Gardner ENGINES

[zb_anorak]

cav551:
I would worry about running ANY automotive engine continuously at full load and revs for extended periods.
The Gardner would possibly tolerate it better due to the design of Hugh Gardner’s governor, which only allows the throttle to dictate revs and not load. However I would still be concerned about overloading.

How did this differ from normal, cav? Surely, full “throttle” would give (on a 6LXB, for instance) 180bhp at 1800rpm (or 1850, I forget) and the governor would simply prevent any higher engine speeds. I see the sense in the argument that Gardners would be more tolerant of continuous running at maximum power, simply because their governed speed was lower than other engines.

[carryfast]

cav551:
I would worry about running ANY automotive engine continuously at full load and revs for extended periods.
The Gardner would possibly tolerate it better due to the design of Hugh Gardner’s governor, which only allows the throttle to dictate revs and not load. However I would still be concerned about overloading.

Which is exactly the issue which I’ve been on about.The idea is to make something that puts out loads of power at well below it’s maximum peak power output figure which is just a meaningless acedemic figure in it’s own right.In most cases there’s the max quoted peak power then there’s the max quoted continous running engine speed and power rating.It’s the mixture of high revs and high load which does the damage although engine speed in it’s own right has the ability to do plenty of damage by itself.

Which is why it’s better to go for as much forced induction pressures as possible at as low engine speeds as possible to get the same output as that which you’d need to rev a naturally aspirated engine,of equivalent capacity to,to obtain.However there were more limits on that idea,of how much forced induction and boost that a diesel engine could tolerate with the technology they had available,in the very early years of turbocharged diesels,than later.It would for example have been interesting to see what would have happened to a naturally aspirated 6 lxb180 for example if it had been pushed to equivalent specific power outputs as the turbocharged 680 development in the 2800-3600 for example just by increasing it’s speed while staying with the it’s original torque outputs. Let alone it’s fuel consumption figures if by some miracle it had survived. Let alone the same comparison of a 600-700 hp + Scania V8 v the 240 Gardner.

Which then just leaves the two stroke idea which at least one person here seems to dislike as much as I dislike the Gardner idea. The advantage with that idea was it could provide much better specific outputs,both in non turbocharged form and turbocharged form,because most of the stresses are/were shared across twice as many power strokes for the equivalent amount of engine revolutions and it needs less forced induction boost to get the same amount of power for the same reason,which could also be applied vice versa in the case of more specific otputs for the equivalent amounts of forced induction boost.
If only we could get Kettering and Gardner on here to argue the two points.

[zb_anorak]

Carryfast:
Which is exactly the issue which I’ve been on about.The idea is to make something that puts out loads of power at well below it’s maximum peak power output

If the LXB had been governed to a higher peak power speed, it would have made lots more power. It was, as you know, governed to a much lower speed- 250rpm lower than your beloved Yankee engines, at the time it was in production. What logical process causes you not to approve of the great Gardner, given the aversion to revolutions you seem to express above?

[saviem]

Evening all, boy, Ive just fallen, (climbed down) from the combine), all the Barleys done), poor yeild, (but high price), Gentlemen, that is not good for all of us, mark my words.

in the office for a shower, switch this b… addictive thing on, what do I find!!!

Realisation that Valkyrie, …he must be the erstwhile Scania Volvo, from Big Lorry Blog,…gawd, spare me from “enthusiasts”, who have “opinions” based on romantic ideas, but never ever based on real, (Ive my own cash invested in this, or more importantly, Ive got to drive this to earn my wages)!!! scenarios. Such vitriol, dear boy, a Micky Mouse, it is a Micky Mouse!!! And that cab design b…d, up the knees of many of us who “really” drove them over countless millions of miles!! The man who designed it should have been shot!!

gingerfold, take heart, his lack of respect is based on a real lack of knowledge!! Please keep on with your excellent analytical oppinions.

cav551, I would happily employ you, you know what your doing!

nmm (mark), its no good arguing with our dear friend CF, he has never experienced that “ring tightening” experience of pouring even more “go go juice”, into a bottomless tank, and not knowing if that was the last of the “profit margin”, or not!!! It makes a real difference,…men from boys " comes to mind" !!!

ramone, I still believe, (and many may disagree), that VanDammes Iveco, (Unic) V8 , was the best ever V8 diesel ever!

windrush, same as cav551, they do not know what you are talking about!!! Sadly they have no real experience or knowledge, but those who do, enjoy your contributions!!

