Cf, why don’t you post some details/experiences/opinions of the vehicles you experienced, instead of insulting everyone else’s happy memories? Those fire tenders sound quite interesting.
Gridley51:
newmercman:
An M reg Daf would be a 2200 surely GridleyThe 2300 never came out until 75/76 as I remember
I think it was the 2200 that came later.We had 2300
s and 2800s and I think one 2600 which went soon after I had started there.
They would be 73 reg as I think the index letter went the whole year in those days.I cant remember the 2800 regs as we new them by the first three letters but definitely Ns.
I did a little digging on Daf’s website, the F1600-F2000 range came out in 1970, the 2800 range was new in 1973 and the 2300 range was introduced in 1976 in tractor unit form followed by the multi wheel rigids a year later 
CF you stupid stupid man they did nt have to redesign the cab that model had been on the road in Britain since about 1968 F88 not F89 so a 9 year production run was pretty good. It s called progression and even you should be aware of that, not just Volvo but almost every other make of truck including your beloved Fiat. Cenre drive pal reminds me of a Saracen APC that I drove in the army 8cyl Rolls Royce petrol 100 octane motor pre select gearbox selector on the left about as reliable as most of your comments ie very un .Keep taking the pills .Crow.
The insults thrown at CF destroy the arguments against his views.
geoffthecrowtaylor:
CF you stupid stupid man they did nt have to redesign the cab that model had been on the road in Britain since about 1968 F88 not F89 so a 9 year production run was pretty good. It s called progression and even you should be aware of that, not just Volvo but almost every other make of truck including your beloved Fiat. Cenre drive pal reminds me of a Saracen APC that I drove in the army 8cyl Rolls Royce petrol 100 octane motor pre select gearbox selector on the left about as reliable as most of your comments ie very un .Keep taking the pills .Crow.
The only thing that seems stupid to me is why anyone would have preferred an F88/89 at least after 1975 when the 2800 or something like this was available .
wjriding.webs.com/seddonatkinson400.htm
As history shows DAF made a successful product with a turbocharged development of what was probably the best Brit designed engine but that definitely wasn’t a Gardner.Which just leaves the question why did SA throw away all that design,which even Stevie Wonder could see is better than a zb F88/89 and at least as good as the later F10/12 by then putting a zb Gardner motor in it instead of just doing as I’ve said in standardising the fitment of the 14 Litre turbocharged ■■■■■■■ with power outputs up to 400 hp on a take it or leave it basis.
As I’ve said it was the backward demands of the British market,in clinging on to that gutless plodder of a naturally aspirated Gardner engine,which damaged the Brit manufacturers (severely) when it came to getting ahead of their competition when it mattered during the mid 1970’s.
For some strange reason your only idea of a constructive argument against that seems to be that nothing could beat an F89 
and anyone who thinks that the Gardner was a liability not an asset to the British truck manufacturing industry is stupid especially if they never drove a left ■■■■■■ F89.That’s ignoring the fact that of the stpidity of defending the situation of fitting that zb 1930’s technology Gardner in that 1970’s SA while at the same time saying that they preferred an F89.
But Saracen APC being comparable in any way whatsoever with a Pathfinder crash tender er no not exactly.
[zb]
anorak:
Cf, why don’t you post some details/experiences/opinions of the vehicles you experienced, instead of insulting everyone else’s happy memories? Those fire tenders sound quite interesting.
I’ve been trying my best to keep my comments (and arguments) relevant to the topic.As I’ve said I think the damage which the fitment of Gardner engines did to the reputation of British trucks,at least from the end of the 1960’s shouldn’t be underestimated.It was the Crow who then side tracked that by trying to make the case that because someone never drove a left ■■■■■■ F89 means that any such argument loses credibility.
What ever your Pathfinder is or was does nt really matter I was making the comparison only from the steering position view and i m not saying that F89s were unbeatable of course they were and your V16 automotive diesel does nt exist marine or locomotive only. I ve had enough of your narrow minded views and inane comments Gule Gule which is Felthamese for ■■■■ off.Crow.
