Gardner ENGINES

[ramone]

newmercman:

pursy:
I worked in the workshop for Taylors of Martley,they ran some 8lxbs and 8lxcts day and night. The night trunk was Worcester to Carlisle and the day run would be perhaps down to Devon. They would like a gallon of oil each shift.When you finally got the engine to bits the bores,rings and pistons were about knacked. If you just tried to put just rings on them the piston would drop down the bore without tapping it.
If it got really cold the only way to start them was to remove the air filter element and get a fire going.
Valve guide wear was bad too, leave them and the valve would drop and really spoil the fun.

So they used a gallon of oil a shift, wouldn’t start unless you set them on fire and used to suffer from dropped valves

And people look back on them with fond memories and spout crap like legendary reliability

They were crap, plain and simple, that is why they went out of business

Dont mince your words nmm, come to the point,…just 1 small flaw in your analysis though is that there was a long waiting list for these “crap” engines with tales on here from some well respected hauliers that the likes of ERF and Atkinson to name just 2 tried to fob customers off with Rolls Royce or ■■■■■■■ because the demand for Gardners left a shortage

[ashleyp]

Well said, I know that Foden had to fit the two stroke because they couldn’t get enough gardners.

[system]

When i worked for a m/c com[early 70s] the workshop req. some parts for a 180 engine,on contacting gardners at patriroft they were told the parts were out of stock but try suttons at st helens as they carried a large stock,problem solved.
regards dave.

[windrush]

The area where Gardner DID gain compared to R/R and ■■■■■■■ was in their lighter weight, around 5 cwt if memory serves me. The downside was that speccing a Gardner also meant added cost as there was a premium to pay for the priviledge, plus they got behind with orders when the factory was on strike due to worker’s pay disputes.
Ours were generally reliable, apart from seizure problems on the end cylinders we only had a few that threw a con rod and most were rebuilt because they were worn out after 3 or 4 years. I went out to one which broke down just off the M1 at Kegworth, the driver had complained of a missfire and wouldnt risk getting it home, when I got there I found a puddle of oil with pieces of aluminium crankcase amongst it so it required more than a small adjustment with a screwdriver!! You could tell when they were getting ready for a rebuild as they had a certain smell about them on tickover which I never found on other engines. Even some of the Rolls engines that replaced them needed liner replacement after a few years of running, though very little else went wrong with them and they were certainly a lot livelier with not much difference in fuel consumption.

Pete.

[carryfast]

ramone:

newmercman:

pursy:
I worked in the workshop for Taylors of Martley,they ran some 8lxbs and 8lxcts day and night. The night trunk was Worcester to Carlisle and the day run would be perhaps down to Devon. They would like a gallon of oil each shift.When you finally got the engine to bits the bores,rings and pistons were about knacked. If you just tried to put just rings on them the piston would drop down the bore without tapping it.
If it got really cold the only way to start them was to remove the air filter element and get a fire going.
Valve guide wear was bad too, leave them and the valve would drop and really spoil the fun.

So they used a gallon of oil a shift, wouldn’t start unless you set them on fire and used to suffer from dropped valves

And people look back on them with fond memories and spout crap like legendary reliability

They were crap, plain and simple, that is why they went out of business

Dont mince your words nmm, come to the point,…just 1 small flaw in your analysis though is that there was a long waiting list for these “crap” engines with tales on here from some well respected hauliers that the likes of ERF and Atkinson to name just 2 tried to fob customers off with Rolls Royce or ■■■■■■■ because the demand for Gardners left a shortage

There’s no flaw in the analysis.What it actually shows is that my idea,that the Brit manufacturers were lumbered with backward thinking customers,who couldn’t get their heads around the idea that any reliability and fuel consumption advantages which the thing had,was just a result of the fact that it was understressed to the point of inefficiency,is correct.

The manufacturers weren’t trying to fob anyone off with Rolls or ■■■■■■■ motors what they were actually trying to do was drag them kicking and screaming into the late 20 th century.Unfortunately as history shows it didn’t work in time and when the customers eventually realised that a decent 11-15 + Litre turbocharged engine is the way to go it was all too late.