Well, I am away to a Salmon Trout, copious Bollinger, a good sleep, (while my contractors bale)! tommorow its the hedges, and then ploughing, surely only second best bto “poking a really difficult trailer”, into the smallest hole possible…ESL, eat your hearts out!!! Bon

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:

Carryfast:
Which is exactly the issue which I’ve been on about.The idea is to make something that puts out loads of power at well below it’s maximum peak power output

If the LXB had been governed to a higher peak power speed, it would have made lots more power. It was, as you know, governed to a much lower speed- 250rpm lower than your beloved Yankee engines, at the time it was in production. What logical process causes you not to approve of the great Gardner, given the aversion to revolutions you seem to express above?

250 rpm lower maybe but you need to get all the work done over half as many power strokes and as I’ve said it’s the mixture of revs and load that really puts the most stress on the engine. Firstly to have made ‘lots more power’ it would have had to sustain torque up to that higher engine speed and in the case of the 180 you’d have had to have multiplied even it’s peak torque,let alone it’s torque figure at max power,by more than 2,800 rpm to match the 9 Litre 8V71’s 318 hp.

[zb_anorak]

Carryfast:
250 rpm lower maybe but you need to get all the work done over half as many power strokes and as I’ve said it’s the mixture of revs and load that really puts the most stress on the engine. Firstly to have made ‘lots more power’ it would have had to sustain torque up to that higher engine speed and in the case of the 180 you’d have had to have multiplied even it’s peak torque,let alone it’s torque figure at max power,by more than 2,800 rpm to match the 9 Litre 8V71’s 318 hp.

So the 2 stroke produces more power per litre. Any idiot knows that. The Gardner’s advantage was a full load SFC figure around 200g/kWh, from 1000rpm to 1800rpm. Please provide the corresponding figures for the 318 Detroit.

[saviem]

[ZB], he cannot!!! Cheerio for now, (the Bollinger awaits)!!!.

[carryfast]

Saviem:
nmm (mark), its no good arguing with our dear friend CF, he has never experienced that “ring tightening” experience of pouring even more “go go juice”, into a bottomless tank, and not knowing if that was the last of the “profit margin”, or not!!! It makes a real difference,…men from boys " comes to mind" !!!

But the fact that I find an engine design which sold more than 3 million over it’s 70 year production life and was put into service to play a large part in WW2 in Europe and the Pacific theatres both on land and sea and was then kept in service by the military because of the good job it had done can’t be that bad compared to making the case for the Gardner design.

Although having said that in the UK truck buying environment,where history shows that idea would have been a non starter anyway,proving to my guvnors that the 2800 could provide better fuel figures than the 2500 or the 2300 and the resulting order for the replacement ATI’s didn’t bring any complaints by all concerned including all the drivers who ended up with better wagons than what they had before.

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:

Carryfast:
250 rpm lower maybe but you need to get all the work done over half as many power strokes and as I’ve said it’s the mixture of revs and load that really puts the most stress on the engine. Firstly to have made ‘lots more power’ it would have had to sustain torque up to that higher engine speed and in the case of the 180 you’d have had to have multiplied even it’s peak torque,let alone it’s torque figure at max power,by more than 2,800 rpm to match the 9 Litre 8V71’s 318 hp.

So the 2 stroke produces more power per litre. Any idiot knows that. The Gardner’s advantage was a full load SFC figure around 200g/kWh, from 1000rpm to 1800rpm. Please provide the corresponding figures for the 318 Detroit.

