[zb]
anorak:
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?
They stood to lose more by not trying the idea than they gained by just allowing the status quo,of the slow rate of advance in the demands of the British customer base,to dictate the slower than it could/should have been rate of advance in the domestic industry.The fact is those operators were already buying the British low spec products and it was a shift in buying policy in the market from those older low spec Brit trucks to the better specced euro and scandinavian competition.Had the Brits already been supplying those better specced trucks by deleting the choice of the low spec ones from the mid-late 1970’s there obviously couldn’t have been any shift from the lower spec Brit products to the higher specced euro and scandinavian ones.
newmercman:
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
I think you’ve just shot down your own argument there.The fact is you’re right the 430 CF will do the job and is probably the modern day equivalent of an old fashioned guvnor’s motor.Just like a 2800/3300 was or a 400 SA could/would/should have been back then.At the point when the 2800 was taking off in the Brit market (late 1970’s) the Gardner was really just a liability as my own guvnors ‘eventually’ decided.That sounds like a good buy to me and something like that type of wagon at that type of price is exactly what I’d be looking at if I was starting up.I’m saying absolutely nothing about some who think that they need to spend a lot more for something requiring more financial committment than that.
Operators denied the choice of a 250bhp day-cab British vehicle would buy a British-built 300+bhp sleeper in preference to a Continental vehicle with the specification they originally required.
Operators choosing a 300+bhp tractor would prefer British makes, but only if they were actively banned from buying vehicles that they did not want anyway.
In this new world, Mercedes Benz will go bust very quickly. Nobody will buy their lorries, because they also make cars. Nobody will buy their cars, because they also make lorries. The supermarkets have had it. If their customers spot one product which they do not want, they will leave without buying anything.
The Daf CF430 is the modern day equivalent of the day cabbed gardner powered Guvnor’s wagon
They are/were known as Guvnor’s wagons because that’s who benefitted from them the most, they weren’t the biggest or the best, but they earned money and that’s what a lorry is there to do, we may get emotional about them, but at the end of the day, they’re a tool to earn money with
All the old boys on here who ran Gardners back in the day will tell you they were money makers, that’s why they bought them
When the times changed and they could earn more from a 2800 or a 111/88 whatever, they bought them instead
The Daf CF430 is the modern day equivalent of the day cabbed gardner powered Guvnor’s wagon
They are/were known as Guvnor’s wagons because that’s who benefitted from them the most, they weren’t the biggest or the best, but they earned money and that’s what a lorry is there to do, we may get emotional about them, but at the end of the day, they’re a tool to earn money with
All the old boys on here who ran Gardners back in the day will tell you they were money makers, that’s why they bought them
When the times changed and they could earn more from a 2800 or a 111/88 whatever, they bought them instead
That’s the issue.The times didn’t change at all a more powerful and more comfortable wagon than a day cabbed Gardner powered heap was always the better choice it was the guvnors who changed their outlook when they suddenly realised later than they should have done that something with around 10 hp per tonne or even a bit more and a reasonable cab for the driver’s comfort is a very different type of guvnor’s motor than a day cabbed heap with (a lot) less than that type of power output (trying and failing) to get the same amount of work done in a day.The fact is,as I’ve said,those Guvnors could have bought something British from the likes of SA or ERF a lot sooner that probably would have done the same job as the 2800 etc did.All they had to do was ask for it.
Operators denied the choice of a 250bhp day-cab British vehicle would buy a British-built 300+bhp sleeper in preference to a Continental vehicle with the specification they originally required.
The conversation between the SA salesman and the customer would/should have gone along the lines of something like this.
Salesman.I hear you’re buying 2800’s for your tramping fleet.
Customer.That’s right.
Salesman.So why are you expecting us to provide you with something from the dark ages for your trunking fleet when you already know that something with more comfort and a lot more power is more efficient.Sorry we’re in business to compete with our rivals not to pander to your bad truck speccing decisions.We’re prepared to offer you a fleet of sleeper cabbed ■■■■■■■ 290 powered units but we’d prefer it if you’d spec the 400 considering the type of mileage and time critical nature of the job in which case I’m sure that we can do something with the price to make that choice worthwhile.
It’s all well and good claiming the f89 and f12 Volvo and the scania 141 were much better trucks than the British equivelant but in reality it was the more humble f86 and scania 110 that were the models that opened up British hauliers to the alternatives.