[bewick]

Oh! so what was “CF’s” remedy-----we all change to KM and TM Bedfords with the DD engine ? Well if we had changed the country would have ground to a halt as a result of all the breakdowns we would have experienced,and all the good drivers would have “jacked” PDQ if they’ed been expected to drive a Big Bedford !! Answer me this CF,why would Suttons of St.Helens (for instance),as one of the most successful British hauliers of the 50’s/60’s/&70’s have run nothing but Gardner engines in their Atki’s and later on ERF’s ? Now don’t even dare suggest that Alf Sutton was wrong in operating his fleet with nothing but Gardner engines or ,my Son,you really are well away with the “little green men” and I will have to have a stern word with Matron about your medication!! Cheers Bewick.

[lawrence_dunbar]

I hope you are right, & it is a big one so he never recovers, We dont need the likes of him on this thread, I look upon the persons that we converse with here as PROFESTIONALS NOT TOTAL nobheads, like he is , Regards Larry.

[carryfast]

Bewick:
Oh! so what was “CF’s” remedy-----we all change to KM and TM Bedfords with the DD engine ? Well if we had changed the country would have ground to a halt as a result of all the breakdowns we would have experienced,and all the good drivers would have “jacked” PDQ if they’ed been expected to drive a Big Bedford !! Answer me this CF,why would Suttons of St.Helens (for instance),as one of the most successful British hauliers of the 50’s/60’s/&70’s have run nothing but Gardner engines in their Atki’s and later on ERF’s ? Now don’t even dare suggest that Alf Sutton was wrong in operating his fleet with nothing but Gardner engines or ,my Son,you really are well away with the “little green men” and I will have to have a stern word with Matron about your medication!! Cheers Bewick.

Blimey next you’ll be telling me that any driver would have preferred to drive one of those gutless underpowered guvnors’ motors to a DAF 2800 which really wasn’t actually that different to the TM in most respects except the DAF being a bit less powerful in the case of the 4400.

History of what actually happened shows who’s right in that how many operators were still using those Gardner powered Atkis/ERF’s etc from the 1980’s on compared to those who jumped ship and voted with their feet.Which is why there were a lot more DAF 2800’s,Volvo F 12’s etc etc being used from the 1980’s on than 240 powered Guy big J’s etc .

While the TM in 4400 form,wether powered by the 8V92 or the 380 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ have been a better competitor to those than anything built/designed here during the 1960’s/70’s which is more or less all that most of the Brit manufacturers had in the armoury to offer when it mattered.

The fact is,just like all those guvnors’ motors which they were fitted in,Gardner engines were a backward zb product kept in production long past their sell by date and were just a reflection of the type of backward short sighted demands,faced by the domestic manufacturers in the domestic market,from their backward thinking short sighted customers at the time.

[carryfast]

Lawrence Dunbar:
I hope you are right, & it is a big one so he never recovers, We dont need the likes of him on this thread, I look upon the persons that we converse with here as PROFESTIONALS NOT TOTAL nobheads, like he is , Regards Larry.

What’s your problem.I’ve said nothing much different on the subject than nmm.You’ll just have to get used to the fact that sometimes not eveyone agrees on everything.

[lawrence_dunbar]

Well C/F I dont think anyone in their right mind with agree with you, You must be fron another planet, you just spout CRAP about the British, are you a Hoodie or what ? Regards Larry, PS A true Brit.

[ashleyp]

I agree that towards 80’s people did steer away from Gardner, as bigger and more powerful engines came about, but during the 50s & 60’s almost every lorry was fitted with a Gardner. Most of the fairground guys still use gardners in they’re generating sets because they are so economical and will run on practically anything like kerosine, dirty engine oil, transformer oil, vegetable oil etc also a lot of fishing boats and canal boats still use them.

I know that they couldn’t really compete with some of the bigger H.P engines in the 80’s but they always got you home. I’m not saying that the other engines were bad but we were 100% Gardner until 1989… Then we discovered Caterpillar. We are are now 100% cat in our lorries at around 7mpg… Not as good as the 15 we got with the gardners.

[kr79]

At the end of the day the man from Surrey had a point. Look at erf they went for the cp strategy to survive. And that was the Brits selling point at the end ■■■■■■■ fuller Rockwell with the l10 ■■■■■■■ picked up the gardner mantle of reliable cheap fuel efficient transport but at least without. The waiting list.

