newmercman:
:lol:
Yes, let’s not let the facts get in the way of a good argument eh
I’m wondering how anyone who ever overtook any of the remaining Gardner powered heaps left on the motorways of Britain during the 1980’s,with something like a 2800 could believe such total bollox.Maybe that explains why they left the DAF out of that road test. 
The man in the yorkie bar adverts had a 2800 wasn’t you was it Geoffrey.
Some brief comments :
The Saviem in the test had a 12 speed ZF gearbox, which may/not account for its ability in comparison with the nine speed ERF and Berliet on hilly Motorway.
The Motorway mpg and mph figures are averages and not maximums over hilly motorway as per the quoted text. So the ERF was not flat out on level Motorway to achieve its results. The top speeds were:
ERF 62
Saviem 66
Berliet 64
We seem to have suddenly switched trying to compare the ERF with a DAF 2800, for which we have no data, to a comparison with a DAF 3300, for which we also have no data.
So:
13.93 litre 8LXCT
300 bhp @1900 rpm BSau 141a Gross
888lbft @ 1400 rpm
“better than .333 lb/bhp/hr @1900 rpm”
15.5 litre 6LYT
320bhp (238.6KW) @ 1800rpm to 80/1269 EEC
1030 lbft (1390NM) @1200 rpm ditto
“.315 lb/bhp/hr (192g/KW/hr minimum” From trying to read a 2" square graph this appears to be at 1400 rpm with the 1880 rpm figure .330lb/bhp/hr.
Commercial Motor ran an article a few weeks ago about Iveco’s programme to develop an engine capable of exceeding today’s average 42% thermal efficiency; a figure Gardner exceeded by 1.5% with the overhyped 6LXCT. Iveco’s target is 45%.
I have noticed something else with a smell of b.s. about those Truck Magazine test results, that cav551 posted. It concerns the payload calculation, which they use to calculate their earnings factor, which is then used to rank the vehicles.
According to the figures cav551 posted, the three lorries were pulling trailers with different unladen weights, and all had different gross weights. Surely, I thought, it would be fairer to take a notional trailer weight, say 4.5 tons, then subtract this and the ULW of each tractor from 32 tons, to give a proper comparison of the load capacity of the vehicles. I did this calculation and, blow me, that is what the magazine appears to have done- the numbers correspond almost exactly, except in the case of the Saviem SM36.280.
So, the Saviem showed a much faster motorway speed- against more powerful competition- and was awarded an extra 0.22 tons of payload. One is tempted to wonder if an element of “persuasion” was involved, between the Saviem salespeople and the staff of Truck Magazine.
If only we could ask someone who worked in a marketing/sales capacity for Saviem, at the time…
Good morning cav551, you have beat me to the post! Regarding lorry engine efficiency, there has been no improvement at all since the Gardner was king. Current engines are around 190-195g/kWh minimum, when the manufacturer lets slip their figures. They used to be proud to publish SFC curves, when there was progress in this area. Now they seems embarrassed about the lack of improvement.
In the mid 1980s, engine designers were talking about insulating the combustion chamber, using ceramic pistons, liners and inserts in the cylinder head. This would reduce heat transfer to the coolant, the saved energy going into the crankshaft. Of course, some of this energy would go down the exhaust pipe, as a result of the higher exhaust gas temperatures. This would be salvaged by the turbocharger or, more effectively, by a turbocompound system. As a naive teenager, I approached a Gardner man at a lorry show and asked him how far they could go. He guessed that the ultimate achievable efficiency would be in the region of 60%, after which the second law of thermodynamics would become an insurmountable hurdle. In 1990, Scania’s turbocompound 113-400 achieved 186g/kWh (or 180, according to another book), and this is as good as it ever got.
