So if the us truck product do much better why have they never realy taken off in Europe. I know a few firms here and on the mainland have run them and there was attempts back in the 70s to set up dealer networks when it would have been easier than now with type approval etc but nothing ever realy become of it.
Carryfast:
kr79:
So why come the 60s did British engine builders not start from scratch and design new engines for the motorway age I’m sure we still had people who had the knowhow.Why when there’s an acceptable US product already available which the customers will buy with it’s development costs already paid for by US buyers.In which case it’s a case of throwing away a competitive advantage because,as I’ve said,that saving can be passed on to the customer in the purchase price.
Which is why my old employers never went to Rolls Royce in 1971 asking for the turbocharged Rolls Royce CV12 to be developed to provide them with the required 600 hp + needed for the job.Unlike the army could afford to do later with the help of tax payer cash which the private sector didn’t have the benefit of.
The surprising thing is that the US was happy to provide componentry to British manufacturers which we then used to (successfully) compete with American ones like Oshkosh.
So you want to build up trade tariffs to make European products uncompetitive to ours as you have said on other threads but it’s ok for us to buy profucts from America without this disadvantage why not go to scania and buy loose engines ?
kr79:
So if the us truck product do much better why have they never realy taken off in Europe. I know a few firms here and on the mainland have run them and there was attempts back in the 70s to set up dealer networks when it would have been easier than now with type approval etc but nothing ever realy become of it.
For the same reason that my old employers were ordering both the DAF 2800 and Gardner 180 powered day cabbed wagons at the same time and then found that the day cabbed Gardner options had been a mistake. 
kr79:
Carryfast:
kr79:
So why come the 60s did British engine builders not start from scratch and design new engines for the motorway age I’m sure we still had people who had the knowhow.Why when there’s an acceptable US product already available which the customers will buy with it’s development costs already paid for by US buyers.In which case it’s a case of throwing away a competitive advantage because,as I’ve said,that saving can be passed on to the customer in the purchase price.
Which is why my old employers never went to Rolls Royce in 1971 asking for the turbocharged Rolls Royce CV12 to be developed to provide them with the required 600 hp + needed for the job.Unlike the army could afford to do later with the help of tax payer cash which the private sector didn’t have the benefit of.
The surprising thing is that the US was happy to provide componentry to British manufacturers which we then used to (successfully) compete with American ones like Oshkosh.
So you want to build up trade tariffs to make European products uncompetitive to ours as you have said on other threads but it’s ok for us to buy profucts from America without this disadvantage why not go to scania and buy loose engines ?
Because American products have historically had the advantage of economy of scale in terms of development and production costs so you usually get a better,or at least as good,often more powerful,product for less purchasing cost.Which is how the Ozzies did what the Brits say can’t be done. 
But the present state of the economy v that of our old trading partners in the colonies says everything about our trading relationship with europe. 
Carryfast:
What I’m ‘actually’ suggesting,as I’ve said on countless other posts,
We noticed.
Carryfast:
is that the difference ( which is a matter of wether it has the built in reduncancy of being able to accept more stress than it’s originally designed for ) between a naturally aspirated engine design,that will happily accept retro fit turbocharging and one that won’t,isn’t there by design it’s there by accident because in the cases of the Gardner,the 680 and the 14 Litre ■■■■■■■ no one at the design stage knew
How can you possibly see into their minds? They did this work 50-odd years ago. Even if you were able to talk to the dead, how could you understand what they were saying? They were qualified mechanical engineers.
Carryfast:
that they were going to eventually be used,as much if not more,in turbocharged form as naturally aspirated form.It’s only at the later stages of development when those issues were sorted out in the case of the 680 but the fact is those DAF engineers knew
How did they know? How can you know whether they knew or not? I suppose they were cleverer than the engineers who designed the engines in the first place, like yourself.
Carryfast:
that it would manage it and had the potential in it before they started or they wouldn’t have wasted the money and rescources on it and would have chucked it on the scrap heap and started on a new design from the beginning.Whereas Gardner’s engineers had already been told by the thing’s designer not to bother because he already knew
How did he know? How can you know that he knew? Turbocharging was in its infancy in the 1950s. He designed the best N/A engine in the world, in a market almost universally naturally aspirated. Why would he have spent more than a tea break considering turbochargers, when his goal was to design an N/A engine?
