newmercman:
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
Just for you NMM,a shot of “CF” on one of his Crusades moving among his adoring fans,by the way is that you clapping in the background ? Cheers Bewick.
Bewick:
newmercman:
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 placeJust for you NMM,a shot of “CF” on one of his Crusades moving among his adoring fans,by the way is that you clapping in the background ? Cheers Bewick.
But that car has a V8 detroit in it
It is unfortunate that this thread has reached such a low point, as you say NMM every one is entitled to their opinion be it right or wrong, without trawling back thru this thread i can t remember how we got 89s into this forum, be that as it may I don t remember making a direct comparison between an 89 with a Gardner they are after all miles apart. The fact that CF is so obviously anti Gardner doesn t mean a thing, I don t think it was a case of this is what we ve got take it or leave it , the customer is always right still applies so if that s all you ve got we ll go elsewhere fabled mpg figures, productivity figures etc. etc. don t mean a thing as your granny said the proof of the pudding is in the eating. As a self styled journalist, vehicle tester, et al you should know that the only thing you can believe in the papers is the date and then not always. Regards Crow.
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 way
The 38T F7 is a motor of which I’ve had a little experience - it certainly made progress slowly. But hey, most drivers are paid by the hour! It was comfortable enough in its day, great to manoeuvre, not to mention reliable and reasonably economical.
geoffthecrowtaylor:
It is unfortunate that this thread has reached such a low point, as you say NMM every one is entitled to their opinion be it right or wrong, without trawling back thru this thread i can t remember how we got 89s into this forum, be that as it may I don t remember making a direct comparison between an 89 with a Gardner they are after all miles apart. The fact that CF is so obviously anti Gardner doesn t mean a thing, I don t think it was a case of this is what we ve got take it or leave it , the customer is always right still applies so if that s all you ve got we ll go elsewhere fabled mpg figures, productivity figures etc. etc. don t mean a thing as your granny said the proof of the pudding is in the eating. As a self styled journalist, vehicle tester, et al you should know that the only thing you can believe in the papers is the date and then not always. Regards Crow.
The thing is Crow, it all adds to the thread, your 89 references came in when Carryfast started raving about the smokey air leak machines that were the 2800 Dafs. He started on one about them because his firm ran them at the same time as SA 400s with 201hp Gardners 
I agree to an extent about journalism, you can only work from the information you have and as most of that comes from the manufacturers themselves, well I don’t have to spell it out do I 
Road tests on the other hand are different, the numbers don’t lie, the tests were all conducted under the same conditions and had a section within them that would replicate most running conditions withing the UK, or Europe in the case of the Euro Tests, on those tests you could compare one lorry against another and get a pretty acurate idea of what to expect from each different lorry
Plenty of interesting stuff on this thread and we must accept that every contributor has a right to a point of view, whether or not we personally agree with it. It has to be remembered that the 1970s carried on with the implications of the far-reaching changes happening within the road transport industry from the mid-1960s. You have to consider the overall picture that influenced transport bosses’ decisions, and those of the lorry builders, at the time, and not pick out certain facts that can skew the argument one way or another. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and we are judging happenings 30 to 40 years ago. We cannot all agree on everything and I’m eagerly awaiting a certain contributor’s input into the 'Two-Pedal Beaver thread. 
newmercman:
geoffthecrowtaylor:
It is unfortunate that this thread has reached such a low point, as you say NMM every one is entitled to their opinion be it right or wrong, without trawling back thru this thread i can t remember how we got 89s into this forum, be that as it may I don t remember making a direct comparison between an 89 with a Gardner they are after all miles apart. The fact that CF is so obviously anti Gardner doesn t mean a thing, I don t think it was a case of this is what we ve got take it or leave it , the customer is always right still applies so if that s all you ve got we ll go elsewhere fabled mpg figures, productivity figures etc. etc. don t mean a thing as your granny said the proof of the pudding is in the eating. As a self styled journalist, vehicle tester, et al you should know that the only thing you can believe in the papers is the date and then not always. Regards Crow.The thing is Crow, it all adds to the thread, your 89 references came in when Carryfast started raving about the smokey air leak machines that were the 2800 Dafs. He started on one about them because his firm ran them at the same time as SA 400s with 201hp Gardners
I agree to an extent about journalism, you can only work from the information you have and as most of that comes from the manufacturers themselves, well I don’t have to spell it out do I
That ‘smokey air leak machine’ didn’t seem to do a bad job through the 1970’s and 1980’s for most,if not all,of it’s buyers (including the 3300 and 3600) and if it had been that bad it’s obvious that those buyers would have walked away from it long before the 1980’s.Whereas history shows it was the Gardner powered SA that (rightly) suffered that fate the only sad thing being that zb sticks and it took the possibility,of what might have been,if those SA’s had just been built on my idea of around 300 hp + ■■■■■■■ take it or leave it,with it. 
