Gardner ENGINES

[carryfast]

EW car truck & bus:
Carryfast,

I will keep this simple, after some 25 pages on this thread it makes my blood boil when i continually hear you rabble on with out respect about Gardner engines when they achieved so much more than you can ever dream of!
I could also babble on but i wont, as i have probably skidded more in reverse gear than you have driven in forward gears!

I said they were obviously well enough engineered and designed by a competent designer which is respect enough.Their outputs were a different matter throughout much of their production life compared to their opposition that’s all I’m saying.If that’s caused any offence to you for some reason.Tough.

[ew_car_truck_amp_bus]

tough i am, respectful you are not!!!

end of .

[ramone]

Carryfast,would you describe the Swedes as a backward set because they never had the equivelent to 10 bhp per ton in the `70s?

[bma_finland]

as i and many others have tryed to say, it is not only hauling 40/60 tn whit top of range in motorways,still different works ,maybe 60tn one way and emty back, many different jobs, even if have been in england only two times,it seem i,ll understand the(not carryfast)reason why gardner was so god ,and later (emmissions)failed. if all i,ll read of gardener it was light and had god torqe so in lighter work a god engine,but think the euro1 killed non turbo engines even if they where quite god cheers benkku

[carryfast]

ramone:
Carryfast,would you describe the Swedes as a backward set because they never had the equivelent to 10 bhp per ton in the `70s?

The Swedes were part of our competition and the idea was (would/should have been) to get ahead of the competition before they had a chance to get ahead of us.It was only that type of reasoning,on the part of my first employers,that stopped me ending up in the late 1970’s youth unemployment dole queue.

As I’ve said I think 10 hp per ton would have been doable for most of the truck builders that fitted Gardners through most of the 1970’s.If only they had the customer demand here for it like there was in the NorthAmerican and colonial markets.Although it’s torque that really matters and there’s no way of getting plenty of that without forced induction or an impossibly large capacity engine.

[lawrence_dunbar]

bma.finland:
as i and many others have tryed to say, it is not only hauling 40/60 tn whit top of range in motorways,still different works ,maybe 60tn one way and emty back, many different jobs, even if have been in england only two times,it seem i,ll understand the(not carryfast)reason why gardner was so god ,and later (emmissions)failed. if all i,ll read of gardener it was light and had god torqe so in lighter work a god engine,but think the euro1 killed non turbo engines even if they where quite god cheers benkku

Quite right in what you say, But this C/F geaser wouldnt know the far ened of a ■■■■ about what you are talking about ,like everything else he states about the old Gardners, he just dosnt like them, & If thats is his choice fare enough, but he yaps & yaps on about , well crap as far as Im concerened, He would never have survived in the 50/60s times, when gaffers wanted the best from their drivers & their wagons, Regards Larry.

[carryfast]

bma.finland:
as i and many others have tryed to say, it is not only hauling 40/60 tn whit top of range in motorways,still different works ,maybe 60tn one way and emty back, many different jobs, even if have been in england only two times,it seem i,ll understand the(not carryfast)reason why gardner was so god ,and later (emmissions)failed. if all i,ll read of gardener it was light and had god torqe so in lighter work a god engine,but think the euro1 killed non turbo engines even if they where quite god cheers benkku

A naturally aspirated Gardner didn’t have good torque.Euro 1 didn’t kill non turbo engines it was their torque outputs that killed them.

[carryfast]

Lawrence Dunbar:

bma.finland:
as i and many others have tryed to say, it is not only hauling 40/60 tn whit top of range in motorways,still different works ,maybe 60tn one way and emty back, many different jobs, even if have been in england only two times,it seem i,ll understand the(not carryfast)reason why gardner was so god ,and later (emmissions)failed. if all i,ll read of gardener it was light and had god torqe so in lighter work a god engine,but think the euro1 killed non turbo engines even if they where quite god cheers benkku

Quite right in what you say, But this C/F geaser wouldnt know the far ened of a ■■■■ about what you are talking about ,like everything else he states about the old Gardners, he just dosnt like them, & If thats is his choice fare enough, but he yaps & yaps on about , well crap as far as Im concerened, He would never have survived in the 50/60s times, when gaffers wanted the best from their drivers & their wagons, Regards Larry.

I would never have survived in the late 1970’s early 1980’s let alone 1950’s/60’s when guvnors expected what I was doing in 1985 with a 2800 from a 180 Gardner powered wagon.

[ramone]

Carryfast:

Lawrence Dunbar:

bma.finland:
as i and many others have tryed to say, it is not only hauling 40/60 tn whit top of range in motorways,still different works ,maybe 60tn one way and emty back, many different jobs, even if have been in england only two times,it seem i,ll understand the(not carryfast)reason why gardner was so god ,and later (emmissions)failed. if all i,ll read of gardener it was light and had god torqe so in lighter work a god engine,but think the euro1 killed non turbo engines even if they where quite god cheers benkku

Quite right in what you say, But this C/F geaser wouldnt know the far ened of a ■■■■ about what you are talking about ,like everything else he states about the old Gardners, he just dosnt like them, & If thats is his choice fare enough, but he yaps & yaps on about , well crap as far as Im concerened, He would never have survived in the 50/60s times, when gaffers wanted the best from their drivers & their wagons, Regards Larry.