Carryfast:
that his design didn’t have the type of redundancy,in it’s ability to accept more stress,sufficient enough to make the figures required,reliably. Blah blah blah.
Is there anyone who has worked on lorry engine design, on this forum, who can use his credentials to shut this fabricant up, permanently?
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
What I’m ‘actually’ suggesting,as I’ve said on countless other posts,
We noticed.
Carryfast:
is that the difference ( which is a matter of wether it has the built in reduncancy of being able to accept more stress than it’s originally designed for ) between a naturally aspirated engine design,that will happily accept retro fit turbocharging and one that won’t,isn’t there by design it’s there by accident because in the cases of the Gardner,the 680 and the 14 Litre ■■■■■■■ no one at the design stage knewHow can you possibly see into their minds? They did this work 50-odd years ago. Even if you were able to talk to the dead, how could you understand what they were saying? They were qualified mechanical engineers.
Carryfast:
that they were going to eventually be used,as much if not more,in turbocharged form as naturally aspirated form.It’s only at the later stages of development when those issues were sorted out in the case of the 680 but the fact is those DAF engineers knew
How did they know? How can you know whether they knew or not? I suppose they were cleverer than the engineers who designed the engines in the first place, like yourself.
Carryfast:
that it would manage it and had the potential in it before they started or they wouldn’t have wasted the money and rescources on it and would have chucked it on the scrap heap and started on a new design from the beginning.Whereas Gardner’s engineers had already been told by the thing’s designer not to bother because he already knewHow did he know? How can you know that he knew? Turbocharging was in its infancy in the 1950s. He designed the best N/A engine in the world, in a market almost universally naturally aspirated. Why would he have spent more than a tea break considering turbochargers, when his goal was to design an N/A engine?
Carryfast:
that his design didn’t have the type of redundancy,in it’s ability to accept more stress,sufficient enough to make the figures required,reliably. Blah blah blah.Is there anyone who has worked on lorry engine design, on this forum, who can use his credentials to shut this fabricant up, permanently?
He didn’t design anything like the ‘best naturally aspirated engine in the world’ if the test is wether the thing will accept retro fit turbocharging like the 14 Litre ■■■■■■■■■■■ it’s not my fault if the historical facts of what actually happened don’t fit your ideas.
Carryfast:
kr79:
So if the us truck product do much better why have they never realy taken off in Europe. I know a few firms here and on the mainland have run them and there was attempts back in the 70s to set up dealer networks when it would have been easier than now with type approval etc but nothing ever realy become of it.For the same reason that my old employers were ordering both the DAF 2800 and Gardner 180 powered day cabbed wagons at the same time and then found that the day cabbed Gardner options had been a mistake.
Yes we did plod away with low powered day cabs to long but why did scania Volvo Mercedes etc crack the major European markets with higher powered trucks but not white kenworth etc.
Look at paccars first purchase in Europe in foden. The British market and to a less extent Europe were prepared to look at buying an assembled truck ie choice of ■■■■■■■ cat or tools engines choice of transmissions etc why not go the whole hog and put a cab over peterblt or kenworth cab on it but keep European steering on it do it could go round corners.
Why not when daf joined the fold offer a foden with the xf super space cab with a big ■■■■■■■ and luxury interior to appeal to owner drivers and smaller firms looking at premium vehicles.
Carryfast:
He didn’t design anything like the ‘best naturally aspirated engine in the world’ if the test is wether the thing will accept retro fit turbocharging like the 14 Litre ■■■■■■■■■■■ it’s not my fault if the historical facts of what actually happened don’t fit your ideas.
The historical fact is that that was not the test; it is your own idea.
Why do you not own up to the fact that you have no qualifications or experience in engine design, and that you base your repetitive, illogical musings on a handful of magazine articles and one overheard conversation?
I believe that in later days Gardner’s were well aware of their shortcomings performance wise compared to other manufacturer’s. Back in 1981 we had a Foden eight legger tanker fitted with the LXC and a Fuller 9 speed, it was pathetic on hills due mainly to the ratios in the Fuller box instead of the Foden 12 speed. I took it fully laden up to Patricroft for Gardner to evaluate it, going over Long Hill between Buxton and Whaley Bridge was a painfull experience for a start! 