To reduce NOx emissions, to meet the new rules, combustion temperatures have had to be reduced, killing off the insulated engine. According to the theory in any thermodynamics textbook, efficiency improves with increasing combustion temperature. The legislation’s determined and continuing assault on the diminishing returns of NOx reduction has effectively put a block on engineers’ desire to reduce fuel consumption. These spurious environmental rules are actually causing energy to be wasted. If the Gardner company had survived their problems of the 1980s, and continued to date, God knows what they would have thought of this sorry state of affairs.
No defence of the magazine intended. However no road test can be completely like for like. The same driver cannot be in more than one vehicle simultaneously.
I have accepted the figures quoted on the basis that the vehicles completed the test route on different dates. There are no pictures of the two French vehicles, but the text does mention that the day cab ERF, which was borrowed from Knowles fleet, ran with a borrowed Crane Fruehauf tipping trailer loaded with gravel. The Berliet used a 33ft trailer and the Saviem a 36ft one. I would assume that the two French vehicles were factory demonstrators and the trailers were flatbeds loaded with test weights. Why the ERF ran at half a ton over maximum permitted GCW I can’t answer. However this extra weight can hardly have improved mpg or mph figures.
Nevertheless given the different dates of testing, nothing alters the the gross weight on the road during test, the mpg, or the mph recorded, which we can do anything about, ie: weather, wind, traffic etc.
The figures are as presented. One can make whatever attempt desired to even out trailer ulw or payload.
The conclusion I draw is that the ERF is not totally outclassed by the competitor turbocharged machines, as is the rival contention.
A further point to consider when looking back from some 35 years distance in time, is that in 1975 the factories, industrial estates and distribution centres were not situated right alongside the motorway as is so prevalent today. It took a lot of effort to get them built in their now more suitable location. So in 1975, the company buying vehicles was just as interested in its overall performance as its motorway one. For many of those south of London and no doubt elsewhere too, it was about a 2 hour journey at night time before one reached a motorway to the rest of the country.
cav551:
Some brief comments :The Motorway mpg and mph figures are averages and not maximums over hilly motorway as per the quoted text.
We seem to have suddenly switched trying to compare the ERF with a DAF 2800, for which we have no data, to a comparison with a DAF 3300,
No the DKS was putting out a quoted 310 hp from day one during the 1970’s and any one who drove one would know it while anyone who got overtaken by a BRS 3300 on the Coca Cola contract on the M4 while driving one would know that the 3300 had to be putting out more than that.Things seemed to all get a ‘bit’ tamer with the 2800 ATI though although I’ve got personal experience of a small zb up at the DAF factory when they somehow provided us with a 2800 ATI with a 3300 spec motor in it 
but unfortunately they were all allocated on a regular driver basis and it wasn’t me.
Where a 8 LXB Gardner powered ERF would fit in to this night trunking rat race is anyone’s guess but with a lot less than a max 300 hp (which in our case translated into at least around the magic 10 hp per tonne often more) it would have been way out of it’s league however you look at it.Think about it logically the ERF is running absolutely flat out to do the same work that the DAF is doing at way below it’s max.Which is why a soon as we reach the first decent hill all you’d have seen was tail lights receding into the distance with a reasonable enough fuel consumption figure at the end of a shift to have made the choice a no brainer.
I think Bewick has already made the point about the potential that was contained in the old Leyland 680 motor elsewhere. 
cav551:
No defence of the magazine intended. However no road test can be completely like for like. The same driver cannot be in more than one vehicle simultaneously.I have accepted the figures quoted on the basis that the vehicles completed the test route on different dates. There are no pictures of the two French vehicles, but the text does mention that the day cab ERF, which was borrowed from Knowles fleet, ran with a borrowed Crane Fruehauf tipping trailer loaded with gravel. The Berliet used a 33ft trailer and the Saviem a 36ft one. I would assume that the two French vehicles were factory demonstrators and the trailers were flatbeds loaded with test weights. Why the ERF ran at half a ton over maximum permitted GCW I can’t answer. However this extra weight can hardly have improved mpg or mph figures.
