[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.
Make your mind up first you’re moaning because I’m talking about specific outputs in the plural then you’re saying that they need to be looked at over the whole curve at the different engine speeds. 
In the case of the Gardner it doesn’t take a genius or,as I’ve said,more than the average 11 year old,to understand that the specific outputs and therefore the BMEP,of a naturally aspirated Gardner engine,are zb compared to any of the successful turbocharged designs which were availabe at least during the 1970’s and probably even before in the case of the 14 Litre ■■■■■■■ or Detroit engines and that the thing is just a big boat anchor especially when the idea was taken to it’s logical conclusion with the 8 cylinder versions.Just a quick reference to their peak power output and capacity is sufficient to reach that conclusion
As history also shows Hugh Gardner’s engineering based assumption,that the basic design and DNA contained in his products,wouldn’t ever make a successful match with turbocharging,was absolutely correct unlike the situation with the Leyland 680 which DAF used to such great effect.
Which just leaves the question how is it that anyone can keep contradicting history by trying to turn a failure,which the Gardner engine design was,from at least the late 1960’s on,into a success.My theory is that it’s all about those typically backward thinking customers at the time,who continued to buy the thing well into the 1970’s,are still trying to justify their misunderstanding of basic engineering and therefore how to spec a truck.Bearing in mind that today no transport manager would even dream of putting a naturally aspirated engine,with Gardner type specific power and torque outputs,into a max weight truck.It’s just that the British customers took a ‘bit’ longer to come to their senses than those in most other markets.
But to my knowledge ‘engineers’ would just look at the torque curve and the engine capacity which,as I’ve said provides the specific torque outputs at the different engine speeds which directly corresponds with BMEP.Power figures can be directly related to torque figures by just reversing the torque to power conversion formula and just by factoring in the typical type of torque drop expected at peak power in which case as I’ve said it doesn’t take a genius to realise that the max BMEP figure of a Gardner 180,or 240,is zb all.
) elsewhere the Leyland 680 was a far better bet as DAF proved. 
