Gardner ENGINES

[zb_anorak]

Cf, you mention BMEP and “specific power outputs” (as if there is more than one of them). These things are normally expressed as numbers, not words. This is your homework for today:

Please list BMEP and dry weight for the following engines of the 1960s:
Gardner 6LXB180
Leyland 680 Power Plus
Volvo TD100A
Power and torque may be measured to DIN (gross) or BS141Au (net installed), but all must be to the same standard. If corrections are applied for parity, these must be stated and quantified.

Your answer- a mere six numbers, and no waffle whatsoever- must be on this desk by midnight.

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:
Cf, you mention BMEP and “specific power outputs” (as if there is more than one of them). These things are normally expressed as numbers, not words. This is your homework for today:

Please list BMEP and dry weight for the following engines of the 1960s:
Gardner 6LXB180
Leyland 680 Power Plus
Volvo TD100A
Power and torque may be measured to DIN (gross) or BS141Au (net installed), but all must be to the same standard. If corrections are applied for parity, these must be stated and quantified.

Your answer- a mere six numbers, and no waffle whatsoever- must be on this desk by midnight.

Blimey at least make it challenging.By the age of 16 I knew that specific power outputs and BMEP are effectively the same thing.For BMEP just refer to the engine capacity and the torque curve and and from that you can calculate the specific torque (torque per litre) at every point in the rev range hence lots of different figures which is what matters in the real world not just the peak outputs (in the Gardner’s case that’s zb all).Then you just take the resulting figures and multiply them by 2.464 which is the BMEP and obviously it’s peak torque which will provide the highest BMEP figure.

For power output just take the torque figure/s and the conversion factor is torque in lbs/ft multiplied by rpm divided by 5250 and from that you get the power figure and the specific power output by calculating hp power per litre just the same as with specific torque.All done from just knowing the torque curve and the engine capacity.

Sorry but I don’t have all the relevant torque curves to hand for the comparisons you’ve asked for but obviously it wouldn’t be too difficult for the average junior school pupil to work out if they’ve got them now that I’ve provided all the relevant equations.

Which,as I’ve said,in the Gardner’s case,was zb all to start with .But dry weight isn’t one of the factors only engine capacity is what’s used to determine specific torque (BMEP) and power outputs.

[lawrence_dunbar]

Carryfast:

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.

I wasnt refering to speed, I was simpley stating a fact about the correct gearing, & fuel ecconomey which the Gardner Engine was renowned for. Regards Larry.

[b_waddy]

HI ,Lawrence, I think C/F is talking out of his b side ,we ran many Gardeners ,one Foden we ran was an F reg S 39 ,I T had a 180 12 speed box and a 4/8 diff ,64 mph pulled well allso fuel was the same as the others with 5/2 and one had a5/7 ratio diffs but would only do 52 to 55 mph, What he seems to forget is Gardeners wre the Bosess motors not so much the drivers ,and they allways came home ,yours Barry

[carryfast]

b.waddy:
HI ,Lawrence, I think C/F is talking out of his b side ,we ran many Gardeners ,one Foden we ran was an F reg S 39 ,I T had a 180 12 speed box and a 4/8 diff ,64 mph pulled well allso fuel was the same as the others with 5/2 and one had a5/7 ratio diffs but would only do 52 to 55 mph, What he seems to forget is Gardeners wre the Bosess motors not so much the drivers ,and they allways came home ,yours Barry

So you’ve never heard of the term over gearing something.Which means exactly what I said in which an engine doesn’t have sufficient torque or power to pull the overall gearing.It would probably take a miracle like downhill with a following wind to get a Gardner 180 powered 32 tonner up to 60 let alone 65 mph regardless of how many and how close the gear ratios it’s got.The 180 Gardner was really just suitable for nothing much more than a 4,or at best a 6,wheeler by the standards of at least the early 1970’s as those Guvnors eventually realised when they (rightly) deserted the thing in droves for more powerful (usually Euro or Scandinavian imports if not ■■■■■■■■ turbocharged wagons.

[carryfast]

Lawrence Dunbar:

Carryfast:

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.

I wasnt refering to speed, I was simpley stating a fact about the correct gearing, & fuel ecconomey which the Gardner Engine was renowned for. Regards Larry.

