Yes Gingerfold you are correct, closed. Crow.
gingerfold:
I think that this thread should now be locked because it has gone so far off the original topic that it is now meaningless.
The discussion of the apparent policy change of Gardner (and others- nowt wrong with drawing parallels) in the fifties is very relevant (IMO). The subsequent disintegration of that discussion is, unfortunately, a recurring theme on the forum. Its architect is, as usual, Mr. Two-Stroke himself.
[zb]
anorak:gingerfold:
I think that this thread should now be locked because it has gone so far off the original topic that it is now meaningless.The discussion of the apparent policy change of Gardner (and others- nowt wrong with drawing parallels) in the fifties is very relevant (IMO). The subsequent disintegration of that discussion is, unfortunately, a recurring theme on the forum. Its architect is, as usual, Mr. Two-Stroke himself.
The issues of Gardner’s backward product line up and failure to advance fast enough,sometimes discontent among it’s workforce,and outdated machinery and production equipment have all been (correctly) raised by others not just me within the topic and are all relevant to the discussion.I’ve just put some points into that same discussion which might (should) help to explain some of those issues and problems which weren’t just facing Gardner but most of Britain’s manufacturing industries throughout the post war years.If some find all that and inconvenient truth that’s not my fault and it’s no reason to lock the topic.If anyone is really interested in what happened to firms like Gardner amongst loads of other British manufacturers it should be read as an important contribution. 
So why wouldnt Gardner have been capable of designing and producing new engines with the relevant backing,its been mentioned on here that Paul Gardner was more forward thinking than Hugh.AEC were the pioneers of many things in lorry manufacturing who fell on hard times, they just like Gardner had a first class reputation,i think the problem most,well me personally have with you CF is that you regard everything British was crap and should be dismissed as just that and everything American was great .In the 60s AEC were coming on in leaps and bounds with engine development and the mkv was greatly recieved by many (in 59) .The unfortunate "merger" put paid to many of their projects ,its a shame 2 great companies could fold for what basically was lack of funds to move forward for 1 and leaving it too late for the other.Never mind who would want to invest in them ,im saying if the money was there im certain AEC would definitely be still with us .I for one had 1 of the last products from Gardner a 320 which i couldnt fault if they had developed it who knows?
gingerfold:
I think that this thread should now be locked because it has gone so far off the original topic that it is now meaningless.
Saviem:
Some would say the finest oil engine ever, economic , light, ultra reliable. Were they? Were the products as good as the image? Why did they loose their captive market? Did their inability to satisfy demand lead to the demise of the UK assemblers, ERF, Atkinson, Guy? What were they like to “live with”, every day ? Over to you Gentlemen…
I disagree “gingerfold”.
If you look at the original post above the O/P is asking for opinions that are being discussed. To lock a thread because of disagreement is not in the spirit of discussion and should never be allowed.
Solly:
gingerfold:
I think that this thread should now be locked because it has gone so far off the original topic that it is now meaningless.Saviem:
Some would say the finest oil engine ever, economic , light, ultra reliable. Were they? Were the products as good as the image? Why did they loose their captive market? Did their inability to satisfy demand lead to the demise of the UK assemblers, ERF, Atkinson, Guy? What were they like to “live with”, every day ? Over to you Gentlemen…I disagree “gingerfold”.
If you look at the original post above the O/P is asking for opinions that are being discussed. To lock a thread because of disagreement is not in the spirit of discussion and should never be allowed.
I think his point is can we get back on subject please
ramone:
I think his point is can we get back on subject please
But the discussion is on subject if you read the O/P above.
As per usual with a certain contributor’s post’s methinks 
but isn’t that what internet forums are all about 
It just seems very tiring when what starts out as a very interesting thread turns into a totally unnecessary technical & now political squabble that is light years from what the OP started.
gingerfold:
I think that this thread should now be locked because it has gone so far off the original topic that it is now meaningless.
hiya,
I’m in total agreement it’s becoming a right load of cobblers.
thanks harry, long retired.
geoffthecrowtaylor:
don t forget the Unions would have nothing to do with sleeper cabs our Members need to sleep in a proper bed after a hard days graft, superb, Bobs Cafe on the A45 between Coventry and Daventry 15 to a room and a ■■■■ bucket in the middle for those caught short in the night after a visit to the nearest pub nearly a mile away. Last time I stayed there many years ago driving an F86 sniffing the aroma of the bucket.