Nevertheless given the different dates of testing, nothing alters the the gross weight on the road during test, the mpg, or the mph recorded, which we can do anything about, ie: weather, wind, traffic etc.
The figures are as presented. One can make whatever attempt desired to even out trailer ulw or payload.
The conclusion I draw is that the ERF is not totally outclassed by the competitor turbocharged machines, as is the rival contention.
A further point to consider when looking back from some 35 years distance in time, is that in 1975 the factories, industrial estates and distribution centres were not situated right alongside the motorway as is so prevalent today. It took a lot of effort to get them built in their now more suitable location. So in 1975, the company buying vehicles was just as interested in its overall performance as its motorway one. For many of those south of London and no doubt elsewhere too, it was about a 2 hour journey at night time before one reached a motorway to the rest of the country.
Hi cav551, while the difference in the GCW may, as you say, affect the performance of the vehicles, it is only in the region of +/-half a ton, across all the vehicles in the list. However, an error of this magnitude on the payload figure is about +/-2.5%, which will affect their productivity calculation accordingly. A range of 5% is of the same order of magnitude as the actual differences between the vehicles, thus rendering their comparisons meaningless, unless some correction is applied to the payload figures. This does not take into account the apparent anomalies concerning the Saviem test.
In addition, a much more significant error in the performance of the vehicles would be generated by comparing a flat trailer with a tipper, again as you say. At motorway speeds, the general rule of thumb for an artic is that half the resistance is in the tyres, the other half is in the wind. A typical Cd figure for a tractor equipped with an air-kit, pulling a boxvan, is about 0.6. I would guess, very roughly, that the vehicles with the low trailers would be about 0.5 and the tipper about 0.7. That is 40% extra drag, or about 20% extra total force (I am assuming that the frontal area of the tipper is not much greater than the tractor unit). Energy is force x distance, so for a given distance at the same speed, expect a fuel penalty of about 20%. This may be why the ERF was driven more slowly on the motorway, to give a more representative fuel return. It spoils the validity of the magazine’s productivity calculation, however.
You would hope for a more detailed analysis of these factors in the text of the magazine article, but I do not remember Truck Magazine ever doing anything other than presenting the raw, flawed data- in that sensationalist manner that it had. The Commercial Motor roadtests always seemed more trustworthy, as if there was a proper engineering brain behind them.
Carryfast:
newmercman:
:lol:Yes, let’s not let the facts get in the way of a good argument eh
I’m wondering how anyone who ever overtook any of the remaining Gardner powered heaps left on the motorways of Britain during the 1980’s,with something like a 2800 could believe such total bollox.Maybe that explains why they left the DAF out of that road test.
Funny you should mention the Daf 2800 in the same breath as the Gardner ,i had 2 2800 Dafs in the late 80s and early 90s and they were nothing to shout about ,then i got a pile of french crap (290 GT Renault) and then as luck would have it i got 1 of the last old type Fodens before the 4000 series came in and it had a 320 Gardner ,the Dafs didnt have a patch on it ,that thing just kept on pulling ,it wasnt the fastest but would run at 60 mph all day but anymore and you were pushing it ,the Dafs were useless on hills compared with that heap of Gardner .1 of the Dafs was left 1 weekend in Italy when the customs men went on another strike ,i double manned with another driver and loaded it and brought it back.I only had 16 tons on it the other motors were fully freighted 1 was a 340 Renault and the other an Iveco 220 30 neither were anything special on the hills but they left that Daf for dead on every hill we went up ,i was playing catch up on the flat all the way back maybe i had 2 bad ones but that Foden was head and shoulders above them both !!!
ramone:
Carryfast:
newmercman:
:lol:Yes, let’s not let the facts get in the way of a good argument eh
I’m wondering how anyone who ever overtook any of the remaining Gardner powered heaps left on the motorways of Britain during the 1980’s,with something like a 2800 could believe such total bollox.Maybe that explains why they left the DAF out of that road test.