That mythical fuel economy was mostly,if not all,based on not comparing like with like in terms of power output and productivety.Which is why there were more customers for trucks like the Volvo F10/12 and DAF 2800 etc than there were for naturally aspirated Gardner powered heaps when the guvnors (eventually) started factoring in all the figures instead of just one.

[cav551]

I thought that the first engine guvnors fell in love with, in preference to the Gardner, was the NATURALLY ASPIRATED 743 cu in ( 12.1 litre) ■■■■■■■ NH. After this came the Swedes, but they tried a lot of N/A Italian and German engines as well.

Before they went to the turbocharged ■■■■■■■ they tried a LOT of N/A 855 cu in (14 litre) NHs. A very significant proportion of the early Seddon Atkinson 400s and ERF B series were so (NH250) powered.

I certainly changed more ■■■■■■■ head gaskets than Gardner ones.

[bewick]

Carryfast:

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.

You are talking Bollox,as per usual CF,I had a number of motors through my hands at Bewick Transport,both Gardner and ■■■■■■■ powered which I deliberately “geared” up both by changing the crown wheel and pinion and converting others to Two speed axles.Without exception they all performed better on the grades and,best of all,economy.So put that in your Briar pipe and “smoke it” my son !! Cheers Bewick.

[carryfast]

Bewick:

Carryfast:

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.

You are talking Bollox,as per usual CF,I had a number of motors through my hands at Bewick Transport,both Gardner and ■■■■■■■ powered which I deliberately “geared” up both by changing the crown wheel and pinion and converting others to Two speed axles.Without exception they all performed better on the grades and,best of all,economy.So put that in your Briar pipe and “smoke it” my son !! Cheers Bewick.

You can bet that if putting a higher axle ratio in a wagon would make it perform better overall that’s the ratio the manufacturers would have put in it to start with .But the idea of a 60-65 mph Gardner 180 powered artic sounds like bollox to me considering that a DAF 2800 was almost flat out at that speed loaded to around 30 t gross or often even less.

[lawrence_dunbar]

Well its not rocket science, the gardner powered wagon doing 65 mph would be flat out as well as any other wagon would be, Regards Larry.

[carryfast]

Lawrence Dunbar:
Well its not rocket science, the gardner powered wagon doing 65 mph would be flat out as well as any other wagon would be, Regards Larry.

I think you’re forgetting about the differences between the relative power outputs of a DAF 2800 running ‘almost flat out’ compared to that of a Gardner 180 powered wagon running ‘flat out’.

[newmercman]

Carryfast:

Lawrence Dunbar:
Well its not rocket science, the gardner powered wagon doing 65 mph would be flat out as well as any other wagon would be, Regards Larry.

I think you’re forgetting about the differences between the relative power outputs of a DAF 2800 running ‘almost flat out’ compared to that of a Gardner 180 powered wagon running ‘flat out’.

There’s another difference…the Gardner doing 65mph would be at the bottom of a big hill and more than likely in Scotch Overdrive, the Daf could do it in gear on the level and on a modest incline too

[carryfast]

newmercman:

Carryfast:

Lawrence Dunbar:
Well its not rocket science, the gardner powered wagon doing 65 mph would be flat out as well as any other wagon would be, Regards Larry.

I think you’re forgetting about the differences between the relative power outputs of a DAF 2800 running ‘almost flat out’ compared to that of a Gardner 180 powered wagon running ‘flat out’.

There’s another difference…the Gardner doing 65mph would be at the bottom of a big hill and more than likely in Scotch Overdrive, the Daf could do it in gear on the level and on a modest incline too

Such as on the climb up to Membury services on the M4 in either direction doing a double return run from Feltham to Bristol.

But Scotch Overdrive in the case of the Gardner probably meant leave it in gear and just de clutch it so that when it was near the bottom of the hill it was already in gear and then it was just a case of let the clutch back in and hope that at least one con rod would go through the side of the crankcase and it’s probably for that reason why the guvnors decided to raise the overall gearing.