In this case it was the comparative stress levels for both engines to produce the equivalent amounts of power that I was comparing not specific power outputs.Not much point in having better SFC if the engine grenaded iteself to do the same job as one with (a lot) more power anyway.So exactly what would that SFC have been at the equivalent power outputs of the 8V71 throughout the range assuming the engine would have stayed together when it was revved high enough to reach them.

[saviem]

Carryfast:

Saviem:
nmm (mark), its no good arguing with our dear friend CF, he has never experienced that “ring tightening” experience of pouring even more “go go juice”, into a bottomless tank, and not knowing if that was the last of the “profit margin”, or not!!! It makes a real difference,…men from boys " comes to mind" !!!

But the fact that I find an engine design which sold more than 3 million over it’s 70 year production life and was put into service to play a large part in WW2 in Europe and the Pacific theatres both on land and sea and was then kept in service by the military because of the good job it had done can’t be that bad compared to making the case for the Gardner design.

Although having said that in the UK truck buying environment,where history shows that idea would have been a non starter anyway,proving to my guvnors that the 2800 could provide better fuel figures than the 2500 or the 2300 and the resulting order for the replacement ATI’s didn’t bring any complaints by all concerned including all the drivers who ended up with better wagons than what they had before.

Hey Dear CF, My Scammell Pioneer, she did not have a Detroit!! I seem to remember that the fuel tank contained petrol…perchance she had a Meadows, (son of sunny Wolverhampton), fibre timing belts and all,…oh, and my Diamond T, well she had a “colonial” Herculese, and my Mc Claren gun tractor,… I must go to the barn, Im sure she has a radial petrol!!! Detroit… I think not!!! Dream on dear boy, Im away to the Bollinger, Bon Nuit, cHEERIO FOR NOW.

[carryfast]

Saviem:

Carryfast:

Saviem:
nmm (mark), its no good arguing with our dear friend CF, he has never experienced that “ring tightening” experience of pouring even more “go go juice”, into a bottomless tank, and not knowing if that was the last of the “profit margin”, or not!!! It makes a real difference,…men from boys " comes to mind" !!!

But the fact that I find an engine design which sold more than 3 million over it’s 70 year production life and was put into service to play a large part in WW2 in Europe and the Pacific theatres both on land and sea and was then kept in service by the military because of the good job it had done can’t be that bad compared to making the case for the Gardner design.

Although having said that in the UK truck buying environment,where history shows that idea would have been a non starter anyway,proving to my guvnors that the 2800 could provide better fuel figures than the 2500 or the 2300 and the resulting order for the replacement ATI’s didn’t bring any complaints by all concerned including all the drivers who ended up with better wagons than what they had before.

Hey Dear CF, My Scammell Pioneer, she did not have a Detroit!! I seem to remember that the fuel tank contained petrol…perchance she had a Meadows, (son of sunny Wolverhampton), fibre timing belts and all,…oh, and my Diamond T, well she had a “colonial” Herculese, and my Mc Claren gun tractor,… I must go to the barn, Im sure she has a radial petrol!!! Detroit… I think not!!! Dream on dear boy, Im away to the Bollinger, Bon Nuit, cHEERIO FOR NOW.

Sherman 111 M4A2 8th Army at least in Italy,amongst others,but as I’ve said petrol engines at the time (uually) had the advantage of being more powerful than most diesels and having to provide two types of fuel instead of just one also made the choice of petrol the better option if possible as it was better to run tanks and trucks on the same fuel as motorbikes and jeeps.Although having said that if the Diamond T had been fitted with the same 12 cylinder GM used in the M4A2 it would have made it a non turbocharged 375 hp diesel truck availabe in the 1940’s. No guesses which option I would have put in it in that case.

