Having given the matter a bit more thinking about,this engine could have origionally been fitted in a Guy Invincible tractor unit,anyone got any better ideas ? Cheers Dennis.
This one is an LW. You can tell by the design of the injector pump the rackbar is open, The later 8.cylinder was the LX, & The bar was covered in, so this LW would never have been fitted in Guy Dennis, Ha Ha Ha, Who would want a Big J Guy anyway, Did Guy ever fit the 8 LXB ■■?< Regards Larry.
Gardner 8LW,Etc.
Just in case you do not know:The Gardner 8LW Straight Eight specifications:-
Gardner 8LW.Introduced in 1946.
11158 cc,680 CID.
In-line 8-cylinder.
140 BHP.
458 lbs ft of torque.
K Type,introduced in 1950.
150 BHP.
478 lbs ft of torque.
Atkinson fitted some 8LW engines into some rigid eight-wheeler lorry models and heavy haulage road locomotives.
Foden also fitted some 8LW engines into some rigid eight-wheeler lorries and heavy haulage road locomotives.
The Gardner 8LW was also used in marine and railway applications.
Atkinson L1588,Bowfront-cabbed,Luton Girderframe-bodied,8x4 Lorry,420 GRE,THE DEFIANT,1955 in Stafford.
Chassis No.4000,was new to Craddocks.Bob Wilson Fun Fairs:-
flickr.com/photos/dscn8785/5539973803/
Foden S18 FGHT8/80,Ballast Box-bodied,8x4 Heavy Haulage Road Locomotive,SGG 6,1957 in Glasgow.
Pickfords Heavy Haulage M4371:-
flickr.com/photos/kingtonian/3391861737/
I think Guy did fit Gardner 8LXB 240-250 Engines in some Big J4T and Big J6T Tractive Units,and this subject has been covered on TruckNetUK before:-
viewtopic.php?f=35&t=54395&start=1500
viewtopic.php?f=35&t=54395&start=1710
VALKYRIE.
Hiya…i,ve just sold the boxers on ebay for 99p so now there gone…do you know some people get mad if you
mess with there equipment, i thought to get the photo was good…the owner of the lw did let me have a good
rev of the motor which did sound spot on…
Lawrence i spoke to Harold?? about the ex pochin lorry you had, he remembered it well and all about the crash,
he seemed to think the number plate was yma. was thet correct. you must come to astle next year lawrence and
chat with the pochins lads.
John
Hiya …thanks for the info valkyrie…i did’nt know the engine was produced as early as the 40,s.
i ,ve seen the foden sgg 6 thats where i first found out about the 8lw, also speaking with the owners
of 2 8lw,s at astle park,
John
Gardner 120:
Staying out of the bickering just sharing this account of a 1968 Gardner 180 cold start;Driver David Machin recalls a pyrotechnic cold start, “I used to lift off the interior bonnet (a pain if you had a lot of kit with you) remove the air intake hose and light a piece of rag or rolled up paper. Press the starter with one hand, let the fire be drawn into engine and it would usually start up straight away. The trick was to have a good battery and not let go of the key until she fired!”
Hi David,
that was a favourite in the 60s when most of the old Diesels were hard to start in the Morn, and it saved you from buying Easystart.
Cheers Ben.
Ben
Sorry, I should have mentioned - David Machin (a top bloke) sadly died a few years ago at the ridiculously early age of 51 - that was a quote from him that I included in a short history of J Haydons & Sons.
In 1977 they ran 7 Gardners in ERFs that were from 1968 to 1971. I remember as a boy, sitting in a cab that shook as the engine note got higher and higher as she tried to fire on a really cold winter’s morning (off Mow Cop) and yes the yard was blotted out with smoke.
They gave many years / thousands of miles of good service but were probably of their day.
Gardner 120 (Mike)
Gardner Engines And Turbocharging.
Throughout most of L.Gardner & Sons Ltd existence the company was opposed to turbocharging,the reason being that it went against Hugh Gardner’s engineering ideals,who was the chief engineer and head man at Gardner.He believed that turbocharging overstressed an engine - he must have forgotten about the fact
that his natuarally aspirated Gardner Engines were already overstressed through not producing enough
power in the first place! 
Other engine builders,such as AEC,■■■■■■■ and Rolls-Royce built turbocharged engines that were really successful and powerful,and that were designed and beefed up to take turbocharging! - and in the case
of Rolls-Royce - also supercharging!
