No It’s not me, its a stash of various bumph I’ve kept for yonks. I too think the 8 LXCT figure looks strange. This is taken from a rather cheap photocopy in a brochure, rather than the normal glossy ones . I have now edited the list to include the 8LXC which I have just now found tucked in another. If one adds the 20 kg difference between the 6 LXC and the 6 LXCT to this it may be more accurate. I can, of course, only put up what has been published and then comment.
[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?
All very relevant but what you are forgetting is carryfast seems to think that nearly everyone in Europe was only running scania 141s f89s and transcontinetals with the 350 ■■■■■■■ it was just the UK that was running 200 to 250hp trucks.
The 110/111 the f86 and the 240f88 MAN 240 merc1924 were the bread and butter motors whereas the others were premium trucks that always sold in smaller numbers the same as here.
Mercedes were always renowned for producing underpowered trucks stuck with naturally aspirated engines well in to the 80s.
Greetings (ZB) Anorak.
This gets worse Two sets of 8lxc cards which disagree with one another over the weight and the said photocopy plus a glossy 8lxb brochure all published by Hawker Siddeley…
Looked in Gardner published workshop manual instead:
8LXB 2045lb 927 kg
so to try and make sense of it and be realistic?
8LXC 2375 lb 1078 kg
8LXCT 2459lb 1115 kg
The AV760 Mandator was a very light vehicle indeed, about 5 ton 6 cwt. Which is why the oil companies liked it.
Some of the weights may be “dry”, some with oil and water. The workshop figure for the 8LXB may be to the SAE standard, IE no manifolds, alternator or water pump etc. That was a joke. I’ll get my coat.
ramone:
“Another thread hijacked and ruined by Carryfast”“get back to the subject Carryfast or dont bother contributing your drivel”
If Carryfast hadn’t kept on with his ‘drivel’ half of the information posted by others to counter his arguments would not have surfaced, a lot of very informative posts have been made in response to Carryfast, this thread would have died on its arse on page two without our resident power crazy lunatic 
newmercman:
ramone:
“Another thread hijacked and ruined by Carryfast”“get back to the subject Carryfast or dont bother contributing your drivel”
If Carryfast hadn’t kept on with his ‘drivel’ half of the information posted by others to counter his arguments would not have surfaced, a lot of very informative posts have been made in response to Carryfast, this thread would have died on its arse on page two without our resident power crazy lunatic
Or maybe others have read his drivel and couldn`t be bothered joining in 
ramone:
newmercman:
ramone:
“Another thread hijacked and ruined by Carryfast”“get back to the subject Carryfast or dont bother contributing your drivel”
If Carryfast hadn’t kept on with his ‘drivel’ half of the information posted by others to counter his arguments would not have surfaced, a lot of very informative posts have been made in response to Carryfast, this thread would have died on its arse on page two without our resident power crazy lunatic
Or maybe others have read his drivel and couldn`t be bothered joining in
Then that would make them a bigger fool than Carryfast 
You have to remember that apart from spec sheets, everything else on this thread is an opinion, it’s also worth remembering that an opinion cannot be right or wrong
If you disagree with Carryfast’s opinion, come up with one of your own and back it up, just like he does, you don’t even have to have facts to back up your opinion, as Carryfast proves time and time again
You trying to say Wikipedia isn’t a reliable source of information 
newmercman:
ramone:
newmercman:
ramone:
“Another thread hijacked and ruined by Carryfast”“get back to the subject Carryfast or dont bother contributing your drivel”
If Carryfast hadn’t kept on with his ‘drivel’ half of the information posted by others to counter his arguments would not have surfaced, a lot of very informative posts have been made in response to Carryfast, this thread would have died on its arse on page two without our resident power crazy lunatic
Or maybe others have read his drivel and couldn`t be bothered joining in
Then that would make them a bigger fool than Carryfast
You have to remember that apart from spec sheets, everything else on this thread is an opinion, it’s also worth remembering that an opinion cannot be right or wrong
If you disagree with Carryfast’s opinion, come up with one of your own and back it up, just like he does, you don’t even have to have facts to back up your opinion, as Carryfast proves time and time again [/quote
I dont think it makes them look a fool ,he has done this on other threads
kr79:
[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?
