Gardner ENGINES

[carryfast]

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

I’d actually agree with most of that which is the point I’ve been making.By DAF 2800 v SA 400 I mean that the SA needed to be offered with just 300 hp + not less and let Gardner go by deleting it as an option from the start.Which would have forced the customers into doing what they ‘eventually’ did anyway and would have put SA into a more competitive position assuming that they could have priced a 300 + SA lower than the lower power (under 300 hp) versions of the 2800.

But as I’ve said customers were actually ordering what they knew were inferior Gardner powered SA’s while going to DAF at the same time for something much better.That type of customer buying policy obviously had an effect on the credibility of the British manufacturer who,as I’ve said,should have directed it’s sales force to say if the 2800 is right for your tramping fleet then a 300 hp + SA should be good enough for your trunking fleet because we can’t risk the credibility of the company by supplying you with an outdated engine option which we’ve deleted so it’s at least the ■■■■■■■ 290 take it or leave it.

The fact is there were (rightly) no repeat orders for those British products because selling those inferior options lost them credibility and future sales unlike the DAF etc.Whereas that situation (might) have been a lot different if trucks like the SA 400 were introduced at the same time as deletion of all the outdated Gardner engine options and standardisation on only 300 hp + turbocharged options.It seems to me like the British truck manufacturing industry were the victims of not only a backward thinking buying policy in it’s domestic customer base,but also a double standards one.

[bewick]

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.

Aye it’s always been the problem Larry with the difference being,if your the one that has to put your hand in your pocket to pay the Bill’s as opposed to those that don’t but still seem to be able to tell you where you went wrong!!! It’s an unbridgeable gap but as sure as hell I know which side of the fence I was happier to be on,the Gardner one of course!! Cheers Dennis.

[carryfast]

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.

SA 400/401 with 300-400 ■■■■■■■ and 13 speed Fuller v Scania 112.I know which one I’d have preferred and I’m not even a ■■■■■■■ fan as you know.

The fact is the Gardner had passed it’s sell by date before the mid-late 1970’s when you could have ordered something like that SA.

[lawrence_dunbar]

Fan I think you need your fan looking at mate, Regards Larry.PS, & I Dont think its a Dyneair do you.■■?

[carryfast]

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

wjriding.webs.com/seddonatkinson400.htm

[ramone]

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.
Well firstly the limit over here at that time was 32 tons so if hauliers had been working on moving loads of 22 tons and this was achievable with the majority trailers being flats then a full sleeper with a big engine was forced to set the alarm bells ringing and secondly if it wasnt broken why change it i do remember where my dad worked that the key factor of the lorry was its unladen weight so he had a Mandator and a flat trailer with a payload of 22.5 tons so a 290 F88 or a 110/111 Scania was out of the question .
The sleeper cabs were not well recieved when they first became available on a bigger scale over here with some companies refusing to load them and didnt unions try to ban drivers sleeping in them ?
Gardners had a reputation of being a gaffers motor because they were reliable fuel efficient and slow but they got the job done.Some big fancy heavy motors arrive on our shores that hauliers knew very little about why would they jump in with 2 feet but eventually word got around and the rest is history

[newmercman]

ramone:
Well firstly the limit over here at that time was 32 tons so if hauliers had been working on moving loads of 22 tons and this was achievable with the majority trailers being flats then a full sleeper with a big engine was forced to set the alarm bells ringing and secondly if it wasnt broken why change it i do remember where my dad worked that the key factor of the lorry was its unladen weight so he had a Mandator and a flat trailer with a payload of 22.5 tons so a 290 F88 or a 110/111 Scania was out of the question .
The sleeper cabs were not well recieved when they first became available on a bigger scale over here with some companies refusing to load them and didnt unions try to ban drivers sleeping in them ?
Gardners had a reputation of being a gaffers motor because they were reliable fuel efficient and slow but they got the job done.Some big fancy heavy motors arrive on our shores that hauliers knew very little about why would they jump in with 2 feet but eventually word got around and the rest is history

