C/F , Why dont you grow up like the rest of us , We all have our opinions , but you seem to think the world would stop going around if you said so, In my opinion as a retired haulage contractor you know sweet nothing about anything, Ive worked with the best people I could have wished for & enjoyed evey minute of it, & Im pleased to say that you were not one of them, thank God, Regards Larry.
A bit off topic again here but im thinking out loud ,weve heard so much about how Daf took the 680 and made it into a successful engine ,then eventually Daf became Leyland/Daf i wonder if the parent company Paccar ever thought of looking at what they had inherited in the takeover ,i.e the bigger capacity TL12 or anything else in the group they could have improved with their resources ?
bma.finland:
but in the end there is no gardner detroit is mercedes mack is volvo ■■■■■■■ and cat are out of europe ,kenworth,s and petes move whit DAF ,and the american flag is down,sorry,scania volvo mercedes iveco and daf(paccar)rules western word,THAT;S A FACT,isn,t it how do you change that to your favor,cf man of knowledge,hej benkku(and wrighting isn,t so god i,m a finn, so i,m arguing whit one hand thied behind my back)
Blimey I thought Paccar was an American truck manufacturing group that’s success was based on the track record of US designed trucks and componentry over the years not DAF which would have been sunk if it hadn’t been for an old Leyland motor that Leyland decided wasn’t worth bothering with because too many British customers preferred Gardner powered wagons at the time and if Paccar hadn’t rescued it when things started going downhill not vice versa.
Go to bed with your cuddley teddy bear you ■■■■■■, Regards Larry.
bma.finland:
don,t argue whit you carryfast couse “you know everything betveen syfilis and broaken hearts”
better
Sometimes, between languages, the bare truth emerges. Hej hej.
Lawrence Dunbar:
Go to bed with your cuddley teddy bear you ■■■■■■, Regards Larry.
A typical comment that reflects the level of intelligence behind it no surprise there then.
3300John:
Hiya …gardner was,nt even bothered about truck sales, they made engines for the waters where there was no
nasty little minisry or vosa men to moan about black smoke or emissions. i know of a chap(now passed on) who
could sell 25year old gardner engines to china by the thousand.he was worth millions.
John
Maybe that explains it all.They were just having a laugh because they’d already made enough to close down and retire before the canals had finished and the Chinese revolution. 
Carryfast:
Maybe that explains it all.They were just having a laugh because they’d already made enough to close down and retire before the canals had finished and the Chinese revolution.
All that is left of the British motor manufacturing industry is people who wished they had worked in it.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
Maybe that explains it all.They were just having a laugh because they’d already made enough to close down and retire before the canals had finished and the Chinese revolution.All that is left of the British motor manufacturing industry is people who wished they had worked in it.
Or those that have and aren’t afraid to tell it like it was not the usual political bs concerning lazy striking workers who didn’t know what they were doing when they could be bothered to turn up for work.
10hp per ton in the 1970s, yeah right
Some cars never had that power to weight ratio in those days 
There were probably only two or three lorries that could muster that kind of power at 32tons and not one that could do it at 38tons until the mid 80s, none of them were Dutch BTW
newmercman:
10hp per ton in the 1970s, yeah rightSome cars never had that power to weight ratio in those days
There were probably only two or three lorries that could muster that kind of power at 32tons and not one that could do it at 38tons until the mid 80s, none of them were Dutch BTW
We weren’t at 38 t gross in the 1970’s.It’s the fact that there weren’t many Brit trucks with that type of power to gross weight ratio that my issue is about.But that situation wasn’t going to be sorted by customers demanding 180 or 240 Gardner powered wagons during the mid-late 1970’s when,as far as I know,but I’m no ■■■■■■■ expert,■■■■■■■ motors were available in at least 320 + form during the mid-late 1970’s and up to 400 was available at the 38 t gross changeover point in the early 1980’s possibly even before .