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
Cf, why don’t you post some details/experiences/opinions of the vehicles you experienced, instead of insulting everyone else’s happy memories? Those fire tenders sound quite interesting.I’ve been trying my best to keep my comments (and arguments) relevant to the topic.As I’ve said I think the damage which the fitment of Gardner engines did to the reputation of British trucks,at least from the end of the 1960’s shouldn’t be underestimated.It was the Crow who then side tracked that by trying to make the case that because someone never drove a left ■■■■■■ F89 means that any such argument loses credibility.
The posts above show that the LXB engine was competitive, probably the best, in the 180-250bhp segments of the market, throughout the 1970s.
Other threads on this forum show that the F89 was possibly the best 300+bhp lorry, while it was available. OK, its cab may have been smaller than some, but the opinions of those who drove it- of which there are many on TNUK- suggest that Volvo had a product which was very good all round.
This brings me, conveniently, to the 8LXCT300- does anyone have any practical experience of this engine? How did it compare to the competition around 1980?
Another thread hijacked and ruined by Carryfast, the subject is Gardner Engines not Daf 2800s of which i have driven several and none had startling performance, but were a reliable motor the windscreens were too low for me get back to the subject Carryfast or dont bother contributing your drivel
ramone:
Another thread hijacked and ruined by Carryfast, the subject is Gardner Engines not Daf 2800s of which i have driven several and none had startling performance, but were a reliable motor the windscreens were too low for me get back to the subject Carryfast or dont bother contributing your drivel
It’s only ruined for those who aren’t prepared to accept that there are some non believers out there and for those who aren’t prepared to accept any arguments which don’t agree with their own views.The subject is the 2800 from the point of view of any argument being put up stating that the Gardner wasn’t as good a British engine design as the Leyland 680 turned out to be.So we’ve got someone saying that the Gardner’s credibility all depends on Left hand drive F89’s and someone else who thinks that the level of the 2800’s windscreen,which I never found much of a problem personally,makes any difference to the superiority of it’s engine design v that of the 180 or even the 240 Gardner.So who’s hijacking what and going off topic in that case.
So are you saying that even the 240 Gardner,let alone the 180,was a better,more powerful,more efficient engine than the DAF 2800 series .
If not then how could something with the specific outputs of the 2800 perform worse and be less efficient than something with the specific outputs of the 180 or the 240 and how could something with around 300 hp + not possibly have startling performance compared to something with a lot less. 
If you are saying that those Gardners were the better motor then you’d obviously need to change the whole history of truck engine development to date.
geoffthecrowtaylor:
What ever your Pathfinder is or was does nt really matter I was making the comparison only from the steering position view and i m not saying that F89s were unbeatable of course they were and your V16 automotive diesel does nt exist marine or locomotive only.Crow.
That would all depend on your definition of ‘automotive’.A fire truck is a truck so it’s automotive while it’s not surprsing that no one with any sense would use a non turbocharged 18 litre V16 engine in a commercial vehicle when a more efficient 14 litre 12 cylinder turbocharged one with better specific outputs was available. 
By the same comparison no one,with any sense,would use a 14 litre 8 cylinder naturally aspirated motor,when there’s at least two better,more efficient,6 cylinder turbocharged ones available with better specific outputs.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
Cf, why don’t you post some details/experiences/opinions of the vehicles you experienced, instead of insulting everyone else’s happy memories? Those fire tenders sound quite interesting.I’ve been trying my best to keep my comments (and arguments) relevant to the topic.As I’ve said I think the damage which the fitment of Gardner engines did to the reputation of British trucks,at least from the end of the 1960’s shouldn’t be underestimated.It was the Crow who then side tracked that by trying to make the case that because someone never drove a left ■■■■■■ F89 means that any such argument loses credibility.
The posts above show that the LXB engine was competitive, probably the best, in the 180-250bhp segments of the market, throughout the 1970s.