[newmercman]

Carryfast, comparing American Military stuff is unfair, they’ve had a lot of wars in their short time as a country, so they have a lot more experience to look back on to get it right, some of that 70yr old stuff hasn’t been decomissioned not because of its greatness, but because it hasn’t ever had a day off in the past 70yrs

[carryfast]

newmercman:
Carryfast, comparing American Military stuff is unfair, they’ve had a lot of wars in their short time as a country, so they have a lot more experience to look back on to get it right, some of that 70yr old stuff hasn’t been decomissioned not because of its greatness, but because it hasn’t ever had a day off in the past 70yrs

The most interesting bit was when ZB took the idea of a slower less powerful truck will still get there eventually to it’s logical conclusion by using a Gardner 150 powered wagon for 44 tonne operations.

If I’ve got the figures right the cost of fuel will work out at least £1 per mile at an average speed of around 30 mph maybe even less and that’s assuming there’s no hills in the way and by hills we’re not talking about Membury or Loughborough.Who knows this downsizing idea might even catch on over there so maybe we can probably get away with re engining that Pete of yours with a 180 or maybe a 240 considering that you’ve got some worse climbs than those two examples but lighter gross weights a lot of the time.

[valkyrie]

PART 8,GARDNER ENGINES.
Gingerfold » Sun Sep 09, 2012 1:56 pm

In answer to Valkyrie and without wishing to get into a long drawn verbose nit-picking argument I stand absolutely by what I wrote both on here and in the Gardner book. The Gardner L2 design was the first commercially successful DIRECT INJECTION diesel engine that was used in road going vehicles. Anything else before that engine was announced was unreliable mainly because of fuel injection pump problems. The key to the Gardner 4L2s success was Hugh Gardner’s design of fuel pump cambox and timing. Valkyrie, please remember that an author sometimes has to generalise in print because otherwise the book would become so wordy that it would be unreadable to the vast majority of its intended readership. If you like the last iota of detail then I’m sorry, such a book as the Gardner one is not for you. Plenty of others out there must rate it though, it’s gone to a second reprint and sold out again. As for relative power outputs and of Gardner, AEC, and Leyland engines in the 1950’s for wagon and drag operators all that drivers and operators knew was that both AEC and Leyland had more powerful engines than Gardner and they were better for the job.

Gingerfold.

VALKYRIE replies:-
Hello,and thanks for fully explaining that :-
“The Gardner L2 design was the first commercially successful DIRECT INJECTION diesel engine that was used in road going vehicles”.

In regard to details in books,magazine articles,posts on Internet forums,etc,the more detail
and information about a subject or subjects in the various media,the better! “The more you
know about a subject,the richer it becomes” ,wisely said the legendary and superlative
clarinet player and big band-orchestra leader,ARTIE SHAW! Artie Shaw was ever the searcher who
wanted to know more about the subjects that interested him - during one period in between
leading bands,he enrolled in a music college for a few months because he wanted to know more about music.Therefore,he became a better musician,a better music arranger,he had a better understanding of music,all of which must have made his fans more appreciative of his great
music! - which was already great before he went to college!!!

Thus the more details that you can put in to your books,articles,forum posts,etc,about commercial vehicles,Gingerfold,the more informed lorry,bus and motorcoach enthusiasts will be! The more
information there is,the better the service!
I have a good number of your books,which are really informative,including your Gardner book - so your books are for me! I will return to the Gardner book later on in this post.

Gingerfold wrote"As for relative power outputs and of Gardner, AEC, and Leyland engines in the 1950’s for wagon and drag operators all that drivers and operators knew was that both AEC and Leyland had more powerful engines than Gardner and they were better for the job."

First of all,thanks for confirming what I have been objectively saying about AEC,Gardner and Leyland engines all along in my posts within this thread!
But with respect,I would say that you are generally wrong about lorry operators having a lack of
knowledge about the BHP and torque outputs (also number of cylinders,and other details apparently) of the engines (and I presume other technical details) of their lorries.
I assumme that these lorry operators were intelligent,bright and enterprising people,many of whom
founded their own road haulage outfits.I would even say that some of them were lorry enthusiasts!
So surely these people - and their drivers - cannot have had the deplorable lack of curiosity
that I mentioned in my post on page 26? No they did not! Most of them,at least,did have an interest in the technical details of their lorries .