Again, I agree with you, you also have to factor in the fact that Seddon Atkinson (Carryfast uses them as an example, so will I) were a business, they were providing their customers with what they wanted, many of these customers wanted Gardner engines and low weight day cabs, the reason thay wanted them was because they had built up their business on the back of similar lorries from an earlier era, you cannot lay blame at the door of Gardner, Seddonm Atkinson or the successful hauliers for adopting the methods that they did, they had all made good money doing it that way for many years

However times were changing, the increase in weight to 38tons meant that ultimate payload was of less importance to the general haulier, the unions had failed in their attempt at banning the practice of sleeping in the cab (I suggested in another post, that maybe they had a point in that, seeing as sleeping in a rat infested layby that stinks of ■■■■ is a backwards step, compared to sleeping in a B&B as the unions wanted) the labour problems at British Manufacturers and long lead times meant that the foreigners got their foot in the door. Gardner had lost their once considerable advantages, unfortunately they never managed to regain their position at the top

Oh and BTW, the biggest engine you could get in a Seddon Atkinson was an E290 or RR290 for many years, there were the odd NTC335 and even fewer RR340LI models, but they were special builds and for the export market primarily, there’s a good reason for that, British buyers did not want, or need, a high horsepower lorry, not from Seddon Atkinson anyway, saying that Seddon Atkinson were wrong in not providing them is like saying that Ford were wrong for building Fiestas, Escorts and Cortinas when they should have been building a car to compete with a Rolls Royce or a Ferrari, it is horses for courses

[zb_anorak]

Carryfast:
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.

Peak torque of the 8LXB and the E290 occur at 12-1300rpm, peak power at 1850-1900rpm. One develops about 10% more. How different do you want the “driving style,” as you call it, to be? I do not confuse things, at least not simple stuff like this. I come on this site to learn from the memories and opinions of qualified, experienced people- not to be patronised by dreamers.

[carryfast]

newmercman:
you also have to factor in the fact that Seddon Atkinson (Carryfast uses them as an example, so will I) were a business, they were providing their customers with what they wanted, many of these customers wanted Gardner engines and low weight day cabs, the reason thay wanted them was because they had built up their business on the back of similar lorries from an earlier era, you cannot lay blame at the door of Gardner, Seddonm Atkinson or the successful hauliers for adopting the methods that they did, they had all made good money doing it that way for many years

However times were changing, the increase in weight to 38tons meant that ultimate payload was of less importance to the general haulier, the unions had failed in their attempt at banning the practice of sleeping in the cab (I suggested in another post, that maybe they had a point in that, seeing as sleeping in a rat infested layby that stinks of ■■■■ is a backwards step, compared to sleeping in a B&B as the unions wanted) the labour problems at British Manufacturers and long lead times meant that the foreigners got their foot in the door. Gardner had lost their once considerable advantages, unfortunately they never managed to regain their position at the top

Oh and BTW, the biggest engine you could get in a Seddon Atkinson was an E290 or RR290 for many years, there were the odd NTC335 and even fewer RR340LI models, but they were special builds and for the export market primarily, there’s a good reason for that, British buyers did not want, or need, a high horsepower lorry, not from Seddon Atkinson anyway, saying that Seddon Atkinson were wrong in not providing them is like saying that Ford were wrong for building Fiestas, Escorts and Cortinas when they should have been building a car to compete with a Rolls Royce or a Ferrari, it is horses for courses

The flaw in that idea is that sometimes what the market (seems to be) demanding in the short term isn’t always what the market demands in the long term and trying to satisfy that short term demand isn’t always in the long term interests of the company.

The fact is those manufacturers knew that the domestic market would ‘eventually’ make the jump from that first stage of going from 180-250 Gardner powered trucks to 290-300 up to 300-350 + which even at 32 t gross wasn’t an excessive/high power to weight ratio,let alone 38 t,at 10-12 hp per tonne which no one would really argue is not an efficient type of ratio for a commercial vehicle and that was certainly known within the manufacturing industry during the 1970’s although maybe not always as many of it’s customers as in more recent years.