Didn’t the misguided Hugh Gardner realise this? He could have re-designed certain aspects of Gardner engines
in order to physically strengthen them to enable turbocharging! And had Gardner started to do this in the
1940s,or 1950s,or 1960s the company would not have lagged behind in the power stakes,and it might still have been in business today.
But instead,and in reality,Gardner engines did not produce enough power but produced enough disdain
among lorry,bus and motorcoach drivers and operators for them to tell true and unflattering stories
about Gardner engines. Such as the one that I came across in TRUCK Magazine years since:-
One lorry said to another lorry driver:“I drive a Gardner-engined artic.” The other lorry driver replied with:-
“Here is some advice:Take the Gardner engine out of the lorry,dig a big hole and bury the engine.”
It is also true,that Gardner probably produced the best precision and quality-engineered diesel engines in the commercial vehicle market,but they were just not powerful enough during most of their production period.
So power-wise,engines such as ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ were
better overall in most respects.
VALKYRIE.
VALKYRIE:
Gardner Engines And Turbocharging.
Didn’t the misguided Hugh Gardner realise this? He could have re-designed certain aspects of Gardner engines
in order to physically strengthen them to enable turbocharging! And had Gardner started to do this in the
1940s,or 1950s,or 1960s the company would not have lagged behind in the powere stakes,and it might still have been in business today.
VALKYRIE.
In the 1950s and '60s, he was probably right. Does anyone have experience of the durability of the 6LX versus the popular turbo’ed engines of the day (mid 1960’s)? Scania Vabis DS11, Volvo TD100, for example. Turbocharging was far from universal then, so it wasn’t just Hugh who gave it a swerve. Possibly the two largest (including their car production) engine manufacturers in Europe- Fiat and Mercedes- stuck with N/A engines until the mid 1980s.
Well in my opinion the 150 Gardner was a great engine but the gearing had to be correct, to go allong with the slow revs of the Gardner, a close meshed gearbox was ideal, but the only gearbox as far as I could see was the Foden 12 Speed, & speaking from experience I had nom problems with the slow revs, the 12 Speed box was great & I was delighted with the 10/11 mpg, & Old freind of mine used to say if a wagon was geared right one could peddle it allong, Now just have a bit think about it, he may have been right when you look at at the speed bicycles get up to these days, Regards Larry.
[zb]
anorak:VALKYRIE:
Gardner Engines And Turbocharging.
Didn’t the misguided Hugh Gardner realise this? He could have re-designed certain aspects of Gardner engines
in order to physically strengthen them to enable turbocharging! And had Gardner started to do this in the
1940s,or 1950s,or 1960s the company would not have lagged behind in the powere stakes,and it might still have been in business today.
VALKYRIE.In the 1950s and '60s, he was probably right. Does anyone have experience of the durability of the 6LX versus the popular turbo’ed engines of the day (mid 1960’s)? Scania Vabis DS11, Volvo TD100, for example. Turbocharging was far from universal then, so it wasn’t just Hugh who gave it a swerve. Possibly the two largest (including their car production) engine manufacturers in Europe- Fiat and Mercedes- stuck with N/A engines until the mid 1980s.
Evening all, just a little aside, somewhere back on this thread an ex Gardner employee remarked about the success of Gardner engines in the PSV market. It reminded me of a Belgian coach operator that I met at a social dinner in Paris in the mid 2000s, (when I was long away from working full time in Europe). He reminisced about running Neoplan V10 Mercedes engined double deck “run to the sun”, trips down to Spain. These shuttle operations covered considerable annual mileages. However he changed his entire fleet, I think around 40 units to Neoplan specified with 6LXYT turbo engines for three reasons, greater economy,(up to two miles per gallon advantage), greater reliability, and less downtime, and stronger residual value. Nice to hear “contemporary” praise! Cheerio for now.
Well said that Man three cheers for Gardners of Paticroft, Regards Larry.
[zb]
anorak:VALKYRIE:
Gardner Engines And Turbocharging.
Didn’t the misguided Hugh Gardner realise this? He could have re-designed certain aspects of Gardner engines
in order to physically strengthen them to enable turbocharging! And had Gardner started to do this in the
1940s,or 1950s,or 1960s the company would not have lagged behind in the powere stakes,and it might still have been in business today.
