Gardner ENGINES

[newmercman]

Frankydobo:
Amazing how well an engine runs on old oil, maybe we should use it instead of expensive diesel! I would imagine this has happened on a few occasions when the intake system hasn’t been cleaned after a Turbo failure and even after a good clean it sometimes takes a bit of smokey running before all is clear again.

■■■■■■■ used to have a system that replenished the engine with fresh oil and released the corresponding amount of dirty oil into the fuel lines, where it went on to be burned with the diesel/air mixture. The system had a resevoir that held about 5 gallons of oil, you kept that topped up and it kept the oil fresh for a lot longer, allowing longer drain intervals. It got outlawed by one of the emission laws a while ago

Engine oil burns at a higher temperature than diesel, it has been said, that adding it to the fuel in small amounts can help clean injectors by burning off carbon deposits, it also helps to replace some of the lubrication properties lost when we went to low and ultra low sulphur diesel. The same people say that automatic transmission fluid can also be used, but it turns diesel a funny red colour and that might just be a problem you don’t need

Oh and Bewick, that’s more like it

Do you have any idea/recollection of the running costs of the Gardner’s you ran against the running costs of the ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

Did you have to carry more parts for the foreign stuff Were they more or less expensive to maintain Were they harder to work on How about real world fuel consumption

[carryfast]

Bewick:
I can only speak as a former operator within what has always been a tough industry and in the early years,when I was eventually in a position to start purchasing premium tractors I couldn’t get Gardner engines so I settled for second best,■■■■■■■ 205’s and later 220’s with Fuller 610 boxes and initially Kirkstall BDR axles and the Eaton.The ■■■■■■■ 250 was too thirsty for my liking so that was the end of ■■■■■■■ at Bewick Transport,I did have a couple of 290 ■■■■■■■ Sed/Atk demos over the years but they were even thirstier!! The 205 and 220’s gave us excellent service although they were thirstier than the Gardners but ,of course,they performed much better than the 180LXB’s.I didn’t fancy the Turbo’d Gardners one bit so that was the END as far as Bewick Transport were concerned.Over the years Gardners in their various non Turbo’d power outputs had given us excellent service but as they say “all good things come to and end one day”.By this time I had become a great believer in the vertically intergrated concept i.e.All the Driveline was manufactured “in house” and matched up perfectly,as in Scania,Volvo,Merc and Renault!! I hope this fully explains my thoughts now but more importantly my thinking and vehicle purchasing policy of years ago!!!

Bewick seriously could it have been that your drivers were only familiar with wide ratio boxes and having to make something like a 180 actually do some work that caused the issues with the trials of the 290 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ it was fitted with a 13 speed fuller ,in that they were trying to drive it the same way bearing in mind that the idea of the 290 wasn’t to use all of the available extra power it’s the extra torque that made the difference whereas it’s obvious that the 180 needed the opposite approach of taking it closer to it’s max power rpm on each upshift.So whereas short shifting probably wouldn’t have been an option with the 180 it would have been the only way to get some decent figures with the 290 like all the other bigger power turbocharged types as time went on .

The other question is that the change to the Scandinavians would obviously have also meant a change to turbocharging at some point so what was it that caused the change in thinking between rejection of a turbocharged Gardner but acceptance of a turbocharged Scandinavian or are you saying that you’d have preferred it if the Scandinavians had just offered naturally aspirated engine options .

[geoffthecrowtaylor]

NMM the main cause of head gasket failure on Volvo TD engines was the failure of cylinder head reconditioners to machine in the firing ring this is a tiny ridge proud of the head surface that matched the same on the liner surface it s point being that they both bit into the steel gasket to provide o perfect seal once you knew about this we never accepted heads that hadn t had this done. I m going to give Lawrence a naturally aspirated Lee Enfield 303 and CF a turbo charged Mauser ie Tele sights and just see who drills who first,regards Crow.

