Gardner ENGINES

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS OLD TIME LORRIES, COMPANIES AND DRIVERS (INTERACT
921

kr79:

Carryfast:

Saviem:
kr 79, he may wear a Russian hat, but he is right!! 290s were the fare of the time…CF Dear boy, politics would be your forte, leave the lorries to those who know!! Cheerio my friends.

Blimey Saviem I thought that at least you’d have known that I was talking about ‘what was available’ not what most of the British ■■■■■■■ buyers would buy at the time.The 350 Big Cam 1 was available from the mid 1970’s and Big Cam 2 from 1979 both available in 350 + rating and the SA’s we’re referring to were 1984 reg which is also more or less about the year that nmm was referring to concerning the 320 powered T45 if I’ve read it and remembered the post right. :bulb: :wink:

As I said most truck builders didn’t offer it until well in to the 80s foden probally would as they offered quite a bespoke service if you wanted I know there was a 400 ■■■■■■■ built in the early 80s and was on the first cover of truck and driver. Ford offered the 350 early on I’m sure leyland didn’t offer the roadtrain with ■■■■■■■ until the mid 80s as the earlier models had the tl12 engine.

I think the difference between 84-85 reg date is splitting hairs and wherever a 320 could be put then a 350 could too given the customer demand for it. :bulb: In addition to which the TM was available with the 380 ■■■■■■■ before that.

So the question for Bewick is would he have given at least the E 320 SA a chance if he’d have been told by the sales at SA that he could have two delivered with B reg instead of those A regs with 265 Gardners :question: . :wink:

flickr.com/photos/ajf350d/4706551859/

viewtopic.php?f=35&t=87800&start=840#p1282150

922

Sorry but we was comparing 400 ■■■■■■■ with 180 gardners before. By the mid 80s gardners days were numbered but they was offering the 270 300 and 320 by then which was about average for a fleet truck then.

923

kr79:
Sorry but we was comparing 400 ■■■■■■■ with 180 gardners before. By the mid 80s gardners days were numbered but they was offering the 270 300 and 320 by then which was about average for a fleet truck then.

More “Top Trump Syndrome” from Master Trump.

924

kr79:
Sorry but we was comparing 400 ■■■■■■■ with 180 gardners before. By the mid 80s gardners days were numbered but they was offering the 270 300 and 320 by then which was about average for a fleet truck then.

Doesn’t exactly answer the question related to the buying policy between the choice of 265 Gardner powered truck v E 320 ■■■■■■■ powered one :question: .Bewick has already said that the turbocharged Gardners were off his list probably for good reason.But the customer buying choice between 265 8LXC v E 320 SA goes right to the heart of what actually happened to the uk truck manufacturing industry and why. :bulb:

925

He also said he didn’t rate the 14 litre ■■■■■■■■

926

why a 14 litre ■■■■■■■ when a 11litre scania oviously did the job :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

927

kr79:
He also said he didn’t rate the 14 litre ■■■■■■■■

So the subject has eventually inevitably reached the point where after Gardner gets knocked out and it was then the choice between the 14 Litre ■■■■■■■ powered SA,in at least it’s 320 form v the 6 cylinder Scania. :open_mouth:

That’s like Manchester United losing to Chelsea in a cup final on penalties. :open_mouth: :smiling_imp:

Although maybe it might have had something to do with the fact that the ■■■■■■■ needed to be driven on it’s torque whereas there seems to be some evidence ‘elsewhere’ that shows that the Swedes seem to be able to build something that can be taken up to almost peak power in every gear without it causing as much havoc with the fuel consumption figures.No surprise that such a motor might have been more suited to drivers who were more familiar with having to do that on an every day basis just to get a Gardner powered truck to where it was going on time. :bulb: :wink: :laughing:

928

good choise he did, no ■■■■■■■ in europe anymore but plenty scania,s,so :question:

929

Carryfast:
Although maybe it might have had something to do with the fact that the ■■■■■■■ needed to be driven on it’s torque whereas there seems to be some evidence ‘elsewhere’ that shows that the Swedes seem to be able to build something that can be taken up to almost peak power in every gear without it causing as much havoc with the fuel consumption figures.No surprise that such a motor might have been more suited to drivers who were more familiar with having to do that on an every day basis just to get a Gardner powered truck to where it was going on time. :bulb: :wink: :laughing:

Suprisingly, there’s an element of sensible in that post Carryfast, I just don’t know that you know it, if you know what I mean :laughing:

This ability of the 111 to deliver reasonable economy and performance from a driving style that would suit a naturally aspirated engine may explain how it is that Scania went on to dominate the UK fleet truck market and ■■■■■■■ went on to…

930

bma.finland:
good choise he did, no ■■■■■■■ in europe anymore but plenty scania,s,so :question:

Chelsea won the cup.Which is ok depending on which side the supporters were on. :open_mouth: :smiling_imp: :laughing:

Or if,as in this case,the Brits are now all out of work because they all bought foreign made stuff instead of their own. :unamused: :wink:

931

newmercman:

Carryfast:
Although maybe it might have had something to do with the fact that the ■■■■■■■ needed to be driven on it’s torque whereas there seems to be some evidence ‘elsewhere’ that shows that the Swedes seem to be able to build something that can be taken up to almost peak power in every gear without it causing as much havoc with the fuel consumption figures.No surprise that such a motor might have been more suited to drivers who were more familiar with having to do that on an every day basis just to get a Gardner powered truck to where it was going on time. :bulb: :wink: :laughing:

Suprisingly, there’s an element of sensible in that post Carryfast, I just don’t know that you know it, if you know what I mean :laughing:

