Gardner ENGINES

[bma_finland]

Carryfast:

bma.finland:

Carryfast:

bma.finland:
not right forum, thougth carryfast seems to bee here. why is the dd four stoke now days? why not the great V12 two stokes? all the same possibilities to devolment a great two stoke diesel is free,but not one use the teknology, so was it any god or what,cheers benkku.

The fact that it’s only just recently gone out of service with the US and British armies hauling main battle tanks like the Challenger around in 8V92 (less than 12 litre) form in the Oshkosh HET:shock: ,which replaced the four stroke 26 Litre Rolls CV12,which is what it took to do the job before it in the Scammell Commander,and the only reason why it was replaced with a C18 CAT seems to be mostly bs emissions issues,should answer the question.

However no surprise it’s not been replaced by a Scania V8 let alone a Gardner.

the finnish army certinly not want cat C 18, we are nabor to russia so we use scania ,it,s safer for us couse they work even in euro5 cheers benkku

One day everyone will have the sense to tell the EU,Obama and the Russians to zb off and then the world will return to how those of us who know better remember it.

But I don’t think the Finns have ever seen a Challenger let alone tried to haul one with a Scania. [/quote
seen it on topgear ,dont sees to bee bigger then normal gravlingmachines tht goes very well after daf mercedes volvos ivecos ,so why not scanias, our big but old tigers is in same range almoust.but ■■■■ the same, i,ll asked why we have no modern two stoke not about US euro engines,mr DD

[carryfast]

bma.finland:

Carryfast:

bma.finland:

Carryfast:

bma.finland:
not right forum, thougth carryfast seems to bee here. why is the dd four stoke now days? why not the great V12 two stokes? all the same possibilities to devolment a great two stoke diesel is free,but not one use the teknology, so was it any god or what,cheers benkku.

The fact that it’s only just recently gone out of service with the US and British armies hauling main battle tanks like the Challenger around in 8V92 (less than 12 litre) form in the Oshkosh HET:shock: ,which replaced the four stroke 26 Litre Rolls CV12,which is what it took to do the job before it in the Scammell Commander,and the only reason why it was replaced with a C18 CAT seems to be mostly bs emissions issues,should answer the question.

However no surprise it’s not been replaced by a Scania V8 let alone a Gardner.

the finnish army certinly not want cat C 18, we are nabor to russia so we use scania ,it,s safer for us couse they work even in euro5 cheers benkku

One day everyone will have the sense to tell the EU,Obama and the Russians to zb off and then the world will return to how those of us who know better remember it.

But I don’t think the Finns have ever seen a Challenger let alone tried to haul one with a Scania.
[/quote
seen it on topgear ,dont sees to bee bigger then normal gravlingmachines tht goes very well after daf mercedes volvos ivecos ,so why not scanias, our big but old tigers is in same range almoust.but [zb]
the same, i,ll asked why we have no modern two stoke not about US euro engines,mr DD

I think you might be forgetting about the 43 t unladen weight of the wagon in additon to the 64 t tank.

Who needs a modern Detroit two stroke when the old one is (would be) still up to the job if Obama and the EU was to allow it to do it.

[bma_finland]

Carryfast:

bma.finland:

Carryfast:

bma.finland:

Carryfast:

bma.finland:
not right forum, thougth carryfast seems to bee here. why is the dd four stoke now days? why not the great V12 two stokes? all the same possibilities to devolment a great two stoke diesel is free,but not one use the teknology, so was it any god or what,cheers benkku.

The fact that it’s only just recently gone out of service with the US and British armies hauling main battle tanks like the Challenger around in 8V92 (less than 12 litre) form in the Oshkosh HET:shock: ,which replaced the four stroke 26 Litre Rolls CV12,which is what it took to do the job before it in the Scammell Commander,and the only reason why it was replaced with a C18 CAT seems to be mostly bs emissions issues,should answer the question.

However no surprise it’s not been replaced by a Scania V8 let alone a Gardner.

the finnish army certinly not want cat C 18, we are nabor to russia so we use scania ,it,s safer for us couse they work even in euro5 cheers benkku

One day everyone will have the sense to tell the EU,Obama and the Russians to zb off and then the world will return to how those of us who know better remember it.