That would only depend on leaving out any comparisons with the turbocharged 14 Litre ■■■■■■■ (especially in 300 + hp spec) and the around 300 hp DAF 2800 options.The fact that anyone would only want an engine with only 180-250 hp to run at 30 t gross + in the 1970’s seems as stupid to me as going to the lengths of using a 14 Litre 8 cylinder naturally aspirated motor to do it.The whole issue runs contrary to the history of commercial vehicle diesel engine technology development available at the time and since.
Carryfast:
ramone:
Another thread hijacked and ruined by Carryfast, the subject is Gardner Engines not Daf 2800s of which i have driven several and none had startling performance, but were a reliable motor the windscreens were too low for me get back to the subject Carryfast or dont bother contributing your drivelIt’s only ruined for those who aren’t prepared to accept that there are some non believers out there and for those who aren’t prepared to accept any arguments which don’t agree with their own views.The subject is the 2800 from the point of view of any argument being put up stating that the Gardner wasn’t as good a British engine design as the Leyland 680 turned out to be.So we’ve got someone saying that the Gardner’s credibility all depends on Left hand drive F89’s and someone else who thinks that the level of the 2800’s windscreen,which I never found much of a problem personally,makes any difference to the superiority of it’s engine design v that of the 180 or even the 240 Gardner.So who’s hijacking what and going off topic in that case.
So are you saying that even the 240 Gardner,let alone the 180,was a better,more powerful,more efficient engine than the DAF 2800 series
If not then how could something with the specific outputs of the 2800 perform worse and be less efficient than something with the specific outputs of the 180 or the 240 and how could something with around 300 hp + not possibly have startling performance compared to something with a lot less.
If you are saying that those Gardners were the better motor then you’d obviously need to change the whole history of truck engine development to date.
The 320 Gardner in the 84 Foden i had performed much better on the hills than the numerous 2800s i had driven,thats fact not out of some book ive read ,as for the windscreen it was a lasting impression i had as i`m well over 6 ft and had to stoop down at times when driving .My opinion is that after driving several 2800 Dafs and 1 320 Gardner engined Foden i prefered the Foden ,the Dafs were ok but i much prefered the Foden ,i dont know where the 180 and 240s come into this
ramone:
Carryfast:
ramone:
Another thread hijacked and ruined by Carryfast, the subject is Gardner Engines not Daf 2800s of which i have driven several and none had startling performance, but were a reliable motor the windscreens were too low for me get back to the subject Carryfast or dont bother contributing your drivelIt’s only ruined for those who aren’t prepared to accept that there are some non believers out there and for those who aren’t prepared to accept any arguments which don’t agree with their own views.The subject is the 2800 from the point of view of any argument being put up stating that the Gardner wasn’t as good a British engine design as the Leyland 680 turned out to be.So we’ve got someone saying that the Gardner’s credibility all depends on Left hand drive F89’s and someone else who thinks that the level of the 2800’s windscreen,which I never found much of a problem personally,makes any difference to the superiority of it’s engine design v that of the 180 or even the 240 Gardner.So who’s hijacking what and going off topic in that case.
So are you saying that even the 240 Gardner,let alone the 180,was a better,more powerful,more efficient engine than the DAF 2800 series
If not then how could something with the specific outputs of the 2800 perform worse and be less efficient than something with the specific outputs of the 180 or the 240 and how could something with around 300 hp + not possibly have startling performance compared to something with a lot less.
If you are saying that those Gardners were the better motor then you’d obviously need to change the whole history of truck engine development to date.
The 320 Gardner in the
84 Foden i had performed much better on the hills than the numerous 2800s i had driven,thats fact not out of some book ive read ,as for the windscreen it was a lasting impression i had as i`m well over 6 ft and had to stoop down at times when driving .My opinion is that after driving several 2800 Dafs and 1 320 Gardner engined Foden i prefered the Foden ,the Dafs were ok but i much prefered the Foden ,i dont know where the 180 and 240s come into this
Because it’s 1975 not 1984 as we are discussing this. And if the turbocharged Gardners had been any good then you can bet that they’d have dominated the domestic market and taken on the rest of the world in at least the sense of the colonial markets instead of ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ and CAT and the Dutch and the Scandinavians not to mention ze Germans. 