As for road tests it’s obvious that a test can create the result that it wants to get by careful choice of the competition.The fact is there’s no reason why the test in question couldn’t have included both the 2800 in around 300 hp form and possibly something like the SA with around 300 hp + 14 litre turbocharged ■■■■■■■■■■ surprise though that it didn’t.As usual the excercise seemed to be all about pandering to that flawed idea of a Gardner powered guvnor’s wagon rather than try to help the British truck manufacturing industry by (trying to) drag it’s customers kicking and screaming out of the early 20 th century into the late 20 th century.
gingerfold:
It has to be remembered that the 1970s carried on with the implications of the far-reaching changes happening within the road transport industry from the mid-1960s. You have to consider the overall picture that influenced transport bosses’ decisions, and those of the lorry builders, at the time, and not pick out certain facts that can skew the argument one way or another. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and we are judging happenings 30 to 40 years ago.
The fact is it’s not hindsight at all.All of these issues were well known and the subject of discussion in the truck manufacturing industry at the time.It was all part of the issue of backward thinking customers which is why,as nmm says,I’ve made the comparison between the Brits ordering Gardners in the SA 400 series (amongst others) while DAF were using the turbocharged Leyland 680 in the 2800 after Leyland had given them the initiative,having given up on those domestic customers coming to their senses in time to get ahead of it’s foreign competition.
Carryfast:
gingerfold:
It has to be remembered that the 1970s carried on with the implications of the far-reaching changes happening within the road transport industry from the mid-1960s. You have to consider the overall picture that influenced transport bosses’ decisions, and those of the lorry builders, at the time, and not pick out certain facts that can skew the argument one way or another. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and we are judging happenings 30 to 40 years ago.The fact is it’s not hindsight at all.All of these issues were well known and the subject of discussion in the truck manufacturing industry at the time.It was all part of the issue of backward thinking customers which is why,as nmm says,I’ve made the comparison between the Brits ordering Gardners in the SA 400 series (amongst others) while DAF were using the turbocharged Leyland 680 in the 2800 after Leyland had given them the initiative,having given up on those domestic customers coming to their senses in time to get ahead of it’s foreign competition.
Sorry to disagree. Back in the early 70s power outputs of engines was never really an issue because the minimum requirement of 6 bhp per ton gvw was deemed adequate. Most operators weren’t even aware what the output of an engine was because they didn’t spec a vehicle on power output. It’s only in the past 20 years that power output has assumed greater importance within the overall specification. And we can thank the trade publications with their comprehensive road test reports for that.
Yes, the Leyland 680 was improved by DAF, no question. But the P.680 Power-Plus version from Leyland was something of a disaster in the early '60s and was plagued with reliabilty problems. I’m old enough to remember lorries of the '60s and '70s from first hand experience of driving them and operating them. Same as other contributors on here, whilst you might not agree with us CF, please respect our right to an opinion, as I respect your right to an opinion. Thank you.
The right to express an opinion is preceded by a duty to respect one’s audience’s right to silence. Cf’s repetitive goading and confrontation is an abuse of his right. He is a sadist.
Back to the fun stuff- I am interested to learn how the Power Plus engine compared to its European counterparts. It may have been “Reliability Minus” to British operators of LXs and earlier O680s, but was it any worse than comparable Continental engines, around 1960? I have not read of any dissatisfaction of DAF operators with the P680. They would have had the Scania DS10 (205bhp) and 9.6litre Volvo et al, with which to compare it.
[zb]
anorak:
The right to express an opinion is preceded by a duty to respect one’s audience’s right to silence. Cf’s repetitive goading and confrontation is an abuse of his right. He is a sadist.
Does “sadist” ryhmn with Banker ? Bewick.
gingerfold:
Carryfast:
gingerfold:
It has to be remembered that the 1970s carried on with the implications of the far-reaching changes happening within the road transport industry from the mid-1960s. You have to consider the overall picture that influenced transport bosses’ decisions, and those of the lorry builders, at the time, and not pick out certain facts that can skew the argument one way or another. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and we are judging happenings 30 to 40 years ago.The fact is it’s not hindsight at all.All of these issues were well known and the subject of discussion in the truck manufacturing industry at the time.It was all part of the issue of backward thinking customers which is why,as nmm says,I’ve made the comparison between the Brits ordering Gardners in the SA 400 series (amongst others) while DAF were using the turbocharged Leyland 680 in the 2800 after Leyland had given them the initiative,having given up on those domestic customers coming to their senses in time to get ahead of it’s foreign competition.