[bewick]

Carryfast:

Lawrence Dunbar:
I hope you are right, & it is a big one so he never recovers, We dont need the likes of him on this thread, I look upon the persons that we converse with here as PROFESTIONALS NOT TOTAL nobheads, like he is , Regards Larry.

What’s your problem.I’ve said nothing much different on the subject than nmm.You’ll just have to get used to the fact that sometimes not eveyone agrees on everything.

CF my son,you could fall out with yourself on a desert island,I really must have a word with Matron as she appears to have given you too much laughing gas to-night !! They’ll never get the lights switched off in your cell,sorry,ward,to-night !! What have you been on to-day ? Glue or Easi start ? Cheers Bewick.

[bewick]

kr79:
At the end of the day the man from Surrey had a point. Look at erf they went for the cp strategy to survive. And that was the Brits selling point at the end ■■■■■■■ fuller Rockwell with the l10 ■■■■■■■ picked up the gardner mantle of reliable cheap fuel efficient transport but at least without. The waiting list.

Too late “kr79” the “proverbial horse” had bolted by that time and the Scandinavians had got a firm hold,sad,but never-the-less a painful fact. Cheers Bewick.

[lawrence_dunbar]

Well said Dennis, I agree with you on all counts, This C/F Geazer is a right know all about sweet effall, He has a brain that never got into gear, if thats if a gearbox was able to cope with something that was , well useless as something like C/F, What a load of crap this geazer rants Eh , Regards LARRY

[juddian]

I’ll agree with CF.

Unfortunately or not i came into the artic game in mid 70’s, just at the end of the hard graft era, but whether for good or bad ended up on old school soon to be defunct companies still running Gardners ironically, he does have a point, they were way past their sell by date.

Not so sure Bedfords TM would be a good comparison though, a 3mpg 2 stroke whilst sounding woundrous wasn’t going to be long for our industry with our fuel costs.

Who on earth in their right mind would, in the late 70’s still want to run Gardners that were no better on fuel than an E290 ■■■■■■■ whilst that ■■■■■■■ could do half as much work in a day again, and given decent servicing go on for a million miles with barely a hiccup, and didn’t suffer with fuel waxing problems unless allowed to freeze with engine stopped for several hours in minus God knows what temps.

Laughingly in the mid 80’s the company i worked for tried to get us to use a 300 Gardner on a night job that involved live loading inside a huge building, we needed extra vehicles all of a sudden.
After 2 nights the Gardner engined ERF was banned from the building never to return, smoked the bloody place out, if we’d tried to get back in with it they’d have downed tools and gone on strike…ended up with a rented Powerliner heap of junk.

As for reliable and always get you home, the S39 Foden i drove ended up being dragged in when it dropped a valve, as did an A series ERF that left me marooned in bloody freezing fog for hours on end one night when it too dropped a valve.

The Foden, a '72 build was flat out at 48mph, it took forever to get anywhere, engine rebuilt around '77, 5 years of day work only and bloody rebuild, i don’t call that legendary reliability by a long chalk.

I’m far from anti British, if i had my choice i’d still be driving round in a Sed Ack 401 with a 14 litre ■■■■■■■ grumbling nicely under the bonnet…and i voted not to go into the common market when traitor heath conned the country…

British trucks could be every bit as good as the foreigners, better if specified right, ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ Fuller/Rockwell, what more could a lorry driver want, unfortunately the makers didn’t see fit to beat the likes of Volvo and Scania at their own game, they weren’t interested in providing overnight servicing or overnight parts back up…the rest is history as instead of getting the job right they sold out to johny foreigner, just like almost everyone else in this once promised land.

For most of my life i tried passionately to buy everything Made in Britain, by the middle of the 90’s i realised i was the only silly bugger still doing so.

[bewick]

Lawrence Dunbar:
Well said Dennis, I agree with you on all counts, This C/F Geazer is a right know all about sweet effall, He has a brain that never got into gear, if thats if a gearbox was able to cope with something that was , well useless as something like C/F, What a load of crap this geazer rants Eh , Regards LARRY

Actually Larry,I believe CF is a main board member of “the fast eddie outfit” ( Southern region,of course!) he parks Jumbo jets up at Southend Worldwide Hub !!! Cheers Dennis.