Funny you should mention the Daf 2800 in the same breath as the Gardner ,i had 2 2800 Dafs in the late
80s and early90s and they were nothing to shout about ,then i got a pile of french crap (290 GT Renault) and then as luck would have it i got 1 of the last old type Fodens before the 4000 series came in and it had a 320 Gardner ,the Dafs didnt have a patch on it ,that thing just kept on pulling ,it wasnt the fastest but would run at 60 mph all day but anymore and you were pushing it ,the Dafs were useless on hills compared with that heap of Gardner .1 of the Dafs was left 1 weekend in Italy when the customs men went on another strike ,i double manned with another driver and loaded it and brought it back.I only had 16 tons on it the other motors were fully freighted 1 was a 340 Renault and the other an Iveco 220 30 neither were anything special on the hills but they left that Daf for dead on every hill we went up ,i was playing catch up on the flat all the way back maybe i had 2 bad ones but that Foden was head and shoulders above them both !!!
As I said the ATI’s that we had seemed a bit tamer to me than that old first of the line DKS.I think it was a case of it wasn’t broke so why fix it.Then to add insult to injury they’d also replaced the old ZF 12 speed constant mesh splitter with a 9 speed fuller.However Gardner might have ‘eventually’ got round to turning out something with a bit more power than the 8 LXB but history shows it wasn’t up to ■■■■■■■ standards.But surely if you’re doing Italian work then you’d have been looking for something better than just the 2800 by the late 1980’s/early 90’s 
.If you’d have been using something like that beast of a wrongly specced ‘2800’ which we had on our fleet or any of those 3300’s which BRS was using on the Coca Cola job it really would have taken something very special to have stayed with them let alone outrun them,especially if they were fitted with a 13 speed fuller or the old 12 speed constant mesh ZF box,regardless of how demanding the terrain was.
I’m betting that you had the worst of all worlds combination of less power than the original DKS motor,possibly 16 peed synchro box .So no surprise that a 320 Gardner could outrun the thing.I’m talking about a DKS running at less than 32 t gross (so at least around 10 hp per tonne and 12 speed constant mesh splitter v the 1970’s Gardner powered competition.Which in our case would have been a 180 powered SA or ERF.No surprise that the guvnors decided to let the Gardner powered heaps end their days doing local trunking,or more suited to them yard shunting,considering that they would have only been worth peanuts if they tried to flog them.Unlike the DAF.
As I’ve said history is the real judge of Gardner and DAF not what seems like a comparison with a DAF which obviously wasn’t representative of what was actually available at the time and which would probably have been well up to the job with some decent speccing. 
Carryfast:
ramone:
Carryfast:
newmercman:
:lol:Yes, let’s not let the facts get in the way of a good argument eh
I’m wondering how anyone who ever overtook any of the remaining Gardner powered heaps left on the motorways of Britain during the 1980’s,with something like a 2800 could believe such total bollox.Maybe that explains why they left the DAF out of that road test.
Funny you should mention the Daf 2800 in the same breath as the Gardner ,i had 2 2800 Dafs in the late
80s and early90s and they were nothing to shout about ,then i got a pile of french crap (290 GT Renault) and then as luck would have it i got 1 of the last old type Fodens before the 4000 series came in and it had a 320 Gardner ,the Dafs didnt have a patch on it ,that thing just kept on pulling ,it wasnt the fastest but would run at 60 mph all day but anymore and you were pushing it ,the Dafs were useless on hills compared with that heap of Gardner .1 of the Dafs was left 1 weekend in Italy when the customs men went on another strike ,i double manned with another driver and loaded it and brought it back.I only had 16 tons on it the other motors were fully freighted 1 was a 340 Renault and the other an Iveco 220 30 neither were anything special on the hills but they left that Daf for dead on every hill we went up ,i was playing catch up on the flat all the way back maybe i had 2 bad ones but that Foden was head and shoulders above them both !!!As I said the ATI’s that we had seemed a bit tamer to me than that old first of the line DKS.I think it was a case of it wasn’t broke so why fix it.Then to add insult to injury they’d also replaced the old ZF 12 speed constant mesh splitter with a 9 speed fuller.However Gardner might have ‘eventually’ got round to turning out something with a bit more power than the 8 LXB but history shows it wasn’t up to ■■■■■■■ standards.But surely if you’re doing Italian work then you’d have been looking for something better than just the 2800 by the late 1980’s/early 90’s
I’m betting that you had the worst of all worlds combination of less power than the original DKS motor,possibly 16 peed synchro box
As I’ve said history is the real judge of Gardner and DAF not what seems like a comparison with a DAF which obviously wasn’t representative of what was actually available at the time and which would probably have been well up to the job with some decent speccing.
