Well you know what they say, no smoke without fire, & when the old Gardner Fire Up there was no stopping it was there, it went on forever, & I hope I can doe the same, Regards Larry.
Unfortunately you’ve found your way back onto the site “CF” after yesterdays shambles,which incidentally I’ve been told was intentional to try and shift you to the “Telly Tubby” site or similar !,however your back and normal rubbish is resumed ! We used to trunk 180LXB’s between Milnthorpe and Daventry and they never run out of hours,and I dare say they were hauling more weight than pulling vans out of Heathrow carrying “glider engines” or similar and I dare guess the total mileage your quoting isn’t much more than our trunk to Daventry!You are convieniently forgetting that the hauliers of the period had to achieve a balance between economy and what you could buy for a reasonable price and the Gardner engined motors ticked both these boxes.Once you started to get into the “exotic” specs that you bang on about(if you could order one that is!)you were immediately into Big capital cost not to mention hefty running costs.I realise “I’m trying to ■■■■ into a force 10 gale” attempting to explain simple economics to someone like you with a complete mental blockage where common sense is involved.Pass the Paracetemols and some water please!! Cheers Bewick.
Dennis, This C/F geaser must be from another planet, or ■■■■■■ China, He talks crap from start to finish, I dont think he ever drove a motor of any kind, well apart from a moped perhaps, what do you think , Regards Larry.
Lawrence Dunbar:
Dennis, This C/F geaser must be from another planet, or ■■■■■■ China, He talks crap from start to finish, I dont think he ever drove a motor of any kind, well apart from a moped perhaps, what do you think , Regards Larry.
He’s on another planet compared to us Larry,seems to have a “chip on both shoulders” where Gardners are concerned though.He also appears to be a bit of a barrack room “lawyer” where T & C’s of employment are concerned.He must have had a few bad experiences over the years,but with his very jaundiced view on things it wouldn’t come as a suprise eh! Cheers Dennis.
Bewick:
Unfortunately you’ve found your way back onto the site “CF” after yesterdays shambles,which incidentally I’ve been told was intentional to try and shift you to the “Telly Tubby” site or similar !,however your back and normal rubbish is resumed ! We used to trunk 180LXB’s between Milnthorpe and Daventry and they never run out of hours,and I dare say they were hauling more weight than pulling vans out of Heathrow carrying “glider engines” or similar and I dare guess the total mileage your quoting isn’t much more than our trunk to Daventry!You are convieniently forgetting that the hauliers of the period had to achieve a balance between economy and what you could buy for a reasonable price and the Gardner engined motors ticked both these boxes.Once you started to get into the “exotic” specs that you bang on about(if you could order one that is!)you were immediately into Big capital cost not to mention hefty running costs.I realise “I’m trying to ■■■■ into a force 10 gale” attempting to explain simple economics to someone like you with a complete mental blockage where common sense is involved.Pass the Paracetemols and some water please!! Cheers Bewick.
Blimey I never knew that daring to criticise those boat anchors,that should have been pensioned off and their makers bulldozed into the ground,before the start of the 1970’s,makes the poster subject to summary removal by the mods. 
The fact is mental blockages don’t come much worse than someone ordering a fleet of Gardner 180 powered SA’s and ERF’s during the late 1970’s when they could have at least ordered them with 290 turbocharged ■■■■■■■ motors in them at worst in which case they still might have been up to a decent night’s work and worth a bit more in the 1980’s just like the old DAF 2800’s were that they’d bought at the same time.
Those ones that you ran between Milnthorpe and Daventry were obviously fitted with those higher ratio axles and could run all night at 65 mph.