Sorry to disagree. Back in the early 70s power outputs of engines was never really an issue because the minimum requirement of 6 bhp per ton gvw was deemed adequate. Most operators weren’t even aware what the output of an engine was because they didn’t spec a vehicle on power output. It’s only in the past 20 years that power output has assumed greater importance within the overall specification. And we can thank the trade publications with their comprehensive road test reports for that.
I think that’s the point which I’ve been making although it was arguably earlier than just 20 years ago when many/most British operators eventually came to their senses and finally changed their minds about ordering a typical Gardner powered British guvnor’s wagon and bought a more powerful turbocharged product built by the Euro or Scandinavian competition instead.
The trade publications were making the link between more power (actually torque) efficiency and productivety well known throughout the 1970’s and 1980’s which was the basis on which,those British made trucks,sold during the 1970’s and 1980’s,which were built using around 300 hp + ■■■■■■■ engines,were ordered by their more informed customers on.
Bewick:
[zb]
anorak:
The right to express an opinion is preceded by a duty to respect one’s audience’s right to silence. Cf’s repetitive goading and confrontation is an abuse of his right. He is a sadist.Does “sadist” ryhmn with Banker ? Bewick.
I think the law says something like you do have the right to remain silent but it will affect your defence if you then rely on something which you failed to mention when questioned. 
[zb]
anorak:
The right to express an opinion is preceded by a duty to respect one’s audience’s right to silence. Cf’s repetitive goading and confrontation is an abuse of his right. He is a sadist.Back to the fun stuff- I am interested to learn how the Power Plus engine compared to its European counterparts. It may have been “Reliability Minus” to British operators of LXs and earlier O680s, but was it any worse than comparable Continental engines, around 1960? I have not read of any dissatisfaction of DAF operators with the P680. They would have had the Scania DS10 (205bhp) and 9.6litre Volvo et al, with which to compare it.
It’s obvious that if you’re intending to retro fit an engine,which was designed to be naturally aspirated,with forced induction,you’re going to need,and inevitably will,blow up a lot of test subjects in the course of getting it there reliably.The difference seems to be that the British idea of testing and research and development,at the time,seemed to be let’s save money by testing the things to destruction and fixing whatever breaks,which is how it’s done,in service with the customer instead of on the dyno .So on that issue alone the Brit manufacturing industry maybe can accept some of the blame although bearing in mind how starved of investment and cash post war British industry was it’s not suprising.
However as the Dutch showed the basic design contained the requirements needed in redundancy of stress capacity to make the excercise worthwhile when done properly.Unlike the Gardner which didn’t.
Carryfast ,Did u not drive drive a Seddon / Atki 400 with a 180 gardener ,D/ Brown 6 speed box ,Two speed axle ,REG no Y R P 7 0 S ,or was that when u were learning ? yours Barry
haven,t eeven seen a gardener but from 90 -93 we operated our scannie 111 (305hp) whit succes at 53 tn,s now we have a r 420 for 60tn,s we are bad and stupid operators 
when there is 730hp 
Carryfast when do we fail in 3-4 or 10 years ,cheers benkku
b.waddy:
Carryfast ,Did u not drive drive a Seddon / Atki 400 with a 180 gardener ,D/ Brown 6 speed box ,Two speed axle ,REG no Y R P 7 0 S ,or was that when u were learning ? yours Barry
No I started from day 1 on that job in 1985 with that old DAF 2800 FNH 958T (which I can’t remember as being a smokey air leak machine ).By that time I think the Gardner powered heaps were on their last legs and just used for short runs and/or as yard shunters which is just about all they were good for from the day they were built by comparison.
But my ‘learning’ days were spent on those fire trucks not commercials and then driving everything from gritters to plant haulage for the local council.
Carryfast, Your little grey cells must be going ,you have photo of your self tipping in Cheshire in Y R P 70 S ,also YRP 69 S PARKED by your House ,yours Barry
bma.finland:
haven,t eeven seen a gardener
I’m betting that both the 111 at 53t and the r 420 at 60t aren’t geared for running up and down the length of the M1 at well over 50 mph average speeds.It’s obvious that a 420 would have no problem hauling 60t gross around but there’s no way that it’s geared for much more than the 85-90 kmh max that the limiter would be holding something with the same power down to here at 40-44t with a higher final drive ratio.So if they must run at that type of speed it’s obvious that using lower gearing and hauling more weight would probably be a more efficient way of doing it.
However the extra torque of a 620 or a 730 would allow higher gearing and less engine speeds to get the same,or more,average speeds at 60t hence the reason why the factory is producing them to meet a demand for them just as there was a demand here,eventually,for 300 hp + trucks to run at 30t gross +.
b.waddy:
Carryfast, Your little grey cells must be going ,you have photo of your self tipping in Cheshire in Y R P 70 S ,also YRP 69 S PARKED by your House ,yours Barry
That’s not me that’s a totally different poster (yeti) who was based at Kilworth not Feltham.