Well you tell me my, I never had any problems with them, & I know lots of other North East Hauliers with the same veiws as me, But I must admit on of my mates did have a 150 snap the crankshaft sadley to say but that was after it had topped a million miles in a 8 wheeler Atki tipper on long distance work running loaded both ways, Regards Larry. PS this motor belonged to Brian Patterson who bought it it brand new from Comberhill Motors at Wakefield Reg No 130 VHL, Regards Larry
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.
There’s another way of looking at it that many of those hauliers using Gardners could have made even more using something else which could cover more miles and hauled more freight over the course of a working week.Yes they’d probably be using a bit more fuel but that (slight) increase in fuel use was outweighed by the extra miles covered and freight carried.So far the only actual figures which we’ve got to actually go by in support of any so called fuel consumption ‘advantage’ seems to be limited to what the thing was doing before it reached the point in the rev range where it would have been doing much real work.That example of a turbocharged Gardner,with a quoted reasonable power output,has had it’s specific fuel consumption quoted at 1,400 rpm when it’s max power was produced at 1,800.Ironically it’s supporter,who posted the figures,made a big thing about it’s 0.04 advantage in lbs/hp/hr.However the fact is that advantage was against an engine with one of the worst (probably undeserved) reputations for fuel consumption and at which point it was putting out more power than the Gardner’s maximum of 350 hp at less engine speed than the Gardner’s power peak.
However if you’re right then it would have been Gardner powered vehicles which outlived the more powerful turbocharged Brits using ■■■■■■■ engines and the Euro and Scandinavian wagons.The fact is there were plenty of other guvnors over the years who’ve made the same claims in support of those gutless plodders and most,if not all,of them jumped ship and voted with their feet and cheque books just as soon as they realised better.
As for Gardner the DNA and design philosophy,contained in the product,was what eventually sunk them just as soon as their previously loyal customers eventually came to their senses that the idea was flawed from the start which most drivers could have told them from at least the mid 1970’s.However what is inexcusable is the fact that the design philosophy of the product,and that of it’s loyal following,amongst the uk customer base,also held back the rate of development which the other UK manufacturers needed to survive against the competition from the US,Europe and Scandinavia which the Brit products using the US designed turbocharged ■■■■■■■ at least managed to hold back for a time.
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.
Well your lot didn’t run very many so how can we value your opinion ? Bewick.
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.
Probably because a cable was more reliable than any electronic device! Our J and K reg Fodens (that’s 1972/3) had electronic stop controls and all were chopped off within a year and replaced with either a cable or a length of welding rod. Rolls/Perkins engined Fodens had cable stops, even my P reg 3000 had one, but the two six wheelers that I had with ■■■■■■■ L10’s had electric stops and they were often faulty and you ended up stalling the engine to stop it!
Pete.
Now you mention it Pete, Smiths Concrete had pull stops on 2x M reg 3000s. Always wondered why. Volvo still used them on their dumptrucks, at least the 10 year old one we have has one.
Scania used pull stops on the three series in to the 90s
This is one we still have on the farm as a back up, in case the leccy goes…
Click on it to hear it… and ahem … me 
Sorry Geoffrey I know your beloved screaming Detroit punches well above its weight in the power stakes but them underpowered old gardners sound so much nicer.
Also if you look at any other engine it just looks like a big lump of metal a Gardner looks a peice of elegant design.
Given the choice between an s80 foden with a 180 Gardner an my current 380 Volvo fm with I shift tipper il have the volvo though nostalgia is fine for the shows but for work modern is best.
OhKr79 not sure what you mean about the shows truck shows presumably, however if youre referring to travelling shows ie fairgrounds then thats where Gardner truly found its forte powering generators for lighting and rides etc.None of our seemingly very learned friends will convince me that Gardner although a very well engineered product, no gaskets and all that they didnt move with the times but still deserve their place in history like the Dodo extinct. Crow.Oh and by the way,the electric fuel cut off worked both ways key on fuel delivery key off no fuel disconnect it no fuel nostart ,itis an electric solenoid moving for what its worth a ball bearing ie uncover hole fuel cover hole no fuel. Have anice night working that out.
kr79:
Sorry Geoffrey I know your beloved screaming Detroit punches well above its weight in the power stakes but them underpowered old gardners sound so much nicer.
Also if you look at any other engine it just looks like a big lump of metal a Gardner looks a peice of elegant design.
Given the choice between an s80 foden with a 180 Gardner an my current 380 Volvo fm with I shift tipper il have the volvo though nostalgia is fine for the shows but for work modern is best.
As they say there’s no accounting for taste.I’ll have this this in an old TM with a 13 speed fuller if it could be made to fit and no limiter thanks and I’d bet the pish taking zb’s would still say it’s putting out more smoke and emissions than that Gardner.
youtube.com/watch?v=izaQ4qiMU14
But if it’s got to be a four stroke then this is one of,if not,the best I’ve ever heard with the exception of the CV12 in the Challenger 
but shame about the smoke but it’s supposed to be in a tug boat not a truck but some say that Obama hates water so he doesn’t know anything about it yet.
geoffthecrowtaylor:
Oh and by the way,the electric fuel cut off worked both ways key on fuel delivery key off no fuel disconnect it no fuel nostart ,itis an electric solenoid moving for what its worth a ball bearing ie uncover hole fuel cover hole no fuel. Have anice night working that out.