The Gardner mechanic put various test guages on it and it passed all their tests so they got their test driver to take it for a spin up the M63/M62, we actually managed to overtake a Scania 80 which was fully laden with steel on a triaxle trailer and belching clouds of black smoke up the drag past the Worsley split which pleased the test driver no end, but everything else pi**ed past us. When we returned to the factory I was told that “if you expected the truck to keep up with ■■■■■■■ and R/Royce engined vehicles then your gaffer ordered the wrong engine for the task and should have bought a truck fitted with those engines” and I seem to recall that is exactly what they did from then on!
Pete.
DAF Diesel Engines.
Thanks Carryfast for the link on the great Kenworth Motor Trucks. 
From what I read on this thread there seems to be some confusion about DAF diesel engine design and production,especially in regard to the 1950s and 1960s.
Both Hercules diesel and petrol engines and Perkins diesel engines were fitted to DAF motor
lorries in the early 1950s.Leyland decided to sell engines to other commercial vehicle
manufacturers,such as Seddon,Bedford,Pegaso,Shelvoke & Drewery-SD,Dodge-Kew,Sisu,Scania Vabis
and,from 1955,DAF - both the latter two marques based some of their own future engines on
the Leyland O.350 and O.680 Diesel Engines.
DAF began it’s own diesel engine production in 1957,and initially,DAF’s Leyland licence -built
engines supplemented Leyland engines that were imported from Leyland Motors in England.
DAF began producing a turbocharged version of the O.350 engine in 1959,designated DS575,the success of which encouraged DAF to come out with a bigger version of this engine:The 6.15
litre 138 BHP DF615 - a later turbocharged version was the DT615,which produced 168 BHP.
Also in 1957,DAF started using the Leyland O.680 engine and later on the Leyland P680 Power Plus.
Designated DP680,and producing 220 BHP (20 BHP more that the Leyland version),this engine powered DAF’s heavy lorry range.
The year of 1968 saw the DAF 1160-Series bored-out licence-built P680 11.6 litre Diesel Engine
Range introduced:-
DK 1160,230 BHP.NA.
DKA 1160,250 BHP,which had a ram air induction system.NA.
The DAF designed and developed 825-Series 8.25 litre DH825 also came out in 1968:-
DH825,163 BHP.NA.
DHB,218 BHP.Turbocharged.
1972 saw the introduction of the:-
DKB 1160,304 BHP.Turbocharged.
Further developments of the above engines followed.
I’m sure that before DAF carried out the 1955 engine deal with Leyland,DAF and it’s engineers
gave the Leyland engine range a really close and thorough examination,including potential
engine developments -including turbocharging potential - before DAF did the deal with Leyland.
This forward thinking on DAF’s part helped the company to became a really successful lorry,
motorcoach and bus manufacturer.Since most lorry,motorcoach and bus engine makers were coming out with turbocharged -and supercharged in certain cases - engines in the 1950s,DAF did not want to be left behind in the power stakes. 
I’ve already come out with a detailed list of when commercial vehicle engine makers began
producing turbocharged and supercharged diesel engines,which mainly began in the 1950s.I posted
a more detailed list with production commencement dates,engine designations,etc,on page 10,
Tuesday,21st August,2012…and here is that list again:-
The list below shows dates or periods when certain well known commercial vehicle engine manufacturers began to produce supercharged (S) and/or turbocharged (T) diesel engines:-
AEC.T 1950s.AVT690/AHT690,etc, For industrial,freight and passenger vehicles.
Berliet.T 1959. M635 (640). Magic engine models.MDO3.
B.M.M.O.-Midland Red .T 1959.KL 8.028-litre Turbocharged 138 BHP Diesel Engines,with CAV Turbochargers.
Caterpillar.T 1955.
Crossley.S 1947.HOE9.
■■■■■■■■■ 1954.Six-cylinder NT,NRT,JT and V12-cylinder VT12.
DAF.T 1959. DS537.
Daimler.T 1958. CDS6 Turbocharged CVD6-SD Single Decker Motorcoaches and Buses.
Detroit Diesel.S 1938,T 1957. 71-Series Vee-Type Range:6V71 V6, 8V71 V8,12V71 V12,16V71 V16.
Fiat-IVECO.T 1981.
Foden.S 1948,T 1962. Supercharged FD4,FD6. Turbocharged Dynamic FD6 Mk 7. An experimental FD6 Mk III,fitted with a CAV turbocharger,producing 210 BHP was built in 1960.