[rigsby]

carryfast , i had a foden fg in the 60s and i hated it with a vengeance , but the bloody thing wouldn’t die . i wired the govenor bar and it would rev until the exhaust glowed , but i still couldn’t kill it . on the other hand i had a 150 gardner that dropped a valve ticking over at the lights . i don’t think quality control was a gardner priority

[carryfast]

rigsby:
carryfast , i had a foden fg in the 60s and i hated it with a vengeance , but the bloody thing wouldn’t die . i wired the govenor bar and it would rev until the exhaust glowed , but i still couldn’t kill it .

[newmercman]

I tried everything I could to kill the 180 in my Sed Ak, but the [zb]stard would not die, but all the same, I am glad I have driven one, they are part of our history

[valkyrie]

Gardner Engines And Turbocharging.

Hello Everybody.
Carryfast.Hello Everybody.
Carryfast. Here is a definition of Brake Mean Effective Pressure that I came across on an Internet website:-
BMEP.
“The term BMEP is an engineering term that means Brake Mean Effective Pressure. Mean is another word for average, which in this case means average effective pressure of all stroke cycles. This is used to evaluate all engines whether they are Two or Four Cycle.
BMEP is a function of temperature of the gases in the cylinder. To increase the temperature you need to burn more fuel, thus making more heat. Or another way is to make better use of the existing fuel.
Torque is a function of BMEP and displacement only. HP is a function of torque and rpm.
It is said a high BMEP and a low rpm, or a low BMEP and a high rpm, can equal the same power. Larger valves, ports, pipes, compression, etc. all come into play to increase the volumetric efficiency of the engine. The most effective is to increase the number of cylinders. The more efficient it is, the higher the average pressure or BMEP.” From XPLORER.CO.ZA.

SPECIFIC POWER OUTPUT.
"Specific output is an index quantifying the amount of power produced per unit of piston displacement. (Piston displacement being, of course, a precise measure of an engine’s internal size.) Large engines are capable of generating huge amounts of power, but a tougher challenge is producing ample power from a small engine. Specific output provides a handy means of comparing the power-generating capability of all engines regardless of size."From CAR AND DRIVER.

In one of the books that I own (published in 1940) it states that the maximum BMEP for an original Gardner LW Diesel Engine is 102 lb.per.sq.in.

Anyway,here are a few questions:-

1.How does an engine designer achieve the target BHP and torque outputs?

2.Why has the Gardner 6LW got a low BMEP/Stress factor?

However,what I am trying to say is about the physical strain on a Gardner 6LW engine which is caused by the
overall weight of the lorry that it’s trying to power and move - not the BMEP kind of stress. The stress on
parts of the engine as it tries to move 24 tons of GVW,or 32 tons tons of GTW if the lorry is pulling a trailer -
some of the weight must be transmitted and/or indicated back to the engine via the driving axles,prop shafts and gearbox (although the gearing helps to overcome some of the weight). Therefore,AEC and Leyland
150 BHP engines (designed for 150 BHP and future upratings) were more powerful than Gardner 6LW 102-112
BHP engines,so there would be less physical strain and stress on the AEC and Leyland engines and would find it easier to move 24 tons GVW or 32 tons GTW of lorry. Hence less wear and tear on the the driver and lorry:
less use of the clutch,less gear changes,faster journey times,and,in certain cases,better fuel consumption
figures,better all round efficency and more satisfaction for the driver,operater and customer - these are the great benefits of using more powerful engines! …so it’s goodbye to Gardner diesel engines.

Cav 551.You accuse me of being unfair in regard to compairing the Gardner 6LW K-Type 112 BHP Diesel Engine with the AEC A221 and Leyland O.680 150 BHP Diesel Engines.
I am not being unfair at all. It was the Gardner company and the misguided Hugh Gardner that were being unfair:-
They expected hauliers to buy and operatate Gardner 6LW K-Type engined 32 ton GTW rigid eight wheeler
lorry drawbar trailer outfits using just a mere 112 BHP! Gardner must have been living in Cloud
Cuckoo Land! (Actually,a few very misguided hauliers did buy them ).
Or Gardner expected hauliers to use the Gardner 8LW 150 BHP Straight Eight Diesel Engine (QV my earlier post of the 18th of August) to power their eight wheeler drawbar trailer outfits,but this was expensive,too long -it took up too much valuable load space - and was probably too heavy.
Thus lorry operaters rightly deserted Gardner in droves and bought 150 BHP AEC,Leyland and AEC-engined
Atkinson rigid eight wheeler lorries for drawbar trailer work. It is true that a minority of lorry operators
bought the less powerful 125 BHP AEC,Leyland,AEC-engined Atkinson,Foden two stroke (126 BHP),etc,rigid
eight wheelers.
But Cav 551 should note that,as far as AEC and Leyland were concerned,the standard engines for rigid eight
wheeler drawbar trailer outfits were the AEC A221 and Leyland O.680 150 BHP Diesel Engines. So I was not being unfair,but the very misguided and somewhat self-delusional L.Gardner & Sons Ltd was.

