Gardner ENGINES

[carryfast]

kr79:
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.

How could the British market have been ‘rapidly changing’ during the 1970’s when at least Bewick and the example of my old employers proves that it wasn’t and that was the problem.Leyland,like all the other UK road transport truck manufacturers,was mainly dependent on the domestic market for it’s survival,which Stokes knew.Therefore all development and production was,rightly,driven by what the UK buyers wanted.Not,unfortunately,on what the US and colonial buyers wanted which is where things were actually heading in the real world.In the case of Gardner though that argument is irrelevant anyway because it never did have any products available or which could have been developed into what was needed at the time.Gardner was a one trick pony outfit of the 1930’s that was stuck in the 1930’s because it’s products lacked development potential.Therefore it should have gone to the knackers yard when it’s useful life had expired which was,at the very latest,1969.

What the Britih buyers actually did was to keep feeding and flogging an old dead horse while starving the younger,or at least fitter,one to death that passed on everything,of any value that it owned,to a Dutch stable befor it went.

[carryfast]

kr79:
I drove a 1988 3025 8 wheeler merc non turbo.

There were actually British operators who were using those thirsty gutless inefficient heaps to haul max weight artics on uk work and even over the alps and who probably,make that definitely,would have turned down a TM 4400 on the basis of it being too powerful and too thirsty.

[zb_anorak]

Carryfast:

kr79:
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.

Leyland,like all the other UK road transport truck manufacturers,was mainly dependent on the domestic market for it’s survival,which Stokes knew.

kr79 is right, you are wrong, cf. Stokes himself made the decision not to compete in Europe, because he found he could get a bigger pat on the back through flogging vehicles to the “easy” third world markets. This is printed in plain English in the Daily Telegraph article I posted, on one of the other threads that you filled with lies.

[gingerfold]

[zb]
anorak:

Carryfast:

kr79:
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.

Leyland,like all the other UK road transport truck manufacturers,was mainly dependent on the domestic market for it’s survival,which Stokes knew.

kr79 is right, you are wrong, cf. Stokes himself made the decision not to compete in Europe, because he found he could get a bigger pat on the back through flogging vehicles to the “easy” third world markets. This is printed in plain English in the Daily Telegraph article I posted, on one of the other threads that you filled with lies.

And this was one of the major differences in policy between AEC and Leyland, which caused so many problems between the two sets of heirarchy. AEC HAD identified Europe as the market to compete in for the future; Stokes and his acolytes at Leyland disagreed.

[cav551]

As been pointed out the Big Cam ■■■■■■■ E 290 was not an option in the UK in the early '70s, it appeared in about 1977. As for the E 320 this came in '85. I was working for a Seddon Atkinson dealer at the time and it came in during the lifetime of the 401. If it had been around earlier we would have seen it in the 400 - but we didn’t. We were stuck with trying to attend to the E290 which was not as good as all the hype that surrounded it.

There was a lot of difference between the desirability of a small cam ■■■■■■■ and a Big Cam one, the success of the engine being that it at last became economical enough to warrant purchasing, because it now produced its torque lower down the rev range. However if it was not driven to “let it lug” as the advertising went, then it was just as thirsty as its predecessors. What I can’t clearly recall is just how long it took ■■■■■■■ to get it right. It went through at least four upgrades (BC 1,2, 3 and 4)before 1981 to overcome its various flaws and it was not until later modifications were made that it became more reliable.

The period around '73 - 75 had seen ■■■■■■■ actually losing USA market share because they were producing, and trying to sell, 450+ bhp engines. Sadly for them at the time, the US market didn’t want to buy them, viewing them as overkill. It was their sally into Europe that got them out of the mire.

Virtually the whole of this thread has been devoted to just one sector of the engine market namely maximum weight artics. More important to Gardner and to many operators was the sector for 30 tons and below.

The foreign invasion was much less successful here. Foden, Scammell and Magirus Deutz were the ones selling and with the deserved reputations. It took much longer for Gardner to be ousted from its position in the market in this sector. The 14 litre ■■■■■■■ eat into the payload far too much in the very low margin and frequently off motorway, and off road, operation that these vehicles undertook. The Gardner powered Foden 8 wheeler was best seller for quite some time. Its nearest rival was the Routeman with either Gardner or Leyland power. Following up and adored by the muckaway boys was the naturally aspirated Maggie. All of these were basic simple wagons, hard to break and relatively easy to fix - and this was what the market wanted, there was little interest in the motorway sophisticate and its state-of-the-art, bells and whistles, high horsepower turbocharged engine and sleeper cab - which didn’t like dust and dirt.