Gardner.T 1981. 6LXCT.8LXCT.
Leyland.T 1968.690, Beaver Freightline BV69.32PTR Tractive Unit,with two pedal semi-automatic transmission.From 1971 most of Leyand’s engine range was turbocharged.
Magirus-Deutz.T 1950s.Deutz BF12L 614,etc.
MAN.T.1956.D1246T.
Meadows.T 1950s.
Mercedes-Benz.T 1948.Produced turbocharged diesel engines for special vehicles,turbocharged engines became optional in 1968 and standard in 1980.
OM.S 1958. Tigre,6870 cc, 135 BHP.
Perkins.T 1964.T6.354.
Rolls-Royce.S,T 1952.Supercharged C6SFL,etc,Turbocharged C6TFL,etc.
Scania,Scania-Vabis.T 1951. Not used in lorries until 1954,DS10 introduced in 1958.
Thornycroft.T 1950s.KRN6/S,etc.
Volvo.T 1954.TD96AS. In the early 1960s turbocharged engines accounted for 75% of heavy lorry engine production.
A final thought:If the American ■■■■■■■ Engine Company,which has been really successful since
the 1930s at least ,had been managed like L.Gardner & Sons Ltd was managed ,■■■■■■■ would have gone out of business in the 1950s or 1960s! 
- because no American operators of heavy motor trucks
would put up with the same kind of underpowered engine nonsense that came out of the
Gardner company! That is another objective fact
VALKYRIE.
VALKYRIE:
A final thought:If the American ■■■■■■■ Engine Company,which has been really successful since
the 1930s at least
would put up with the same kind of underpowered engine nonsense that came out of the
Gardner company!VALKYRIE.
^ This.I think the same could be said about the US truck manufacturing industry in general in most cases 
.
Although I think ■■■■■■■ got lucky with the 14 Litre’s versatility in being able to be taken from the naturally aspirated 220 type outputs to 300-400 big cam type outputs.Or could that capability of being pushed to those levels actually have been put there by design from day 1 rather than my thoughts so far by accident .
In which case even I’ve so far failed to give the US truck and truck component manufacturers the credit which they’d deserve in that case.
newmercman:
Ramone, as Saviem so rightly said, Daf owe their success in the UK to their DafAid service, not because their product was better than anything elseAnd ironically wasnt it an ex AEC man that set up DAFAID ?
Thanks for the detail Valkyrie. I would question whether DAF had much choice, when they went into the loose engine market. European builders were vertically-integrated, and would not want competition from DAF- they would rather sell a complete lorry. Equally, DAF would want to differentiate itself from them- they would have had some difficulty selling the F2600, if it had, for example, an MAN engine. The sales spiel would have been along the lines of, “Yes, but ours has a better chassis/cab…” Both Gardner and Leyland were renowned, at the time, for building great diesels. Their willingness to flog their expertise all over Europe indicated that they regarded the sales as a bit of bonus, so they probably came at a good price.
I would be very interested to hear the views of someone who had experience of the DAF DP680- was its reliability superior to the Leyland version?
Hello/evening all, great to see all of your contributions! Agreement rules, I see!!!
Well today was a sort of all time record for this old boy, 18hours virtually non stop, only the Barley to finish off, and my lads are still carting away the grain from the “Claas” act! And here I am, having shed my overalls, ready for the shower, with threats from “she who must,” (is), obeyed, ringing in my ears, “do not look at that old lorry computer site”", …and of course I have!! So a few irrevelent comments.
Valkyrie, excellent factual details, but reading your comments, …surely you have never run, or driven lorries for a living? Let alone worked with them, or even within the actual industry. Your posts, (and again I acknowlege the historical, factual content therin), they so much remind me of the vitriolic posts of Scania-Volvo on Big Lorry Blog. Perchance you are one and the same??..Believe me “my” Micky Mouse Foden , she was never, known as a “Spaceship Sputnik”, …oh gawd give me strength!!!
gingerfold, (Graham), thank you for injecting a healthy dose of factual realism into this thread, I, (and many more), hope that you turn your analytical skills into revealing more of our industries past, It will be the only way to “lay”, some of the ridiculous theories that are put forward!!
ramone, DAFaid, spot on! Commentators always forget that the success of “importers”, was actually a success for the Britons who actually, created, ran, and operated these companys. I can recite names till kingdom come, but please believe me, there were some real “goers”, and many who would never have had a “chance”, with the “established” industry. Let me pick, (at random), one name, Cliff Groves, Scammell, then Scania, (and instrumental in changing from “exclusive”, importers/distributors, to Dealers, under Scania GB. Then he created Steyr, sadly cut short by MANs acqusition of Steyr.