This ability of the 111 to deliver reasonable economy and performance from a driving style that would suit a naturally aspirated engine may explain how it is that Scania went on to dominate the UK fleet truck market and ■■■■■■■ went on to…

Don’t worry I knew it as soon as I saw that post which said the the 290 absolutely drank fuel compared to the Gardner. :wink: :laughing:

932

Maybe the engineers at Scania and the buyers of lorries in Britain knew it too :question:

A turbocharged engine that would still deliver performance and economy when driven by drivers more used to wringing every ounce of power out of naturally aspirated engines, not a bad idea as it turns out :bulb:

933

I was only guessing! Van Eck rings a bell… BLB ran a piece about a lorry similar to this at the Brussels show in 1957(?), and I think one of the comments below identified the coachbuilder. I cannot find any of this, because BLB’s search engine is crap. I have the photo, though:
0
There is a list of Dutch coachbuilders here:

Evening all, [ZB], thanks for the info, I have never had either the time, or skill, to utilise the facilities that this electronic filing cabinet has to offer! And am amazed to find what is available. Im afraid I still rely on the “little grey cells”, but they seem to get “littler” each day!!

I agree, my great sadness is what ever happened to Brian Weatherly`s Big Lorry Blog. And I , as many, will wish Rikki UK, all speed in trying to restore it to its old status. As a point of reference it was truly invaluable, and a great many truly historic facts were/are contained in its electronic pages. And I, as many others exchanged pleasantries, views, and experiences and opinions to each others benefit and enjoyment. But Brian was always just a little bit more than your average “snapper”, and journalist…he loves our industry!!

Good job you retained that picture!! And look at that S20 tipper behind the 8wheeler, I cannot describe the truly happy times that I spent behind the wheel of the families S20s, in the UK, and even down as far as to Sicily, seems hardly credible today!! But "over the water " I was never mocked, that Foden was as good as anything else in Europe at the time, (and better than many)!!

Long may you continue with your thirst for knowledge about the industry, and , I`m sure that I speak for many, please keep sharing your finds!!

Ah, I`m away to the inevitable Bollinger, and dreams of Belgians wonderful truck market!! Cheerio for now.

934

I just don’t get this bit about always having to rev the nuts off a Gardner in every gear. With a DB 0600 and no two speed maybe, but with 9 or more gears not so. There was always a ‘way’ to drive a Gardner and clogging it the whole time wasn’t it; it just didn’t make any difference. The Gardner was just like the story of the young randy bull, the old wise bull and the field of gorgeous heifers.

935

cav551:
I just don’t get this bit about always having to rev the nuts off a Gardner in every gear. With a DB 0600 and no two speed maybe, but with 9 or more gears not so. There was always a ‘way’ to drive a Gardner and clogging it the whole time wasn’t it; it just didn’t make any difference. The Gardner was just like the story of the young randy bull, the old wise bull and the field of gorgeous heifers.

Oh, so very true, but you have to be a “proper” driver!! Bon nuit, mes Braves, Cheerio for now.

936

Saviem:

cav551:
I just don’t get this bit about always having to rev the nuts off a Gardner in every gear. With a DB 0600 and no two speed maybe, but with 9 or more gears not so. There was always a ‘way’ to drive a Gardner and clogging it the whole time wasn’t it; it just didn’t make any difference. The Gardner was just like the story of the young randy bull, the old wise bull and the field of gorgeous heifers.

Oh, so very true, but you have to be a “proper” driver!! Bon nuit, mes Braves, Cheerio for now.

If that’s true then those older wiser drivers must have been able to work miracles of a higher order than even pulling a few teenaged hiefers if they could make a 265,let alone a 180,Gardner powered wagon,do the same job that a 320 ■■■■■■■ powered wagon could do, without revving the nuts off either of them by comparison.Assuming that we’re comparing the same gross weights. :open_mouth: :smiling_imp: :laughing:

937

newmercman:
Maybe the engineers at Scania and the buyers of lorries in Britain knew it too :question:

A turbocharged engine that would still deliver performance and economy when driven by drivers more used to wringing every ounce of power out of naturally aspirated engines, not a bad idea as it turns out :bulb:

:open_mouth:

As I said beaten on a couple of dodgy penalties not by a team playing better football in that case. :bulb: :frowning:

938

Well a Gardner was at its best pulling around the 1300-1500 RPM mark where it would slog away happily, no need to rev the nuts off it. You had your days work to do and when it was done you went home the same as the guys in more powerful machinery did, they probably did it slightly faster but it was still the same amount of work rate.

Pete.

939

windrush:
Well a Gardner was at its best pulling around the 1300-1500 RPM mark where it would slog away happily, no need to rev the nuts off it. You had your days work to do and when it was done you went home the same as the guys in more powerful machinery did, they probably did it slightly faster but it was still the same amount of work rate.

Pete.

If that’s right then Scania would have been using engines like the Gardner 180 and 240/265 in those 111’s and 141’s but the question is then would the customers have bought them and if not why not. :smiling_imp: :wink:

But slightly (more like a lot) faster over the course of a year isn’t the same amount of work rate which is a clue. :bulb:

940

Carryfast:
But slightly (more like a lot) faster over the course of a year isn’t the same amount of work rate which is a clue. :bulb:

Work DONE then to be precise, if you had 6 or 7 loads to do then you did them and that was it, whether you had a 201 Gardner or a ■■■■■■■ we still only did the same work that we were given to do. :unamused: When I was given a R/R 265 Li I didn’t do any more work than with the Gardner, just did it slightly faster, used more fuel, and carried 5 cwt less payload due to the heavier engine!

Pete.