PART 7,GARDNER DIESEL ENGINES
This Gardner Engine Thread is sure using up the kilobytes and megabytes on TruckNetUK’s mainframe computers!
There are a number of facts and points that I want to address.
Saviem. Your Foden S21 Spaceship,being a very discerning and classy lorry would very rightly say,if it could speak - or rather sing if it was a two stroke 
:-
“Please stop insulting me with that dreadful mickey mouse Mickey Mouse so-called name garbage 
.I am a lorry of the Space Age 
- Sputnik Satellite,Saturn V,Apollo 11,Neil Armstrong:The First Man On The Moon,Buzz Aldrin:The Second Man On The Moon,Foden S21 Spaceship Sputnik,NASA Space Programme,Space Shuttle,Satellite TV,Space Exploration,Star Wars,Star Trek,Flash Gordon,Dan Dare The Pilot Of The Future,Radio Astronomy,Space Oddyssey,Barbarella,Wernher Von Braun,Starship,Space Rocket,Astronaut,UFOs,Flying Saucers,Cosmonaut,Space Stations,Space People,Mars,Venus,Galaxies,Intersteller Travel…and so on - any mickey mouse junk name cannot compete with the above glamourous lot! Especially if your a Foden S21 Spaceship,or a Foden S21 Sputnik,or a Foden S21 Sputnik Spaceship,or a Foden S21 Spaceship Sputnik like I am,baby,and all my other Foden S21 Spaceship Sputnik friends are really - and they are the facts” .
That is one very classy and discerning Foden S21 Spaceship lorry that you’ve got there,Saviem
Saviem also wrote:"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!!”
Yes.I know all about AEC killing off MARQUES (not “brands”,ugh!),such as Crossley and Maudslay,and ideally they should be still with us .But AEC was lightyears ahead of these two marques in terms of importance,prestige and sales .And Leyland’s incompetent management ought to have realised this fact before dropping the legendary AEC marque,because these so and so fools did the Leyland group a hell of a lot of irreparable damage in every way by doing so!!! 
As you know,I’ve voiced my grave displeasure about this in earlier posts in this thread,and elsewhere on the Internet - and the same applies to the marques that I’ve listed in
the paragraph below.
And I have not ignored companies such as Volvo dropping White and Leyland,Mercedes-Benz dropping Hanomag-Henschell,MAN dropping Bussing,MAN dropping ERF,DAF dropping Scammell,PACCAR-DAF dropping Foden and Leyland,and so on!!! It’s downright disgusting! So I am not guilty…
And I also remember a well-known MAN executive (his name escapes me at present) lamenting and regreting MAN’s elimination of the Bussing marque:“MAN should never have stopped making Bussing” .
…I read that in the Truck Magazine.
Newmercman asked “So, the $64,000 question…
Were these Gardner Engines any good then?”
I’ll will give a fair answer to this question later on.
Gingerfold.According to both Pat Kennett and Peter Davies,it was in December 1924 that MAN produced the world’s first direct injection diesel engine,and this 5-litre 4-cylinder engine is regarded as the forerunner of the modern diesel engine.
According to you,it was Gardner that made the world’s first direct injection diesel engine,which was the 5.5 litre 4-cylinder 4L2 and was introduced in 1929.The 4L2 was probably the world’s first production direct injection diesel engine.
But Gingerfold,please correct me if I am wrong about this.
And on page 24 in this thread you wrote:-
" 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".
I do not fully agree with you on these points,and feel that you have contradicted yourself in
regard to what you have written in at least some of your books in regard to operator and driver awareness of engine output power and torque outputs at least…and as for the ridiculous 20 MPH speed limit …
You give the impression that most lorry drivers and lorry operators suffered from a deplorable lack of curiosity,but in your Gardner book you say that Hugh Gardner came out with the K-Type LW range because operators wanted more power.And then later on you say the AEC and Leyland 150 BHP engines were quickly becoming the preferred choice for drawbar trailer outfits,and you say the same thing in your AEC Mammoth Major Mk III book and in your Leyland Octopus book you state that the Leyland 0.680 was a popular choice for drawbar trailer outfits .
So very many lorry operators were aware of and took an interest in the power and torque outputs of lorry engines,especially when deciding what marques and models of lorry they were going to buy.I would also like to think that many lorry drivers were interested too .
As for that ludicrous 20 MPH speed limit :This law was a dead letter .Hardly anybody took any notice of it,many lorry drivers drove fast when running empty and also used Aberdeen Overdrive when running both loaded and empty!