So as has been pointed out before, it was just as much a case of the nice swanky sleeper cab and suspension seat, that sold the tractor units along with the associated and consequent pester power of drivers that precipitated the UK built decline; as it was the quest for more power.

Let’s just very briefly look at the fairly typical pre-hybrid double deck bus on sale until recently. 400 bhp to get 18 tons 300 yards to the next bus stop and at around 4 mpg - madness.

[bma_finland]

and (detroit)cat and ■■■■■■■ are out, ,what did they wrong,same as the britts ,trusting a market whitsh canged rapidley in the 20,s,faster then they could imaging,hej benkku

[newmercman]

It is very easy for Carryfast to slag off the work of the Gardner family, after all he has a vision that they did not have…hindsight

Ifs, buts and maybes are the basis of his comments, so here’s an if, but and a maybe especially for Carryfast. IF you listened instead of talking out of your ■■■■ then MAYBE you would learn something

[ramone]

Didnt ■■■■■■■ have a habit of giving their engines names with outputs higher than they actually produced , i.e E290 was around 272bhp

[bma_finland]

UNITED STATES power (SAE)

[ramone]

bma.finland:
UNITED STATES power (SAE)

Oh i see thanks

[ramone]

I was young in the 70s but still cant remember 320 ■■■■■■■ being around ,the 205s and 220s early to mid 70s then the 250s and the E290s towards the end i know my dad got a Marathon 1 of the last ones a 1980 w reg and quite a few people were suprised it had the “big” ■■■■■■■ in even then as the norm was the 250 ■■■■■■■ the RR265 or the TL12

[bma_finland]

the only gardner user in finland was KABUS ,a coach builder owned by koiviston auto. they build longdistans buses in a really different consept then all other coahbuilders in finland. light smooth low alloy bodyes whit 180 gardners ,ownweight about 9 tn,when typical coach in finland was 14 tn and 260 B10 volvo or 112 scania.the heavier consumed about 30/100km,s and kabus around 18-20, when they coudn,t get more gardner,s they had to replase it whit a5,8 l ■■■■■■■■ think in that chase garner was superbe. cheers benkku

[b_waddy]

Hi ,Folks , Gardeners the lws were a must for the big companies ,All u needed in stock to recon a LW engine were two sets of blocks were a 2 and 3 sets ,Then u could recon a 4 ,5 ,or 6 ,with just the 2 sets ,eg a 2 and a2 a 4 cylender ,2 and a 3 ,a 5 cylender ,and 2 ,3s a6 cylender ,all the fuel and oil fillters were the same ,starters dynamos the same ,and many more parts ,a cheap and easy stores to keep ,a bit of usless info , Cheers Barry

[lawrence_dunbar]

Well aid

newmercman:
It is very easy for Carryfast to slag off the work of the Gardner family, after all he has a vision that they did not have…hindsight

Ifs, buts and maybes are the basis of his comments, so here’s an if, but and a maybe especially for Carryfast. IF you listened instead of talking out of your ■■■■ then MAYBE you would learn something

Well said, Perhaps he may start & take notice of what he gets as replies to his horrible comments about the Gardner Family,speaking formyself I didnt like the Bedford deisel engines they didnt suit what we did but I would never ever pull Bedfords to bits & slag them off the way this ■■■■■■ C/F Does with Gardners, is he for real or what ? Regards Larry.

[carryfast]

newmercman:
It is very easy for Carryfast to slag off the work of the Gardner family, after all he has a vision that they did not have…hindsight

Ifs, buts and maybes are the basis of his comments, so here’s an if, but and a maybe especially for Carryfast. IF you listened instead of talking out of your ■■■■ then MAYBE you would learn something

Maybe I could say the same about all the ignorant bs that’s based on what the Brits know just related to the British market but the British market wasn’t the same thing as the big wide world out there and that was our problem.The reason why the more powerful options weren’t made widely available in trucks like the SA 400 on the option sheets here was because they knew the British buyers would run a mile when they saw them on the usual grounds of too much power blah blah bs and then ticked the box for a Gardner instead.

truckpaper.com/listingsdetai … D=2046140&

They didn’t need hindsight from 1969 on all they needed to do was to ask a few questions that any engine supplier worth their salt would do related to what the competition was doing and then decide wether they could beat it or not with the rescources they had available which in the case of Gardner was zb all.That’s assuming the British cheapskate Brit buyers would buy what the rest of the civilised world was demanding and buying at the time in question even if they had those rescources.