[zb_anorak]

Carryfast:

Bewick:
I can only speak as a former operator within what has always been a tough industry and in the early years,when I was eventually in a position to start purchasing premium tractors I couldn’t get Gardner engines so I settled for second best,■■■■■■■ 205’s and later 220’s with Fuller 610 boxes and initially Kirkstall BDR axles and the Eaton.The ■■■■■■■ 250 was too thirsty for my liking so that was the end of ■■■■■■■ at Bewick Transport,I did have a couple of 290 ■■■■■■■ Sed/Atk demos over the years but they were even thirstier!! The 205 and 220’s gave us excellent service although they were thirstier than the Gardners but ,of course,they performed much better than the 180LXB’s.I didn’t fancy the Turbo’d Gardners one bit so that was the END as far as Bewick Transport were concerned.Over the years Gardners in their various non Turbo’d power outputs had given us excellent service but as they say “all good things come to and end one day”.By this time I had become a great believer in the vertically intergrated concept i.e.All the Driveline was manufactured “in house” and matched up perfectly,as in Scania,Volvo,Merc and Renault!! I hope this fully explains my thoughts now but more importantly my thinking and vehicle purchasing policy of years ago!!!

Bewick seriously could it have been that your drivers were only familiar with wide ratio boxes and having to make something like a 180 actually do some work that caused the issues with the trials of the 290 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ it was fitted with a 13 speed fuller ,in that they were trying to drive it the same way bearing in mind that the idea of the 290 wasn’t to use all of the available extra power it’s the extra torque that made the difference whereas it’s obvious that the 180 needed the opposite approach of taking it closer to it’s max power rpm on each upshift.So whereas short shifting probably wouldn’t have been an option with the 180 it would have been the only way to get some decent figures with the 290 like all the other bigger power turbocharged types as time went on .

Would this not depend on whether the Cu290 in question was an NTC (290bhp at 2100rpm) or a Big Cam NTE (1900rpm)? If it was the latter, the driving style, regarding the use of revs, would be similar to a Gardner, would it not?

[harry_gill]

hiya,
Haven’t read this thread in it’s entirety as yet but the statement made about
“a gallon of oil a day” is the biggest load of phooey I’ve ever heard, as an old
timer who happens to have done a mile or two pushing “Percy’s” about I have
never put a gallon of oil in a Gardner in a week let alone a day, I always had
a gallon can in the cab along with a fair selection of tools “which I knew how
to use”, the oil can I hasten to add was never totally empty even after a hard
weeks tramping, that covers many Gardner engines in many different motors
from in the early days as little four potters to towards the end of my working
life eight potters (NEVER IN A BIG J though) some of the old “boat anchors” “I
dont agree with that terminology Carryfast” I reckon was well past their sell by
date but never that thirsty for oil,
thanks harry, long retired,

[geoffthecrowtaylor]

CF I take it that your reference to 40 hour week was one of your rare jokes, before the advent of tachos we all used loose leaf daily liars and maybe it was a little before your time we could and did work 7 days a week 11 hours a day driving max duty time 13 hours get your sliderule out and you ll find that adds up to 91 hours over twice what the poor unfortunates can do now with their digi tachos air conditioned auto box power steering oh so quiet cocooned all inclusive foreign built throw away electronicalcontrolled stuff thats being driven today. Regarding that oh so rambling post of Valkyries is his surname Wagner it almost rhymes with Gardner ,it was nt solely Gardners fault they were also competing against sleeper cab foreign vehicles, Britains answer to this was that coffin supplied by Jennings and then nailed to the back of ERFs Atkis and the like, Gardner didn t stand a chance ,Crow.

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:

Carryfast:

Bewick:
I can only speak as a former operator within what has always been a tough industry and in the early years,when I was eventually in a position to start purchasing premium tractors I couldn’t get Gardner engines so I settled for second best,■■■■■■■ 205’s and later 220’s with Fuller 610 boxes and initially Kirkstall BDR axles and the Eaton.The ■■■■■■■ 250 was too thirsty for my liking so that was the end of ■■■■■■■ at Bewick Transport,I did have a couple of 290 ■■■■■■■ Sed/Atk demos over the years but they were even thirstier!! The 205 and 220’s gave us excellent service although they were thirstier than the Gardners but ,of course,they performed much better than the 180LXB’s.I didn’t fancy the Turbo’d Gardners one bit so that was the END as far as Bewick Transport were concerned.Over the years Gardners in their various non Turbo’d power outputs had given us excellent service but as they say “all good things come to and end one day”.By this time I had become a great believer in the vertically intergrated concept i.e.All the Driveline was manufactured “in house” and matched up perfectly,as in Scania,Volvo,Merc and Renault!! I hope this fully explains my thoughts now but more importantly my thinking and vehicle purchasing policy of years ago!!!