VALKYRIE.In the 1950s and '60s, he was probably right. Does anyone have experience of the durability of the 6LX versus the popular turbo’ed engines of the day (mid 1960’s)? Scania Vabis DS11, Volvo TD100, for example. Turbocharging was far from universal then, so it wasn’t just Hugh who gave it a swerve. Possibly the two largest (including their car production) engine manufacturers in Europe- Fiat and Mercedes- stuck with N/A engines until the mid 1980s.
As I’ve said elsewhere the ability of most of the best turbocharged engines at that time wasn’t done by design it was done by accident in that the two main competitors (Detroit and ■■■■■■■■■■■ the European designs which,with the exception of the DAF 2800,were designed with forced induction in mind from the outset,were reliant on the fact that their original design was up to what was effectively retro fit turbocharging which their designers couldn’t possibly have foreseen at the original design stage.
VALKYRIE seems to be confusing an engine that’s underpowered because of low BMEP and low specific power output ( which is therefore understressed but just inefficient) with the other type of underpowered engine that’s underpowered because it’s got a high BMEP figure and high specific power output but the advantage is then thrown away by speccing the thing in too small capacity which makes the figures worthless and makes the engine overstressed and needing high engine speeds to make the figures.The comparison would be like comparing a Gardner 180 or even 240 powered 32 tonner with a Volvo F7 or even DAF 2300/2500.In which case it’s the Volvo and the DAF which are overstressed and underpowered whereas the Gardner powered examples are just underpowered not overstressed. 
It’s getting the combination of high BMEP and specific power outputs right at the lowest engine speed possible which is what matters and Hugh Gardner was right to think that there was no way that the outdated technology which formed the basis of Gardner’s designs could have met that target by retro fit turbocharging.Which,fortunately for DAF,■■■■■■■ and Detroit,wasn’t an issue with their designs which turned out,by accident not design,to be happier running with turbocharging than without.
Lawrence Dunbar:
Well in my opinion the 150 Gardner was a great engine but the gearing had to be correct, to go allong with the slow revs of the Gardner, a close meshed gearbox was ideal, but the only gearbox as far as I could see was the Foden 12 Speed, & speaking from experience I had nom problems with the slow revs, the 12 Speed box was great & I was delighted with the 10/11 mpg, & Old freind of mine used to say if a wagon was geared right one could peddle it allong, Now just have a bit think about it, he may have been right when you look at at the speed bicycles get up to these days, Regards Larry.
The rule of thumb is that there’s no way that higher gearing will make the thing go any faster without a corresponding increase in power and torque output to go with it.The only thing that gearing can do is to make a gutless engine better by providing more torque at the wheels at the expense of speed by gearing it down not up.But put higher gearing on an already underpowered engine and it will go even slower not faster.
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:VALKYRIE:
Gardner Engines And Turbocharging.
Didn’t the misguided Hugh Gardner realise this? He could have re-designed certain aspects of Gardner engines
in order to physically strengthen them to enable turbocharging! And had Gardner started to do this in the
1940s,or 1950s,or 1960s the company would not have lagged behind in the powere stakes,and it might still have been in business today.
VALKYRIE.In the 1950s and '60s, he was probably right. Does anyone have experience of the durability of the 6LX versus the popular turbo’ed engines of the day (mid 1960’s)? Scania Vabis DS11, Volvo TD100, for example. Turbocharging was far from universal then, so it wasn’t just Hugh who gave it a swerve. Possibly the two largest (including their car production) engine manufacturers in Europe- Fiat and Mercedes- stuck with N/A engines until the mid 1980s.
As I’ve said elsewhere the ability of most of the best turbocharged engines at that time wasn’t done by design it was done by accident in that the two main competitors (Detroit and ■■■■■■■■■■■ the European designs which,with the exception of the DAF 2800,were designed with forced induction in mind from the outset,were reliant on the fact that their original design was up to what was effectively retro fit turbocharging which their designers couldn’t possibly have foreseen at the original design stage.
VALKYRIE seems to be confusing an engine that’s underpowered because of low BMEP and low specific power output ( which is therefore understressed but just inefficient) with the other type of underpowered engine that’s underpowered because it’s got a high BMEP figure and high specific power output but the advantage is then thrown away by speccing the thing in too small capacity which makes the figures worthless and makes the engine overstressed and needing high engine speeds to make the figures.The comparison would be like comparing a Gardner 180 or even 240 powered 32 tonner with a Volvo F7 or even DAF 2300/2500.In which case it’s the Volvo and the DAF which are overstressed and underpowered whereas the Gardner powered examples are just underpowered not overstressed.