But I don’t think the Finns have ever seen a Challenger let alone tried to haul one with a Scania.
[/quote
seen it on topgear ,dont sees to bee bigger then normal gravlingmachines tht goes very well after daf mercedes volvos ivecos ,so why not scanias, our big but old tigers is in same range almoust.but [zb]
the same, i,ll asked why we have no modern two stoke not about US euro engines,mr DD

I think you might be forgetting about the 43 t unladen weight of the wagon in additon to the 64 t tank.

Who needs a modern Detroit two stroke when the old one is (would be) still up to the job if Obama and the EU was to allow it to do it.

don,t blame obama, two stoke is out in fuel economy and in tecnology,oterwise some sould stil build them,eh

[kr79]

Maybe stobart had a few Gardner motors from Eddie seniors and Edwards early days and of course they have the restored borderer with the 240 Gardner as a tribute but I think you will find Edward just bought what was avalible at the time to expand the business. They had quite a few dafs early doors but if you see pictures from the early days there was most other makes there too.

[eddie_stobart_fan]

kr79:
Maybe stobart had a few Gardner motors from Eddie seniors and Edwards early days and of course they have the restored borderer with the 240 Gardner as a tribute but I think you will find Edward just bought what was avalible at the time to expand the business. They had quite a few dafs early doors but if you see pictures from the early days there was most other makes there too.

Not too sure about Eddie seniors, however Edward like to buy top of the range vehicles in those days whilst everyone else had underpowered old day cabs Edward bought DAF 2800 sleepers, and he completely dropped his Gardner etc powered lorries.

[eddie_stobart_fan]

Carryfast:

bma.finland:

Carryfast:

bma.finland:

Carryfast:

bma.finland:
not right forum, thougth carryfast seems to bee here. why is the dd four stoke now days? why not the great V12 two stokes? all the same possibilities to devolment a great two stoke diesel is free,but not one use the teknology, so was it any god or what,cheers benkku.

The fact that it’s only just recently gone out of service with the US and British armies hauling main battle tanks like the Challenger around in 8V92 (less than 12 litre) form in the Oshkosh HET:shock: ,which replaced the four stroke 26 Litre Rolls CV12,which is what it took to do the job before it in the Scammell Commander,and the only reason why it was replaced with a C18 CAT seems to be mostly bs emissions issues,should answer the question.

However no surprise it’s not been replaced by a Scania V8 let alone a Gardner.

the finnish army certinly not want cat C 18, we are nabor to russia so we use scania ,it,s safer for us couse they work even in euro5 cheers benkku

One day everyone will have the sense to tell the EU,Obama and the Russians to zb off and then the world will return to how those of us who know better remember it.

But I don’t think the Finns have ever seen a Challenger let alone tried to haul one with a Scania.
[/quote
seen it on topgear ,dont sees to bee bigger then normal gravlingmachines tht goes very well after daf mercedes volvos ivecos ,so why not scanias, our big but old tigers is in same range almoust.but [zb]
the same, i,ll asked why we have no modern two stoke not about US euro engines,mr DD

I think you might be forgetting about the 43 t unladen weight of the wagon in additon to the 64 t tank.

Who needs a modern Detroit two stroke when the old one is (would be) still up to the job if Obama and the EU was to allow it to do it.

Carryfast you really like expressing yourself, go for it.

[carryfast]

bma.finland:

Carryfast:

bma.finland:

Carryfast:

bma.finland:

Carryfast:

bma.finland:
not right forum, thougth carryfast seems to bee here. why is the dd four stoke now days? why not the great V12 two stokes? all the same possibilities to devolment a great two stoke diesel is free,but not one use the teknology, so was it any god or what,cheers benkku.

The fact that it’s only just recently gone out of service with the US and British armies hauling main battle tanks like the Challenger around in 8V92 (less than 12 litre) form in the Oshkosh HET:shock: ,which replaced the four stroke 26 Litre Rolls CV12,which is what it took to do the job before it in the Scammell Commander,and the only reason why it was replaced with a C18 CAT seems to be mostly bs emissions issues,should answer the question.

However no surprise it’s not been replaced by a Scania V8 let alone a Gardner.

the finnish army certinly not want cat C 18, we are nabor to russia so we use scania ,it,s safer for us couse they work even in euro5 cheers benkku

One day everyone will have the sense to tell the EU,Obama and the Russians to zb off and then the world will return to how those of us who know better remember it.