The Dafs were roughly the same bhp as the Iveco 220 / 30s we ran and neither were spectacular,the Ivecos did have the 13 speed fuller the Dafs the 16 speed ZF but that Daf couldnt live with the similar powered Iveco even though it was running much lighter ,i drove both then got the Foden and the difference was startling the Foden by the way had the 9 speed Fuller and Rockwell back end and the 320 Gardner maybe it was a freak ,we also had a 220/36 Iveco that was on par with the 142s that were on the Italy run at that time so maybe we got lucky with those 2
A quick point: according to the text the ERF, like the rest, was being driven flat out (to the speed limit) on the m’way stretches.
New test of directly comparable vehicles to the accompaniment of groans.
Two Commercial motor road tests over almost the same route 729 miles v 736 miles. The difference being the starting/ finish point. Blue star garage A4147 v Burmah service stn
Test 1 is 23 june 1972 Atkinson Borderer with recently available 8LXB, Fuller 9509A, Kirkstall D85 hub reduction axle ratio 5.605/1 maximum speed approx 53 mph. Borrowed vehicle (John Raymond) already covered 100,000 miles.
unit ulw 6t 1 cwt.
40 ft flat trailer ulw 4t 12 cwt
payload and driver 21t 8 cwt
gross gcw 32t 1 cwt
Results:
729 miles run in 19hr average speed 38.3 mph
fuel used 97.25 gallons = 7.5 mpg
Forton to Gretna av mph 46 stage mpg 8.3 mpg
climb Carter Bar 1.82 mile 1 in 13.5: 6 min 58s @18 mph 5th gear
Test 2 is December 1979 with recently available ■■■■■■■ NT240 small cam(also called the 250 turbo) 235 bhp @1900rpm 780 lb/ft @ 1300rpm. Fuller 9509A Kirkstall D85 h/r axle ratio 4.64/1 maximum speed approx 66 mph
unit ulw 6t 3 cwt.
40 ft flat trailer ulw 4t 8 cwt 3 qr
payload etc 21t 4cwt 2qr
gross gcw 31t 16 cwt 1 qr
Results:
736 miles run in 19hr 22 min average speed 40.14 mph
fuel used 98.27 gal = 7.49 mpg
Forton to Gretna av mph 51.35 stage mpg 8.46
climb Carter Bar 1.82 mile 1 in 13.5: 5 min 36s @ 20 mph 4th gear
ramone:
Carryfast:
ramone:
Carryfast:
newmercman:
:lol:Yes, let’s not let the facts get in the way of a good argument eh
I’m wondering how anyone who ever overtook any of the remaining Gardner powered heaps left on the motorways of Britain during the 1980’s,with something like a 2800 could believe such total bollox.Maybe that explains why they left the DAF out of that road test.