Found on the right side of a ■■■■■■■ E series, you can lean under the mudguard and wind the little screw in and out as necessary when it packs up, which it will do all of a sudden cutting off the fuel, I learned this on the hard shoulder of the M2, lorry just cut out, spent hours looking for a problem and another driver pulled in to see if I was ok (remember those days) he pointed me in the right direction, job done, so thank you driver, wherever you may be 
ND888 BIGJ:
Did anyone ever drive a 240 8 cyl gardner fitted to a guy big jjust wondering like
During my apprentiship at Joda freight late 80s early 90s we had a sed atki 401 “ELY 951T” with a 240 straight 8 in it. Jumped a couple of teeth on the timing and threw the vales into number 1 piston. We rebuilt it but couldnt get it just right. A bloke came round cant remember who he was but he was very very good at tuning them. It didnt even surge on tick over after he had finished with it, remember him messing with the levers on the side of the pump though. Had the piston on my bedroom windowsill for years at my mums with bits of valve embedded into it.
It never got warm, even pulling plant on a King low loader over the m62 at Saddleworth.
The driver also used to go to Ireland with it, the clutch packed up and he brought it back loaded from Ireland with no clutch.
Also remember growing up in the same town as W & G Taylor of Skipton and a smog appearing over the industrial estate in a morning as the old Gardners were started up in the ERFs and Fodens they had.
I remember Ivor Powell at Kington buying a new eight wheeler ERF A series in 1968.It had a 150 Gardner engine.We went into work one Monday morning the yard was full of smoke with Ivor Powell sat in the new lorry complete with trilby hat & suit having a play like a kid with a new toy.He just about choked everyone in the yard lorry drivers and builders ( Powells were builders as well ).
Cheers Dave.
hello there, can any one tell me what " lxb,lxc, lw, and so means, in spite of all my years on the rd i have never found out, long sice retired, thank you for any help.
Hopefully this is correct: LW = lightweight ( in comparison to the L2), LX = 150 bhp, LXB = version B of the LX uprated to 180 bhp as a 6 cylinder, LXC = version C of the LX uprated again to approx 200 bhp as a six cylinder. LXCT= Turbocharged version. LXDT new design so D. All engines prefixed with H were horizontal versions. LYT totally new design.
Table 7 — Gardner Automotive Engine Sales by Customer, 1955 - 1962
1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962
Atkinson 419 540 349 327 403 504 590 612
Bristol 417 528 539 515 626 485 533 645
Daimler 167 351 202 152 156 100 271 378
ERF 412 476 436 273 452 509 613 641
Foden 575 712 585 464 603 713 794 762
Guy 696 594 524 275 335 399 238 288
Scammell 85 130 89 49 74 164 191 207
Seddon 0 83 86 57 64 73 96 77
Total 2,771 3,414 2,810 2,112 2,713 2,948 3,326 3,610
Source: Vintage Engine Register quoted in Edge, Legendary
Evening all, hey ho, monsieur CF, is occupied on our ■■■■■■■ thread, (relative merits of automatic transmissions in motor cars)!!! I know…railway sidings and full speed come to mind!!
I have "banged on " about Gardners licence builders, so perhaps it would be interesting to give some facts about one variant.Those manufactured by Eduard Bernard,113 Avenue Aristide Briande , Arcueil, (Seine). Whose lorries were universally known as "les Seigneures de ia route, (the Lords of the road).
Bernard held the right to manufacture Gardner designs for almost 30 years, up untill the demise of Bernard, and its absorbtion by the USAs Mack. As an example I cite the Bernard type TD150-35, a 19tonne 4x2 rigid, (35/38tonne tractor unit), produced from 1953, up to 1963. The power unit being a “Bernard” Type MB6, 6cyl 12,105cu cent, 130x152 developing 150/165 SAEhp @1750rpm. (a "developed LW Gardner)!! Transmission via a Bernard 5speed constant mesh overdrive gearbox, (with the option of a splitter giving 10 speeds, controled by a seperate gear lever , the skillful use of which gave rise to the (translated) term, the driver of a Bernard, he is a man to be respected! Or more easily used, “the man who can knit”!!
A twin plate clutch was fitted, and final drive was via a double reduction axle of Bernard design. In the case of rigids the chassis was pierced to allow the axle ,(axles), to pass through, suspended on multi plate springs. Tyre equipment would be F20, 1200x20 Michelin, and in the case of a 19tonne rigid would give a road speed of 61 kph, given a 7.40:1 axle ratio.
Eduard Bernard seemed able to “extract” a little extra from Gardners designs, both in terms of raw horsepower, and also in “driveability” The throttle was much “lighter” than I personally could remember UK Gardners, and Eduards engines seemed more responsive, and driveable. That they shared Gardners undeniable economy is undisputed, even today French operators remember these products, and their economy, (but they remember them as “French” engines)!! somewhat ironic is it not!!
As a personal aside, the only time that I ever felt really homesick, in all the years that I worked in France, was when I heard one of Stoke on Trent`s Ken Beresfords 8LXBs in deepest France, the melancholy that it could evoke was without reason! (and they were always driven so well)!! Im away to the refuge of M Bollinger, (I fear an attack of meloncholy coming on), adieu, Cheerio for now.
Saviem I recall reading that Bernard modified their Gardner engines by moving the fuel pump to the opposite side of the engine, much to Mr Gardner’s disgust! Personally I cant see how they did that (if indeed it is true) as it would require a different crankcase at the very least, have you any information on this at all?
Pete.
windrush:
Saviem I recall reading that Bernard modified their Gardner engines by moving the fuel pump to the opposite side of the engine, much to Mr Gardner’s disgust! Personally I cant see how they did that (if indeed it is true) as it would require a different crankcase at the very least, have you any information on this at all?Pete.
Yes they did, first thing I noticed when I “got up close”, (about 1965), Bernard are my all time favourites, (and so little is known about them). Cheerio for now.