I would never have survived in the late 1970’s early 1980’s let alone 1950’s/60’s when guvnors expected what I was doing in 1985 with a 2800 from a 180 Gardner powered wagon.

Yeah cos they were proper drivers

[lawrence_dunbar]

Tell me C/F honestley have you ever driven a Gardner Powered Motor, ? Regards Larry.

[bma_finland]

Carryfast:

bma.finland:
as i and many others have tryed to say, it is not only hauling 40/60 tn whit top of range in motorways,still different works ,maybe 60tn one way and emty back, many different jobs, even if have been in england only two times,it seem i,ll understand the(not carryfast)reason why gardner was so god ,and later (emmissions)failed. if all i,ll read of gardener it was light and had god torqe so in lighter work a god engine,but think the euro1 killed non turbo engines even if they where quite god cheers benkku

A naturally aspirated Gardner didn’t have good torque.Euro 1 didn’t kill non turbo engines it was their torque outputs that killed them.

think still you don,t no enyting by nothing, twostorke dd and ■■■■■■■ high rev high pover ,BUT torqe,well ,isn,t it why scania had 10 gears gardener 6 volvo16 and yankeedoodels 18 fuller rapidechange so revs cnot go under 2000 not an expert but hej benkku

[retriever]

This CWS AEC Mk III was photographed by Roger Kenney in the 1960s, location unknown. The vehicle is signed to Newcastle.

Back in the late 1950s and into the 1960s there was a CWS bakery on the Priorswood Road, Taunton opposite our school. The flour was delivered by 8 wheel tankers and the bread went out via a fleet of maroon Morris Commercial long wheelbase pantechnicons, presumably to deliver to Cooperative depots in the south west.

Idiot - I clicked the wrong forum thread when posting this. Sorry lads.

[ramone]

retriever:

This CWS AEC Mk III was photographed by Roger Kenney in the 1960s, location unknown. The vehicle is signed to Newcastle.

Back in the late 1950s and into the 1960s there was a CWS bakery on the Priorswood Road, Taunton opposite our school. The flour was delivered by 8 wheel tankers and the bread went out via a fleet of maroon Morris Commercial long wheelbase pantechnicons, presumably to deliver to Cooperative depots in the south west.

Idiot - I clicked the wrong forum thread when posting this. Sorry lads.

Still ,its a great picture

[saviem]

Evening all, hey ho, this is getting tiresome, CF, oh dear boy, (for surely you must be such), please go away and start a new thread, “The haulage bosses killed the UK manufacturing Industry”, Let us see what contributions you receive.

I can only recall from personal experience, just how difficult is was to make a living, and develop a business, running lorries on “hire and reward”,( and CF " dear boy ", keep it going, whether you operated in the UK, France, Belgium, Italy, or the United States of America! remember cost of operation was paramount.

Rather than bemoan the “death” of yet another thread, let us encourage dear CF to develop his own, based upon his “logic” , and we shall enjoy “joining in”!!!

gingerfold, from my accrued data, (and it is incomplete by nature of the lack of verifiable records, across Bernard, Latil, Verhuil, I calculated around (metric), 22 pounds Sterling per unit!! Not a lot is it?? Interesting that M Remorie, et M la Vale, engineers at Latil joined Berliet, prior to the inception of the "Maxi Couple designes!! Gardner influence?? Who knows, adieu mes braves, the Barley is “awfull”, (but the price is high), but the main concern, …we are finding decimated wild Bee hives, now that I class as serious!! This Gentlemen, it is our food chain!!! Away to the Bollinger, bon nuit, Cheerio for now.

[carryfast]

Lawrence Dunbar:
Tell me C/F honestley have you ever driven a Gardner Powered Motor, ? Regards Larry.

Mainly just the old ERF shunter to shift some trailers sometimes in the morning to help the shunter out while he was shifting rigids and that was all the things were really fit for and I can vaguely remember being asked to do half of,what should have been,a double trunk to Leicester with one of the last of the old SA’s before it was sent for scrap (with a lot of apologies from the guvnor notice the difference between 1985 compared to 1975) when the DAF was late being finished having a service.But how anyone could put up with driving those things around the country on a regular basis will always remain a mystery to me.

[carryfast]

bma.finland:

Carryfast:

bma.finland:
as i and many others have tryed to say, it is not only hauling 40/60 tn whit top of range in motorways,still different works ,maybe 60tn one way and emty back, many different jobs, even if have been in england only two times,it seem i,ll understand the(not carryfast)reason why gardner was so god ,and later (emmissions)failed. if all i,ll read of gardener it was light and had god torqe so in lighter work a god engine,but think the euro1 killed non turbo engines even if they where quite god cheers benkku

A naturally aspirated Gardner didn’t have good torque.Euro 1 didn’t kill non turbo engines it was their torque outputs that killed them.

think still you don,t no enyting by nothing, twostorke dd and ■■■■■■■ high rev high pover ,BUT torqe,well ,isn,t it why scania had 10 gears gardener 6 volvo16 and yankeedoodels 18 fuller rapidechange so revs cnot go under 2000 not an expert but hej benkku

Too right you’re no expert.