[carryfast]

Bewick:

kr79:
At the end of the day the man from Surrey had a point. Look at erf they went for the cp strategy to survive. And that was the Brits selling point at the end ■■■■■■■ fuller Rockwell with the l10 ■■■■■■■ picked up the gardner mantle of reliable cheap fuel efficient transport but at least without. The waiting list.

Too late “kr79” the “proverbial horse” had bolted by that time and the Scandinavians had got a firm hold,sad,but never-the-less a painful fact. Cheers Bewick.

The question is though why was it that the Scandinavians never realised the ‘benefits’ of using Gardner power and built them under licence instead of going to all the trouble of designing those turbocharged Volvo and Scania in house motors.

But how could any ‘horse’ have ‘bolted’ considering that the Scandinavians didn’t take up the idea of using those,brilliant,successful economical Gardners.If you’re right then the Scandinavians were actually wrong and we’d be writing this from the point of view of it in fact being the Scandinavians who missed the boat by not using Gardners built under licence in the F 10/12 and Scania 110/140 etc etc .Just think of the missed opportunity in not fitting the 240 in the 140 instead of the Scania V8.

[newmercman]

ramone:

newmercman:

pursy:
I worked in the workshop for Taylors of Martley,they ran some 8lxbs and 8lxcts day and night. The night trunk was Worcester to Carlisle and the day run would be perhaps down to Devon. They would like a gallon of oil each shift.When you finally got the engine to bits the bores,rings and pistons were about knacked. If you just tried to put just rings on them the piston would drop down the bore without tapping it.
If it got really cold the only way to start them was to remove the air filter element and get a fire going.
Valve guide wear was bad too, leave them and the valve would drop and really spoil the fun.

So they used a gallon of oil a shift, wouldn’t start unless you set them on fire and used to suffer from dropped valves

And people look back on them with fond memories and spout crap like legendary reliability

They were crap, plain and simple, that is why they went out of business

Dont mince your words nmm, come to the point,…just 1 small flaw in your analysis though is that there was a long waiting list for these “crap” engines with tales on here from some well respected hauliers that the likes of ERF and Atkinson to name just 2 tried to fob customers off with Rolls Royce or ■■■■■■■ because the demand for Gardners left a shortage

Except the flaw is not quite a flaw, the reason there was a waiting list was more down to Gardner’s failure to produce enough engines, this wasn’t because of their popularity, as both ■■■■■■■ and Rolls Royce seemed to manage fine, even though they were selling more engines, it was the arrogance that carried on within the company until it caused its closure

I’m quite sure that most engines in the sixties suffered the same problems with oil consumption and everything else as the Gardners did, but every other engine manufacturer raised their game and started produce more efficient and more reliable engines, Gardner did not

Even taking the turbocharged Gardner into account, for those that will argue that they did try to move with the times, they made such a mess of it, you would think that they had done it on purpose to prove that turbocharged engines wouldn’t work, only problem was, every other turbocharged engine worked just fine

[gingerfold]

Hugh Gardner, the autocratic MD of Gardners, would not contemplate turbo-charging a Gardner engine. He considered it to be “cheating”, irrespective of where the marketplace had moved on to by the 1970s. His brother John, who with Hugh had designed the world’s first successful direct injection diesel engine for automotive purposes in 1930 was more open minded, and John’s son Paul was tasked with a secret project to design a turbo-charged Gardner. It was carried out in the spares warehouse, away from the main factory and Hugh Gardner’s prying eyes, but undoubtedly he knew what was going on. When Hawker Siddley bought Gardners in 1976, and Hugh eventually retired, Hawker’s experience of turbo-charging from its Lister engines division was used by Paul Gardner.

Incidentally, Hugh Gardner’s stance on turbo-charging echoed that of W.O. Bentley in the 1920s. Bentley, who was principally an engine designer would not contemplate supercharging his car engines, which had been successful at Le Mans, and by the late 1920s were rivalled by more powerful (but less reliable supercharged Mercedes). Although Bentley is principally remembered for its four consecutive wins at Le Mans in the late 1920s, including its famous supercharged four and a half litre blower Bentleys, the supercharging of Bentley engines was initially a private venture, started by Tim Birkin, one of the Bentley racing team drivers, funded by the Hon. Dorothy Paget, and extremely wealthy and very eccentric lady. To cement the Gardner / Bentley connection, a 4LW powered a Bentley car to a class win, and third overall, in the 1934 Monte Carlo Rally.