Bewick seriously could it have been that your drivers were only familiar with wide ratio boxes and having to make something like a 180 actually do some work that caused the issues with the trials of the 290 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ it was fitted with a 13 speed fuller ,in that they were trying to drive it the same way bearing in mind that the idea of the 290 wasn’t to use all of the available extra power it’s the extra torque that made the difference whereas it’s obvious that the 180 needed the opposite approach of taking it closer to it’s max power rpm on each upshift.So whereas short shifting probably wouldn’t have been an option with the 180 it would have been the only way to get some decent figures with the 290 like all the other bigger power turbocharged types as time went on .

Would this not depend on whether the Cu290 in question was an NTC (290bhp at 2100rpm) or a Big Cam NTE (1900rpm)? If it was the latter, the driving style, regarding the use of revs, would be similar to a Gardner, would it not?

I think it wouldn’t make a big difference in either case from the point of view of comparing an engine in which the aim is to upshift the thing long before it’s peak power rpm is reached as opposed to something that needs the total opposite approach because it’s got such a low output to start with.IE you wouldn’t have got far with a 180 Gardner by not taking it much closer to it’s peak power in each gear before upsifting it because of it’s much lower output in addition to which if it’s just got a wide ratio 6 speed box compared to a 13 or even a 9 speed fuller you wouldn’t be able to short shift it anyway because the next gear up would be to high for the road speed reached.

The fact is an underpowered wagon is an underpowered wagon and will need to be driven the same way in all cases.The problems start when drivers who’ve only got experience of driving an underpowered wagon are given the keys to something with a lot more power with the usual result being along the lines of blimey this thing flies but it uses a lot more fuel.Whereas the right answer is blimey this thing pulls like a train from lower rpm and I can upshift it a lot sooner and it doesn’t need anywhere near as much stick to get the same or a bit more speed.

In the case of the Gardner I think you’re confusing where it’s peak torque was in the rev range with actually how much torque it was putting out.In this case it’s the latter which mattered not the former and it’s that issue which was the Gardner’s problem compared to the turbo charged ■■■■■■■■■■■ one is is for sure if someone tried to use the same driving style for both types then it’s obvious that the fuel consumption of the ■■■■■■■ would probably be horrific.Especially if,as I would have done,it had been specced with a 300-400 not a 290.

[carryfast]

geoffthecrowtaylor:
CF I take it that your reference to 40 hour week was one of your rare jokes, before the advent of tachos we all used loose leaf daily liars and maybe it was a little before your time we could and did work 7 days a week 11 hours a day driving max duty time 13 hours get your sliderule out and you ll find that adds up to 91 hours over twice what the poor unfortunates can do now with their digi tachos air conditioned auto box power steering oh so quiet cocooned all inclusive foreign built throw away electronicalcontrolled stuff thats being driven today. Regarding that oh so rambling post of Valkyries is his surname Wagner it almost rhymes with Gardner ,it was nt solely Gardners fault they were also competing against sleeper cab foreign vehicles, Britains answer to this was that coffin supplied by Jennings and then nailed to the back of ERFs Atkis and the like, Gardner didn t stand a chance ,Crow.

Don’t forget as council worker I was using log books long after the tacho regs were introduced.

Coffin cabs bs when we’re talking about the mid 1970’s on as I’ve said with choices like the SA 400 v the DAF 2800.It’s just a shame that guvnors were still speccing Gardner engines in the SA at that time to compete with the DAF instead of the 300 hp + ■■■■■■■ option.

But as for the rifle I thought you’d have realised that as an American engine/truck fan I want a Garand for the job not some mickey mouse German thing.

youtube.com/watch?v=t5k8r2Or … ur=related

[geoffthecrowtaylor]

Thats apity CF your choice of weapon is about as sensible as your choice of engines. I m no fan of the Germans but i m definitely no fan of our so called cousins across the water,the Garand compared to the Mauser is the difference beteen a detroit diesel and a maybach or in your own terms a Gardner and a DAF, Happy hunting, Crow.BTW i never met a council worker who could manage more than 8 hours a day for mre than 5 days a week let alone 7.and did you do all your research on youtube, I thought so that explains it .

