By the 70’s there were definitely quality control issues at Gardner along with some silly ideas being put into production. Fleet workshops had joined in with the vehicle dealers’ in entering “hurry up mode”. The idea of retaining older vehicles as spares, but still in top line condition was fast disappearing so the time allowed in the workshop was being cut. The manufacturers’ sales spiel was starting to quote servicing and repair times and these figures were arbitrarily being decided by marketing men and not engineers. The partial result was that some of the Gardner recommended adjustments weren’t being done. I saw slack timing chains, noisy tappets and other complaints of ‘no go’ that could be cured by a simple, but time consuming adjustment of the slider bar.
On the fairgrounds, I also saw much older engines being run as generators for many hours at a time, with no air cleaners, leaking radiators, being started with ether etc, but still they ran, even when to all intents and purposes completely worn out with smoke and fumes everywhere. Some had plainly had a piston seizure in the past, others had one cylinder latched back and some reputedly had benefited from a section of leather trouser belt being installed as crankshaft bearings. No wonder the fairground guys loved them.
newmercman:
I found this picture in the Gardner archives, it was taken during the meeting they had to upgrade their product line and bring the company into the 20th Century 
0
Are you sure that wasn’t British Leyland?
Juddian:
pursy:
To be honest I have had a NHC 250 ■■■■■■■ and a L10 and neither could hold a candle to the Gardner for fuel consumption.
Mark
I think we often don’t take into account the speed we cover the gound at when comparing fuel usage.
I’ll lay odds that a 14 litre ■■■■■■■ driven by someone competent following a Gardner engined truck of equal weight would be just as economical, in practice when i drove Gardners they were good for a mxiumum of 60 mph and that was only either downhill or after miles on the flat building up speed, look at a hill and they died.
Whereas with a 290 or higher 14 litre ■■■■■■■ you’d be up to 60 in no time and probably, as i was, cruising at 70 most of the time.
I’m quite sure that any Gardner able to keep up with a big cam ■■■■■■■ would have used just as much fuel.
^ This.
The same applies in respect of the turbocharged 680 in the DAF 2800,which proved itself capable of being a British designed engine able to accept turbocharging in head on competition with the turbocharged ■■■■■■■ which was ‘eventually’ fitted in the Brit wagons of the early 1980’s,when the Brit guvnors had ‘eventually’ got their act together,and won out over them.The Gardner fans always seem to conveniently forget to factor in productivety in addition to the fuel consumption figures.The Gardner was all about backward thinking guvnors using a gutless,outdated,engine,which should have been finished off in 1969 at the latest,to save some fuel at the expense of productivety.
As I’ve said it was that backward thinking in the domestic market’s customer base that probably had more to do with the fact that it was DAF who built the 2600 and 2800 line not Leyland and the rest is history.
cav551:
On the fairgrounds, I also saw much older engines being run as generators for many hours at a time, with no air cleaners, leaking radiators, being started with ether etc, but still they ran, even when to all intents and purposes completely worn out with smoke and fumes everywhere. Some had plainly had a piston seizure in the past, others had one cylinder latched back and some reputedly had benefited from a section of leather trouser belt being installed as crankshaft bearings. No wonder the fairground guys loved them.
The difference with the fairground gen sets is that the requirement for a few kw’s of electricity provided as cheaply as possible with maintenance to match isn’t the same thing as hauling up to 32 t (let alone 38 t) gross around the country in competition with the more forward thinking products arriving from Scandinavia and Europe and even those fairground operators knew that a decent turbocharged CAT or ■■■■■■■ engine’d Foden was a much better piece of kit for hauling a showman’s roadtrain around than a Gardner 180 powered one as soon as they could get their hands on them at the right price. 