It’s getting the combination of high BMEP and specific power outputs right at the lowest engine speed possible which is what matters and Hugh Gardner was right to think that there was no way that the outdated technology which formed the basis of Gardner’s designs could have met that target by retro fit turbocharging.Which,fortunately for DAF,■■■■■■■ and Detroit,wasn’t an issue with their designs which turned out,by accident not design,to be happier running with turbocharging than without.
Gardner Engines And Turbocharging.
I am NOT confusing Brake Mean Effective Pressure,engine capacity or anything else.I am compairing published
brake horse power and torque outputs of Gardner diesel engines with the published brake horse power and torque outputs of the diesel engines of other manufacturers,which are all part of the specifications of the
motor vehicles that these engines were fitted in. And the average buyer compared these power and torque
outputs only - not the BMEP’s and IMEP’s of the engines concerned.
As Graham Edge pointed out in his Gardner book,the Gardner 6LW was underpowered for rigid eight-wheeler
and drawbar trailer opertion.Most lorry operators therefore bought the more powerful AEC and Leyland
rigid eight-wheeler lorry models for drawbar trailer work. Thus,a Gardner 6LW 112 BHP engine would be underpowered and overstressed trying to do the same work as an AEC or Leyland 150 BHP engine.
As other people have already pointed out,Gardner engines were underpowered,and in some cases, really overstressed. Hugh Gardner had the wrong attitude:for example more and more engine builders were turning
towards turbocharging in the 1950s,and he ought to have developed the 6LX to take turbocharging to start with before it was introduced in 1958! - not waited until 1978 at least to start design and development of the turbocharged 6LXCT 230-240 Engine…it was ridiculous. From 1958 to 1962 Gardner was outgunned in
the power stakes yet again by AEC,Foden,Leyland,etc! Power wise,they were better than Gardner
engines anyway.
In regard to the [ZB] Anorak comments. Here are some more objective facts:The list below shows dates or
periods when certain well known commercial vehicle engine manufacturers began to produce supercharged (S) and/or turbocharged (T) diesel engines:-
AEC.T 1950s.
Berliet.T 1959.
Caterpillar.T 1955.
Crossley.S 1947.
■■■■■■■■■ 1954.
DAF.T 1959.
Detroit Diesel.S 1938,T 1950s.
Fiat-IVECO.T 1981.
Foden.S 1948,T 1962.
Leyland.T 1968.
Magirus-Deutz.T 1950s.
MAN.T.1956.
Meadows.T 1950s.
Mercedes-Benz.T 1948.Produced turbocharged diesel engines for special vehicles,turbocharged engines became optional in 1968 and standard in 1980.
OM.S 1958.
Perkins.T 1964.
Rolls-Royce.S,T 1950s.
Scania,Scania-Vabis.T 1951.
Thornycroft.T 1950s.
Volvo.T 1954.
The above list proves just how out of step,out of touch,old -fashioned and hopeless the Gardner engine company was! …Operators had to wait until June 1981 for the first official turbocharged Gardner engine to be introduced:The 6LXCT 230-240. This was typical Gardner timing,who were nearly always ten years behind the times and sometimes even longer than that! - in the case of turbocharging,it was around
twenty-thirty years more or less!
Gardner lost out to both more powerful natuarally aspirated and supercharged-turbocharged diesel engines,and lost a hell of a lot of sales in the process!
More powerful engines,in certain cases,didn’t have to work as hard and therefore had better fuel consumption
figures.Gardner operaters,some of whom were penny pinchers,surely must have realised this - a Foden two stroke lorry bettered or equalled a Gardner-engined lorry in a Commercial Motor road test! 
VALKYRIE.
Nit picking, I would dispute Valkyrie’s comparison of the 112 bhp Gardner 6LW with AEC and Leyland engines producing 150 bhp. True that the 11.3 litre AEC AV690 of the period could achieve this figure and the slightly later 11.1 litre Leyland 680 could too, but these are considerably larger capacity engines than the 8.4 litre 6LW. Comparison with the 9.6litre AEC AV 590 or 9.8 litre Leyland 600 would be fairer, both of which produced in the region of 125 bhp; both also being considered underpowered for drawbar trailer operation at the time.
Again nitpicking, I would argue with Carryfast that from an engineering point of view, thermal efficiency is the criterion from which to judge whether an engine is ‘efficient’. In Gardner’s case, their engines achieved 40%; a figure which was not matched by any other manufacturer, with or without turbocharger, until the mid/late1980s. If I remember correctly the first engine to get near to the figure was the Leyland 500.