Ok Crow!!,I agree with you, there were some horrendous drivers digs years ago,but,there were also some very good ones.Cliff Oors at Southampton was very clean, 1 driver to a room, good food etc. (ok! he was shirt lifter,but he kept a good house) Agnus Mcleod at Ayr was another,the Four Oaks at Dagenham was not too bad and many many more.I wonder how many of the older drivers on the forum have still got their ‘little red book’.At least in those days every one slept in some sort of bedroom and had access to toilets and nobody started work before breakfast.Nowadays,it’s a quick cup of instant coffee and off to work for those unfortunate to have to park in a layby and, Geoffrey, even many of those ‘drivers’ who have parked on a pub car park or a service area or even a truck stop still pee in plastic bottles in the night and jettison them en route so that Englands green and pleasant land is littered with millions of these eyesores.Anyone want to volunteer to clean them up???Sleeper cabs have their place of course,but until we in Europe get cabs up to the same standard as some of our American cousins(look at Chris Arbon’s thread) we come a very poor 2nd.(sorry to go off thread,but so have lots of other posters).
harry_gill:
gingerfold:
I think that this thread should now be locked because it has gone so far off the original topic that it is now meaningless.hiya,
I’m in total agreement it’s becoming a right load of cobblers.
thanks harry, long retired.
The OP asked the question why did they lose their market. All of the different issues and views which have been raised by myself and others are relevant to that issue and discussion.Even to the point of raising the point about the VC10 aircraft which was a British product which was at the forefront of technical design at the time but which shows what still happened even in the case where everything went right at the production end.
The company was let down by it’s bankers/investors and it’s customers the former wanting (needing) a quick return on their investment and the latter decided to walk away after the thing had been built because the Americans could make something just as good but cheaper to make and operate based on the economies of scale in having a much stronger post war economy,in which the domestic market was the priority and exports were just a bonus.Notice the connection with what the European and Scandinavian truck manufacturing industry ( and the US truck manufacturing industry in Britain’s colonial markets ) ,eventually did to the British truck manufacturing industry,with what the American aircraft manufacturers did to Britain’s aircraft manufacturing industry.
So just like the effect on Gardner,of failing to keep up with technological advance,the effect of doing the opposite would have been no different in fact the extra investment required,v the type of demand and levels of foreign competition in it’s potential markets, probably would have brought the company down even sooner if it had done.Which seems to be the exact (correct) type of logic which Stokes was using in the case of AEC just as would have been the case with any potential investors in the case of Gardner.
The only way that large scale investment in British industry would have been viable was by concentration on the domestic market and forget about exports and close our own market to imports just as is the case today.Which is the exact opposite of British economic policy since the end of WW2.
Okay. Let’s try and get back a little bit towards the original post and Saviem’s questions.
I think that there is 90% agreement amongst all contributors that in its heyday Gardner engines were well regarded especially by fleet owners and operators. One large market for Gardner engines that has been barely mentioned was the home municipal bus fleet market, where there was tremendous loyalty to Gardner. Gardner, the company, was run in an autocratic manner by Hugh Gardner, a brilliant engineer whose time was the 1920s and '30s. By the '50s Gardner engines were falling behind in terms of power outputs. New developments were very conservative and totally new engine designs didn’t happen. Hugh Gardner’s stated policy was “I can sell every engine I make therefore why change a successful policy?” Albeit engine production was out-dated and labour intensive even by 1950’s benchmarks. By the 1970s Gardner was caught up in labour force unrest and union agitation, this in a company that had always taken pride in its good management / workforce relationships, and welfare amenities. By then Gardner desperately needed financial investment and new engine designs. Company sold to Hawker Siddley and things looked promising for a time, but the market place was changing rapidly and Gardners couldn’t compete. Gardners then sold to Perkins who also owned Rolls Royce diesel engine division, so two competeing engine ranges within the same parent company. End of Gardner.