[ZB] Anorak.I’ve re-printed the Supercharged and Turbocharged Engine production commencement list
below,and I did state “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:-”
But this time I’ll be more specific
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.AVT690/AHT690,etc, For industrial,freight and passenger vehicles.
Berliet.T 1959. M635 (640). Magic engine models.MDO3.
B.M.M.O.-Midland Red .T 1959.KL 8.028-litre Turbocharged 138 BHP Diesel Engines,with CAV Turbochargers.
Caterpillar.T 1955.
Crossley.S 1947.HOE9.
■■■■■■■■■ 1954.Six-cylinder NT,NRT,JT and V12-cylinder VT12.
DAF.T 1959. DS537.
Daimler.T 1958. CDS6 Turbocharged CVD6-SD Single Decker Motorcoaches and Buses.
Detroit Diesel.S 1938,T 1957. 71-Series Vee-Type Range:6V71 V6, 8V71 V8,12V71 V12,16V71 V16.
Fiat-IVECO.T 1981.
Foden.S 1948,T 1962. Supercharged FD4,FD6. Turbocharged Dynamic FD6 Mk 7. An experimental FD6 Mk III,fitted with a CAV turbocharger,producing 210 BHP was built in 1960.
Gardner.T 1981. 6LXCT.8LXCT.
Leyland.T 1968.690, Beaver Freightline BV69.32PTR Tractive Unit,with two pedal semi-automatic transmission.
Magirus-Deutz.T 1950s.Deutz BF12L 614,etc.
MAN.T.1956.D1246T.
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. Tigre,6870 cc, 135 BHP.
Perkins.T 1964.T6.354.
Rolls-Royce.S,T 1952.Supercharged C6SFL,etc,Turbocharged C6TFL,etc.
Scania,Scania-Vabis.T 1951. Not used in lorries until 1954,DS10 introduced in 1958.
Thornycroft.T 1950s.KRN6/S,etc.
Volvo.T 1954.TD96AS. In the early 1960s turbocharged engines accounted for 75% of heavy lorry engine production.

The above list does ring true.
As for the question: How many turbocharged Leyland,Magirus-Deutz and Foden lorries were sold before 1975?
In the cases of Foden and especially Leyland,a hell of a lot! I don’t know about Magirus-Deutz.
Most of the Leyland lorry,and some of the Leyland bus,ranges were powered by the Leyland 500-System
“Headless Wonder” Fixed Cylinder Head Diesel Engine Range - the 510 and 511 versions were turbocharged
and powered the:-
Buffalo 4x2 and 6x4 Tractive Units,
Octopus Rigid Eight Wheeler Lorry,
Super Buffalo 4x2 and 6x4 Drawbar Trailer Lorries,
Bristol VRT Double Decker Bus,
Leyland National Single Decker Bus.
The export Leyland Victory Mk11 Single Decker Bus was powered by the 690.
There were the turbocharged 410 and 411 Diesel Engines that powered Leyland Chieftans,Reivers and Clydesdales and the AEC AV760-based Leyland TL12 Turbocharged Diesel Engine that powered the Leyland Marathon and the later Roadtrain ranges.
All these engines were in production from at least 1971-1972 (TL12 from 1973) then came the O.680-based TL11 Turbocharged Diesel Engine in 1979.
In the case of the superb Foden Dynamic FD6 Mk VII Two Stroke Turbocharged Diesel Engine,produced from 1962 to 1972,this popular engine powered everything: dump trucks,the Foden S24 Sabrina Twin Load
8AE7/32 Rigid Eight Wheeler Tractive Unit Articulated Lorry,heavy haulage ballast road locomotives,4x2 and
6x4 tractive units,rigid eight wheeler freight,tanker and tipper lorries,etc,etc.