Obviously this survey was carried out during a time of great changes in what was available to customers. But to have three British built and designed engines in the first four somewhat negates the argument put forward by proponents of the European and Scandinavian offerings during the 1970s. Maybe they weren’t as good as we thought they were at the time?
gingerfold:
0
Obviously this survey was carried out during a time of great changes in what was available to customers. But to have three British built and designed engines in the first four somewhat negates the argument put forward by proponents of the European and Scandinavian offerings during the 1970s. Maybe they weren’t as good as we thought they were at the time?
What it doesn’t show is the amount actually earned in productivety between Gardner powered wagons and turbocharged imports.So a Gardner could cost less in breakdowns,or at least be fixed cheaply, which fits in with it’s popularity as a power unit for a fairground operator’s gen set.But that’s not going to be much help when it comes to hauling 32t-38t gross around the country,or europe,in which the income is based on how many miles at max weight it can put under it’s wheels in a comparable time not just on how cheaply it can be fixed when it stops for whatever reason.
Natural selection obviously seems to show that the turbocharged Leyland 680 in the 2800 and the turbocharged versions of the ■■■■■■■ were able to provide a better compromise between maintenance costs and productivety than the Gardner could or the Gardner would have survived and it would have been those that fell by the wayside.
Carryfast:
gingerfold:
0
Obviously this survey was carried out during a time of great changes in what was available to customers. But to have three British built and designed engines in the first four somewhat negates the argument put forward by proponents of the European and Scandinavian offerings during the 1970s. Maybe they weren’t as good as we thought they were at the time?
What it doesn’t show is the amount actually earned in productivety between Gardner powered wagons and turbocharged imports.So a Gardner could cost less in breakdowns,or at least be fixed cheaply, which fits in with it’s popularity as a power unit for a fairground operator’s gen set.But that’s not going to be much help when it comes to hauling 32t-38t gross around the country,or europe,in which the income is based on how many miles at max weight it can put under it’s wheels in a comparable time not just on how cheaply it can be fixed when it stops for whatever reason.
Natural selection obviously seems to show that the turbocharged Leyland 680 in the 2800 and the turbocharged versions of the ■■■■■■■ were able to provide a better compromise between maintenance costs and productivety than the Gardner could or the Gardner would have survived and it would have been those that fell by the wayside.
Yes, the productivity factor is a very valid point and I have made the same case in the past in articles and books. A higher powered and ‘faster’ engine / vehicle does have a better productivity than a Gardner powered vehicle. No doubt Bewick will disagree but I believe it to be true. Also, if a manufacturer had a cheap engine spares policy that would also influence the above table.
That table does exclude running costs, many have said that the Gardner used a gallon of oil a day too, factor that in and I bet the Scania 80 suddenly looked like a bargain 
newmercman:
That table does exclude running costs, many have said that the Gardner used a gallon of oil a day too, factor that in and I bet the Scania 80 suddenly looked like a bargain
But if the Gardner was better on fuel it would more than balance out. A gallon of low spec engine oil, which Gardner’s preferred, was cheap back in those days.
When I was at Turners we had some turbo-charged Gardner 270s and 290s in ERF E Series. One driver was in his last few months before retiring and he did the same job every day with one of these ERFs, not a high daily mileage as he was home every night. From the Traffic Office I used to watch him every morning and without fail he would put two measures of engine oil into it every day.
gingerfold:
newmercman:
That table does exclude running costs, many have said that the Gardner used a gallon of oil a day too, factor that in and I bet the Scania 80 suddenly looked like a bargain
But if the Gardner was better on fuel it would more than balance out. A gallon of low spec engine oil, which Gardner’s preferred, was cheap back in those days.
When I was at Turners we had some turbo-charged Gardner 270s and 290s in ERF E Series. One driver was in his last few months before retiring and he did the same job every day with one of these ERFs, not a high daily mileage as he was home every night. From the Traffic Office I used to watch him every morning and without fail he would put two measures of engine oil into it every day.