Saying that manufacturers like SA were wrong in not forcing that process in the domestic market to take place a lot faster is actually proved correct by what actually happened when the foreign manufacturers then managed to take advantage of that fact when the domestic market started moving forwards to match the export markets.The problem for the uk manufacturers,is as I’ve said,it’s domestic market was lagging behind the foreign markets demands and it was those foreign makers that had the advantage of that situation in what was,for them,their domestic markets.

There doesn’t seem to be any reason as to why any of the big British truck manufacturers,including SA,couldn’t/shouldn’t have been pushing the market into accepting 300-400 hp engines in it’s products during the late 1970’s/early 1980’s and it’s that issue that affected it’s sales in just the same way as Ford lost sales to BMW by not developing the Zodiac/Garanada etc and then going backwards with the Mondeo instead.Which is probably why it then wasted a fortune in getting involved with Jaguar to get itself back into the rear drive saloon car market where it had made significant profits since at least the days of the Mk 2 Zodiac when BMW weren’t even in the race.

VALKYRIE really is on the money in this discussion.

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:

Carryfast:
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.

Peak torque of the 8LXB and the E290 occur at 12-1300rpm, peak power at 1850-1900rpm. One develops about 10% more. How different do you want the “driving style,” as you call it, to be? I do not confuse things, at least not simple stuff like this. I come on this site to learn from the memories and opinions of qualified, experienced people- not to be patronised by dreamers.

So the difference between a 180,which I was actually referring to,and a 290 is 10%,or even an 8 LXB if it’s compared with a 290 NTC, Who’s dreaming.

But,as I’ve said,the 350 + would have been a much better bet and probably more economical than the 290 ‘if’ driven right.

[saviem]

Evening all, ho, ho, ho, boy are you all at it now!!

Remember being woken up in a laybye for sleeping in your cab■■? Even in the 70s!! Gentlemen, backward legislation in the UK rules!!

Speed, yes the old Gardner powered lorries were slow, 52mph was about average. We have not really got much past that today have we? Granted our speed up hills was, shall we say a trifle “majestic”! but we got there. I remember standing in my friend Trevor Morris`s yard in Oswestry, when his son Phillip, (always an above average, and very competent driver), swept into the yard in a cloud of dust, driving a very “avant garde” DAF2600 drawbar. Trevor drily commented, “the man who has earned me money is about 15minutes behind”. And 15 minutes later an Atkinson MK1, 9ft 6in, tractor, 150LX arrived, no drama, a “proper haulage waggon”. Why?? Reliable, cheap to run, “driver abuse resistant” unburstable,economic, easy and cheap to repair and operate, with very low depreciation, and of course handsome!!

Not the one that at that time in my life I would have chosen to drive, but now in, (very), mature years I can see the real wisdom of his words. A lorry was, is, only a tool to do a cost effective job in a very “mature”, (low margin), industry. Different lorries, different specifications, and different manufacturers excelled in different segments of the industry. And always will!

My new “chopper” has 900hp!!1 I can do 200acres a day, (believe me Gentlemen that is an ego trip no 600hp lorry could ever compete with)!!! Sensible, in my operation, …no, but it is an indulgance, (and I would never criticise a mans lower powered choice)!! ah well, away to the Bollinger , bon nuit mes braves, Cheerio for now.

[carryfast]

Saviem:
Evening all, ho, ho, ho, boy are you all at it now!!

Remember being woken up in a laybye for sleeping in your cab■■? Even in the 70s!! Gentlemen, backward legislation in the UK rules!!

Speed, yes the old Gardner powered lorries were slow, 52mph was about average. We have not really got much past that today have we? Granted our speed up hills was, shall we say a trifle “majestic”! but we got there. I remember standing in my friend Trevor Morris`s yard in Oswestry, when his son Phillip, (always an above average, and very competent driver), swept into the yard in a cloud of dust, driving a very “avant garde” DAF2600 drawbar. Trevor drily commented, “the man who has earned me money is about 15minutes behind”. And 15 minutes later an Atkinson MK1, 9ft 6in, tractor, 150LX arrived, no drama, a “proper haulage waggon”. Why?? Reliable, cheap to run, “driver abuse resistant” unburstable,economic, easy and cheap to repair and operate, with very low depreciation, and of course handsome!!