If you want to bring AEC / Leyland into the discussion then it is a more apposite comparison than some of the others that have been used. 1962 AEC in financial difficulties and had relied too heavily on its nailed down relationship with London Transport for many years. (Remember AEC was formed as an offshoot from London Transport in 1933). AEC had a good development programme in 1960s but lacked funds. Enter Leyland, a predatory company that had ambitions to dominate the UK commercial vehicles market. AEC was its greatest rival in all markets they competed in. AEC was highly regarded, as was Leyland, but AEC is generally regarded as producing a better engineered product than Leyland. Leyland takes over AEC and for a time all looks good for both companies. Then Leyland gets too big, too politicised, too much government involvement, too much union problems, lack of funds etc etc. end of AEC, and Albion, and Guy, and Scammell and eventually Leyland itself. Oh, and Leyland was run by a very autocratic manager in Lord Stokes. Sound familiar doesn’t it?
Still, this thread has produced some debate showing Gardner did make an impact even if some didn’t care for them, albeit most of the pages on the subject turned into a ‘I can produce more figures to baffle you than you can’ competition which turned me off this thread early on, just as well most of the books I have on commercials don’t go into the sort of diatribe put on here otherwise I’d have lost interest in classic lorries years ago. The sort of post Gingerfold has just put on is all we need to hold interest and produce further points without bringing everthing to a boring free for all figure fest, lets keep the next subject a little lighter in content for interests sake. Franky.
Frankydobo:
Still, this thread has produced some debate showing Gardner did make an impact even if some didn’t care for them, albeit most of the pages on the subject turned into a ‘I can produce more figures to baffle you than you can’ competition which turned me off this thread early on, just as well most of the books I have on commercials don’t go into the sort of diatribe put on here otherwise I’d have lost interest in classic lorries years ago. The sort of post Gingerfold has just put on is all we need to hold interest and produce further points without bringing everthing to a boring free for all figure fest, lets keep the next subject a little lighter in content for interests sake. Franky.
Here here
ramone:
Frankydobo:
Still, this thread has produced some debate showing Gardner did make an impact even if some didn’t care for them, albeit most of the pages on the subject turned into a ‘I can produce more figures to baffle you than you can’ competition which turned me off this thread early on, just as well most of the books I have on commercials don’t go into the sort of diatribe put on here otherwise I’d have lost interest in classic lorries years ago. The sort of post Gingerfold has just put on is all we need to hold interest and produce further points without bringing everthing to a boring free for all figure fest, lets keep the next subject a little lighter in content for interests sake. Franky.Here here
hiya,
plus another “here here”.
thanks harry, long retired.
gingerfold:
Okay. Let’s try and get back a little bit towards the original post and Saviem’s questions.I think that there is 90% agreement amongst all contributors that in its heyday Gardner engines were well regarded especially by fleet owners and operators. One large market for Gardner engines that has been barely mentioned was the home municipal bus fleet market, where there was tremendous loyalty to Gardner. Gardner, the company, was run in an autocratic manner by Hugh Gardner, a brilliant engineer whose time was the 1920s and '30s. By the '50s Gardner engines were falling behind in terms of power outputs. New developments were very conservative and totally new engine designs didn’t happen. Hugh Gardner’s stated policy was “I can sell every engine I make therefore why change a successful policy?” Albeit engine production was out-dated and labour intensive even by 1950’s benchmarks. By the 1970s Gardner was caught up in labour force unrest and union agitation, this in a company that had always taken pride in its good management / workforce relationships, and welfare amenities. By then Gardner desperately needed financial investment and new engine designs. Company sold to Hawker Siddley and things looked promising for a time, but the market place was changing rapidly and Gardners couldn’t compete. Gardners then sold to Perkins who also owned Rolls Royce diesel engine division, so two competeing engine ranges within the same parent company. End of Gardner.
If you want to bring AEC / Leyland into the discussion then it is a more apposite comparison than some of the others that have been used. 1962 AEC in financial difficulties and had relied too heavily on its nailed down relationship with London Transport for many years. (Remember AEC was formed as an offshoot from London Transport in 1933). AEC had a good development programme in 1960s but lacked funds. Enter Leyland, a predatory company that had ambitions to dominate the UK commercial vehicles market. AEC was its greatest rival in all markets they competed in. AEC was highly regarded, as was Leyland, but AEC is generally regarded as producing a better engineered product than Leyland. Leyland takes over AEC and for a time all looks good for both companies. Then Leyland gets too big, too politicised, too much government involvement, too much union problems, lack of funds etc etc. end of AEC, and Albion, and Guy, and Scammell and eventually Leyland itself. Oh, and Leyland was run by a very autocratic manager in Lord Stokes. Sound familiar doesn’t it?