However having said all that it’s obvious that a 320 will go up the hills at equivalent weight better than around 300 in which case it’s the 3300 that would be the relevant comparison and if by some chance we’d have been owner drivers arguing about this at the time the only thing that would have stopped me betting you with a 3300 running at the same weight for the log book to the truck would have been that I wouldn’t have wanted a Foden with a Gardner in it even if/when it had lost. 
Carryfast:
ramone:
Carryfast:
ramone:
Another thread hijacked and ruined by Carryfast, the subject is Gardner Engines not Daf 2800s of which i have driven several and none had startling performance, but were a reliable motor the windscreens were too low for me get back to the subject Carryfast or dont bother contributing your drivelIt’s only ruined for those who aren’t prepared to accept that there are some non believers out there and for those who aren’t prepared to accept any arguments which don’t agree with their own views.The subject is the 2800 from the point of view of any argument being put up stating that the Gardner wasn’t as good a British engine design as the Leyland 680 turned out to be.So we’ve got someone saying that the Gardner’s credibility all depends on Left hand drive F89’s and someone else who thinks that the level of the 2800’s windscreen,which I never found much of a problem personally,makes any difference to the superiority of it’s engine design v that of the 180 or even the 240 Gardner.So who’s hijacking what and going off topic in that case.
So are you saying that even the 240 Gardner,let alone the 180,was a better,more powerful,more efficient engine than the DAF 2800 series
If not then how could something with the specific outputs of the 2800 perform worse and be less efficient than something with the specific outputs of the 180 or the 240 and how could something with around 300 hp + not possibly have startling performance compared to something with a lot less.
If you are saying that those Gardners were the better motor then you’d obviously need to change the whole history of truck engine development to date.
The 320 Gardner in the
84 Foden i had performed much better on the hills than the numerous 2800s i had driven,thats fact not out of some book ive read ,as for the windscreen it was a lasting impression i had as i`m well over 6 ft and had to stoop down at times when driving .My opinion is that after driving several 2800 Dafs and 1 320 Gardner engined Foden i prefered the Foden ,the Dafs were ok but i much prefered the Foden ,i dont know where the 180 and 240s come into thisBecause it’s 1975 not 1984 as we are discussing this.
However having said all that it’s obvious that a 320 will go up the hills at equivalent weight better than around 300 in which case it’s the 3300 that would be the relevant comparison and if by some chance we’d have been owner drivers arguing about this at the time the only thing that would have stopped me betting you with a 3300 running at the same weight for the log book to the truck would have been that I wouldn’t have wanted a Foden with a Gardner in it even if/when it had lost.
I thought the thread was called Gardner Engines not Gardner Engines 1975 , and my very limited experience of Gardner engines was a good one its just a shame they couldn`t have developed that 320 more .I dont recall Detroits ever dominating our domestic market but im sure in your little world they will have done
Carryfast:
The fact that anyone would only want an engine with only 180-250 hp to run at 30 t gross + in the 1970’s seems as stupid to me as going to the lengths of using a 14 Litre 8 cylinder naturally aspirated motor to do it.The whole issue runs contrary to the history of commercial vehicle diesel engine technology development available at the time and since.
The 250bhp bracket was by far the most popular at 30+tons in the 70s. Of course, the industry as a whole was stupid, wasn’t it? Even in Europe, at 38 tonnes, 250bhp tractors were very popular at the time: Scania 110 (250bhp net to BS141Au), Berliet TR280 (266ch DIN), Volvo F88 (240bhp DIN), etc. etc. If Gardner had had a more ambitious export marketing strategy in the 1950s and '60s, the LXB would have been very attractive to European operators. Who knows, the increasing demand for more powerful lorries, in those more forward-thinking markets, may have convinced Gardner to develop a bigger engine earlier than it did.