Motorcoach,bus and lorry operators were,and still are,informed by magazines such as COMMERCIAL
MOTOR,MODERN TRANSPORT,COMMERCIAL VEHICLES,MOTOR TRANSPORT,PASSENGER TRANSPORT,BUS AND MOTORCOACH ,BUSES- and later TRUCK,TRUCK AND DRIVER AND TRUCKING,etc.These magazines have technical details and in-depth articles about virtually every bus,lorry and motorcoach model on the market,and a very great number of these motor vehicles are road tested by these magazines .

And who bought/buys these magazines? The operators and enthusiasts of course! - thus these
people were/are kept well informed …and then there were the marque magazines,such as the
AEC-ACV GAZETTE,FODEN NEWS and THE LEYLAND JOURNAL.

PLUS the manufacturers’ sales,technical and specifications booklets .

PLUS even more motor vehicle specifications booklets at the annual Commercial Vehicle Motor
Shows,that were and are enthusiastically attended by thousands of lorry,bus and motorcoach operators and enthusiasts .

YES.Lorry,bus and motorcoach operators and enthusiasts were and are very well informed!

Thus,most if not all the lorry operators - and at least some of their drivers - knew the BHP and torque outputs of AEC,Gardner,Leyland,etc,engines.It was through everything that I have listed above that they knew that 150 BHP AEC and Leyland lorries were more powerful - and thus better -
than 102-112 BHP Gardner-engined lorries…and especially for operating as drawbar trailer
outfits .And these are the facts .

Saviem.I’ve just had a break from writing this post,and came across the objective nonsense that you have just very recently written about me - you are objectively wrong .

So I am now going to respectfully say to you:-

1.You have actually no idea who I am,you do not know my name,you do not know me,and SCANIAVOLVO could be my father,or brother,or uncle,or cousin,or a friend,or we could be strangers,whoever,so you just do not know who the hell I am! - to paraphrase the great ARTIE SHAW!

2.I am a genuine Motor Vehicle Enthusiast,and will be forevermore!

3.I have real objective knowledge of motor vehicles of all kinds,which I aquired from experience,observation,serious research,talking to people and fellow enthusiasts,spending a lot of money on buying and reading loads of books written by Peter Davies,Pat Kennett,Nick Georgano,Alan Townsin,Stewart J.Brown,Gavin Booth,Michael Sedgewick,Jeff Clew,Bart Vanderveen,Erwin Tragatsch,Malcolm Slater,Colin Wright,Arthur Ingram,Bob Tuck,etc,etc,including GINGERFOLD-Graham Edge.
THUS:A lot of my motor vehicle knowledge comes from the books of the above authors!

I also buy motor vehicle magazines.

4.You have no knowledge of my career - for all you know I could be a travelling showman! - the fun fair industry is a noble industry,and fairground vehicles are commercial vehicles .

5.Loads of other drivers didn’t have any problems with Foden S21 Spaceship Sputnik Lorries .

6.The mickey mouse term/so-called name objectively means third rate,poor,slip-shod,etc.Your Foden S21 Spaceship Sputnik Lorry knows this too .

7.Please try to be more respectable.

8.Saviem wrote,in a later post:“Hey Dear CF, My Scammell Pioneer, she did not have a Detroit!! I seem to remember that the fuel tank contained petrol…perchance she had a Meadows”.

It appears that your Scammell “Pioneer” was not a Pioneer at all,but the later Meadows petrol-engined Scammell Explorer 6x6 Heavy Recovery Vehicle.

To return to Gingerfold’s history of Gardner Diesel Engines.There are two things that I am very curious about,and have been ever since I bought the book about 9 years since:-

1.Appendix E.ENGINES SUPPLIED TO CHASSIS MAKERS 1937-1975.
Why doesn’t this list also cover the years 1930-1931 to 1936 and from 1976 to 1994?