Funny, how the pundits criticise Leylands acqusition of such firms as AEC, and then “killing off” the “brand”. Yet ignore totally , say Mercedes acquiring, then “killing off”, Henschell, MAN, the same with Bussing, Hollands Kromhout, (and its licence built Gardners), absorbed by Verhuil, then acquired and "killed off ", by AEC! Yes, Southall could weild a sword!!
CF, regarding my much loved ■■■■■■■■ Did you not know that their arrival in the UK was more to do about UK Government policy, (the exchange rate mechanism), and less about the potential of the UK truck market. They arrived as a “suitor” for their bride, messers Euclid,who wished to expand the lucaritive Canadian “strip” Mining market for its products. These excellent products, now manufactured in the UK, in order to fit the regulations, to be Exported to “our” Canada, were fitted with Rolls Royce engines…but not for long, post the establishment of Mr ■■■■■■■ at Scotlands Shotts!..oh dear what a dismal area to build such excellent designs!
I will ignore the “vitriol” regarding Mr Hugh Gardner, it is so easy to criticise, and so in line with “contemporary thinking”,… “he is to blame”!! Those who have experience of working in a “family”, or “patriarcial” business, either in the UK, or the world arena, will well know the advantages, as well as the down sides. Gentlemen, it is so easy to criticise, but we do not have the facts, or the historical perception! I have long researched the “dead ends”, of company reports, management accounts, and Union records, to try and establish “what did really happen”, with some companys within the UK Industry. What I have found is quite remarkable, and challenges common perception! But really requires the competence of someone like “gingerfold” to pull together towards an analytic conclusion.
Lastly, (and I am mindful of the fury, over my “spoiling tea”, of my legal eagle,and full Welsh Dragon of 40plus years), may I just interject into the debate one reminiscence of the “driveability”, of Gardners products. Some of you will know, (and cherish memories), of my late friend Gordon Plant. This son of Cheshire, a long “lover” of Gardner, , and very succesfull haulier, in several incarnations, (let us not forget “Wing Song”), but my thoughts rest with Crewe Cold Storage. Who could forget their LV 8x4s, and A Series, LXB, and 8KXB Powered, Boalloy insulated curtainsiders. Not in the 70s, but running in the late 80s, and dear CF, with a long waiting list of drivers, waiting to earn “real money”.
Ah well, a shower, food, a (two, or four), large Bollingers,and dreams of wood grain liveried A Series Jennings sleepers! I wonder if a “wood grain panel”, would improve a John Deere■■? Cheerio for now.
Saviem:
Hello/evening all, great to see all of your contributions! Agreement rules, I see!!!Well today was a sort of all time record for this old boy, 18hours virtually non stop, only the Barley to finish off, and my lads are still carting away the grain from the “Claas” act! And here I am, having shed my overalls, ready for the shower, with threats from “she who must,” (is), obeyed, ringing in my ears, “do not look at that old lorry computer site”", …and of course I have!! So a few irrevelent comments.
Valkyrie, excellent factual details, but reading your comments, …surely you have never run, or driven lorries for a living? Let alone worked with them, or even within the actual industry. Your posts, (and again I acknowlege the historical, factual content therin), they so much remind me of the vitriolic posts of Scania-Volvo on Big Lorry Blog. Perchance you are one and the same??..Believe me “my” Micky Mouse Foden , she was never, known as a “Spaceship Sputnik”, …oh gawd give me strength!!!
gingerfold, (Graham), thank you for injecting a healthy dose of factual realism into this thread, I, (and many more), hope that you turn your analytical skills into revealing more of our industries past, It will be the only way to “lay”, some of the ridiculous theories that are put forward!!
ramone, DAFaid, spot on! Commentators always forget that the success of “importers”, was actually a success for the Britons who actually, created, ran, and operated these companys. I can recite names till kingdom come, but please believe me, there were some real “goers”, and many who would never have had a “chance”, with the “established” industry. Let me pick, (at random), one name, Cliff Groves, Scammell, then Scania, (and instrumental in changing from “exclusive”, importers/distributors, to Dealers, under Scania GB. Then he created Steyr, sadly cut short by MANs acqusition of Steyr.