Furthermore,the equally ridiculous 30 MPH speed limit for motorcoaches and buses was also a dead letter! In fact,certain motorcoaches were fitted with overdrive gearboxes and could do 60 MPH plus!
Nevertheless,it probably is true that these speed limits generally stifled engine development in the United Kingdom,leaving British lorry and passenger vehicle makers at a disadvantage compared to the Europeans,Scandinavians and Americans who all operated higher powered lorries,buses
and motorcoaches because of higher and more relaxed speed limits,bigger,better and faster roads:- autobahns,autostradas,freeways,turnpikes,etc.These continents have also got more mountainous roads and hills,so their motor vehicles need to be more powerful.
As for Gingerfold’s comments on Hugh Gardner in his Gardner history:Hugh Gardner was the boss and chief engineer of the Gardner company,and his management style was somewhat autocratic and some people found him difficult to work with on some occassions,including at least one or two members of his own family.If anybody queried anything about the running of the company,whatever,Hugh Gardner would reply:" I am the largest employer of labour in Eccles;I’ve got a twelve months order book,and I make a respectable profit. Where am I wrong?"
So these traits of Hugh Gardner were to a certain extent reflected in the uneasy relationships
with Gardner’s customers:the company insisted that their engines should be installed in the vehicles properly,for one thing.
As an engineer,Hugh Gardner was very conservative who believed in the qualities of economy and longevity for engines and that these would be diminished or disappear in high power engines -
and I haven’t even mentioned turbocharging yet!!!
But I will now! Hugh Gardner was totally opposed to the turbocharging of Gardner diesel engines,
and said that if any turbochargers entered the factory he would resign. He thought that turbocharging caused an engine to be overstressed,and it went against his engineering ideals .
So…keeping all of the above Gingerfold comments about Hugh Gardner in mind,it is easy to see why L.Gardner & Sons produced underpowered engines and were slow - even reluctant - in coming out with more powerful engines .All of these reasons were very damaging for Gardner in both the short term and the long term 
.
So bearing this in mind,Hugh Gardner was the somewhat autocratic boss - The buck stops here - so he must take at least some of the blame for the damage! .
The rest of the blame is with conservative,traditionalist,lorry,bus and motorcoach operators,some of whom were fuddy duddys and penny pinchers.Other customers were more broad-minded and
operated a mixture of Gardner and non-Gardner vehicles.Thus many of these customers bought the same old engine models time after time,which helped to make the Gardner company too complacement .
But,Gardner’s customer base eroded and eventually vanished,because of all the objective facts
that I’ve documented in my previous posts and in this post,plus in some of the other posts written by other members.
NOTE:Based on what Gingerfold-Graham Edge wrote about Hugh Gardner in his history of L Gardner and Sons book,I have objectively given a fair assessment of Hugh Gardner,his engineering philosphy and how it affected the designs and specifications of Hugh Gardner-designed Gardner Diesel Engines .
And now I must return to this:-
Newmercman asked “So, the $64,000 question…
Were these Gardner Engines any good then?”
I’ll will give a fair answer to this question later on.
Well,that later on is now:-
One of my favourite historic motor vehicles is the Scammell Pioneer ,powered by a Gardner 6LW 102 BHP Diesel Engine,this lorry is beautiful,charismatic,has a top speed of 20-25 MPH
and helped Great Britain and it’s allies to win Word War Two .After the war loads of these impressive Pioneers became Heavy Recovery Vehicles,Heavy Haulage Ballast Road Locomotives,Showmans Ballast Road Locomotives,etc .
Underpowered? They certainly were,but,because of their gearing,they certainly made a good,but slow,job of pulling three fully-loaded fairground trailers at once,roadtrain style,or hauling military tanks,or recovering motor vehicles ,and so on,all aided and abetted by
“The Old Slogger” - it’s an affectionate nickname for the Gardner 6LW Diesel Engine .
I would love to own a Scammell Pioneer 6x4 Showmans Ballast Road Locomotive like this :-
flickr.com/photos/designandmake/4779478659/
flickr.com/photos/foden_djp/ … 09300@N08/
But I would probably re-engine it with a Gardner 6LX 150 or 6LXB 180,for more power and speed,but I would not re-engine it with any other marque of engine because I would want to keep the tradition and history of Scammell Pioneers being powered by Gardner Diesel Engines .