[carryfast]

geoffthecrowtaylor:
Thats apity CF your choice of weapon is about as sensible as your choice of engines. I m no fan of the Germans but i m definitely no fan of our so called cousins across the water,the Garand compared to the Mauser is the difference beteen a detroit diesel and a maybach or in your own terms a Gardner and a DAF, Happy hunting, Crow.BTW i never met a council worker who could manage more than 8 hours a day for mre than 5 days a week let alone 7.and did you do all your research on youtube, I thought so that explains it .

More like the difference between the Gardner in the Scammell Pioneer and the Hercules or Hall Scott in the Diamon T let alone a turbocharged 8V92 and a naturally aspirated Merc V8 in the late 1970’s early 1980’s .How else do you think we won ze var.

But there’s a big difference between thinking you know what it’s like working for a cash starved council during the early 1980’s recession and actually doing it.That’s why no one wanted the job and everyone wanted to be spending all that time driving those better wagons on international work rather than driving knackered old Clydesdales,amongst even more knackered older stuff,and working on the basis of they pretend to pay us so we pretend to work or the actual reality which was we’ve got to do a lot more than 40 hours per week just to make it worth turning up.

But no not youtube just listening to those who were there at the time and I’ve never heard of any of them who’d have preferred the SMLE over a Garand if they’d have had the choice in just the same way that I’d never heard any older driver back in the day defending the Gardner powered heaps over the newer,better,turbocharged offerings available at the time.Until now.

[bewick]

Bollox to posting on this thread anymore !! With “CF” threatning to get “tooled up” and come looking for those that don’t readily accept his “doctrine”,if he carries on like that he will get himself blown off the site !!! And I just bet I would be on the top of his hit list if he finally snaps !! I’m off into the mountains to live in a cave,he’ll need the SAS to find me now !! Anon 1.

[bewick]

harry_gill:
hiya,
Haven’t read this thread in it’s entirety as yet but the statement made about
“a gallon of oil a day” is the biggest load of phooey I’ve ever heard, as an old
timer who happens to have done a mile or two pushing “Percy’s” about I have
never put a gallon of oil in a Gardner in a week let alone a day, I always had
a gallon can in the cab along with a fair selection of tools “which I knew how
to use”, the oil can I hasten to add was never totally empty even after a hard
weeks tramping, that covers many Gardner engines in many different motors
from in the early days as little four potters to towards the end of my working
life eight potters (NEVER IN A BIG J though) some of the old “boat anchors” “I
dont agree with that terminology Carryfast” I reckon was well past their sell by
date but never that thirsty for oil,
thanks harry, long retired,

Well said “H”,and I can second your opinion mate,if you had to put a GALLON of oil into a Gardner it was either knackered or had a very serious oil leak.Cheers Dennis.

[newmercman]

Carryfast, you say that a 6spd box wouldn’t be any good behind an E290, wrong

Multi speed transmissions are not there so you can use every gear, a good driver would skip shift and could easily make good progress with only 6 gears

I had a Sed Ak (UGC 844W) ex Watneys, it had an E290 and a 6spd Allison automatic gearbox, it was a flying machine, not the best on fuel, but not that bad, it certainly never struggled to get up a hill or to accelerate

Going to disagree on guns too, off topic I know, but you (Carryfast) never started that…for a change

As I have a fondness for all things Italian, I’ll take a Beretta shotgun and being from Soth East London I’ll obviously get it in a vice and saw off the silly long barrels

Now, on a more serious and on topic note, I was just thinking about the poorer performance of the Gardner compared to the smaller engined (albeit turbocharged) foreigners. The thing that come to me was exhaust layout, those with an engineering background will confirm my theory I’m sure. On a little F86, for example, the turbo led into a down pipe which led into the silencer that ran under the chassis rail, a pretty straight forward set up with a minimum of bends. Now the exhaust on a Gardner in an Atki, for example, led a very convoluted path, in the best cases, from the manifold it bent 90deg down, then 90deg forward, then 90deg into the silencer, in some cases it went 90deg down then 90deg forward, then a 90deg right/left bend, followed by a 180deg bend into the silencer.