Funny you should mention the Daf 2800 in the same breath as the Gardner ,i had 2 2800 Dafs in the late
80s and early90s and they were nothing to shout about ,then i got a pile of french crap (290 GT Renault) and then as luck would have it i got 1 of the last old type Fodens before the 4000 series came in and it had a 320 Gardner ,the Dafs didnt have a patch on it ,that thing just kept on pulling ,it wasnt the fastest but would run at 60 mph all day but anymore and you were pushing it ,the Dafs were useless on hills compared with that heap of Gardner .1 of the Dafs was left 1 weekend in Italy when the customs men went on another strike ,i double manned with another driver and loaded it and brought it back.I only had 16 tons on it the other motors were fully freighted 1 was a 340 Renault and the other an Iveco 220 30 neither were anything special on the hills but they left that Daf for dead on every hill we went up ,i was playing catch up on the flat all the way back maybe i had 2 bad ones but that Foden was head and shoulders above them both !!!As I said the ATI’s that we had seemed a bit tamer to me than that old first of the line DKS.I think it was a case of it wasn’t broke so why fix it.Then to add insult to injury they’d also replaced the old ZF 12 speed constant mesh splitter with a 9 speed fuller.However Gardner might have ‘eventually’ got round to turning out something with a bit more power than the 8 LXB but history shows it wasn’t up to ■■■■■■■ standards.But surely if you’re doing Italian work then you’d have been looking for something better than just the 2800 by the late 1980’s/early 90’s
I’m betting that you had the worst of all worlds combination of less power than the original DKS motor,possibly 16 peed synchro box
As I’ve said history is the real judge of Gardner and DAF not what seems like a comparison with a DAF which obviously wasn’t representative of what was actually available at the time and which would probably have been well up to the job with some decent speccing.
The Dafs were roughly the same bhp as the Iveco 220 / 30s we ran and neither were spectacular,the Ivecos did have the 13 speed fuller the Dafs the 16 speed ZF but that Daf couldnt live with the similar powered Iveco even though it was running much lighter ,i drove both then got the Foden and the difference was startling the Foden by the way had the 9 speed Fuller and Rockwell back end and the 320 Gardner maybe it was a freak ,we also had a 220/36 Iveco that was on par with the 142s that were on the Italy run at that time so maybe we got lucky with those 2
I can only view that old 1978 DAF from my own experience of it on our job and can only describe it as being ‘spectacular’ enough compared to just about every wagon I drove after it on the firm up to the end of the 1990’s,which included everything from Scania 112 and a naturally aspirated V8 Merc which we had on hire for while,Scania 93,Volvo FL10,DAF 85 and last of all an absolutely gutless Merc 2534 which was about the same as the naturally aspirated V8 and if anything the amounts of weight which we were hauling reduced most of the time over that period.
But as I’ve said in this case it seems to be your experience of the 2800 and mine with the 2800 ATI which shows that the 2800’s power outputs seem to have been going downhill compared to the earlier versions .But the fact is by the standards of the mid 1970’s,when the 300 + hp DKS was certainly available,there wasn’t much around,except for the turbocharged ■■■■■■■ types,which could beat it and certainly none of the naturally aspirated Gardners of that time,including the 8 LXB,would have got anywhere near it.Which probably explains why DAF 2800 sales gradually increased from that time on compared to the Gardner powered heaps which were (rightly),gradually,(too gradually) consigned to history.
However having said that anyone who drove one of those BRS 3300’s or was overtaken by one of them ,or for that matter the regular driver of the 2800 ( which was actually a 3300 ) that we had they’d definitely agree,that for it’s size,and considering how old the original design was,that old 680 development in the 2800 range was more than spectacular as history also shows by the continuing existence of it’s manufacturers.
cav551:
A quick point: according to the text the ERF, like the rest, was being driven flat out (to the speed limit) on the m’way stretches.New test of directly comparable vehicles to the accompaniment of groans.
Two Commercial motor road tests over almost the same route 729 miles v 736 miles. The difference being the starting/ finish point. Blue star garage A4147 v Burmah service stn
Test 1 is 23 june 1972 Atkinson Borderer with recently available 8LXB, Fuller 9509A, Kirkstall D85 hub reduction axle ratio 5.605/1 maximum speed approx 53 mph. Borrowed vehicle (John Raymond) already covered 100,000 miles.
unit ulw 6t 1 cwt.