This of course does not alter the view of in use efficiency as seen by the vehicle’s operator. However, in practice this requires efficiency from not just the engine.
VALKYRIE:
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:VALKYRIE:
Gardner Engines And Turbocharging.
Didn’t the misguided Hugh Gardner realise this? He could have re-designed certain aspects of Gardner engines
in order to physically strengthen them to enable turbocharging! And had Gardner started to do this in the
1940s,or 1950s,or 1960s the company would not have lagged behind in the powere stakes,and it might still have been in business today.
VALKYRIE.In the 1950s and '60s, he was probably right. Does anyone have experience of the durability of the 6LX versus the popular turbo’ed engines of the day (mid 1960’s)? Scania Vabis DS11, Volvo TD100, for example. Turbocharging was far from universal then, so it wasn’t just Hugh who gave it a swerve. Possibly the two largest (including their car production) engine manufacturers in Europe- Fiat and Mercedes- stuck with N/A engines until the mid 1980s.
As I’ve said elsewhere the ability of most of the best turbocharged engines at that time wasn’t done by design it was done by accident in that the two main competitors (Detroit and ■■■■■■■■■■■ the European designs which,with the exception of the DAF 2800,were designed with forced induction in mind from the outset,were reliant on the fact that their original design was up to what was effectively retro fit turbocharging which their designers couldn’t possibly have foreseen at the original design stage.
VALKYRIE seems to be confusing an engine that’s underpowered because of low BMEP and low specific power output ( which is therefore understressed but just inefficient) with the other type of underpowered engine that’s underpowered because it’s got a high BMEP figure and high specific power output but the advantage is then thrown away by speccing the thing in too small capacity which makes the figures worthless and makes the engine overstressed and needing high engine speeds to make the figures.The comparison would be like comparing a Gardner 180 or even 240 powered 32 tonner with a Volvo F7 or even DAF 2300/2500.In which case it’s the Volvo and the DAF which are overstressed and underpowered whereas the Gardner powered examples are just underpowered not overstressed.
It’s getting the combination of high BMEP and specific power outputs right at the lowest engine speed possible which is what matters and Hugh Gardner was right to think that there was no way that the outdated technology which formed the basis of Gardner’s designs could have met that target by retro fit turbocharging.Which,fortunately for DAF,■■■■■■■ and Detroit,wasn’t an issue with their designs which turned out,by accident not design,to be happier running with turbocharging than without.
Gardner Engines And Turbocharging.
I am NOT confusing Brake Mean Effective Pressure,engine capacity or anything else.I am compairing published
brake horse power and torque outputs of Gardner diesel engines with the published brake horse power and torque outputs of the diesel engines of other manufacturers,which are all part of the specifications of the
motor vehicles that these engines were fitted in. And the average buyer compared these power and torque
outputs only - not the BMEP’s and IMEP’s of the engines concerned.
As Graham Edge pointed out in his Gardner book,the Gardner 6LW was underpowered for rigid eight-wheeler
and drawbar trailer opertion.Most lorry operators therefore bought the more powerful AEC and Leyland
rigid eight-wheeler lorry models for drawbar trailer work. Thus,a Gardner 6LW 112 BHP engine would be underpowered and overstressed trying to do the same work as an AEC or Leyland 150 BHP engine.
Gardner lost out to both more powerful natuarally aspirated and supercharged-turbocharged diesel engines,and lost a hell of a lot of sales in the process!
The fact is it’s the BMEP and specificic power outputs that actually determine the stress levels that a design is working to.If those figures are low as in the Gardner’s case then it’s an understressed engine not an overstressed one.In this case we’re talking about an underpowered wagon because it’s engine is too understressed and therefore it’s inefficient.There’s no way that such type of underpowering (as opposed to the other type of underpowering in which a too small capacity engine with high BMEP and a high specific power output is used to provide the equivalent output ),can be overstressed.In the real world blowing up because of overstressing wasn’t the Gardner’s issue.It was the opposite problem in that it was so understressed that it was just a boat anchor and it was the fact that it was actually only capable of and designed to run at such low stress levels,no more,that was it’s downfall and why it’s designer (correctly) understood that retro fit turbocharging wasn’t going to be an option.