Even now for every v8 scania how many r420s do they sell.
As an ex truck salesman I have to say that is the funniest thing I’ve ever seen you write CF
You go into a bloke’s office to sell a lorry, he tells you what he wants, now if you fill out the order form and take a deposit, you end up with a sale towards your target and a chunk of commission, the customer’s happy, your happy and the sales manager is happy
But instead you decide to tell him that that isn’t what he wants, what he wants is a lorry with a lot more power that will cost him a lot more money to buy, so you end up getting told to ■■■■ off and get a new arse ripped into you when you get back to the office by the sales manager, who just got off the phone with the customer you just lost
Another thing to factor in, you have to sell what you have in stock or in production At one point all we had at the dealership were 7.5ton Ategos, so guess what I tried to sell I could waste time trying to coax someone into an 1858 Mega Space with all the bells and whistles and spend the next six months liasing with the customer and pampering them while I earned SFA from the deal until the chassis was delivered, or I could get out there and push some 7.5ton Ategos into people, get them to the bodybuilders and get them delivered in a few weeks, this way I got money in the bank and the sales manager off my back
I did offer buyers advice so that they got the best model and specs for the job, after all I wanted happy customers so that they came back to me when they needed another lorry, but to be honest, if someone was adamant that they wanted a particular model and spec, I wasn’t going to argue with them, I was there to put food on my table, not to change the world
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.
Just interrupting ( sorry). Sutton Bank, Nth.Yorkshire, 1 in 4 in places, didn’t bring my “Gardner powered heap” to it’s knees, Full load of rock salt. Sailed up.
It was an Atki, 150 Gardner, 6 speed DB., I had it from new, A ■■■■ fine machine, it never let me down, I enjoyed my time with it.
We go round and round in circles comparing 180 Gardners with 400 ■■■■■■■ in this cloud cuckoo land where both are offered for sale at the same time from the manufacturers. The answer is that they weren’t. One just might have been able to spec a 400 from Foden, but it would have been at the price they dictated. As for the 180, post 1972 they were not on sale for 32 ton operation.
However, if for the sake of the argument, we wish to compare a day cab 180 from pre 1972, with a mythical nice comfortable sleeper 400, on mission critical operations requiring 2 return journeys carrying 24 pallets weighing 21tonnes, we would be handicapped by the 500 kg difference in engine weight.
So, while the 180 wouldn’t manage the job in the time, the 400 would do it OK, but so would the Transit van following it carrying the product left off the trailer(s).
When Truck magazine decided to compare a Gardner engined vehicle with its mainly foreign competitors in 1975, it chose an 8 LXB ERF versus :
Volvo F88 overall speed 42.10 MPG 6.85
Berliet TR 280 ov sp 41.12 MPG 6.64
Scania 111 ov sp 41.02 MPG 6.98
Foden Rolls 280 ov sp 41.86 MPG 6.93
Saviem SM 36 260 ov sp 42.2 MPG 6.94
ERF 38G2TR ov sp 40.45 MPG 7.26
and for comparison with lightweight machines:
Leyland Buffalo ov sp 37.26 MPG 7.09
DAF FT 2000 ov sp 36.30 MPG 6.99
The article is not a complete head to head, but a comparison of past test results, in the most detail with the two French machines. The Saviem impressing the article writer for its overall ability.
Edit: layout fine on screen, but not on post; apologies.
newmercman:
As an ex truck salesman I have to say that is the funniest thing I’ve ever seen you write CF
You go into a bloke’s office to sell a lorry, he tells you what he wants, now if you fill out the order form and take a deposit, you end up with a sale towards your target and a chunk of commission, the customer’s happy, your happy and the sales manager is happy
But instead you decide to tell him that that isn’t what he wants, what he wants is a lorry with a lot more power that will cost him a lot more money to buy, so you end up getting told to ■■■■ off and get a new arse ripped into you when you get back to the office by the sales manager, who just got off the phone with the customer you just lost
Another thing to factor in, you have to sell what you have in stock or in production At one point all we had at the dealership were 7.5ton Ategos, so guess what I tried to sell I could waste time trying to coax someone into an 1858 Mega Space with all the bells and whistles and spend the next six months liasing with the customer and pampering them while I earned SFA from the deal until the chassis was delivered, or I could get out there and push some 7.5ton Ategos into people, get them to the bodybuilders and get them delivered in a few weeks, this way I got money in the bank and the sales manager off my back
I did offer buyers advice so that they got the best model and specs for the job, after all I wanted happy customers so that they came back to me when they needed another lorry, but to be honest, if someone was adamant that they wanted a particular model and spec, I wasn’t going to argue with them, I was there to put food on my table, not to change the world
I know all that nmm.But the fact is if the manufacturers had more control over what the sales force and it’s management were getting up to then it’s my idea which probably would have put the Brits ahead instead of being sunk by having the reputation of those Gardner powered heaps strung round their neck for ever after.