As far as the design of the 8LXB is concerned, Gardner did it differently- so what? The engine was ultra-competitive in its day, the numerous posts above providing ample evidence of this. The only possible negative associated with a larger-than-normal capacity would be weight, but the LXB’s aluminium block (talk about advanced design- is there a lorry engine produced today that uses such exotic materials?) took care of that. Does anyone have a comparison of the weight of an 8LXB/NH220/NT250/DS11/TD100, to quantify this?
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
The fact that anyone would only want an engine with only 180-250 hp to run at 30 t gross + in the 1970’s seems as stupid to me as going to the lengths of using a 14 Litre 8 cylinder naturally aspirated motor to do it.The whole issue runs contrary to the history of commercial vehicle diesel engine technology development available at the time and since.The 250bhp bracket was by far the most popular at 30+tons in the 70s. Of course, the industry as a whole was stupid, wasn’t it? Even in Europe, at 38 tonnes, 250bhp tractors were very popular at the time: Scania 110 (250bhp net to BS141Au), Berliet TR280 (266ch DIN), Volvo F88 (240bhp DIN), etc. etc. If Gardner had had a more ambitious export marketing strategy in the 1950s and '60s, the LXB would have been very attractive to European operators. Who knows, the increasing demand for more powerful lorries, in those more forward-thinking markets, may have convinced Gardner to develop a bigger engine earlier than it did.
As far as the design of the 8LXB is concerned, Gardner did it differently- so what? The engine was ultra-competitive in its day, the numerous posts above providing ample evidence of this. The only possible negative associated with a larger-than-normal capacity would be weight, but the LXB’s aluminium block (talk about advanced design- is there a lorry engine produced today that uses such exotic materials?) took care of that. Does anyone have a comparison of the weight of an 8LXB/NH220/NT250/DS11/TD100, to quantify this?
I think all you have to look at is how popular Gardners were over here to see how good they were.Hauliers bought them on their proven track record,then has more modern and powerful engines were made available buyers moved away because Gardner didnt move with the times , 20 years ago the average fleet motor was in the 300 - 320 bhp bracket even though much higher bhp engines were available now id say its moved to the 440 - 460 bhp catagory its just the sign of the times and of course another increase in weights .If you wanted a 350 - 400 bhp engine in the 70s you would end up with a very thirsty and heavy engine ,nowadays with development and technology they are much more frugal and lighter .Theres no doubt the Gardners in their time made many hauliers lots of money but they didnt move with the times
Gardner:
6LW 1440 lb 653 kg
8LW 1850lb 839 kg
6LX 1583lb 718 kg
6LXB 1560lb 708 kg
6LXC 1873 LB 854 KG
6LXCT 1892 lb 858 kg
8LXB 2375lb 1078 kg
8LXC 2459 lb 1115 kg
8LXCT 2270lb 1030kg* ? this figure add on 20kg from 8LXC as per 6LXC/T = 2502 1135 kg
■■■■■■■■
NH 205/220 2385 lb 1085 kg
NHK250 2490 lb 1130kg
NT 240 2630 lb 1193 kg
NT 290 2650 lb 1202 kg (small cam engine)
NTC 400 2870lb 1303 kg (Big Cam)
Rolls Royce:
220 2450 lb 1111 kg
AEC:
9.6 & 11.3 1680lb 762 kg
AV 590 &690 1750 lb 794 lb
AV 760 2043 lb 923 kg
Leyland:
0 600 1763 lb 800kg
Cav551- your vast knowledge is invaluable to this discussion. So, the 8 cylinder Gardner was 100-150kg lighter than any of its competitors. You can understand them charging a premium for it- it led the field on fuel, durability and weight. One question- how come the 8LXCT was lighter than the 8LXB?
PS The AEC 760 was surprisingly light for a 12.6 litre.
geoffthecrowtayler you said italain 89 had diff pumps to make 360 did any more countrys use these regards rowland