Carryfast:
Bewick:
Unfortunately you’ve found your way back onto the site “CF” after yesterdays shambles,which incidentally I’ve been told was intentional to try and shift you to the “Telly Tubby” site or similar !,however your back and normal rubbish is resumed ! We used to trunk 180LXB’s between Milnthorpe and Daventry and they never run out of hours,and I dare say they were hauling more weight than pulling vans out of Heathrow carrying “glider engines” or similar and I dare guess the total mileage your quoting isn’t much more than our trunk to Daventry!You are convieniently forgetting that the hauliers of the period had to achieve a balance between economy and what you could buy for a reasonable price and the Gardner engined motors ticked both these boxes.Once you started to get into the “exotic” specs that you bang on about(if you could order one that is!)you were immediately into Big capital cost not to mention hefty running costs.I realise “I’m trying to ■■■■ into a force 10 gale” attempting to explain simple economics to someone like you with a complete mental blockage where common sense is involved.Pass the Paracetemols and some water please!! Cheers Bewick.Blimey I never knew that daring to criticise those boat anchors,that should have been pensioned off and their makers bulldozed into the ground,before the start of the 1970’s,makes the poster subject to summary removal by the mods.
The fact is mental blockages don’t come much worse than someone ordering a fleet of Gardner 180 powered SA’s and ERF’s during the late 1970’s when they could have at least ordered them with 290 turbocharged ■■■■■■■ motors in them at worst in which case they still might have been up to a decent night’s work and worth a bit more in the 1980’s just like the old DAF 2800’s were that they’d bought at the same time.
Those ones that you ran between Milnthorpe and Daventry were obviously fitted with those higher ratio axles and could run all night at 65 mph.
Correct “CF” and along with ■■■■■■■ 205’s,220’s and 240 LXB’s,but none of the aforementioned motors could match the 180LXB’s for economy,and while on the subject of economy we ran an Atki 150 LX that could run to Crick and back on 39 gallon of derv,loaded to 32ton gvw both ways,and I know it to be right 'cause I used to fill it up in the morning on it’s return to the depot! Cheers Bewick.
Well CF, I can say from personal experience that I managed more than once to get a Gardner 5LW powered Atkinson 16 tonner from Goudhurst, nr Tonbridge to Bristol market and back in a day in the early and mid 1970s. Not just lightweight soft fruit either. Leave at midnight or 2am. The company also ran 6LXB powered artics which were pre '72, so could run at 32 tons and not 30, on the same work regularly. MKM 350F managed it and that only had the six speed David Brown.There was no M25 so that meant going through London both ways. Given that extra time needed and the necessity to unload at least two hits in the market, I reckon cancels out the empty return journey.
Leicester market however never generated enough orders to attempt it, but Birmingham did and that was also a day’s work.
We also ran cider apples to Shepton Mallet with a 6LXB ERF artic (with DB 0 600 and 2 speed axle), reload stone, tip and reload every day. That one ran up against a slightly later A series ■■■■■■■ 220 which didn’t have the 2 speed. They normally got back re-loaded about the same time. One driver.
But I suppose since Brum (slightly), and Bristol are both North of Tonbridge, that means the heading back down the map would make it downhill all the way home.
Bewick:
Carryfast:
Bewick:
Unfortunately you’ve found your way back onto the site “CF” after yesterdays shambles,which incidentally I’ve been told was intentional to try and shift you to the “Telly Tubby” site or similar !,however your back and normal rubbish is resumed ! We used to trunk 180LXB’s between Milnthorpe and Daventry and they never run out of hours,and I dare say they were hauling more weight than pulling vans out of Heathrow carrying “glider engines” or similar and I dare guess the total mileage your quoting isn’t much more than our trunk to Daventry!You are convieniently forgetting that the hauliers of the period had to achieve a balance between economy and what you could buy for a reasonable price and the Gardner engined motors ticked both these boxes.Once you started to get into the “exotic” specs that you bang on about(if you could order one that is!)you were immediately into Big capital cost not to mention hefty running costs.I realise “I’m trying to ■■■■ into a force 10 gale” attempting to explain simple economics to someone like you with a complete mental blockage where common sense is involved.Pass the Paracetemols and some water please!! Cheers Bewick.Blimey I never knew that daring to criticise those boat anchors,that should have been pensioned off and their makers bulldozed into the ground,before the start of the 1970’s,makes the poster subject to summary removal by the mods.