Funny, how the pundits criticise Leylands acqusition of such firms as AEC, and then “killing off” the “brand”. Yet ignore totally , say Mercedes acquiring, then “killing off”, Henschell, MAN, the same with Bussing, Hollands Kromhout, (and its licence built Gardners), absorbed by Verhuil, then acquired and "killed off ", by AEC! Yes, Southall could weild a sword!!
CF, regarding my much loved ■■■■■■■■ Did you not know that their arrival in the UK was more to do about UK Government policy, (the exchange rate mechanism), and less about the potential of the UK truck market. They arrived as a “suitor” for their bride, messers Euclid,who wished to expand the lucaritive Canadian “strip” Mining market for its products. These excellent products, now manufactured in the UK, in order to fit the regulations, to be Exported to “our” Canada, were fitted with Rolls Royce engines…but not for long, post the establishment of Mr ■■■■■■■ at Scotlands Shotts!..oh dear what a dismal area to build such excellent designs!
I will ignore the “vitriol” regarding Mr Hugh Gardner, it is so easy to criticise, and so in line with “contemporary thinking”,… “he is to blame”!! Those who have experience of working in a “family”, or “patriarcial” business, either in the UK, or the world arena, will well know the advantages, as well as the down sides. Gentlemen, it is so easy to criticise, but we do not have the facts, or the historical perception! I have long researched the “dead ends”, of company reports, management accounts, and Union records, to try and establish “what did really happen”, with some companys within the UK Industry. What I have found is quite remarkable, and challenges common perception! But really requires the competence of someone like “gingerfold” to pull together towards an analytic conclusion.
Lastly, (and I am mindful of the fury, over my “spoiling tea”, of my legal eagle,and full Welsh Dragon of 40plus years), may I just interject into the debate one reminiscence of the “driveability”, of Gardners products. Some of you will know, (and cherish memories), of my late friend Gordon Plant. This son of Cheshire, a long “lover” of Gardner, , and very succesfull haulier, in several incarnations, (let us not forget “Wing Song”), but my thoughts rest with Crewe Cold Storage. Who could forget their LV 8x4s, and A Series, LXB, and 8KXB Powered, Boalloy insulated curtainsiders. Not in the 70s, but running in the late 80s, and dear CF, with a long waiting list of drivers, waiting to earn “real money”.
Ah well, a shower, food, a (two, or four), large Bollingers,and dreams of wood grain liveried A Series Jennings sleepers! I wonder if a “wood grain panel”, would improve a John Deere■■? Cheerio for now.
hiya,
Clap clap clap clap clap and on.
thanks harry, long retired.
Something has been niggling away at me since the whole issue of the DAF “680” engine cropped up and Valkyrie has just mentioned what it is.
The DAF isn’t a 680 at all - it’s a 707. It is or rather was an 11.6 litre engine. They bored the thing out. Bigger area bigger shove.
Every single engine that has been used to support the argument that the Gardner was rubbish had a bigger bore. Some had a shorter stroke too, which accounts for the higher revs.
We read here over and over again that the Gardner was unable to withstand turbocharging, yet this is not supported by any quoted evidence of serious long term trials. The few known occasions appear to be entirely experimental, one even using a BSA turbocharger. These unsuccessful experiments were carried out relatively early in the time scale of fitting the device to automotive diesels when the blower itself was hardly the most reliable piece of equipment.
Practically all the engines that did fit turbos relied on the boost pressure available at the higher end of the rev range. It was also very noticeable that when the engine revs fell, and the boost pressure consequentially dropped, so the engine performance sagged. Even into the period of this marvellous DAF engine’s appearance there were problems, both with the turbos themselves and with the basic engine’s capability of dealing with the boost pressure.