Photographs:-
Foden S24 Sabrina 4TE7/50,GWV 616D:-
flickr.com/photos/29179064@N05/3780913028/
Foden S24 Sabrina TE7/24,PMB 149B:-
ccmv.aecsouthall.co.uk/p25827268 … #h142d0442
Foden S24 Sabrina Twin Load 8AE7/32,007 MB:-
flickr.com/photos/37322606@N08/7017081727/
Foden S21 Spaceship 8E7/28,ETJ 346F:-
truck-photos.net/picture/number4360.asp

This Foden S18 FGHT6/50 4x2 Heavy Haulage Road Locomotive,PBT 973,is actually powered by a TURBOCHARGED Gardner 6LW Diesel Engine! It has a Simms turbocharger,which was fitted by it’s
original operator,L.V.Brooksbank and is now preserved by this heavy haulage company:-
ccmv.aecsouthall.co.uk/p40328673 … 41#h1f3841

Saviem.Here is a quite attractive Neoplan N722/3/Plaxton Paramount 4000 6x2 Double Decker Motorcoach,
4195 HE,operated by the Yorkshire Traction Company,Barnsley,which had six of these motorcoaches,all
powered by Gardner 6LYT 320-350 Diesel Engines - now the Gardner 6LYT is a proper Gardner Diesel Engine
-ie,for one thing it’s powerful…for a change:-
google.com/imgres?q=YORKSHIR … ,s:0,i:101

And here endeth yet another long sermon Cheers.

VALKYRIE.

[zb_anorak]

Carryfast:

[zb]
anorak:
Cf, you mention BMEP and “specific power outputs” (as if there is more than one of them). These things are normally expressed as numbers, not words. This is your homework for today:

Please list BMEP and dry weight for the following engines of the 1960s:
Gardner 6LXB180
Leyland 680 Power Plus
Volvo TD100A
Power and torque may be measured to DIN (gross) or BS141Au (net installed), but all must be to the same standard. If corrections are applied for parity, these must be stated and quantified.

Your answer- a mere six numbers, and no waffle whatsoever- must be on this desk by midnight.

Blimey at least make it challenging.By the age of 16 I knew that specific power outputs and BMEP are effectively the same thing.For BMEP just refer to the engine capacity and the torque curve and and from that you can calculate the specific torque (torque per litre) at every point in the rev range hence lots of different figures which is what matters in the real world not just the peak outputs (in the Gardner’s case that’s zb all).Then you just take the resulting figures and multiply them by 2.464 which is the BMEP and obviously it’s peak torque which will provide the highest BMEP figure.

For power output just take the torque figure/s and the conversion factor is torque in lbs/ft multiplied by rpm divided by 5250 and from that you get the power figure and the specific power output by calculating hp power per litre just the same as with specific torque.All done from just knowing the torque curve and the engine capacity.

Sorry but I don’t have all the relevant torque curves to hand for the comparisons you’ve asked for but obviously it wouldn’t be too difficult for the average junior school pupil to work out if they’ve got them now that I’ve provided all the relevant equations.

Which,as I’ve said,in the Gardner’s case,was zb all to start with .But dry weight isn’t one of the factors only engine capacity is what’s used to determine specific torque (BMEP) and power outputs.

If you know the answer, why not just answer the question? Find the figures, to back up your argument(s), for God’s sake! It is not good enough to blithely state, “The XYZ is [zb] all, blah, blah…” No one reading your texts will learn anything or believe a word of it.

For your information, the word “specific” in science and engineering usually means, “per unit mass,” which is why I asked you to quote the dry weights of the engines. It does not mean, in this case, “per unit capacity,” otherwise why quote it alongside BMEP, other than for the sake of repetition?

For the past 50 years, engineers have been using SI units, so the constants you have memorised from the Boys’ Own Book of Bullspizzle are laughably obsolete.

If you find the numbers I asked for, you may find that the three engines are closer in performance than you think. Divide peak torque by dry weight and the Gardner would be remarkably competitive. Before you use your usual get out- “peaks mean nothing-“ remember that the Gardner was renowned for having a flatter torque curve than most.