But I don’t think the Finns have ever seen a Challenger let alone tried to haul one with a Scania.
[/quote
seen it on topgear ,dont sees to bee bigger then normal gravlingmachines tht goes very well after daf mercedes volvos ivecos ,so why not scanias, our big but old tigers is in same range almoust.but [zb]
the same, i,ll asked why we have no modern two stoke not about US euro engines,mr DD

I think you might be forgetting about the 43 t unladen weight of the wagon in additon to the 64 t tank.

Who needs a modern Detroit two stroke when the old one is (would be) still up to the job if Obama and the EU was to allow it to do it.

don,t blame obama, two stoke is out in fuel economy and in tecnology,oterwise some sould stil build them,eh

They did still build them but it was bs emissions standards that stopped them not so much economy relative to the amount of power although no one is saying that a Detroit will ever be as economical on fuel as a Gardner but I’d bet that a 730 V8 Scania or the C18 wouldn’t be a lot better on fuel than a 12V92 at 100 t + driving through an Allison auto with a torque converter,possibly even worse.

[bma_finland]

Carryfast:

bma.finland:

Carryfast:

bma.finland:

Carryfast:

bma.finland:

Carryfast:

bma.finland:
not right forum, thougth carryfast seems to bee here. why is the dd four stoke now days? why not the great V12 two stokes? all the same possibilities to devolment a great two stoke diesel is free,but not one use the teknology, so was it any god or what,cheers benkku.

The fact that it’s only just recently gone out of service with the US and British armies hauling main battle tanks like the Challenger around in 8V92 (less than 12 litre) form in the Oshkosh HET:shock: ,which replaced the four stroke 26 Litre Rolls CV12,which is what it took to do the job before it in the Scammell Commander,and the only reason why it was replaced with a C18 CAT seems to be mostly bs emissions issues,should answer the question.

However no surprise it’s not been replaced by a Scania V8 let alone a Gardner.

the finnish army certinly not want cat C 18, we are nabor to russia so we use scania ,it,s safer for us couse they work even in euro5 cheers benkku

One day everyone will have the sense to tell the EU,Obama and the Russians to zb off and then the world will return to how those of us who know better remember it.

But I don’t think the Finns have ever seen a Challenger let alone tried to haul one with a Scania.
[/quote
seen it on topgear ,dont sees to bee bigger then normal gravlingmachines tht goes very well after daf mercedes volvos ivecos ,so why not scanias, our big but old tigers is in same range almoust.but [zb]
the same, i,ll asked why we have no modern two stoke not about US euro engines,mr DD

I think you might be forgetting about the 43 t unladen weight of the wagon in additon to the 64 t tank.

Who needs a modern Detroit two stroke when the old one is (would be) still up to the job if Obama and the EU was to allow it to do it.

don,t blame obama, two stoke is out in fuel economy and in tecnology,oterwise some sould stil build them,eh

They did still build them but it was bs emissions standards that stopped them not so much economy relative to the amount of power although no one is saying that a Detroit will ever be as economical on fuel as a Gardner but I’d bet that a 730 V8 Scania or the C18 wouldn’t be a lot better on fuel than a 12V92 at 100 t + driving through an Allison auto with a torque converter.

well the answer is that nothing last forever ,no t even the DD, not even scania as didn,t gardener, but in some timeperspective al have a place ,customers(happy and unhappy),and non of us know what is the true,i,ll only have owned and drived scannies and volvos so can,t compare to other,s,but why no two stokers on market■■?

[saviem]

Evening Gentlemen, oh dear, the sensible, balanced, valuable and knowledgable, (based on real knowledge, as owners, operators, drivers, mechanics…in the true sense), contributions of so many are (yet again), becoming overshadowed by the infantile rantings of the kindergarden, “my favourite is better than yours” “blah…blah”.

May I suggest to ESF, that he shows Larry Dunbar a little respect, as he has actually earned a living by his own endeavours, in owning, and running vehicles…how many, is of no relevance, he has done it, and his observations deserve respect. May I also refer you to the published accounts of ESL, where there would appear to be less acquisitional ownership, and more “off balance sheet funding”, (hire, with terminal buy back) of their vehicular “assets”.

Our dear CF, well the world would be dull without you, your dislike of “the bosses”, “Brit Operators”, any engine other than Detroits offerings, and your delightful skewing of facts and time scales… have you ever thought of entering politics perchance?

CF, I would suggest that you do not lock horns with our friend, bma, His experiences are based on personal experience of owning and operating in a much harder enviroment than experienced by hurtling up and down our motorways in a 2800 DAF!! And lastly, if you investigate further than your prejudice, you may discover that the background to the Contract Hire of the Oshkoh HETs, owed more to politics, and less to mechanical specification, than you may imagine!