It’s no surprise what happened when the management of the trunking fleet eventually came to their senses and bought exactly the type of wagons,which I’m saying the sales force of firms like SA,should have pushed the customers into,based on a zb product delete policy anyway at the factory.Your idea is what actually happened.Short term pandering to bad customer buying policies which cost a lot more people their jobs in the end.
cav551:
We go round and round in circles comparing 180 Gardners with 400 ■■■■■■■ in this cloud cuckoo land where both are offered for sale at the same time from the manufacturers. The answer is that they weren’t. One just might have been able to spec a 400 from Foden, but it would have been at the price they dictated. As for the 180, post 1972 they were not on sale for 32 ton operation.
However, if for the sake of the argument, we wish to compare a day cab 180 from pre 1972, with a mythical nice comfortable sleeper 400, on mission critical operations requiring 2 return journeys carrying 24 pallets weighing 21tonnes, we would be handicapped by the 500 kg difference in engine weight.
So, while the 180 wouldn’t manage the job in the time, the 400 would do it OK, but so would the Transit van following it carrying the product left off the trailer(s).
When Truck magazine decided to compare a Gardner engined vehicle with its mainly foreign competitors in 1975, it chose an 8 LXB ERF versus :
Volvo F88 overall speed 42.10 MPG 6.85
Berliet TR 280 ov sp 41.12 MPG 6.64
Scania 111 ov sp 41.02 MPG 6.98
Foden Rolls 280 ov sp 41.86 MPG 6.93
Saviem SM 36 260 ov sp 42.2 MPG 6.94
ERF 38G2TR ov sp 40.45 MPG 7.26
and for comparison with lightweight machines:
Leyland Buffalo ov sp 37.26 MPG 7.09
DAF FT 2000 ov sp 36.30 MPG 6.99
The article is not a complete head to head, but a comparison of past test results, in the most detail with the two French machines. The Saviem impressing the article writer for its overall ability.
Edit: layout fine on screen, but not on post; apologies.
Blimey 8 LXB v DAF 2000 and you say I’m wrong to compare the ■■■■■■■ 400 with a Gardner 180.The fact is the relevant comparison should be the most cost effective package that was actually available at the time and there’s no way that the 8 LXB would have been as efficient or cost effective in doing the job as a turbocharged ■■■■■■■ powered wagon,or the DAF 2800 which I think was also available at that time .Which is why both types of wagon survived long after everyone had given up on all the Gardner powered heaps when they’d eventually come to their senses.
Great stuff cav551. You take the time to find the information, rather than just spouting ■■■■-eyed hypothesis.
IIRC, the LXB’s minimum SFC was around 200g/kWh, while everything else in 1975 was 210-220. Your list highlights this perfectly: for fuel consumption, they had no chance against Gardner.
Now for my hypothetical take on the subject: If only Gardner had done what many other engine builders were doing in the 1960s, which was to develop a 300+BHP lorry engine, they would have entered the '70s with an engine to beat all comers. It would have met the power requirements of the market, but with the fuel consumption advantage you illustrated above. Back then, Gardner were not afflicted with the detail design/quality control problems that afflicted them later on. A 6 cylinder of about 15-16 litres would have done the job…
most of these comparisons are meaningless especially if you put your faith in Commercial Motors road tests, i remember one of their pundits John Dickson Simpson saying that turbochargers would never catch on and as for exhaust brakes no suitable waist gate had been designed, what utter rubbish.The Co. that iworked for mid 60s to early 70s did not have one Gardner powered vehicle in their fleet,Leyland Seddons,2 180 ■■■■■■■ powered ERFs all replaced apart from the ERFs by Volvo 86s and then F88s .I drove them all without a doubt the ERFs were the best, I swapped my new J reg F86 for an E reg ERF. Work that out, Crow.