Just because British operators weren’t up to speed doesn’t mean that there weren’t any viable options to provide them with those types of power to weight ratios and even if there weren’t 
they certainly weren’t going to get there by staying with Gardner at worst or the E290 ■■■■■■■ at best. . 
and shows just how far advanced the TM would have been from 1975 on if only it had only been offered with the turbocharged 8V71 and 8V92 Detroit options instead of non turbocharged 6V71 and 8V71 regardless of your personal dislike of them. 
Although having said that the DAF 2800 in 290-310 hp form wasn’t a million miles away from 10 hp per t at 32t gross and probably more in the case of my job,let alone the Volvo F12 in 1978 either of which were certainly (a lot) better than speccing a 180-240 Gardner which many operators were still demanding,or at least still using,for the job at that time.
But as for a car with 10 hp per ton even in the 1950’s let alone the 1970’s .It certainly wouldn’t have been on my wish list even if I could think of one.
The car reference was tongue in cheek, but the lorry one was not
Early 1970s the most powerful lorries available in the British Market were the Scania 140 at 350hp, the Volvo F89 at 330hp and the Magirus Deutz at 310hp, you couldn’t a ■■■■■■■ bigger than the NTC350 with 335hp and that was special order only. The Big Cam range came out in 77 I think and the biggest you could get was the E290, until the mid 80s that was the mainstream ■■■■■■■ Engine, the E320 superseeded it then. The biggest ■■■■■■■ available in the mid 80s was the E370 in the Bedford TM
You (Carryfast) are way off target and are confusing the 70s with the 80s and the 80s with the 90s, at least in terms of horsepower
The top of the range high power lorries were never mainstream anyway, for every 140 there were 20 111s, for every 89 there were probably more than 100 88s and the 8 pot Gardner was a match for the 88 and the 111, maybe a little bit slower on a hill, but as someone so rightly (and funnily) said, just get up 5mins earlier and arrive at the same time as the faster lorries
Do not even bother comparing the 6 pots to the other lorries with far higher horsepower, even if some clown at your old firm did order them to run alongside each other, it’s a ridiculous comparison and serves no purpose other than to wind poor old Larry up
Saviem:
Some would say the finest oil engine ever, economic , light, ultra reliable. Were they? Were the products as good as the image? Why did they loose their captive market? Did their inability to satisfy demand lead to the demise of the UK assemblers, ERF, Atkinson, Guy? What were they like to “live with”, every day ? Over to you Gentlemen…
Let’s re-wind to Saviem’s original question and cut through the fog of confusion and hyperbole generated by the interesting replies to try and answer the question.
1950’s, arguably the heyday of Gardner engines and the lorries they powered. Of all the lorries on the road Gardner engined ones were the only ones that proudly advertised how much horse-power was under the bonnet. 100, 120, and then in 1958 the mighty 150. Nine out of ten lorry drivers wouldn’t have had a clue what power they had unless the badge on the radiator told them. Likewise seven out of ten owners and operators wouldn’t have known either. Why? Simply because it didn’t matter. Economy, reliability and engine life was all that mattered to them because any lorry over 3 tons unladen was restricted to 20 mph, so it was irrelevant if you had 100 or 1000 bhp, you were’nt going to get there any quicker. Why? Because the road network was limited to relatively few miles of dual carriageway trunk roads. Remember, a very restricted Motorway network didn’t open up until 1958. As a lad I sat in the passenger seat of Bedfords, Atkinsons, and Leylands climbing Shap over the A6, and we were governed by the speed of the lorry at the head of the queue. 5mph, 20 minutes to get from Hucks Bridge to the top.
Come the 1960s and a growing Motorway network, the UK market was dominated by British marques until the tentative beginnings of the Scandinavian and European invasion. Some operators banned drivers from using the Motorways because not only were engines not designed for contnuous high revs running but tyres would also not stand the pace. When the Volvo F86 started to win rave reviews from drivers and operators it certainly wasn’t because of its engine power.