Not the one that at that time in my life I would have chosen to drive, but now in, (very), mature years I can see the real wisdom of his words. A lorry was, is, only a tool to do a cost effective job in a very “mature”, (low margin), industry. Different lorries, different specifications, and different manufacturers excelled in different segments of the industry. And always will!

My new “chopper” has 900hp!!1 I can do 200acres a day, (believe me Gentlemen that is an ego trip no 600hp lorry could ever compete with)!!! Sensible, in my operation, …no, but it is an indulgance, (and I would never criticise a mans lower powered choice)!! ah well, away to the Bollinger , bon nuit mes braves, Cheerio for now.

It might upset a few people but I’m guessing the 2600 drawbar could probably shift more freight over more miles over the course of a year than the 150 could especially if there’s a few hills in the way.Although it was only the first step on the road to the 3600 by which time we all know what had become of Gardner and why.

[saviem]

Carryfast:

Saviem:
Evening all, ho, ho, ho, boy are you all at it now!!

Hello Geoffrey, Gentlemen, speaking as one who has owned, driven, bought and sold, 2800DKS, &DKSE, 3300, (oh and the odd 2600, which I really liked) , do please remember that the success of DAF was less the quality of the product, (those pesky head gaskets, compressors, oil and air leaks), but the incredible support packages, no, not the idea, or creation of our dear clog wearing friends, but David Mansell`s little team at Marlow, and after David, Phill Ives, (Jim McKelvies succesor at Ailsa Trucks, who became Mr DAF)!!, and dear old Roger Phillips, (and his pet Ducks)!

And DAFs image, due to perhaps the best marketing man ever to work in the British Truck Industry, Chris Thornycroft Smith, whose masterful use of “product placement”, gave DAF an image far in excess of their budget, or presence in the market place!! (and of course Chris`s beautiful assistant… Sandy)!

Oh, and for the afficianadoes of bhp, bmep, power in general, DAF never were “top dog”, and those cabs were b… cold to sleep in, but they were quick on the flat!! Away to more Bollinger, DAF engines, oh never as well engineered as a Gardner, but of another age, Cheerio for now.

[carryfast]

Saviem:

Carryfast:

Saviem:
Evening all, ho, ho, ho, boy are you all at it now!!

Hello Geoffrey, Gentlemen, speaking as one who has owned, driven, bought and sold, 2800DKS, &DKSE, 3300, (oh and the odd 2600, which I really liked) , do please remember that the success of DAF was less the quality of the product, (those pesky head gaskets, compressors, oil and air leaks), but the incredible support packages, no, not the idea, or creation of our dear clog wearing friends, but David Mansell`s little team at Marlow, and after David, Phill Ives, (Jim McKelvies succesor at Ailsa Trucks, who became Mr DAF)!!, and dear old Roger Phillips, (and his pet Ducks)!

And DAFs image, due to perhaps the best marketing man ever to work in the British Truck Industry, Chris Thornycroft Smith, whose masterful use of “product placement”, gave DAF an image far in excess of their budget, or presence in the market place!! (and of course Chris`s beautiful assistant… Sandy)!

Oh, and for the afficianadoes of bhp, bmep, power in general, DAF never were “top dog”, and those cabs were b… cold to sleep in, but they were quick on the flat!! Away to more Bollinger, DAF engines, oh never as well engineered as a Gardner, but of another age, Cheerio for now.

So not much use anywhere other than Holland then and those runs to Leeds and back just seemed like 3.5 hours each way and actually took longer than the 2534 with a limiter or a 2500.But the cab certainly seemed to be warm enough if the night heater was used when it was left parked for a while.