But where have I slagged off the Gardner family when it’s the customers I’ve been blaming not Hugh Gardner’s acceptable products.For their time .

Valkyrie maybe but not me.

[zb_anorak]

An uninterrupted flow of ten- yes, ten!- excellent posts. Thank you gentlemen. [Edit- ■■■■! He’s beaten me to the post!]

If I may add something to gingerfold’s recording of the AEC/Leyland situation, it would be the guess that it was Stokes’ self-aggrandising which spoilt Leyland. Prior to his involvement, they seemed to have a healthy attitude to exports, and a pride in matching or beating the best in the world (Spoken with some bias, as a proud Lancashire lad!).

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:
An uninterrupted flow of ten- yes, ten!- excellent posts. Thank you gentlemen. [Edit- ■■■■! He’s beaten me to the post!]

If I may add something to gingerfold’s recording of the AEC/Leyland situation, it would be the guess that it was Stokes’ self-aggrandising which spoilt Leyland. Prior to his involvement, they seemed to have a healthy attitude to exports, and a pride in matching or beating the best in the world (Spoken with some bias, as a proud Lancashire lad!).

Yeah right ‘excellent posts’ containing bs like the 350 Big Cam 1 ■■■■■■■ wasn’t available in the 1970’s and blaming me for having a go at the Gardner family when I didn’t.Not to mention the double standards of it being seen as ok to have a go at Stokes who actually cetainly did know that there’s no way of running a successful truck manufacturing industry without being able to dominate the domestic market.

[cav551]

There is another reason for particular engines not being available on option sheets, which goes back to the engine manufacturer.

ERF, or whoever, do not just buy a Gardner engine, they buy a Gardner or a ■■■■■■■ or Rolls to fit a B series tractor unit, 8 legger or whatever. They specify all sorts of things they require: engine mounting location, position of auxiliaries and drives, crankshaft flange, flywheel housing, shape of sump etc etc.

The engine manufacturer then has to decide whether it is financially worthwhile having 5 specially cast sumps and timing cases made and how much this will interfere with mainstream production of standard components.

Having already discounted all engines to ERF to barely break even point, they decide not to offer the intercooled version.

[zb_anorak]

Carryfast:
Yeah right ‘excellent posts’ containing bs like the 350 Big Cam 1 ■■■■■■■ wasn’t available in the 1970’s

You stated that it was available in the early 1970s. One of the above contributors corrected you, with its actual launch date (1977). if you can’t even quote your own recent discussions accurately, how can anything you write about the events of 50 years ago be trusted?

Carryfast:
and blaming me for having a go at the Gardner family when I didn’t.

You have repeatedly directed the same childish, badly-researched insult at their work. You have ignored every other poster’s attempt to qualify your simplistic statements and returned to the same, one-dimensional taunts. Why do you continue, when it is blindingly obvious that you are getting up everyone’s f. nose?

Carryfast:
Not to mention the double standards of it being seen as ok to have a go at Stokes who actually cetainly did know

How do you know he knew?

Carryfast:
that there’s no way of running a successful truck manufacturing industry without being able to dominate the domestic market.

This is your opinion. You made it up. In this context, it is illogical, too: Leyland did dominate the GB market (and was doing very well in many other markets, including Continental ones), when Stokes decided to stop competing in Europe. Therefore, a lack of home sales was not what disbarred Leyland from its export successes- that was Stokes himself.

[saviem]

Evening all, what can I say, excellent posts, gingerfold has summerised things totally, thank you, (and surely there is a major new post here, AEC/Leyland, Europe, or the world, who was right)■■?

cav551, true appreciation and understanding. You know your engines!

bma, bang on every time, (that is a complement), Koiviston auto, I bet many on this thread had never heard of this , very influential PSV builder ! And , may I say, very good comparisons with Sisu, and all things in the Nordic lands.

Mark, (newmercman), how do you keep your patience?? meaningful contributions, from someone who is really “living the dream”, thank you.

kr79, [ZB], Larry D, exciting old world is it not, our dear friend CF, trying to use reason, or fact against his arguments, well, it is like treading on jelly, it just squashes, then expands around your foot!! The only thing you can do is laugh, who said that the art of comedy is dead in the 21st century!!! Boy he can make me laugh!!

Thank you all, not a good day today, so solace in the Bollinger,(and b…r the expense)! Cheerio for now, (tommorow will be better)!