As gross weights increased power also had to increase and by the 1970s Gardner could not compete. Gardner’s time was over. Saviem asked a simple question. I think we are all agreed on the answer no matter how confusing and argumentative this thread has become.
here in north 10 hp /ton you need 600hp engines,but not many are, 450/560 more common, scanias 500V8 and 480 , volvo 500 540 ,are for example most common, in timberwork you find some top of range motors mainly,cheers benkku
newmercman:
Early 1970s the most powerful lorries available in the British Market were the Scania 140 at 350hp, the Volvo F89 at 330hp and the Magirus Deutz at 310hp, you couldn’t a ■■■■■■■ bigger than the NTC350 with 335hp and that was special order only. The Big Cam range came out in 77 I think and the biggest you could get was the E290, until the mid 80s that was the mainstream ■■■■■■■ Engine, the E320 superseeded it then. The biggest ■■■■■■■ available in the mid 80s was the E370 in the Bedford TM
Was the (1969-launched) LP1632 not available to UK customers? Thought I’d ask the expert!
newmercman:
Do not even bother comparing the 6 pots to the other lorries with far higher horsepower, even if some clown at your old firm did order them to run alongside each other, it’s a ridiculous comparison and serves no purpose other than to wind poor old Larry up
Ridiculous comparisons which wind everyone up- what else does he bring to the forum?
newmercman:
The car reference was tongue in cheek, but the lorry one was notEarly 1970s the most powerful lorries available in the British Market were the Scania 140 at 350hp, the Volvo F89 at 330hp and the Magirus Deutz at 310hp, you couldn’t a ■■■■■■■ bigger than the NTC350 with 335hp and that was special order only. The Big Cam range came out in 77 I think and the biggest you could get was the E290, until the mid 80s that was the mainstream ■■■■■■■ Engine, the E320 superseeded it then. The biggest ■■■■■■■ available in the mid 80s was the E370 in the Bedford TM
You (Carryfast) are way off target and are confusing the 70s with the 80s and the 80s with the 90s, at least in terms of horsepower
The top of the range high power lorries were never mainstream anyway, for every 140 there were 20 111s, for every 89 there were probably more than 100 88s and the 8 pot Gardner was a match for the 88 and the 111, maybe a little bit slower on a hill, but as someone so rightly (and funnily) said, just get up 5mins earlier and arrive at the same time as the faster lorries
Do not even bother comparing the 6 pots to the other lorries with far higher horsepower, even if some clown at your old firm did order them to run alongside each other, it’s a ridiculous comparison and serves no purpose other than to wind poor old Larry up
Firstly I think ‘British Market’ is where a lot of the confusion is between what you’re moaning about in my comparisons and what I’m actually referring to which is what was ‘actually available’ on the ‘world’ market ( for the purposes of this discussion the civilised world at that time being the US and colonial markets ) and where that (world) market was in this case compared to the British one which is of coure a direct reflection of customer demands in those respective markets.As I’ve said I think ■■■■■■■ could offer power outputs of around 320 at least through most of the 1970’s with the big cam range being introduced in the mid 1970’s.To my knowledge there was no 290 limit on the big cam range from the time of it’s introduction at least in the ‘world’ market .
As I’ve also said the DAF 2800 was also close enough to that 10 hp per t gross weight ratio from the early 1970’s and the Volvo F12 in the late 1970’s and some other examples which you’ve shown,at least at the 32 t gross limit of the 1970’s.Not to mention the example of the TM which could certainly have provided at least 10 hp per t both at the old 32 t limit and the 38 t limit from the mid 1970’s ( had they been given the customer demand for it together with much more efficiency from the turbocharged Detroit than the non turbo one which the British customers demanded and then not surprisingly damned afterwards).