Well, that is off my chest, so I will greet the new day with a large glass of Bollinger, and look forward to the morrow,… getting in the saddle of my John Deere, the origin of the Detroit 60 Series, (and recall just how surprising was the performance of an Atkinson Borderer, 180LXB, 6speed 6.600 David Brown, and Eaton 18802 2speed axle, and so economic… but you did need skill to drive it). Bon nuit mes braves, Cheerio for now.

[bma_finland]

Saviem:
Evening Gentlemen, oh dear, the sensible, balanced, valuable and knowledgable, (based on real knowledge, as owners, operators, drivers, mechanics…in the true sense), contributions of so many are (yet again), becoming overshadowed by the infantile rantings of the kindergarden, “my favourite is better than yours” “blah…blah”.

May I suggest to ESF, that he shows Larry Dunbar a little respect, as he has actually earned a living by his own endeavours, in owning, and running vehicles…how many, is of no relevance, he has done it, and his observations deserve respect. May I also refer you to the published accounts of ESL, where there would appear to be less acquisitional ownership, and more “off balance sheet funding”, (hire, with terminal buy back) of their vehicular “assets”.

Our dear CF, well the world would be dull without you, your dislike of “the bosses”, “Brit Operators”, any engine other than Detroits offerings, and your delightful skewing of facts and time scales… have you ever thought of entering politics perchance?

CF, I would suggest that you do not lock horns with our friend, bma, His experiences are based on personal experience of owning and operating in a much harder enviroment than experienced by hurtling up and down our motorways in a 2800 DAF!! And lastly, if you investigate further than your prejudice, you may discover that the background to the Contract Hire of the Oshkoh HETs, owed more to politics, and less to mechanical specification, than you may imagine!

Well, that is off my chest, so I will greet the new day with a large glass of Bollinger, and look forward to the morrow,… getting in the saddle of my John Deere, the origin of the Detroit 60 Series, (and recall just how surprising was the performance of an Atkinson Borderer, 180LXB, 6speed 6.600 David Brown, and Eaton 18802 2speed axle, and so economic… but you did need skill to drive it). Bon nuit mes braves, Cheerio for now.

well mr saviem ,you talk sence and i.ll take a cup(not bollier)whit you ,cheerio benkku

[eddie_stobart_fan]

Saviem:
Evening Gentlemen, oh dear, the sensible, balanced, valuable and knowledgable, (based on real knowledge, as owners, operators, drivers, mechanics…in the true sense), contributions of so many are (yet again), becoming overshadowed by the infantile rantings of the kindergarden, “my favourite is better than yours” “blah…blah”.

May I suggest to ESF, that he shows Larry Dunbar a little respect, as he has actually earned a living by his own endeavours, in owning, and running vehicles…how many, is of no relevance, he has done it, and his observations deserve respect. May I also refer you to the published accounts of ESL, where there would appear to be less acquisitional ownership, and more “off balance sheet funding”, (hire, with terminal buy back) of their vehicular “assets”.

Our dear CF, well the world would be dull without you, your dislike of “the bosses”, “Brit Operators”, any engine other than Detroits offerings, and your delightful skewing of facts and time scales… have you ever thought of entering politics perchance?

CF, I would suggest that you do not lock horns with our friend, bma, His experiences are based on personal experience of owning and operating in a much harder enviroment than experienced by hurtling up and down our motorways in a 2800 DAF!! And lastly, if you investigate further than your prejudice, you may discover that the background to the Contract Hire of the Oshkoh HETs, owed more to politics, and less to mechanical specification, than you may imagine!

Well, that is off my chest, so I will greet the new day with a large glass of Bollinger, and look forward to the morrow,… getting in the saddle of my John Deere, the origin of the Detroit 60 Series, (and recall just how surprising was the performance of an Atkinson Borderer, 180LXB, 6speed 6.600 David Brown, and Eaton 18802 2speed axle, and so economic… but you did need skill to drive it). Bon nuit mes braves, Cheerio for now.

Maybe Mr Larry Dunbar should show a little respect to Carryfast and myself!