2.According to this list,Scammell bought comparatively few Gardner engines in the post war years compared to other manufacturers,and Scammell’s own pre war intake of Gardner engines.
Scammell’s post war production consisted of military vehicles,heavy haulage road locomotives, dump trucks and other special motor vehicles,some of these were powered by Gardner engines,but most were powered by Rolls-Royce,Meadows,Leyland,AEC,■■■■■■■ and Detroit engines.
Then there was Scammell’s popular road haulage lorry range,powered,in the early post war years
by Gardner and Meadows engines,but from 1955,mainly Leyland engines.

From 1946 to 1954,Scammell’s annual Gardner intake peaked at just 164 in 1953,figures for the other years are in double figures for some years and triple figures below 164 for the other years.
Surely Scammell bought more Gardner engines,unless a lot of Meadows engines were fitted in the road haulage range,far more than what I thought.Scammell road haulage lorries were popular.

Apart from the Scammell Pioneer TRMU/20/30 6x4 Tractive Unit,Diamond T 980/981 6x4 Road Locomotive and Tractive Unit,etc,that I listed in my post on page 26,there was also this:-

Albion CX24S 20 Ton 6x4 Tractive Unit.140 BHP petrol engine.This Albion was not heavy enough for it’s operational weight,so it was derated to 15 tons.

A Gardner 8LW 140 BHP Diesel Engine was fitted to a prototype of the Scammell Explorer FV11301 6x6,JLR 80 .

VALKYRIE.

[gingerfold]

Re. the Gardner engines supply list. I used Gardner’s own records for the years listed. Information was not available for the missing years for some reason. As mentioned earlier in this thread Gardner calculated its annual output in numbers of cylinders produced. Re. Gardners and Scammells, after Leyland acquired Scammell (1956■■) Leyland would not encourage sales of Gardner powered Scammells. No doubt large purchasers of Scammells such as Shell-Mex and B.P. mught have resisted that. Does anyone have any info that could confirm my theory one way or the other?

Re. relative power outputs in the 1950s. As a lorry mad lad spending all my spare time in and around lorries, believe me engine power outputs were never discussed by drivers or operators of my aquaintance. These were hire and reward men who had started their own businesses and knew what they were doing but their buying policy was governed by the restraints imposed by the A Licence weight allowances in most cases.

[geoffthecrowtaylor]

Well gentlemen,instead of CF getting all the Flak we now have a war breaking out between Saviem and Valkyrie, as i said earlier in this thread I ve no personal experience of Gardners never having owned one or driven anything powered by one. Ive no doubt Valkyrie that you re an enthusiast you don t get all that detail from a sheet of toilet paper and by the same rule Saviem knows his stuff, I declare the contest a draw so lets stop insulting each other wrap up the Gardner thread and instead discuss the merits of Merlin powered Spitfires against D. Benz powered Messerschmitt 109s they both had V12s regards Crow.

[newmercman]

Crow, the fact that we’re not speaking German tells me that the Merlin was the superior engine there

They sound pretty decent too

[geoffthecrowtaylor]

NMM yes the Merlin has a lovely sound and no fuel injection like its counter part which incidentally was fitted upside down or inverted if you prefer the reason being it gave greater ground clearance for the prop obviously because the crankshaft is now at the top of the motor,sieg heil.Crow.

[rigsby]

you should have been at southport air show over the weekend geoff , merlins aplenty . spitfires , p51d , and the full battle of britain flight , that supercharger whistle when they do a low pass makes the hair on your neck stand up . the wife wanted me to have my photo taken in a spitfire cockpit , but i don’t think the raf recruited clapped out lorry drivers did they ? cheers , dave

[harry_gill]

rigsby:
you should have been at southport air show over the weekend geoff , merlins aplenty . spitfires , p51d , and the full battle of britain flight , that supercharger whistle when they do a low pass makes the hair on your neck stand up . the wife wanted me to have my photo taken in a spitfire cockpit , but i don’t think the raf recruited clapped out lorry drivers did they ? cheers , dave

hiya,
Yeh’ they did, ask Chris Webb,
thanks harry, long retired.