40 ft flat trailer ulw 4t 12 cwt
payload and driver 21t 8 cwt
gross gcw 32t 1 cwtResults:
729 miles run in 19hr average speed 38.3 mph
fuel used 97.25 gallons = 7.5 mpg
Forton to Gretna av mph 46 stage mpg 8.3 mpg
climb Carter Bar 1.82 mile 1 in 13.5: 6 min 58s @18 mph 5th gearTest 2 is December 1979 with recently available ■■■■■■■ NT240 small cam(also called the 250 turbo) 235 bhp @1900rpm 780 lb/ft @ 1300rpm. Fuller 9509A Kirkstall D85 h/r axle ratio 4.64/1 maximum speed approx 66 mph
unit ulw 6t 3 cwt.
40 ft flat trailer ulw 4t 8 cwt 3 qr
payload etc 21t 4cwt 2qr
gross gcw 31t 16 cwt 1 qrResults:
736 miles run in 19hr 22 min average speed 40.14 mph
fuel used 98.27 gal = 7.49 mpg
Forton to Gretna av mph 51.35 stage mpg 8.46
climb Carter Bar 1.82 mile 1 in 13.5: 5 min 36s @ 20 mph 4th gear
Now fast forward just a few years and factor the 2800 into the mix but on a more realistic,mainly motorway based,test route.
It’s Leyland who win this contest every time it’s just a shame that it was the Dutch who did it not them.
I worked for a guy with a mixed fleet of 2300s and 2800s in the early 70s.In a effort to get what he thought would be a more reliable motor he bought a couple of the first Sed Atki 400s.He couldnt get the 240 in both of them so we ended up with a 240 and a ■■■■■■■ 290. He certainly learned something about reliability with these two.We couldnt keep them on the road.Mainly brakes and electrical problems.They didn`t manage 90,000 miles in the year they lasted.
However to get to the point I was a passenger in a 2800 one night coming north from about Preston.The SA with the 240 was in front of us both pulling loaded tankers.
The 240 ran away from us.
Gridley51:
I worked for a guy with a mixed fleet of 2300s and 2800s in the early 70s.In a effort to get what he thought would be a more reliable motor he bought a couple of the first Sed Atki 400s.He couldnt get the 240 in both of them so we ended up with a 240 and a ■■■■■■■ 290. He certainly learned something about reliability with these two.We couldnt keep them on the road.Mainly brakes and electrical problems.They didn`t manage 90,000 miles in the year they lasted.
However to get to the point I was a passenger in a 2800 one night coming north from about Preston.The SA with the 240 was in front of us both pulling loaded tankers.
The 240 ran away from us.
Firstly the 2800 could be specced with different levels of output.However,at equivalent weights which is the important bit (how much load was there actually on the trailers),there’s no way that a motor with less power and torque can ‘run away’ from one with more.I don’t think that any version of the 2800 had less power and torque than the 240 Gardner .
However if you’d have said that it ran away from a 2300 then just about anything could have managed that.
C/F. your forgetting something here, the wagon is only as good as the man thats driving it, Ive worked with drivers that knew nothing about the wagon they were driving they just did it for the wages, whereas I also worked with the best of drivers who actually knew all about when to change gear & to let the engine tick over for a while before stopping it, plus tell me have you ever driven a loaded wagon at anytime ■■?< Regards Larry.
Lawrence Dunbar:
C/F. your forgetting something here, the wagon is only as good as the man thats driving it, Ive worked with drivers that knew nothing about the wagon they were driving they just did it for the wages, whereas I also worked with the best of drivers who actually knew all about when to change gear & to let the engine tick over for a while before stopping it, plus tell me have you ever driven a loaded wagon at anytime ■■?< Regards Larry.
If they were empty then it’s a mystery how the guvnor managed to keep paying my wages.
How does your question relate to the issue of someone saying that a Gardner 240 powered wagon could run away from a 2800 at equivalent weight.‘Unless’ it was the non turbocharged DKA version which I never even knew existed. 