[5valve]

As someone who was intimately involved in the company you are discussing it’s very informative to see where the company went wrong! Some of the comments are definitely ‘on the money’, but many are just conjecture.
Having a crystal ball available in the late 60’s would probably have been very helpful, but, don’t forget that this was a family business supplying ‘loose’ engines to the truck, bus, marine and industrial markets worldwide.
Thinking about it, perhaps the people who ran Leyland, AEC, Bedford, Guy et al should have had a crystal ball as well! Gardner engines were/are held in high esteem by all their competitors. I know this from personal experience when I joined a well known American manufacturer and talked to their engine designers on the subject of Gardner. ( I was very surprised to say the least)

I realise that this is a truck based forum but truck engines were only one facet of their total business.

Gingerfold, if you are who I think you are then I could help you add another chapter to the book. Paul was a little remiss in not pointing out the size of the PSV business, i.e. LTE’s 2800 double deckers, KMB’s 2000 in Hong Kong, NBC’s 4500, the Neoplan’s, Van Hool’s and Kabus in Finland, plus Kenya, Malawi, SA, Jamaica.

[newmercman]

EDDIE STOBART FAN:
Not too sure about Eddie seniors, however Edward like to buy top of the range vehicles in those days whilst everyone else had underpowered old day cabs Edward bought DAF 2800 sleepers, and he completely dropped his Gardner etc powered lorries.

The use of underpwered day cabs was a distant memory when Eddie Stobart came on the scene

Eddie Stobart Ltd were only running 26 lorries in 1985, not one of them had a Gardner engine

I would also like to bring to your attention the day cabbed Ford Cargo artics and wagon and drags that Stobart were running in the early 90s

[carryfast]

5Valve:
As someone who was intimately involved in the company you are discussing it’s very informative to see where the company went wrong! Some of the comments are definitely ‘on the money’, but many are just conjecture.
Having a crystal ball available in the late 60’s would probably have been very helpful, but, don’t forget that this was a family business supplying ‘loose’ engines to the truck, bus, marine and industrial markets worldwide.
Thinking about it, perhaps the people who ran Leyland, AEC, Bedford, Guy et al should have had a crystal ball as well! Gardner engines were/are held in high esteem by all their competitors. I know this from personal experience when I joined a well known American manufacturer and talked to their engine designers on the subject of Gardner. ( I was very surprised to say the least)

Are you sure that those Americans weren’t just being polite .It’s never taken a crystal ball to understand the difference between American thinking,both that of the manufacturers and of the customers,in power unit requirements wether marine,stationary,or automotive,as opposed to the British domestic market’s ideas which,unlike in the states and the colonies,was too often here fixated on fuel consumption at the expense of performance at least up to the end of the 1970’s.No surprise that flawed buying policy led to a market demand,in the domestic market,for a flawed product which also contained that inherently flawed idea within it’s DNA.

The fact is it didn’t take a crystal ball because these same discussions were taking place in the day when it mattered during the 1970’s and even before such as examples like the comparison which I made concerning the Scammell Pioneer v the Diamond T in a wartime situation when it didn’t take a genius or a crystal ball to realise that the British product wasn’t up to the job and the reasons why.Unlike later in the case of the Commander when they got it about right with a proper motor.

[carryfast]

Saviem:
Our dear CF, well the world would be dull without you, your dislike of “the bosses”, “Brit Operators”, any engine other than Detroits offerings, and your delightful skewing of facts and time scales… have you ever thought of entering politics perchance?

CF, I would suggest that you do not lock horns with our friend, bma, His experiences are based on personal experience of owning and operating in a much harder enviroment than experienced by hurtling up and down our motorways in a 2800 DAF!! And lastly, if you investigate further than your prejudice, you may discover that the background to the Contract Hire of the Oshkoh HETs, owed more to politics, and less to mechanical specification, than you may imagine!

Blimey be fair I’ve more than once said that Detroit motors are just one of three in the US premier league during the time in question ( just arguably at the top in my ‘personal’ opinion based not on commercial road going experience of them but in their more important life saving role,although their record in the commercial sector,let alone the military one,seems good enough to have provided their manufacturer with more success over the years than anything which Gardner engines did for theirs ).While the 2800’s record in service,confirmed by my own experience of it,seems to have been more successful for DAF than Gardner powered wagons turned out for the Brit manufacturers.