As I’ve said most of the successful early designs of (reliable) turbocharged engines were produced by accident,in that their designs had built in redundancy for the acceptance of higher stressing than originally envisaged by their designers.While the rest followed accepted engineering practice in that a forced induction engine needs to be designed as such from the outset.
I would not disagree with Valkyrie’s general thrust, that Gardner’s fell behind the times, in terms of power output required for the market. However, much of their competitors’ advantage, in the 1950’'s and '60s, was due to the extra 400 or so RPM at which their peak power was developed. The torque output of the Garner engines, at “middle” engine speeds, was competitive. At this time, buyers had a choice- between a 1700RPM Gardner or an engine which gave more power, if you ran it at 2000+ RPM. Those who chose Gardner got the extra durability and efficiency for free- after a few miles and a few tanks of fuel, the purchase surcharge was paid.
Regarding turbochargers, I was wrong about Mercedes and Fiat; it was not the mid ‘80s when they started using them in lorries- it was 1980 and ’81 respectively. However, Valkyrie’s list does not ring true- how many turbo’ed Leyland, Magirus or Foden lorries were sold before 1975? The list shows when firms first dabbled with forced induction, not when it was a production option. For example, Scania Vabis first offered the DS10 in lorries in 1961.
It was not until the so-called “high torque rise” turbocharged engines hit the market that Gardners were truly left behind. This was 1977 in Europe (Scania DS 1401, then ■■■■■■■ E290, if I remember correctly).
Cav551- good, concise post.
cav551:
Nit picking, I would dispute Valkyrie’s comparison of the 112 bhp Gardner 6LW with AEC and Leyland engines producing 150 bhp. True that the 11.3 litre AEC AV690 of the period could achieve this figure and the slightly later 11.1 litre Leyland 680 could too, but these are considerably larger capacity engines than the 8.4 litre 6LW. Comparison with the 9.6litre AEC AV 590 or 9.8 litre Leyland 600 would be fairer, both of which produced in the region of 125 bhp; both also being considered underpowered for drawbar trailer operation at the time.Again nitpicking, I would argue with Carryfast that from an engineering point of view, thermal efficiency is the criterion from which to judge whether an engine is ‘efficient’. In Gardner’s case, their engines achieved 40%; a figure which was not matched by any other manufacturer, with or without turbocharger, until the mid/late1980s. If I remember correctly the first engine to get near to the figure was the Leyland 500.
This of course does not alter the view of in use efficiency as seen by the vehicle’s operator. However, in practice this requires efficiency from not just the engine.
If it’s all about thermal efficiency in automotive engines not BMEP and specific power outputs then they’d obviously be fitting massive low speed ship/marine diesels in trucks. 
[zb]
anorak:
I would not disagree with Valkyrie’s general thrust, that Gardner’s fell behind the times, in terms of power output required for the market. However, much of their competitors’ advantage, in the 1950’'s and '60s, was due to the extra 400 or so RPM at which their peak power was developed. The torque output of the Garner engines, at “middle” engine speeds, was competitive. At this time, buyers had a choice- between a 1700RPM Gardner or an engine which gave more power, if you ran it at 2000+ RPM. Those who chose Gardner got the extra durability and efficiency for free- after a few miles and a few tanks of fuel, the purchase surcharge was paid.Regarding turbochargers, I was wrong about Mercedes and Fiat; it was not the mid ‘80s when they started using them in lorries- it was 1980 and ’81 respectively. However, Valkyrie’s list does not ring true- how many turbo’ed Leyland, Magirus or Foden lorries were sold before 1975? The list shows when firms first dabbled with forced induction, not when it was a production option. For example, Scania Vabis first offered the DS10 in lorries in 1961.
It was not until the so-called “high torque rise” turbocharged engines hit the market that Gardners were truly left behind. This was 1977 in Europe (Scania DS 1401, then ■■■■■■■ E290, if I remember correctly).
Cav551- good, concise post.
The usual rule is that if you want an engine to produce useful amounts of work at low engine speeds then there’s no substitute for cubic inches.However in the case of the Gardner design we’re talking such low BMEP and specific power outputs as to make the engine speeds at which it was putting out such low levels of power and torque irrelevant.The fact is an underpowered truck is an underpowered truck regardless of wether it’s underpowered because it’s engine is too small or wether it’s just a gutless design.
The only difference being in the Gardner’s case was that it wouldn’t blow up and would likely run for a lot longer than the other type of underpowering.Some drivers would say that was yet another disadvantage of the Gardner. 