Now that is a hell of a lot of of exhaust restriction and back pressure, I can’t remember the exact numbers, but a 90deg bend gives the same restriction as 13ft(?) of straight pipe, to get the same restriction on the F86 the exhaust pipe would need flexible joints so it could poke out just underneath the under-run bar of the trailer There’s a hell of a lot of wasted energy there, the Gardner had excellent thermal efficiency, but how much of it was wasted trying to get rid of the exhaust gases

[carryfast]

Bewick:
Bollox to posting on this thread anymore !! With “CF” threatning to get “tooled up” and come looking for those that don’t readily accept his “doctrine”,if he carries on like that he will get himself blown off the site !!! And I just bet I would be on the top of his hit list if he finally snaps !! I’m off into the mountains to live in a cave,he’ll need the SAS to find me now !! Anon 1.

Don’t worry Bewick you can come out of hiding that was just a joke which that troublemaker Crow started in which he seemed to think that it was a good idea to set up a duel at dawn to settle the slight disagreement betweeen myself and another poster who shall remain nameless .It’s just that I thought it was a bit unfair that I’d be lumbered with some antiquated German weapon when I would have chosen a better American design.( So a bit like the choice of a fleet made up of Gardner 180 and 240 powered wagons,or naturally aspirated Mercs,or one made up of turbocharged ■■■■■■■ powered ones ) .

Now you know that it’s safe to leave that cave can you answer those questions which I posted concerning the choice between turbocharged Gardners v the Scandinavian competition .

[carryfast]

newmercman:
Carryfast, you say that a 6spd box wouldn’t be any good behind an E290, wrong

Multi speed transmissions are not there so you can use every gear, a good driver would skip shift and could easily make good progress with only 6 gears

I had a Sed Ak (UGC 844W) ex Watneys, it had an E290 and a 6spd Allison automatic gearbox, it was a flying machine, not the best on fuel, but not that bad, it certainly never struggled to get up a hill or to accelerate

The bit I’m getting at nmm is the issue of being able to short shift on the upshifts so it’s not taken much beyond the torque peak before each upshift whereas with less gears (and therefore wider ratios) the upshifts have to be delayed to allow the road speed to increase sufficiently before being able to change into the next gear which because of the wider ratios is higher than it needs to be.The idea is to use the extra torque using higher gears,in close steps,to turn the wheel instead of using more engine speed to do the same thing in the lower gear which you have no choice but to hold onto.

Whereas with somehing like the 180 or the 240 that torque just isn’t there anyway so the fewer gear ratios don’t make a lot of difference because the engine has to be run up to higher speed anyway to get enough out of it it,to turn the wheels fast enough,to get somewhere before it can be upshifted into the next one.

That’s why it’s more efficient to put a closer ratio 13 speed with the ■■■■■■■■■■■■ a 9 speed let alone just 6.

I’m betting that it was that issue which probably explains Bewick’s experience,of the fuel consumption issues of the more powerful ■■■■■■■ v Gardner 180 etc.Probably mostly caused by drivers driving something that needs to be driven using the torque by short shifting on the upshifts by trying to do as they did with the Gardner in running it up to close to peak power in every gear although with a wide ratio 6 speed box there wouldn’t be much choice anyway.

The fact is more gearshifts,in the form of short upshifts,instead of hanging on to the lower gears for longer by skipping out ratios,is more economical on fuel not less.But the wagon needs sufficient (preferably the more the better) torque to make that work.

As for the shotgun v the Garand.I thought he said the duel had to take place at rifle type range.

[ramone]

Carryfast:
Coffin cabs bs when we’re talking about the mid 1970’s on as I’ve said with choices like the SA 400 v the DAF 2800.It’s just a shame that guvnors were still speccing Gardner engines in the SA at that time to compete with the DAF instead of the 300 hp + ■■■■■■■ option.