Since Pat Kennett was the editor of Truck magazine at the time the article was written, I assume that he approved of the comparison. According to the text this comparison was made to highlight the fact that this vehicle’s fuel consumption: “beats even the lightweight economy machines like the Buffalo and the DAF”.
I also assume that since Mr Kennett was a respected trade journalist, with a long career as a factory engineer, and who had personally road tested heavy vehicles for many years, he at least knew what he was talking about.
Why there was no comparison with the DAF 2800 in the table of “how the best shape up”, I don’t know. Could it perhaps be that it was considered to be an ‘also ran’ ?
[zb]
anorak:
Great stuff cav551. You take the time to find the information, rather than just spouting ■■■■-eyed hypothesis.
IIRC, the LXB’s minimum SFC was around 200g/kWh, while everything else in 1975 was 210-220. Your list highlights this perfectly: for fuel consumption, they had no chance against Gardner.
Now for my hypothetical take on the subject: If only Gardner had done what many other engine builders were doing in the 1960s, which was to develop a 300+BHP lorry engine, they would have entered the '70s with an engine to beat all comers. It would have met the power requirements of the market, but with the fuel consumption advantage you illustrated above. Back then, Gardner were not afflicted with the detail design/quality control problems that afflicted them later on. A 6 cylinder of about 15-16 litres would have done the job…
The question is exactly how much power was the 8 LXB actually putting out at that SFC figure.In the real world the thing was just a bigger boat anchor,with another 2 cylinders nailed on it,than the 180 was.It doesn’t take a genius to realise that an engine with the type of specific outputs of the 8 LXB was never going to take on the world and that SFC was just obtained by forgetting about the actual outputs.
They actually tried to make a competitive engine with their later turbocharged efforts,which their designer had already told them wouldn’t work with the Gardner DNA and it wouldn’t have worked in the early 1970’s either.Which just left the option of either nailing another 4 cylinders onto the 8 LXB or making it in V12 configuration.In either case they’d then have ended up with an even bigger boat anchor then than either the 180 or the 240.
Why bother when all ERF or SA etc needed to do was fit the turbocharged ■■■■■■■ with outputs of at least up to 400 hp.
cav551:
Since Pat Kennett was the editor of Truck magazine at the time the article was written, I assume that he approved of the comparison. According to the text this comparison was made to highlight the fact that this vehicle’s fuel consumption: “beats even the lightweight economy machines like the Buffalo and the DAF”.
I also assume that since Mr Kennett was a respected trade journalist, with a long career as a factory engineer, and who had personally road tested heavy vehicles for many years, he at least knew what he was talking about.
Why there was no comparison with the DAF 2800 in the table of “how the best shape up”, I don’t know. Could it perhaps be that it was considered to be an ‘also ran’ ?
More likely it would have blown all their productivety v fuel consumption comparisons out of the water. That’s assuming they actually factored any actual productivety figures in together with the fuel consumption figures.
Carryfast:
The question is exactly how much power was the 8 LXB actually putting out at that SFC figure.
Why is that the question?
Carryfast:
More likely it would have blown all their productivety v fuel consumption comparisons out of the water. That’s assuming they actually factored any actual productivety figures in together with the fuel consumption figures.
Productivity is usually calculated as the product of average speed and fuel consumption. Here you go:
Carryfast:
The question is exactly how much power was the 8 LXB actually putting out at that SFC figure.
Why is that the question?
Carryfast:
More likely it would have blown all their productivety v fuel consumption comparisons out of the water. That’s assuming they actually factored any actual productivety figures in together with the fuel consumption figures.
Productivity is usually calculated as the product of average speed and fuel consumption. Here you go:
0
The 8LXB wins. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
It’s a relevant question in a like with like comparison with a more powerful engine.Just the actual output will do not an excuse.
It would be interesting to compare the 8 LXB’s fuel consumption against the 2800 with an average speed well into the 50’s mostly on motorways not the 40’s.Which probably explains why a test which showed it being competitive at average speeds in the 40’s couldn’t save it when most operators were looking for a lot more than that.
I could waste time trying to coax someone into an 1858 Mega Space with all the bells and whistles and spend the next six months liasing with the customer and pampering them while I earned SFA from the deal until the chassis was delivered, or I could get out there and push some 7.5ton Ategos into people, get them to the bodybuilders and get them delivered in a few weeks, this way I got money in the bank and the sales manager off my back 