All very relevant but what you are forgetting is carryfast seems to think that nearly everyone in Europe was only running scania 141s f89s and transcontinetals with the 350 ■■■■■■■ it was just the UK that was running 200 to 250hp trucks.
The 110/111 the f86 and the 240f88 MAN 240 merc1924 were the bread and butter motors whereas the others were premium trucks that always sold in smaller numbers the same as here.
Mercedes were always renowned for producing underpowered trucks stuck with naturally aspirated engines well in to the 80s.
If you actually read what I’m saying it’s got nothing whatsoever to do with Scania 141’s.It’s actually written from the point of view of the British truck manufacturing industry.The only way for a manufacturing operation to remain competitive is to do what your competitors are going to do before they do it not (try to) do what your competitors are doing after they’ve done it.
I’ve actually made the comparison between Gardner’s products of the early-mid 1970’s and the DAF 2800 when it became available on the market not the Scania 141.It really didn’t take a genius at that point for anyone in the British truck manufacturing industry to realise what and why DAF had done what they did with the 680 and why they did it.The only credible contender to that was the turbocharged 14 Litre ■■■■■■■ in at least 300-350 hp form.Which was available and doable at the time.Instead of which we still had transport managers who were still stuck in a time warp of using naturally aspirated 11-14 Litre 180-250 hp trucks to run at 30-32 t gross and it’s that type of thinking which can be put down as one of the main reason for the demise of the British truck manufacturing industry.
As for the Gardner engine,as it’s designer and I’ve said,it was never designed for and,unlike the ■■■■■■■ and the 680,couldn’t survive in, an environment where that outdated obsolete thinking had to be abandoned.It’s just that the Brit customers were behind the times in knowing when to abandon that thinking and let Gardners go so as to give the British truck manufacturing industry the headstart which it needed against it’s competitors.
The fact is Gardner had been just a no better than average engine manufacturer that had a product which was obsolete by the end of the 1960’s and,unlike the 14 Litre ■■■■■■■ or the Leyland 680 didn’t have the type of built in redundancy in it’s products to allow them to reliably accept turbocharging and the resulting specific outputs required to meet accepted engine efficiency levels at the time or since.
Ramone, there are plenty of very knowledgable posts from knowledgable posters on this thread, despite Carryfast, there are many others who are making comparisons too, some are relevant, some are not. The Crow mentions F89s and they’re about as unrelated to a Gardner powered lorry as you can get, nothing with a Gardner was designed to do the same job as an F89 and vice versa. Get over it mate, Carryfast is here, he has an opinion and he’s going to share it, he’s as entitled to be here as much as anyone else
Just a thought, but the people that ask him to shut up, without producing a counter argument, but just tell him to bugger off, well those are the posts I personally would rather not read, so while carryfast’s ramblings get your goat, the type of post you made gets my goat 
newmercman:
ramone:
newmercman:
ramone:
“Another thread hijacked and ruined by Carryfast”“get back to the subject Carryfast or dont bother contributing your drivel”
If Carryfast hadn’t kept on with his ‘drivel’ half of the information posted by others to counter his arguments would not have surfaced, a lot of very informative posts have been made in response to Carryfast, this thread would have died on its arse on page two without our resident power crazy lunatic you don’t even have to have facts to back up your opinion, as Carryfast proves time and time again
Blimey it’s never needed a power crazed lunatic to find something more efficient which would climb a motorway incline quicker than something with a Gardner engine in it.
I’m just relying on the facts of what actually happened when the Brits eventually came to their senses that it takes around 10 hp per tonne and an engine with a lot better specific outputs than an 8 LXB to provide an ideal level of efficiency and there was no way to reliably get that by using the Gardner design.If you want facts just look at what actually happened.
newmercman:
Ramone, there are plenty of very knowledgable posts from knowledgable posters on this thread, despite Carryfast, there are many others who are making comparisons too, some are relevant, some are not. The Crow mentions F89s and they’re about as unrelated to a Gardner powered lorry as you can get, nothing with a Gardner was designed to do the same job as an F89 and vice versa. Get over it mate, Carryfast is here, he has an opinion and he’s going to share it, he’s as entitled to be here as much as anyone elseJust a thought, but the people that ask him to shut up, without producing a counter argument, but just tell him to bugger off, well those are the posts I personally would rather not read, so while carryfast’s ramblings get your goat, the type of post you made gets my goat
It would be (very) interesting if only we could hear what Hugh Gardner’s views would be with hindsight and today.I’d bet you a pound to a penny that they wouldn’t be a million miles away from mine.