The fact is mental blockages don’t come much worse than someone ordering a fleet of Gardner 180 powered SA’s and ERF’s during the late 1970’s when they could have at least ordered them with 290 turbocharged ■■■■■■■ motors in them at worst in which case they still might have been up to a decent night’s work and worth a bit more in the 1980’s just like the old DAF 2800’s were that they’d bought at the same time.
Those ones that you ran between Milnthorpe and Daventry were obviously fitted with those higher ratio axles and could run all night at 65 mph.
Correct “CF” and along with ■■■■■■■ 205’s,220’s and 240 LXB’s,but none of the aforementioned motors could match the 180LXB’s for economy,and while on the subject of economy we ran an Atki 150 LX that could run to Crick and back on 39 gallon of derv,loaded to 32ton gvw both ways,and I know it to be right 'cause I used to fill it up in the morning on it’s return to the depot! Cheers Bewick.
I was getting 7.5 mpg at the very worst from the 2800 and that was running almost flat out much of the time.Surely you’re not now going to suggest that one of those Gardner powered heaps could have matched that ‘and’ manage two return runs from Heathrow to Bristol or Leicester in a shift.If the 180 Gardner could match a turbocharged ■■■■■■■ (or a 2800) for productivety and fuel economy then you can bet that it would have been Gardner that survived and ■■■■■■■ that went under and to this day everyone would still be using naturally aspirated Gardners with ( a lot) less than 10 hp per tonne,not turbocharged motors putting out more than 400 hp to haul 40 tonners around at 56 mph max. 
7.5mpg running flat out, what a load of ■■■■■■■■
Get your calculator out and do the maths on the SFC curve of the DKS engine, running flat out you’d be in the low 5mpg range at best, in fact don’t bother, anyone who has ever driven/operated lorries at flat out speed will know you speak from your tea towel holder
cav551:
Well CF, I can say from personal experience that I managed more than once to get a Gardner 5LW powered Atkinson 16 tonner from Goudhurst, nr Tonbridge to Bristol market and back in a day in the early and mid 1970s. Not just lightweight soft fruit either. Leave at midnight or 2am. The company also ran 6LXB powered artics which were pre '72, so could run at 32 tons and not 30, on the same work regularly. MKM 350F managed it and that only had the six speed David Brown.There was no M25 so that meant going through London both ways. Given that extra time needed and the necessity to unload at least two hits in the market, I reckon cancels out the empty return journey.Leicester market however never generated enough orders to attempt it, but Birmingham did and that was also a day’s work.
We also ran cider apples to Shepton Mallet with a 6LXB ERF artic (with DB 0 600 and 2 speed axle), reload stone, tip and reload every day. That one ran up against a slightly later A series ■■■■■■■ 220 which didn’t have the 2 speed. They normally got back re-loaded about the same time. One driver.
But I suppose since Brum (slightly), and Bristol are both North of Tonbridge, that means the heading back down the map would make it downhill all the way home.
We’re not talking about Tonbridge to Bristol and back in a day.We’re talking about Feltham to Bristol and back then doing the same again in a single shift within the driving hours and with a break in the middle and you’d need to wait a while at the start of the shift for the trailer to be finished loading.
The hill at Membury each way would have been enough to bring a Gardner powered heap to it’s knees.
newmercman:
7.5mpg running flat out, what a load of ■■■■■■■■Get your calculator out and do the maths on the SFC curve of the DKS engine, running flat out you’d be in the low 5mpg range at best, in fact don’t bother, anyone who has ever driven/operated lorries at flat out speed will know you speak from your tea towel holder
‘Almost’ nmm not ‘flat out’ but I’m talking about average consumption over a shift not instantaneous and it was definitely well into the 7’s because I can remember checking the figure against the 2500’s and they were close but it beat them at comparable weights over comparable runs which was one of the reasons that affected the buying decision for some new 2800 ATI’s to replace the remaining 2500’s.I didn’t see 5 mpg from any wagon including naturally aspirated Mercs.As they say the driver and the way it’s driven makes one of the biggest differences though.