But having spent most of my time on trunking where being late back was as bad as never then it’s obvious that I’d take it for granted that everyone knows how to drive sufficiently to be able to get a turbocharged DAF 2800 back before a naturally aspirated Gardner powered heap.Assuming that they’re both running at equivalent weights. 
Well you do surprise me when you say that you have driven wagons, you certainley have something about the great Gardner Engine that bugs you, ive never come accross anyone that would call the Gardner the names that you do, so I suppose you are a unique person in your own field whatever that is .Regards Larry
Carryfast:
If they were empty then it’s a mystery how the guvnor managed to keep paying my wages.
How does your question relate to the issue of someone saying that a Gardner 240 powered wagon could run away from a 2800 at equivalent weight.‘Unless’ it was the non turbocharged DKA version which I never even knew existed.
But having spent most of my time on trunking where being late back was as bad as never then it’s obvious that I’d take it for granted that everyone knows how to drive sufficiently to be able to get a turbocharged DAF 2800 back before a naturally aspirated Gardner powered heap.Assuming that they’re both running at equivalent weights.
The 2800 DKTD was a 240, was it not? Surely a well-maintained 8LXB would give it a run for its money. Now back to the land of commonsense:
cav551:
A quick point: according to the text the ERF, like the rest, was being driven flat out (to the speed limit) on the m’way stretches.New test of directly comparable vehicles to the accompaniment of groans.
Two Commercial motor road tests over almost the same route 729 miles v 736 miles. The difference being the starting/ finish point. Blue star garage A4147 v Burmah service stn
Test 1 is 23 june 1972 Atkinson Borderer with recently available 8LXB, Fuller 9509A, Kirkstall D85 hub reduction axle ratio 5.605/1 maximum speed approx 53 mph. Borrowed vehicle (John Raymond) already covered 100,000 miles.
unit ulw 6t 1 cwt.
40 ft flat trailer ulw 4t 12 cwt
payload and driver 21t 8 cwt
gross gcw 32t 1 cwtResults:
729 miles run in 19hr average speed 38.3 mph
fuel used 97.25 gallons = 7.5 mpg
Forton to Gretna av mph 46 stage mpg 8.3 mpg
climb Carter Bar 1.82 mile 1 in 13.5: 6 min 58s @18 mph 5th gearTest 2 is December 1979 with recently available ■■■■■■■ NT240 small cam(also called the 250 turbo) 235 bhp @1900rpm 780 lb/ft @ 1300rpm. Fuller 9509A Kirkstall D85 h/r axle ratio 4.64/1 maximum speed approx 66 mph
unit ulw 6t 3 cwt.
40 ft flat trailer ulw 4t 8 cwt 3 qr
payload etc 21t 4cwt 2qr
gross gcw 31t 16 cwt 1 qrResults:
736 miles run in 19hr 22 min average speed 40.14 mph
fuel used 98.27 gal = 7.49 mpg
Forton to Gretna av mph 51.35 stage mpg 8.46
climb Carter Bar 1.82 mile 1 in 13.5: 5 min 36s @ 20 mph 4th gear
The Gardner appears to lose out due to its low gearing here. Its motorway performance/economy would certainly have been better, if it had been geared for 70 or so. Having said that, the NT240 was faster up Carter Bar, possibly due to its extra 85 lbft of torque. I guess this was the point when Gardner finally met its match. Was the hill climbed at high revs, or did the tester “let it lug?” Maybe one or both of the lorries was caught between gears- the 13 speed Fuller may have been better for this part of the test. What do you think?
Lawrence Dunbar:
Well you do surprise me when you say that you have driven wagons, you certainley have something about the great Gardner Engine that bugs you, ive never come accross anyone that would call the Gardner the names that you do, so I suppose you are a unique person in your own field whatever that is .Regards Larry
The one behind the nuthouse, surrounded by high fences and watchtowers.