What Gardner did not do was to follow along with the two foundations of these earlier turbo engines - increased revs and turbos that could only produce boost at high revs. There was a well known phrase at the time “turbo lag”. Gardner saw what everyone else did - the clouds of smoke coming out of the exhaust and, renowned for their fuel economy said: “unburnt fuel” and presumably took against the idea. Gardner’s strength lay in their ability to tune the the inlet and exhaust system of their engines to pass more air without forced induction and concentrated their efforts there. If one looks at the LXC versions of their engines it is immediately apparent that considerable alterations have been made to the exhaust downpipes - what were called the “bunch of bananas”. Strangely the other manufacturer who followed this path was also one of the earliest and well respected suppliers of diesel engines - MAN.
Gardner’s LXCT engines employed only very moderate boost and as a result yielded only a small amount extra bhp. But they do prove that the Gardner engine was capable of withstanding turbocharging.
When Gardner made a serious attempt to introduce a turbocharged engine with the LXDT they did what was necessary to make a difference to its output and bored the thing out, (bigger area bigger shove); meanwhile also increasing the stroke slightly. What they did not do was again to follow the field and rev the thing to 2000 rpm +, for by now, the others were coming round to the Gardner way of thinking to a certain extent, by realising that the extra revs wasted fuel, and surprise, surprise what do we see today? most engines do not exceed 1900 rpm; which is exactly the cornerstone of Gardner philosophy.
Saviem:
Hello/evening all, great to see all of your contributions!CF, regarding my much loved ■■■■■■■■ Did you not know that their arrival in the UK was more to do about UK Government policy, (the exchange rate mechanism), and less about the potential of the UK truck market. They arrived as a “suitor” for their bride, messers Euclid,who wished to expand the lucaritive Canadian “strip” Mining market for its products. These excellent products, now manufactured in the UK, in order to fit the regulations, to be Exported to “our” Canada, were fitted with Rolls Royce engines…but not for long, post the establishment of Mr ■■■■■■■ at Scotlands Shotts!..oh dear what a dismal area to build such excellent designs!
I will ignore the “vitriol” regarding Mr Hugh Gardner, it is so easy to criticise.
my thoughts rest with Crewe Cold Storage. Who could forget their LV 8x4s, and A Series, LXB, and 8KXB Powered, Boalloy insulated curtainsiders. Not in the 70s, but running in the late 80s, and dear CF, with a long waiting list of drivers, waiting to earn “real money”.
Saviem it’s obvious that my idea of the use of ■■■■■■■ engines when it all mattered would have been different to the description which you’ve provided concerning their entry into the UK.Which seems to just confirm what I’m saying that there was actually no real intention in the British market,at that time,by truck buyers,to follow the type of demands,in relation to power outputs,which were applying in the North American and colonial truck markets at the time in question ie the 1970’s.What was needed was the 350 + hp versions to be fitted in modern trucks with modern standards of cab comfort and fast.Which isn’t what happened.That was all about the backward demands of the British customer base at the time.Which is why I’ve referred to the example of the Australian truck manufacturing industry and it’s reliance on Kenworth’s designs to provide them with that.In which case it’s obvious that all the different US engine options wouldn’t have entered the British market on the basis which you’ve described just as they didn’t enter the Australian market in that way firstly in American truck imports to Australia and then in those locally built Australian built KW’s.
You’re right about Hugh Gardner and it’s on that issue which is the only disagreement which I’ve got with VALKYRIE’s very accurate assessment of the situation at the time.Hugh Gardner was simply building and designing what he knew in his time.What he knew was well enough engineered which shows that he was competent enough at doing his job,but no better than average in terms of outputs and totally outdated and outclassed by at least the end of the 1960’s arguably a lot earlier,when you compare the outputs and performance of something like the WW2 Diamond T with the Gardner powered Scammell Pioneer.It’s probably nothing more than an error that he’d overlooked what the competition was doing and therefore he didn’t realise that for Gardner it was over and time to call it a day.However he’d already provided enough of a clue that he had an idea that his products were finally way out of their depth when he brought everyone’s attention to the incompatibility of Gardner engines and turbocharging and he should know because he’d designed them.
However,as I’ve said the real blame lies with the British customer base in trying to cling on to an obsolete design that was no longer fit for purpose in comparison to the competition,especially the US competition.It was those lost sales,to obsolete Gardner powered trucks, compared to what customers in the North American markets and the colonial markets were demanding,that stalled British truck manufacturing development during the 1970’s which eventually resulted in it’s loss.While the Australian truck manufacturing industry survives to this day since it’s beginning in the early 1970’s all based on total reliance on US truck design know how which we could have implemented in just the same way at the same time given the same type of forward thinking customer base.
