear cylinders, and refused to have any more ERF’s…
Just in the interests of clarity, the 8LXB was introduced at the 1970 Earls Court Commercial Motor Show. It was displayed fitted into the new completely redesigned ERF ‘A Series’ chassis at the show, but the ‘A Series’ vehicles did not enter series production until April 1972.
In the ‘A Series’, the rear of the 8LXB engine was fully exposed on standard production vehicles, and was not covered. When the ‘B Series’ tractor units first appeared for the 1975 sales year, the first day cab variants had a large fibreglass cover fixed to the rear of the cab to cover the protruding part of the engine, but this was deleted and reintroduced at various points on different specifications of later vehicles. The sleeper cabbed vehicles, whether Works or Jennings conversions, always covered the entire engine anyway.
‘Missing the pin’ was a recurring problem around this area with the day cabbed 8LXB’s, where drivers missed the kingpin when coupling up, and did not stop in time - the trailer then hitting the back of the engine. It could cause extensive damage, and would often require a new rear cylinder head to repair them!.
The big end diameters were increased by nominally 1.5 mm and the mains by nominally 8mm.
B/E 3.1875" to 3.2500"
M/B 3.6250" to 3.9375"
The 8 LXB also introduced a ‘tuned’ exhaust manifold referred to as the bunch of bananas.
gazsa401:
I was going to post something similar to what you’ve posted but when discussing anything related to Gardner engines on here a certain person hijacks the topic with very little knowledge of Gardner engines so I thought I’m not going to correct the certain person
I’m glad you ERF have corrected the matter
As I read it the question asked related to straight 8 engines generically.With it being obvious in both the case of the Rolls B80 and the Gardner 8LXB at least that the design was a type of modular solution,in terms of the basic engine architecture,to the requirement for a significant increase in engine capacity.However,bearing in mind the downsides of the longer crankshaft and block,with all your expertise in Gardner engine development maybe you can provide a better and different reason as to why Gardner chose a straight 8 design instead of ‘just’ increasing the capacity of the 6 LXB by the equivalent amount. 
cav551:
The big end diameters were increased by nominally 1.5 mm and the mains by nominally 8mm.B/E 3.1875" to 3.2500"
M/B 3.6250" to 3.9375"The 8 LXB also introduced a ‘tuned’ exhaust manifold referred to as the bunch of bananas.
I think it would be fair to say that Gardner didn’t just pluck the idea of a straight 8 out of thin air because they just felt like they wanted one in their line up.As opposed to the easier packaging of a 6.Nor is it a coincidence that the bore and stroke measurements of the 6 LXB and 8 LXB and presumably with that crank and bore centre lines relative to the block,were the same.
cav551:
The big end diameters were increased by nominally 1.5 mm and the mains by nominally 8mm.B/E 3.1875" to 3.2500"
M/B 3.6250" to 3.9375"The 8 LXB also introduced a ‘tuned’ exhaust manifold referred to as the bunch of bananas.
Also used on the (not particularly successful) 201/LXC engines, but at least they didn’t crack the manifolds like the older one piece ones!
Pete.
There are a few pictures on the Henley Transport thread which feature Mk2 Atkinsons, but none showing any of the A series ERFs
ERF:
bestbooties:
?..he was just starting to upgrade when the 8 pot came out. The Atkis were OK, but he questioned the “Chicken shed” arrangement fitted by ERF to cover the exposed two rear cylinders, and refused to have any more ERF’s…Just in the interests of clarity, the 8LXB was introduced at the 1970 Earls Court Commercial Motor Show. It was displayed fitted into the new completely redesigned ERF ‘A Series’ chassis at the show, but the ‘A Series’ vehicles did not enter series production until April 1972.
In the ‘A Series’, the rear of the 8LXB engine was fully exposed on standard production vehicles, and was not covered. When the ‘B Series’ tractor units first appeared for the 1975 sales year, the first day cab variants had a large fibreglass cover fixed to the rear of the cab to cover the protruding part of the engine, but this was deleted and reintroduced at various points on different specifications of later vehicles. The sleeper cabbed vehicles, whether Works or Jennings conversions, always covered the entire engine anyway.
‘Missing the pin’ was a recurring problem around this area with the day cabbed 8LXB’s, where drivers missed the kingpin when coupling up, and did not stop in time - the trailer then hitting the back of the engine. It could cause extensive damage, and would often require a new rear cylinder head to repair them!.
The A series had a sort of little visor/peak thing fitted on the 8lxb from what i remember , not fully enclosed like the petrol reg set up thought it
looked quite good. 
-