One thing I would agree though is that it seems difficult to understand the British and US idea to run a max weight tank transporter using just an 8V92 engine in an Oshkosh when it seems a retrograde step from a Rolls V12 in the Commander and if they really wanted to use the US product then at least put a decent 12V92 motor in it.Obviously politics doesn’t seem today what it was during WW2 when the right country supplied the right product in the Diamond T although that all seems to have been brought back into line now with the change to C18 power in the Oshkosh which definitely has to be a better choice than the 8V92 just so long as it’s free of any smog bs with straight through pipes in which case they might as well have put the 12V92 in it and saved some money and gained some horsepower with a better noise.

[eddie_stobart_fan]

newmercman:

EDDIE STOBART FAN:
Not too sure about Eddie seniors, however Edward like to buy top of the range vehicles in those days whilst everyone else had underpowered old day cabs Edward bought DAF 2800 sleepers, and he completely dropped his Gardner etc powered lorries.

The use of underpwered day cabs was a distant memory when Eddie Stobart came on the scene

Eddie Stobart Ltd were only running 26 lorries in 1985, not one of them had a Gardner engine

I would also like to bring to your attention the day cabbed Ford Cargo artics and wagon and drags that Stobart were running in the early 90s

Edward did mention the the Ford Cargos did not appeal to the drivers however they made a lot of money.

[carl_williams]

Late seventies, early eighties we bought several ERF tractor units like the one in the photo attached. They had Jennings sleeper cab conversions and Gardner 180 engines. To be fair 90% of our traffic was bulky rather than heavy and most of the time, pulling 40 ft. van trailers they would be carrying 22-24 ton GVW.
At this weight and doing about 75,000 miles per year, with our use of 5 to 6 year we never had any problems at all on any, apart from routine maintenance and they were 100% reliable.
Comparing with other 20-26 ton GVW vehicles in the fleet, Bedford, Ford, Leyland, Lynx, Super Comet and Mastiff, and Dodge they showed around 50% saving in fuel consumption. Our AEC Mercury’s were as reliable, but still short on fuel consumption. Even our Bedford 11 ton GVW rigid vans used far more diesel. Although in those days fuel was not as expensive as it is today, but still represented about 30% of running costs and by cutting that cost in half was an incredible saving.
Certainty with their good fuel consumption and the wonderful reliability with Leyland Lynx and Dodge, in particular being dreadfully unreliable, breaking down with regularity, with engine and gearbox problems, they very soon recovered the additional capital costs.
As far as delivery was concerned they all came on time as specified and ERF never attempted to persuade us to take a different engine, probably as they knew we would have cancelled the order, rather than accept what we would have considered a much inferior product.
I remember that there was talk of a delay due to Gardner’s strike, but following a phone call, where dad used his persuasive ways they managed to ‘find’ one and the vehicle was delivered as specified, on time.
The last one we bought was turbo charged, but I remember speaking to the driver, who said he noticed very little difference, as with the weight we were carrying they were as fast, if not faster than most on the motorways.
I always remember being surprised when I was demonstrated the ‘Avant Guarde’ cold starting system, which was a recipe for heavy smoke on starting from cold, but the way they performed I feel was a testament to the good engineering and workmanship of ERF and Gardner.
As I said they were very over specified for our usage, and had we been carrying heavier loads may have had to consider a different engine, so I respect the views of others who write of their experiences, but I think to criticise Gardner, and not respect their engineering expertise, is unwise.
Perhaps had the original designers been younger and the company had more financial weight behind it they might still have been building engines superior in this day and age.

[lawrence_dunbar]

My respect goes to Gardners , as ive said they did well for my small family operation & not only made me some well earned money, but saved me a lot of money in operating costs, therefore if you have not been involved in the running of a haualge concern like I & many many others like myself using Gardner powered vehicles, why slag the Gardner family off, they were pioneers to the british deisel engine, & Im sure a lot of there engineering skills are still being used to-day, Regards Larry.

[eddie_stobart_fan]

Lawrence Dunbar:
My respect goes to Gardners , as ive said they did well for my small family operation & not only made me some well earned money, but saved me a lot of money in operating costs, therefore if you have not been involved in the running of a haualge concern like I & many many others like myself using Gardner powered vehicles, why slag the Gardner family off, they were pioneers to the british deisel engine, & Im sure a lot of there engineering skills are still being used to-day, Regards Larry.

Bit did Gardners have any respect for the hauliers, by the sound of it they did not.

[muckaway]

I can’t remember if I’ve asked this already as I’ve skipped/set some posts to “ignore” but why did Gardners’ still fit “pull stop” cables instead of using the key? I remember a B reg Foden with a Gardner had one, but not the ■■■■■■■ one.