I’m sure there were a few hills on the way out here and back too and not a Gardner 180 powered ERF or SA in sight for some reason although I’m sure the Crow might have traded his F89 for one if he’d have found anyone daft enough to be using one to run out there.

viewtopic.php?f=35&t=13629&start=4860#p1270318

[newmercman]

Carryfast, your beloved Daf 2800 can be used as a metaphor in the context of Gardner Engines

At launch it was a very fine piece of equipment, over time it morphed into the 3300 and 3600, just as the 180 evolved into the 201 and latterly the 270turbo, but at the end of its time it was way behind the best on the market

I know I’m going to ■■■■ the Daf lovers off, but the 2800 wasn’t up to much

When it was launched in 1973 its contempories were the Volvo F88, Scania 110, MAN 232, Maggie Deutz 232, Mercedes 1924, Fiat 170, Saviem SM240 and the Berliet 260(?) Scammell Crusader and Leyland Marathon (there were also the Pegaso and Barrieros, but they never did much outside of Spain) The Daf was not head and shoulders above any of these, except maybe the three Germans, any of the others was its equal and in some cases better

Now jump forward ten years, it’s competition was the 2nd F10, Scania 112, MAN 321, Mercedes 1633, IVECO 190-30, Ford Transcontinental and the Leyland Roadtrain, again the Daf would only be middle of the road

At the end of its life in 1988, it was nowhere near as good as any of the competition and was long overdue for replacement

I have experience of three 2800s, the first a day cab 1979 model with that nasty 12spd constant mesh ZF box, a 1985 DKSE with 9spd Fuller and finally a 1987 ATI model, each of them shared the same faults, namely a cramped driving position, crap vision, a cold cab, air and oil leaks in abundance and with the exception of the Fuller, the gearboxes were horrible, the 12spd because it was an evil thing and the Ecosplit because it was slow, ponderous, notchy and had the World’s longest gearstick. As well as that they were never known for their pulling power and I have to wonder what people saw in them. My personal opinion of them is that they’re nothing special, I never ever thought “I would really like one of those 2800 Dafs”

So, to summarise, the Daf 2800, the Dutch version of a Gardner Engine

[carryfast]

newmercman:
Carryfast, your beloved Daf 2800 can be used as a metaphor in the context of Gardner Engines

At launch it was a very fine piece of equipment, over time it morphed into the 3300 and 3600, just as the 180 evolved into the 201 and latterly the 270turbo, but at the end of its time it was way behind the best on the market

I know I’m going to ■■■■ the Daf lovers off, but the 2800 wasn’t up to much

When it was launched in 1973 its contempories were the Volvo F88, Scania 110, MAN 232, Maggie Deutz 232, Mercedes 1924, Fiat 170, Saviem SM240 and the Berliet 260(?) Scammell Crusader and Leyland Marathon (there were also the Pegaso and Barrieros, but they never did much outside of Spain) The Daf was not head and shoulders above any of these, except maybe the three Germans, any of the others was its equal and in some cases better

Now jump forward ten years, it’s competition was the 2nd F10, Scania 112, MAN 321, Mercedes 1633, IVECO 190-30, Ford Transcontinental and the Leyland Roadtrain, again the Daf would only be middle of the road

At the end of its life in 1988, it was nowhere near as good as any of the competition and was long overdue for replacement

I have experience of three 2800s, the first a day cab 1979 model with that nasty 12spd constant mesh ZF box, a 1985 DKSE with 9spd Fuller and finally a 1987 ATI model, each of them shared the same faults, namely a cramped driving position, crap vision, a cold cab, air and oil leaks in abundance and with the exception of the Fuller, the gearboxes were horrible, the 12spd because it was an evil thing and the Ecosplit because it was slow, ponderous, notchy and had the World’s longest gearstick. As well as that they were never known for their pulling power and I have to wonder what people saw in them. My personal opinion of them is that they’re nothing special, I never ever thought “I would really like one of those 2800 Dafs”

So, to summarise, the Daf 2800, the Dutch version of a Gardner Engine

3300 v F10 or Leyland Roadtrain.DAF loses.

But seriously the development of the 680 from Routeman or even before to 3600 seems to me to have been a far better progression than anything which Gardner ever did from the 1960’s up to it’s demise notwithstanding whatever some arguably think of the old DAF cab or the wagon’s reliability.