Don’t tell me that you’re now going to join the rest of them in trying to alter the whole history of truck development and how it is that we’re where we are today in terms of productivety v fuel consumption.Naturally aspirated boat anchors like the Gardner had no place in that and it’s the truth of what I’m saying which is why DAF is where it is today and Gardner went out of the game years ago but long after it should have done.
Carryfast, on some things I agree with you, most of what was manufactured in Britain in the 70s was complete junk, prior to that we were innovators and most of the continentals used British designs, yet improved on them, whereas our lot just rested on their laurels.
But you are labouring the point a bit, even the most ardent fan of Gardners has said that they lost their way, so give it up, we get it
And while you’re at it, compare apples to apples, a 6LX should be compared with the 2200 Daf, not the 2800 and mentioning an NTC400 is just being silly
newmercman:
Carryfast, on some things I agree with you, most of what was manufactured in Britain in the 70s was complete junk, prior to that we were innovators and most of the continentals used British designs, yet improved on them, whereas our lot just rested on their laurels.But you are labouring the point a bit, even the most ardent fan of Gardners has said that they lost their way, so give it up, we get it
And while you’re at it, compare apples to apples, a 6LX should be compared with the 2200 Daf, not the 2800 and mentioning an NTC400 is just being silly
A 180 Gardner should be compared to a 2800 when someone in the office orders a fleet of wagons powered by the thing to do the same job that they then (eventually) decided that a 2800 bought at the same time was better suited to.As for a 400 ■■■■■■■ where’s the issue it was available it could have been specced and driven right probably still would have provided a similar combination of productivety and fuel economy as the 2800 was capable of.But the important bit is driven right ie short shifted and only use a lot of right foot when absolutely needed and 65 mph max is/was enough regardless of what’s fitted under the cab.
You’re right it is pushing the point a bit but then again it’s obviously needed when there’s so much bs out there trying to alter history to show the exact opposite of what actually happened and how we actually got where we are now.
Now we disagree, you cannot blame the lorry or engine if the muppets in the orifice picked the wrong tool for the job
The Sed Ak I had with the Gardner was originally used to run timber out of the docks into London, it wouldn’t be the fastest thing away from the lights, but even back then, traffic in London was bad enough that a lorry with two ■■■■■■■ NTC400s wouldn’t be any faster or productive, it may be more a bit more fun and make you feel more important in the cafe, but it wouldn’t do the job any better, so it’s horses for courses
I seem to recall when taking a DAF 2800 for MOT that its design weight was 50 tons, which was why it struggled to meet parking brake efficiency requirements. Certainly a mid/late 70’s Seddon Atkinson or ERF would have only been plated for 30.5 tons due to the 6bhp/ton regs that came in during 1972.
Membury and Shepshed did ‘challenge’ the 5LW, the latter southbound was definitely 22mph in 4th low with 10.5 ton of kerbs from Hulland Ward. Top speed was 47/48 with all the bongo drums at full blast.
newmercman:
Now we disagree, you cannot blame the lorry or engine if the muppets in the orifice picked the wrong tool for the jobThe Sed Ak I had with the Gardner was originally used to run timber out of the docks into London, it wouldn’t be the fastest thing away from the lights, but even back then, traffic in London was bad enough that a lorry with two ■■■■■■■ NTC400s wouldn’t be any faster or productive, it may be more a bit more fun and make you feel more important in the cafe, but it wouldn’t do the job any better, so it’s horses for courses
But that’s exactly the point I’ve been making over countless posts concerning the issues of the demise of the British truck manufacturing industry.You can’t blame ERF or SA for putting a Gardner into a truck,or putting a day cab on it,when what was needed was something that could do the job at least as well as the 2800.