Frankydobo:
Still, this thread has produced some debate showing Gardner did make an impact even if some didn’t care for them, albeit most of the pages on the subject turned into a ‘I can produce more figures to baffle you than you can’ competition which turned me off this thread early on, just as well most of the books I have on commercials don’t go into the sort of diatribe put on here otherwise I’d have lost interest in classic lorries years ago. The sort of post Gingerfold has just put on is all we need to hold interest and produce further points without bringing everthing to a boring free for all figure fest, lets keep the next subject a little lighter in content for interests sake. Franky.
gingerfolds & Frankydobo post’s have taken this thread back to what it was all about and what is understandable for most of us involved in haulage when the Gardner engine was seen as the ‘premium’ lorry engine, if only by the employer. When threads get diverted to push someone’s own ongoing agenda it becomes boring and tedious and eventually becomes so far removed from the original topic that only a couple of people are ultimately involved and because of one person’s superior technical/political/historical knowledge everyone else is excluded. This seems to happen in too many threads these days and for me I tend to then stop reading if that person has posted regularly onto that thread and I’m sure I’m not the only one. Please don’t misunderstand my gripe there are some poster’s on here who have an absolute lifetime of technical/engineering/sale’s/operation/ experience and share it freely, and I have certainly learnt a lot from them, what is frustrating and very dull is one person, who does seem to possess a level of technical knowledge, but will never accept any constructive critical point made to him and always without fail does his very best to sidetrack the thread so that he can push his own boring agenda, someone who always has to have the last word and always has to show how much more, they allegedly, know about any particular subject becomes very irritating and usually disliked by all, you know who you are
Regards
Dave Penn;
Now that we have returned to a proper discussion about Gardner’s shall we mention the little 4LK that powered many smaller lorries where ‘brute force’ was not an issue! Numerous British companies fitted it, Guy, Foden, ERF, Vulcan etc, plus midget submarines at one time. Very lightweight with an alloy block it could be fitted in vehicles such as Land Rover and certain cars. I believe that only one 6LK was produced and that was fitted in one of the Gardner families cars, Gingerfold will know.
Below are a couple of pics that I took of a MK7 Jaguar visiting the Anson Engine Museum near Poynton, the 4LK is a neat conversion!
Pete.
I rebuilt one that is fitted to an ERF which I believe is still parked in Richard Reads yard.The driver overan it down Speech House hill.The block arrived from Gardner covered in dust 
The October edition of Classic and Vintage Commercials has an article about the 8LW powered Corbitts and another which gives a few dates for engine fitments to the B series ERF.
I won’t quote from it since as it’s a current edition, I would certainly consider the articles to be copyright.
Evening all, excellent summing up by Gingerfold, and I am inclined to totally agree with davepenn54.
But something that always interested me, Gardners European Licensees, Bernard, and Latil, in France, Meisse in Belgium, and Kromhout in Holland. Just how similar, or different did those licensees products become, and why did not Gardner try to develop closer links with them? Does anyone have real knowledge of how these licences were granted, and the constraints that were imposed by Gardner on the licensees? Bernard in its own production I believe modified the original designs quite a lot, and I believe that HP, and torque outputs exceeded the UK offerings. Latil, in relative terms a “large” manufacturer, whose products did not posses the quality image of those of Bernard, and sold in modest volumes, despite having quite handsome lines, and the longest bonnet in all France! Latil of course became part of LRS, (Latil, Renault, Somua), Saviem in 1955.
Miesse,Belgiums little known “domestic” manufacturer, and I can only recall seeing one example, and that in a Liege breakers yard! While working in Belgium I did see a number of Hollands, Kromhout , Gardner powered lorries. Two examples of which, owned by a furniture manufacturer who also ran JL19, and SM Saviem boxes. These Kromhout, rather handsome bonneted box vans were regularly serviced and maintained in our Antwerp branch. The licence built Gardners had Kromhout, cast into the rocker covers, and I was told gave 140hp, a good power to weight ratio for 12tonnes! (at the time)!!! But of course Kromhout was absorbed by the (primarily) bus building Verheul in 1961, and they of course were owned by AEC! So the end of Gardner in Holland.
Can anyone “flesh out” my reminicences, this must be an interesting part of Gardners history, and one about which little would appear to be documented. Cheerio for now.