I had a 240lxb in a b series erf and i was tramping all week every week for nigh on 4yrs and never put more than a gallon of oil a week in it,one of the most reliable motors i ever had.
regards dave.
gingerfold:
newmercman:
That table does exclude running costs, many have said that the Gardner used a gallon of oil a day too, factor that in and I bet the Scania 80 suddenly looked like a bargain
But if the Gardner was better on fuel it would more than balance out. A gallon of low spec engine oil, which Gardner’s preferred, was cheap back in those days.
When I was at Turners we had some turbo-charged Gardner 270s and 290s in ERF E Series. One driver was in his last few months before retiring and he did the same job every day with one of these ERFs, not a high daily mileage as he was home every night. From the Traffic Office I used to watch him every morning and without fail he would put two measures of engine oil into it every day.
But what does a “measure” constitute !! Could be any size between 1/2 pint up to a 1 gal porer! Cheers Bewick.
Total subject change but still on the Gardner topic.
150 or 180? Some preferred the 150 and say it had a lot more crack to it but surely higher HP was better. I know there is a lot of knowledge on here so thought I’d ask the question.
Thanks, Ash
I drove a few wagons with the 150 in & I prefered it to the 180, But of course gearing played a big part as how the Gardners performed, Hears some data to look at Regards Larry.
Bewick:
gingerfold:
newmercman:
That table does exclude running costs, many have said that the Gardner used a gallon of oil a day too, factor that in and I bet the Scania 80 suddenly looked like a bargain
But if the Gardner was better on fuel it would more than balance out. A gallon of low spec engine oil, which Gardner’s preferred, was cheap back in those days.
When I was at Turners we had some turbo-charged Gardner 270s and 290s in ERF E Series. One driver was in his last few months before retiring and he did the same job every day with one of these ERFs, not a high daily mileage as he was home every night. From the Traffic Office I used to watch him every morning and without fail he would put two measures of engine oil into it every day.
But what does a “measure” constitute !! Could be any size between 1/2 pint up to a 1 gal porer! Cheers Bewick.
I knew someone would ask that question. If I remember correctly they were old fashioned quart measures (2 pints). Sorry I don’t do metric liquid measures, didn’t learn such nonsense when I went to school. 
A measure in those days would be Quarts, Regards Larry.
AshleyP:
Total subject change but still on the Gardner topic.
150 or 180? Some preferred the 150 and say it had a lot more crack to it but surely higher HP was better. I know there is a lot of knowledge on here so thought I’d ask the question.
Thanks, Ash
Higher horsepower 
In this context that is the funniest thing I’ve seen on trucknet…ever
Now on a more serious note, the two Gardners I had didn’t use oil excessively, it was a long time ago, but I’m thinking of the bloke I worked for and he wasn’t known for throwing money around (hence the pieces of junk I had to drive ) so I doubt he was using an expensive oil, it more than likely came from the sumps of the lorries in the breakers yard next door, that’s where half the fleet came from anyway
newmercman:
AshleyP:
Total subject change but still on the Gardner topic.
150 or 180? Some preferred the 150 and say it had a lot more crack to it but surely higher HP was better. I know there is a lot of knowledge on here so thought I’d ask the question.
Thanks, Ash
Higher horsepower In this context that is the funniest thing I’ve seen on trucknet…ever
Now on a more serious note, the two Gardners I had didn’t use oil excessively, it was a long time ago, but I’m thinking of the bloke I worked for and he wasn’t known for throwing money around (hence the pieces of junk I had to drive ) so I doubt he was using an expensive oil, it more than likely came from the sumps of the lorries in the breakers yard next door, that’s where half the fleet came from anyway
What’s so funny about the question?
And it was the cheap oil that kept the Gardner running well. People put good oil in and it glazed the bores, then the fuel got passed the rings into the sump and that made the problem worse. Hence all the smoke on start up and oil use when they got were hot. We had a lot of gardners that were fantastic if well maintained.
So back to my original question… 150 or 180?
What’s funny?
The words high and horsepower when you’re talking about Gardner engines, not words you would normally associate with Gardner