Something changed big time between the ideas of wheoever was deciding what was needed for the job from the early-mid 1980’s on and the ideas of whoever it was in the ociffe when they told ERF and SA to put a day cab on the thing and those boat anchors in the wagons ordered for the trunking fleet just a few years before in the late 1970’s while at the same time saying that they needed a 2800 for the tramping fleet when all the wagons were actually covering the same ground with the same level of productivety requirement if not even more in the case of the trunking fleet because the job was even more time critical being mostly next day deliveries all needing to be transhipped onto the 7.5 t delivery wagons ready for their 07.00 start time.That change also recognised that sleeper cabs were a better investment both for residuals and helped in the case of any emergencies where the thing got stuck out on the road for whatever reason.
Hence drivers struggling with the job and cursing those uncomfortable day cabbed ERF’s and SA’s that they were using in the late 1970’s into the early 1980’s then a sudden realisation in the office that things needed to change in the trunking fleet and fast.Hence a kneejerk reaction in going for the 2300/2500’s and then luckily for me the chance to prove where they were going wrong with a bit of help from the office when they gave me the keys to that brilliant 7 year old 1978 2800 and said get on with it.Hence the change to some new 2800 ATI’s all in a matter of a just few years from when they’d first told ERF and SA that all they wanted was those other Gardner powered day cabbed heaps.
How different things might have been if both of those manufacturers had said in the late 1970’s sorry sleeper cabs and the 290 ■■■■■■■ is the basic start point of what we do take it or leave it but for your job we’d recommend the 400 and if you buy enough of them we’ll try to get the price as near the 290 version as possible.
Carryfast:
How different things might have been if both of those manufacturers had said in the late 1970’s sorry sleeper cabs and the 290 ■■■■■■■ is the basic start point of what we do take it or leave it but for your job we’d recommend the 400 and if you buy enough of them we’ll try to get the price as near the 290 version as possible.
Their customers would have got what they wanted elsewhere. All the Continentals had day-cabbed sub-250bhp 32-ton tractors in their catalogues.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
How different things might have been if both of those manufacturers had said in the late 1970’s sorry sleeper cabs and the 290 ■■■■■■■ is the basic start point of what we do take it or leave it but for your job we’d recommend the 400 and if you buy enough of them we’ll try to get the price as near the 290 version as possible.Their customers would have got what they wanted elsewhere. All the Continentals had day-cabbed sub-250bhp 32-ton tractors in their catalogues.
I’m just going by the shift in buying policy that took place where I was.I think it was a shift which also took place at plenty of other previous customers of those under specced wagons of just a few years previously and explains how the roads of Britain changed massively in the type of trucks which you’d have seen in regular use during the decade between 1975-1985 on.However the point which I’ve been making is that it was about the foibles in the customer base in British market place in which the continuing demand for Gardner power units,during at least the late 1970’s,actually damaged the British truck manufacturing industry with the winners being the euro and scandinavian manufacturers when the British market eventually changed course towards relatively (often much) more powerful trucks.
So, if SA and ERF had deleted the lower-powered day-cabbed tractors from their ranges, operators buying 290+bhp Continental motors would have switched to the British manufacturers?
The only thing is, the day’s when companies bought day cabs and Gardners where the days when when people looked at haulage as a business, that is the same reason they started to get sleeper cabs, it made sound business sense to have the driver on the job first thing in the morning and they could park wherever they ran out of time, rather than stopping where their favourite digs where and getting up late with a hangover or knackered after a leg over
Let’s be honest, any lorry with over 400hp is more than capable of doing the job of carting 44tons around, any cab bigger than a Premium or CF etc is a complete extravagance
Today you hear about Flash Harry buying a 700hp Scania, covering it in lights and chrome to pull boxes out of Felixstowe, well back in the Gardner days, the same Flash Harrys were buying 2800 Dafs and similar
A friend of mine has just bought a 430 CF space cab 6x2 unit for 6 grand, that’s all the lorry you need, no matter where you’re going and what you’re carting around, you could run that lorry for a couple of years making money and then sell it for export and get your money back. Now compare that to a hundred grand supertruck, you might have a queue of drivers at your door wanting to drive the thing, but it won’t earn anywhere near as much as that old CF. The same applies to your 180 Gardner and NTC400 comparison
No doubt about it, I would prefer to drive the big ■■■■■■■■ but I’d rather have owned the Gardner