For the Brits it’s probably Foden’s last products using the big power CAT or ■■■■■■■ options sold in the colonial markets that yet again prove the case that we really needed American help in at least engine and driveline technology to take on the best and stand a chance of at least matching them and the Brit manufacturers biggest enemy was it’s own backward thinking domestic market compared to it’s old colonial export markets.Unlike the old turbocharged 680 it was Gardner’s products that were the antithesis to that ideal at every step along the way and no surprise that no Gardner powered British trucks were there at the end unlike CAT and ■■■■■■■ ones and if it wasn’t for a bit of bad luck one other unmentionable US engine manufacturer.

It all,at least seems to show where we went wrong in getting involved with Europe and proves the case for the prosecution that our problem of backward products like the Gardner engine was just a symptom of the backward demands of our domestic market.Not one of the making of our manufacturers.

hankstruckpictures.com/pix/t … n_s108.jpg

hankstruckpictures.com/pix/t … s10895.jpg

[newmercman]

I never said FA about the 3300

I would still take a big cab Roadtrain with an E320 and a twin splitter over a 3300, a space cab on air suspension may swing things in the Daf’s favour though

A 3300 is F12 territory, space cab or not, the Daf wouldn’t get a look in

[kr79]

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.

I think you will find for better fuel economy the less gear changes you make the better the economy. You want to be up to a decent speed ASAP but without reving the nuts out of it.

[cav551]

A quick trawl through the past couple of days’ comments gives rise to the following:

When ■■■■■■■ had been fitted to the British built lorries for a few years, the conservative haulier decided to give one or two a try. His option at that precise moment (let’s say '66 - 72) was the NH220 which unfortunately for ■■■■■■■ was allied to a six speed David Brown or ZF 'box. The 220 also produced its peak torque high up the rev range.

In the USA with long term experience of this and CF’s beloved Detroit it was/had been normal practice to spec the vehicle with an auxiliary (Brownie) transmission, doubling or even tripling the number of gears. The acknowledged way was to keep the revs well up, normally above 1700rpm because the engines just dropped off the bottom if the revs fell too low. Fuel was cheap in the USA and with vast distances to cover, the vehicles were geared for high speed, which meant multi-speed transmissions to maintain that speed. In fact the exact opposite of the UK conditions.

Put into use in the UK, exactly the same need to rev the engine to maintain its speed advantage was quickly found. Towards the end of this period there were changes, but paradoxically the introduction of the multi speed Fuller and the more powerful NH250, served to keep the engine in its higher rev band where it was at its thirstiest. Few wished to try the more powerful turbocharged small cam ■■■■■■■ that were on offer.

Move on in time to the real Foreign competition starting and hauliers looked at what the British manufacturers had on offer. Their choices were the Gardner, Rolls which only a few comparatively had tried and ■■■■■■■■ Some of those whose typical work and destinations had not changed a great deal, either bought foreign, or stayed with Gardner. These were the ones who had tried ■■■■■■■ and been put off. It wasn’t until the introduction of the Big Cam engine that a ■■■■■■■ engine was being installed in a British vehicle that was capable of changing their mind. By then the Europeans had gained their foothold and the drivers were pestering for the smart comfortable cabs.

So, maybe we can put the blame for the decline onto ■■■■■■■ and the chassis builders for introducing the wrong product to market that succeeded in putting off the buyers!

[cav551]

DAF late 70s early 80s:

The company I worked for around 78-82 had traditionally run Bedford KG 19ton artics hauling 36ft boxvans.
A decision had been taken to try DAF. A disaster, the FT 1600 22 ton unit was an absolute dog to run. The drivers loved the thing. Comparatively quick and a lot more comfortable. DAF aid soon became known by us as DEAF aid. Granted the vehicle was attended or recovered quite quickly, but in so many cases the dealers staff had never seen one and knew little about it. The wait for parts went on forever, and when they did turn up frequently they were wrong. Trying to run inter depot trunking, factory collection and full load deliveries with a fleet of 7 DAFs and 5 Bedfords when 5 of the DAFs are off the road at the same time was challenging.