I dont understand this ,SA 400 v DAF 2800 ,so who were competeing with who,do you mean the 2 lorries ,do you mean different companies competeing against each other 1 with the SA and 1 with Dafs or do you mean 1 company with both makes in his fleet? The mid 70s was the time the english manufacturers or most of them started producing bigger cabs i.e , B Series ,Marathon,TM ,SA ,Transcon and the S80 ,and the 2800 was launched around this time too ,would you expect hauliers to jump in with 2 feet and buy 3oo bhp Dafs that they knew very little about or 300 bhp ■■■■■■■ engines when the average for the time was a much lower figure .The Marathon was the only 1 available with an in house engine rated around 273 bhp but was a revamped (on a tight budget) AV760 so they knew roughly what they were getting so they could buy if they liked or steer clear if they didnt.The 240 Gardner had a good reputation at this time as did the smaller ■■■■■■■ so why would they go for something they werent sure about.The Dafs proved to be a good solid reliable motor in 2800 guise (much better than the gutless 310 95s that replaced some of them) but they were an unknown quantity at the time .In time higher powered english vehicles were being bought but it was a gradual process and some hauliers were reluctant to change or even stubborn.At the end of the day it was their perogative to what they wanted to buy and if they were happy with the level of performance and reliability well so be it

[bewick]

Contrary to your perception of me as “an old haulier” “CF” I was a “young 'un” in the 60’s/ '70’s and quite amenable to taking on board new ideas, of which 3 readily spring to mind being 1) Tubeless tyres,2)Mono leaf trailer springs,3)Chassis Autolube.However, by the mid 80’s as regards Gardners it was my considered opinion that along with ERF/Sed Atk they had passed their “sell by date” and as far as we were concerned at Bewick Transport the Scania 111,112 and to a lesser extent the 81/82’s which had replaced the Big J’s and the 180LXB Seddons,ERF’s and Sed Atk’s.The Scania and IMO to a lesser extent,the Volvo, were by this time, far better products in every department,vertically intergrated well balanced driver friendly motors.But “CF” my old Mucker,the not inconsiderable numbers of Gardners we did run over the years gave us Sterling service so I cannot sit back and say “go on “CF” my son give the Gardner some stick” without trying to get over to you(mission impossible I know !!)that during their (Gardners) day they were head and shoulders above any other UK engine,including ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ for three massive reasons,Reliability,longevity and Fuel consumption!!!All the bollox you spout about DD’s, BHP,speed ect is an anathema to an old haulier( like me yea!) but more importantly to the likes of Alf Sutton,Stan Robson and many South Wales hauliers of yesteryear as well numerous old firms all over the UK.I do hope a little of what I’ve tried to put across will be retained between your ears but I will not be holding my breath !! Cheers Bewick.

[newmercman]

You’re right Ramone, the full factory sleepers from ERF and Seddon Atkinson were a match for anything on the market, a bit plasticky inside, but still, plenty of room in them, especially the B Series ERF.

The problem was the factorys didn’t build them straight away, the sleeper versions never came out for quite a while after the launch, whereas the sleeper was the standard offering from the foreigners. The salesman wouldn’t have had a yard full of sleepers, so would try and push the day cabs they had in stock, the salesmen also had the task of trying to convince a buyer to start on the options list to get a sleeper cab, buyers who had been buying day cabs for years would show some reluctance to spending a good few quid on a sleeper cab that would eat into the ULW of the lorry they were buying.

The people who bought British and the people who built and sold British were to blame for the foreign invasion, a point that Carryfast has made numerous times

[ramone]

J and H Hinchcliffes were big Gardner users i remember their ERFs and Atkis down at the paper mill in Ramsbottom with both 180 and 240 variants running at top weights , then 1 day i was down there and in came a 4 wheeler Dennis Delta ? 16 tonner with a 180 Gardner apparently he bought several this would have been late`70s .Would these be the original high powered 16 tonners ?

[lawrence_dunbar]

Well said Dennis, I wonder if this C/F geasercould in fact reply, In my opinion he is still a ■■■■■■ that just spouts rubbish , Like I have said before Lewis Gardners products bugs him, why I dont know ■■?, , I dont think he would know how to drive a Gardner powered motor, I like you Dennis had the pleasure of driving such motors, plus the fact owned them & we certainley enjoyed the ecconomey of great MPG, Which he seems to think didnt matter Eh, what a plonker, Regards Larry.