I’m not surprised that anyone,who wants to justify the outdated backward demands of the British customers at the time,or deny the fact that it was that issue which was mostly to blame for the loss of the British truck manufacturing industry,obviously won’t want to hear the inconvenient truth,about my example,of working for at least one company that,during the time in question,was still buying 180 powered heaps to run at (a lot) less than 10 hp per t power to weight ratio on time sensitive long distance trunking operations. While at the same time ordering 2800’s for it’s tramping operations.The fact that you’ve agreed that only a clown would have such a buying/utilisation policy within a fleet,at the time,actually proves my case because they weren’t the only operators at the time still doing excactly the same/similar thing with either the old naturally aspirated 6 or 8 cylinder Gardner powered trucks which in terms of productivety,in the new motorway age,that was already in it’s advanced stage during the 1960’s let alone the 1970’s,that issue applied in the case of all types of transport operations regardles of wether it was tramping or trunking.
It’s an unpalatable,inconvenient truth,that the issue of the outdated Gardner,being in production for so long,and causing so much damage to the reputation and credibility of British trucks,when it should have been got rid of by at least the late 1960’s,was customer driven and had nothing whatsoever to do with Hugh Gardner’s design,which would have worked to an acceptable (but no better than average at best) level in his time,or striking workers in the British truck manufacturing industry during the 1970’s.
No surprise that many people who support the latter theory don’t want to hear the former one.Tough.
The reason why ( from your perspective ) I’m confusing the world as it was by being at least 10 years out into the future,is actually because you’re looking at the issue from the backward British perspective rather than the more advanced world markets one that I am because,as I’ve said,my time in the industry was dominated by satisfying the export markets not the British one although there were definitely some British customers,who were the exception that proved the rule.But no surprise that Gardner engines never had any involvement in that whatsoever and the same applied in those markets regardless of wether it was for haulage operations or emergency vehicles at the time.
[zb]
anorak:newmercman:
Early 1970s the most powerful lorries available in the British Market were the Scania 140 at 350hp, the Volvo F89 at 330hp and the Magirus Deutz at 310hp, you couldn’t a ■■■■■■■ bigger than the NTC350 with 335hp and that was special order only. The Big Cam range came out in 77 I think and the biggest you could get was the E290, until the mid 80s that was the mainstream ■■■■■■■ Engine, the E320 superseeded it then. The biggest ■■■■■■■ available in the mid 80s was the E370 in the Bedford TM
Was the (1969-launched) LP1632 not available to UK customers? Thought I’d ask the expert!
No the 1632 wasn’t available here until the ng range in the mid 70s.
Mercedes another firm who stuck with non turbo engines well in to the 80s
All well and good but look at our biggest truck builder in the 60s and 70s the Leyland group. Leyland AEC Scammell Guy Albion all with decent products that suited the British Market in the 60s strong exports in the commonwealth countries and a few other places and making money.
Europe starts opening up More motorways are been built and Lord Stokes idea is we won’t look at breaking the European Market they have there own truck builders.
We will carry on trying to sell the same stuff we have been selling to the UK Market even though the Market was rapidly Changing.
When they realised the Market was changing they were to far behind and skint from propping up British leyland we ended up with a lash up like the leyland Marathon.
Look at Volvo it wasn’t the mighty f89 that broke Britain for them it was the little f86 and to a lesser extent the f88.
Gardner didn’t progress quickly enough same as ERF Foden Seddon Atkinson that was the problem.
kr79:
No the 1632 wasn’t available here until the ng range in the mid 70s.
Thought it might have been available to special order or something. Maybe nmm has a few tales to tell, of buyers insisting on it.
kr79:
Mercedes another firm who stuck with non turbo engines well in to the 80s
1980/81 (1638 with the V8), actually. Not point-scoring; I said something similar to you a few pages back, and was corrected by someone! The point you (we) make is perfectly correct, however: that the turbocharger was far from universal until the 1980s. The above-mentioned 1632 and the Fiat 17 litre were worthy rivals to the 140 and 89, just as the 8LXB was to the Cu250, Rolls 265 and all of the more popular mid-market Continental engines.
I drove a 1988 3025 8 wheeler merc non turbo. Think that was the last one the did as it was replaced by the 3029 that year. Not wrong just a different way of doing something.