Carryfast:
newmercman:
ramone:
newmercman:
ramone:
“Another thread hijacked and ruined by Carryfast”“get back to the subject Carryfast or dont bother contributing your drivel”
If Carryfast hadn’t kept on with his ‘drivel’ half of the information posted by others to counter his arguments would not have surfaced, a lot of very informative posts have been made in response to Carryfast, this thread would have died on its arse on page two without our resident power crazy lunatic you don’t even have to have facts to back up your opinion, as Carryfast proves time and time again
Blimey it’s never needed a power crazed lunatic to find something more efficient which would climb a motorway incline quicker than something with a Gardner engine in it.
I’m just relying on the facts of what actually happened when the Brits eventually came to their senses that it takes around 10 hp per tonne and an engine with a lot better specific outputs than an 8 LXB to provide an ideal level of efficiency and there was no way to reliably get that by using the Gardner design.If you want facts just look at what actually happened.
I wonder what the Swedes used their F86 and Scania 80/81s for in tractor unit form and the Germans for that matter with their 1918 Mercs ,the F86 by the way had a design weight of 36 tonnes
Ramone, worse than an F86 was the F7 with the 16spd box, this was rated at 38tonnes in the UK, not a lorry that I would like to drive at full weight, unless it was downhill all the way
The F88s and 110 Scanias with their 240hp and 250hp engines had a design weight of 52tonnes, so at their respective max weights, I would say that 99% of us would rather be driving a lorry rated at 30ton with a 6LX than a Swedish 52tonner
newmercman:
Ramone, worse than an F86 was the F7 with the 16spd box, this was rated at 38tonnes in the UK, not a lorry that I would like to drive at full weight, unless it was downhill all the wayThe F88s and 110 Scanias with their 240hp and 250hp engines had a design weight of 52tonnes, so at their respective max weights, I would say that 99% of us would rather be driving a lorry rated at 30ton with a 6LX than a Swedish 52tonner
My point is that it wasnt only britain that had the underpowered engines , we had a max weight of 32 tons here whereas other parts of europe had significantly higher weights but they were using engines with around 40 - 50 bhp more than our average vehicles,(some much less) to say it was our hauliers backward thinking doesnt make sense to me when other countries were doing the same thing in comparison
ramone:
newmercman:
Ramone, worse than an F86 was the F7 with the 16spd box, this was rated at 38tonnes in the UK, not a lorry that I would like to drive at full weight, unless it was downhill all the wayThe F88s and 110 Scanias with their 240hp and 250hp engines had a design weight of 52tonnes, so at their respective max weights, I would say that 99% of us would rather be driving a lorry rated at 30ton with a 6LX than a Swedish 52tonner
My point is that it wasnt only britain that had the underpowered engines , we had a max weight of 32 tons here whereas other parts of europe had significantly higher weights but they were using engines with around 40 - 50 bhp more than our average vehicles,(some much less) to say it was our hauliers backward thinking doesnt make sense to me when other countries were doing the same thing in comparison
Cf blames the demise of the British manufacturing industry on anything but the people in charge of it. Whether it is the customers or the suppliers (in this case Gardner), he cannot accept the simple argument that there are no excuses in business. I suspect Ramone is right- the incessant parroting of this same drivel puts some knowledgable people off contributing.
Even now the Scandinavians seem to run a lot of trucks at 60 ton with power outputs of 450 to 500bhp which we look at as nothing special at 44 ton.
I think he (Carryfast) may put people off, for a while, then they get so annoyed they hit the keyboard just to put him in his place
kr79:
Even now the Scandinavians seem to run a lot of trucks at 60 ton with power outputs of 450 to 500bhp which we look at as nothing special at 44 ton.
Well that was my point and double drives at that