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:

Carryfast:

[zb]
anorak:
Cf, you mention BMEP and “specific power outputs” (as if there is more than one of them). These things are normally expressed as numbers, not words. This is your homework for today:

Please list BMEP and dry weight for the following engines of the 1960s:
Gardner 6LXB180
Leyland 680 Power Plus
Volvo TD100A
Power and torque may be measured to DIN (gross) or BS141Au (net installed), but all must be to the same standard. If corrections are applied for parity, these must be stated and quantified.

Your answer- a mere six numbers, and no waffle whatsoever- must be on this desk by midnight.

Blimey at least make it challenging.By the age of 16 I knew that specific power outputs and BMEP are effectively the same thing.For BMEP just refer to the engine capacity and the torque curve and and from that you can calculate the specific torque (torque per litre) at every point in the rev range hence lots of different figures which is what matters in the real world not just the peak outputs (in the Gardner’s case that’s zb all).Then you just take the resulting figures and multiply them by 2.464 which is the BMEP and obviously it’s peak torque which will provide the highest BMEP figure.

For power output just take the torque figure/s and the conversion factor is torque in lbs/ft multiplied by rpm divided by 5250 and from that you get the power figure and the specific power output by calculating hp power per litre just the same as with specific torque.All done from just knowing the torque curve and the engine capacity.

Sorry but I don’t have all the relevant torque curves to hand for the comparisons you’ve asked for but obviously it wouldn’t be too difficult for the average junior school pupil to work out if they’ve got them now that I’ve provided all the relevant equations.

Which,as I’ve said,in the Gardner’s case,was zb all to start with .But dry weight isn’t one of the factors only engine capacity is what’s used to determine specific torque (BMEP) and power outputs.

If you know the answer, why not just answer the question? Find the figures, to back up your argument(s), for God’s sake! It is not good enough to blithely state, “The XYZ is [zb] all, blah, blah…” No one reading your texts will learn anything or believe a word of it.

For your information, the word “specific” in science and engineering usually means, “per unit mass,” which is why I asked you to quote the dry weights of the engines. It does not mean, in this case, “per unit capacity,” otherwise why quote it alongside BMEP, other than for the sake of repetition?

For the past 50 years, engineers have been using SI units, so the constants you have memorised from the Boys’ Own Book of Bullspizzle are laughably obsolete.

If you find the numbers I asked for, you may find that the three engines are closer in performance than you think. Divide peak torque by dry weight and the Gardner would be remarkably competitive. Before you use your usual get out- “peaks mean nothing-“ remember that the Gardner was renowned for having a flatter torque curve than most.

So you’re saying that specific torque and specific horsepower are based on mass and the weight of the engine not on bhp or torque output per litre of capacity .You’re also saying that the figures and formulae which I’ve provided,which ‘should’ allow the average 11 year old to determine the specific torque figure and corresponding BMEP figures of an engine,given the torque curve or at least the peak torque figure for it,are incorrect and not relevant because they’re all bs.

It’s obvious that there’s no way that I could provide you with the figures you’re looking for,even if I did have those torque figures to hand which I don’t,because contrary to your ideas,they wouldn’t exist anyway in the accepted automotive engineering measures as I know them because in your world the relevant formula,for determining specific torque and power,is based on torque and horsepower per lb of engine weight not per litre of capacity .

As for the Gardner’s ‘flat’ torque curve it might have been flat but the fact is there just wasn’t enough of it and for the umpteenth time it’s specific torque (in the form of lbs/ft ‘per litre’ that determines both the BMEP figure and the specific horsepower figure especially in the case of a typical truck diesel that makes it’s power figure by multiplying a relatively large amount of torque by a relatively small amount of engine speed).

[zb_anorak]

You used the word “specific”, not me. Engineers would just quote BMEP (at a specified engine speed), or power/weight ratio. If you said, “specific power outputs [plural],” in a discussion about an engine, everyone would just say, “What do you mean, exactly?”

If you don’t know the peak BMEP of the Gardner engine, or that of any of its competitors, on what do you base the previous 101 pages of waffle? Surely, to spout such emphatic and lengthy opinions, one should first look at the torque curves and identify peak BMEP, then see how much reduced it is at other engine speeds, comparing the engines’ outputs at different speeds, before stating any opinion? They are your statements- you find the data to support them.