Cav551- a very good summary. The others only really caught up with Gardner when they reduced the peak power engine speed to below 2000rpm. Even then, the efficiency benefit of the turbocharger only brought them level with Gardner, in that respect. While Gardner may have lagged (excuse the pun) in terms of power output, their market-leading efficiency suggests that a simple increase in capacity would have kept them competitive in all areas. If they had wished to provide 200bhp in 1960,or 240bhp in 1965 (typical top-of-the-range outputs in Europe) I guess it would have taken about 14 litres. Like the rest of the British industry, they did not appear to consider the Continental markets important enough to take that step.
cav551:
Something has been niggling away at me since the whole issue of the DAF “680” engine cropped up and Valkyrie has just mentioned what it is.The DAF isn’t a 680 at all - it’s a 707. It is or rather was an 11.6 litre engine. They bored the thing out. Bigger area bigger shove.
Every single engine that has been used to support the argument that the Gardner was rubbish had a bigger bore. Some had a shorter stroke too, which accounts for the higher revs.
We read here over and over again that the Gardner was unable to withstand turbocharging, yet this is not supported by any quoted evidence of serious long term trials. The few known occasions appear to be entirely experimental, one even using a BSA turbocharger. These unsuccessful experiments were carried out relatively early in the time scale of fitting the device to automotive diesels when the blower itself was hardly the most reliable piece of equipment.
Practically all the engines that did fit turbos relied on the boost pressure available at the higher end of the rev range. It was also very noticeable that when the engine revs fell, and the boost pressure consequentially dropped, so the engine performance sagged. Even into the period of this marvellous DAF engine’s appearance there were problems, both with the turbos themselves and with the basic engine’s capability of dealing with the boost pressure.
What Gardner did not do was to follow along with the two foundations of these earlier turbo engines - increased revs and turbos that could only produce boost at high revs. There was a well known phrase at the time “turbo lag”. Gardner saw what everyone else did - the clouds of smoke coming out of the exhaust and, renowned for their fuel economy said: “unburnt fuel” and presumably took against the idea. Gardner’s strength lay in their ability to tune the the inlet and exhaust system of their engines to pass more air without forced induction and concentrated their efforts there. If one looks at the LXC versions of their engines it is immediately apparent that considerable alterations have been made to the exhaust downpipes - what were called the “bunch of bananas”. Strangely the other manufacturer who followed this path was also one of the earliest and well respected suppliers of diesel engines - MAN.
Gardner’s LXCT engines employed only very moderate boost and as a result yielded only a small amount extra bhp. But they do prove that the Gardner engine was capable of withstanding turbocharging.
When Gardner made a serious attempt to introduce a turbocharged engine with the LXDT they did what was necessary to make a difference to its output and bored the thing out, (bigger area bigger shove); meanwhile also increasing the stroke slightly. What they did not do was again to follow the field and rev the thing to 2000 rpm +, for by now, the others were coming round to the Gardner way of thinking to a certain extent, by realising that the extra revs wasted fuel, and surprise, surprise what do we see today? most engines do not exceed 1900 rpm; which is exactly the cornerstone of Gardner philosophy.
The problem for that theory is the actual specific outputs availabe throughout the rev range of the ■■■■■■■ big cam range considering it’s availability from the early 1970’s.It’s not what an engine puts out at peak power that matters,such as even in the case of the modern day Scania V8,which still needs around 2,000 rpm to reach it’s power peak.The fact is no one with any sense ever takes an engine up to anywhere near peak power on a regular basis.What matters is what it’s putting out below that figure.Which in the case of the Gardner wasn’t enough either at peak power or below that engine speed.Which is why it’s no longer with us.
As for some changes in bore and stroke from the start point engine being part of the DAF 2800 range development the fact is,unlike Gardner’s products,it’s eventual (reliable) specific outputs were good enough to provide DAF with a good enough product to be competitive in the market.Which at the end of the day is what matters.Excuses don’t work when it’s all about natural selection and in which it’s only the fittest that survive.
But moderate boost and the resulting low specific outputs certainly doesn’t show that an engine is capable of withstanding turbocharging.
So, the $64,000 question…
Were these Gardner Engines any good then