It will be evident in this post and my other Gardner Engines posts that I’ve got mixed feelings about Gardner engines:They probably were the Rolls-Royce of Diesel Engines - precision and quality-wise only - but were underpowered and were not immune from breaking down…
but I have been known to say in the past “A Gardner engine will run forever”,having been inspired by fairground Gardner diesel engines .
But I would not have had any underpowered Gardner engines in my lorry and/or bus and/or motorcoach fleet .
Most if not all operators of Gardner-engined lorries,buses and motorcoaches were satisfied with these engines and obviously thought that they were good - and,apart from being underpowered ,they were good in respect of precision-built quality,economy,durability and realiability…the engines
worked.Thus,apart from being underpowered,they were great engines .
But an ever growing number of lorry,bus and motorcoach operators objectively knew that Gardner engines were not powerful enough ,so they bought ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ motor vehicles and/or operated AEC,Leyland,Volvo,Scania,Mercedes-Benz,Foden two stroke etc,motor vehicles instead .
And that sums up all the objective facts .
Two final points.If ■■■■■■■ pulls out of general automotive diesel engine production,they still make an impressive range of diesel engines for marine use,fire engines,dump trucks and other earthmoving and construction vehicles,industrial applications,rail vehicles,electricity power generation,etc.etc.
I will have to add two other turbocharged diesel engines to my lists on pages 10 and 22 :-
B.M.M.O.-Midland Red = Birmingham and Midland Motor Omnibus Company - Midland Red,was a big bus and motorcoach operator,who designed and built some of their own buses and motorcoaches.And these buses and motorcoaches were of advanced designs,of which B.M.M.O.were renowned for.
In 1959,a number of the B.M.M.O.- Midland Red CM5T/Carlyle C37F Motorcoaches entered service on Midland Red’s new M1 Birmingham to London Motorcoach Service. And these motorcoaches were powered by B.M.M.O KL 8.028 litre Turbocharged 138 BHP Diesel Engines,with CAV Turbochargers,and the top speed was 85 MPH!
Daimler CDS6 Turbocharged CVD6-SD Single Decker Motorcoaches and Buses.Introduced in 1958.
Well…I was going to finish this post here and now,but I’ve just read Carryfast’s latest post,the last paragraph interests me most of all:-
“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.”
Bearing in mind what I have already said about the Scammell Pioneer in this post,the British War Office-War Department knew that this lorry was underpowered.Thus they commissioned the far more powerful Diamond T 980/981 6x4 Road Locomotives/Tractive Units,to be used as Tank Transporters by the British Army and,later on,by the Allied Forces.Whats more,British Forces also operated American-built
Federal 604 6x4,Reo 28XS 6x4 and Pacific M26/M26A 6x6 Tank and Heavy Equipment Transporters.
Diamond T 980/981 6x4 Road Locomotives/Tractive Units:185 BHP.
Federal 604 6x4 Tractive Unit:150 BHP.
Pacific M26/M26A Dragon Wagon 6x6 Tractive Units:240 BHP
Reo 28XS 6x4 Tractive Unit:150 BHP.
Scammell Pioneer TRMU/20/30 6x4 Tractive Units:102 BHP.
Although many Scammell Pioneers remained in service with the British Army - some in to the early 1970s - according to military vehicle directories,the British WD-MOD never ordered
any Gardner-engined motor vehicles for operation in the Services ever again.
For reasons of safety levels,performance levels,stress levels,power to weight ratios,etc,the MOD Motor Transport Division have a policy of operating their vehicles at lower stress and weight levels than the equivalent vehicles in Civvy Street.They also want powerful motor vehicles.
The MOD have had this vehicle operating policy ever since the early post-war years.
Since the end of World War Two,the MOD,via the Army,Navy,Royal Air Force,etc,have bought and operated lorries,tank transporters,fire engines,etc,built by AEC,Albion,
Bedford,Foden,Leyland,Leyland DAF,MAN,Oshkosh,Scammell,Seddon Atkinson,Thornycroft,Volvo and so on.Some of these vehicles have engines made by the vehicle manufacturers
themselves,whilst others vehicles have been powered by Caterpillar,■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ petrol and diesel,Perkins,Rolls-Royce petrol and diesel engines,etc.
But,according to Bart Vanderveen and other experts,the MOD did not buy
and operate any Gardner-engine motor vehicles in the post-war years.There are probably two reasons for this:-Gardner had enough problems in trying to supply engines
to it’s civilian customers,and the MOD knew that Gardner Diesel Engines were underpowered .
VALKYRIE.