Suggest you compare the torque curves of a 320-350 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 8V71/8V92 Detroit and a Volvo F12 with a Gardner 240.

The more gears you’ve got the closer the ratios which allows you to do this.

youtube.com/watch/?v=j0n9_E0HBSY

[zb_anorak]

Carryfast:
Too right you’re no expert.

Unprovoked insult. Unacceptable.

Carryfast:
Suggest you compare the torque curves of a 320-350 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 8V71/8V92 Detroit and a Volvo F12 with a Gardner 240.

Comparing popular 1970s products with ones cherry-picked from the 1980s. Nonsensical.
Not providing evidence. Show the graphs or shut up. Arrogance.

The above shows why nobody agrees with you, cf. There’s nothing wrong with being different, of course. Gardners did things differently and reigned supreme for nearly half a century. You are at the other end of things.

[bma_finland]

well ■■■■■■■ was in real a high rev engine,that i,ll know from many sisudriver the torque in real life is 1400-1700, and dynotests confirm that many times on,normaly a ■■■■■■■ powered sisu is some 5l thorstier then competisens cause of higer rev,s. an no i,m not a engineer, but have worked whit engines since -76 and drive and repair own motors since 90,an d even now,so i,m not an expert but i,m not stupid,can,t lie to my what you want cf,cheers benkku,and sorry to say euro normes killed non turbo engines,and that was the reason mersedes and iveco changed course in the 80,s their engineers found out what we all know,charging is needed for low emissions

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:

Carryfast:
Too right you’re no expert.

Unprovoked insult. Unacceptable.

Carryfast:
Suggest you compare the torque curves of a 320-350 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 8V71/8V92 Detroit and a Volvo F12 with a Gardner 240.

Comparing popular 1970s products with ones cherry-picked from the 1980s. Nonsensical.
Not providing evidence. Show the graphs or shut up. Arrogance.

The above shows why nobody agrees with you, cf. There’s nothing wrong with being different, of course. Gardners did things differently and reigned supreme for nearly half a century. You are at the other end of things.

So it’s ok for him to say I don’t know anything but not for me to tell him the same thing. I’d also say the same thing about you too which is obvious considering that you don’t seem to have a clue about what was actually available and when and seem to believe all the bs that the turbocharged 14 litre ■■■■■■■ didn’t do any useful work or produce it’s peak torque below 1,400 rpm let alone be needed to be taken up to 1,700 rpm at each gear shift which not surprisingly would have caused a bit of havoc with it’s fuel consumption figures.

As for providing the graphs I’ve at least done that elsewhere in the case of the potential which was contained in the 8V71T and it doesn’t take a genius to know that the 8V92 would have provided even more.Like the turbocharged 14 Litre ■■■■■■■ and the F12 both of which were available during the 1970’s and certainly before that in the case of the 8V71.But as it’s you who seems to believe all the bs about dates and torque figures concerning the ■■■■■■■ it’s obviously you who needs the education not me so go and find the information for yourself.

But I’d doubt that you’d believe it when you’ve eventually managed to find it because in your world it was Gardner that ruled the world.Half a century means 1930-1980 when the thing was already outclassed even during the 1940’s which is why we shipped a load of those Diamond T’s here during WW2 because we had zb all that could do the same job made here at the time.Let alone trying to compete with what the US truck manufacturing industry had at it’s disposal during the 1970’s. You’re either having a laugh or you’re on a wind up.

[zb_anorak]

Carryfast:
So it’s ok for him to say I don’t know anything but not for me to tell him the same thing.

Err…yes. He’s right, you’re wrong. Hahahahaha.

Carryfast:
I’d also say the same thing about you too which is obvious considering that you don’t seem to have a clue about what was actually available and when and seem to believe all the bs that the turbocharged 14 litre ■■■■■■■ didn’t do any useful work or produce it’s peak torque below 1,400 rpm let alone be needed to be taken up to 1,700 rpm at each gear shift which not surprisingly would have caused a bit of havoc with it’s fuel consumption figures.

As for providing the graphs I’ve at least done that elsewhere in the case of the potential which was contained in the 8V71T and it doesn’t take a genius to know that the 8V92 would have provided even more.Like the turbocharged 14 Litre ■■■■■■■ and the F12 both of which were available during the 1970’s and certainly before that in the case of the 8V71.But as it’s you who seems to believe all the bs about dates and torque figures concerning the ■■■■■■■ it’s obviously you who needs the education not me so go and find the information for yourself.

But I’d doubt that you’d believe it when you’ve eventually managed to find it because in your world it was Gardner that ruled the world.Half a century means 1930-1980 when the thing was already outclassed even during the 1940’s which is why we shipped a load of those Diamond T’s here during WW2 because we had zb all that could do the same job made here at the time.Let alone trying to compete with what the US truck manufacturing industry had at it’s disposal during the 1970’s. You’re either having a laugh or you’re on a wind up.

Do I detect an exodus of toys from pram?