IIRC,the first new ■■■■■■■ engined Atkinson I bought in '71 was circa £5250,the third one I got in late '72 was circa £6250,a 20% increase in just over 12 months ! I also recall in late '73 paying “List” plus £250 in “readies” ( say no more John,tap on nose !) for a basic 220 engined Borderer,I just can’t recall the exact price but it was up towards 7 grand or maybe more I think!! Cheers Dennis.
Bewick:
IIRC,the first new ■■■■■■■ engined Atkinson I bought in '71 was circa £5250,the third one I got in late '72 was circa £6250,a 20% increase in just over 12 months ! I also recall in late '73 paying “List” plus £250 in “readies” ( say no more John,tap on nose !) for a basic 220 engined Borderer,I just can’t recall the exact price but it was up towards 7 grand or maybe more I think!! Cheers Dennis.
You can bet that the workers who built the things didn’t get pay rises to match. 
I’m surprised that nobody has mentioned the 5 potter that served the top weight four wheeler market well for a number of years. I guess that the Perkins P6/6.354 was its closest UK rival in the engine manufacturer market ( not including the ‘in house’ products from Leyland, AEC, Bedford etc) and it seemed a popular choice, though no doubt again carrying a hefty premium in price?
Pete.
Bewick:
Again from my distant memory I believe that Gardners were quite wrongly blamed for the “premium” that was charged by the assemblers for a Gardner powered chassis.It was,in fact,the likes of Foden,Atkinson and ERF that took full advantage of the situation and it was they who charged a “premium” and passed the perceived blame back to Gardner!! Gardner spares,from memory,were no dearer than ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ in some cases. It’s a bit like to-days travel agents “jacking up” the price of holidays in the school holidays and then blaming,most unfairly,the Hoteliers, Airlines etc !! When the greedy [zb] bulk buy all their holidays well in advance at usually deep discounts ! Cheers Bewick.
So rip of Britain is nothing new.
I fitter I know who’s now retired used to work for a big London tipper operator WW drinkwater who were a big foden/Gardner operator and he said they went as far as retro fitting gardners into new and nearly new lorrys if a Gardner powered truck wasn’t avalible. That shows they had a lot of respect for the product.
Bewick:
Again from my distant memory I believe that Gardners were quite wrongly blamed for the “premium” that was charged by the assemblers for a Gardner powered chassis.It was,in fact,the likes of Foden,Atkinson and ERF that took full advantage of the situation and it was they who charged a “premium” and passed the perceived blame back to Gardner!! Gardner spares,from memory,were no dearer than ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ in some cases. It’s a bit like to-days travel agents “jacking up” the price of holidays in the school holidays and then blaming,most unfairly,the Hoteliers, Airlines etc !! When the greedy [zb] bulk buy all their holidays well in advance at usually deep discounts ! Cheers Bewick.
Absolutely correct Bewick. It was the chassis assemblers such as ERF and Atkinson that charged a premium for a Gardner engined lorry, much to the chagrin of Gardners themselves. No doubt the backward thinking operators who hadn’t a clue what they were doing were more than happy to fork out extra money for a “boat anchor” of an engine. 
As to Bewick’s earlier post both AEC and Leyland were very evenly matched in terms of power outputs in the early 1960s. Leyland Power-Plus O.680, 200 bhp, AEC AV690, 192 bhp.
A new AEC Mandator with AEC AV760 engine was priced at £4,400 ex-works in 1971.
Carryfast:
Bewick:
IIRC,the first new ■■■■■■■ engined Atkinson I bought in '71 was circa £5250,the third one I got in late '72 was circa £6250,a 20% increase in just over 12 months ! I also recall in late '73 paying “List” plus £250 in “readies” ( say no more John,tap on nose !) for a basic 220 engined Borderer,I just can’t recall the exact price but it was up towards 7 grand or maybe more I think!! Cheers Dennis.You can bet that the workers who built the things didn’t get pay rises to match.
Actually they did, as did everyone in employment. Under the Heath government there was a policy of 3-monthly pay increases to match the rise in inflation. In fact it was a self-defeating policy because it actually contributed to the ever increasing annual rate of inflation.
Dave Penn, in my post I specifically mentioned that I was not referring to anyone in particular 
So no, I did not mean you
Too many people jump on Carryfast’s back, yes he does ramble, but he also brings people out of the woodwork who try to shoot him down in flames, from that we all learn something new, so as annoying as his posts can be at times, it does help the flow of things and if he irks anyone that much, it’s a simple matter of blocking him so you don’t see any of his posts at all 
One other thing to bear in mind, as soon as you start with those types of posts (this is to everyone, not just you Dave 
) what happens next is he defends himself, by repeating the same old stuff all over again, having a pop at him is like trying to put a fire out with petrol, leave him alone and he runs out of steam…eventually
newmercman:
Dave Penn, in my post I specifically mentioned that I was not referring to anyone in particularhaving a pop at him(C/F) is like trying to put a fire out with petrol, leave him alone and he runs out of steam…eventually
My sentiments exactly !!! I just ignore him now
gingerfold:
Bewick:
Again from my distant memory I believe that Gardners were quite wrongly blamed for the “premium” that was charged by the assemblers for a Gardner powered chassis.It was,in fact,the likes of Foden,Atkinson and ERF that took full advantage of the situation and it was they who charged a “premium” and passed the perceived blame back to Gardner!! Gardner spares,from memory,were no dearer than ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ in some cases. It’s a bit like to-days travel agents “jacking up” the price of holidays in the school holidays and then blaming,most unfairly,the Hoteliers, Airlines etc !! When the greedy [zb] bulk buy all their holidays well in advance at usually deep discounts ! Cheers Bewick.Absolutely correct Bewick. It was the chassis assemblers such as ERF and Atkinson that charged a premium for a Gardner engined lorry, much to the chagrin of Gardners themselves. No doubt the backward thinking operators who hadn’t a clue what they were doing were more than happy to fork out extra money for a “boat anchor” of an engine.
As to Bewick’s earlier post both AEC and Leyland were very evenly matched in terms of power outputs in the early 1960s. Leyland Power-Plus O.680, 200 bhp, AEC AV690, 192 bhp.
A new AEC Mandator with AEC AV760 engine was priced at £4,400 ex-works in 1971.
I think that actually confirms what I’ve been saying about those backward customers who didn’t have a clue what they were doing 
.Which probably explains why they eventually walked away from those boat anchors when they eventually discovered that a turbocharged import could do the job better.
Maybe the reason why the manufacturers charged a ‘premium’ for those boat anchors was an attempt to stop their products being ordered with what they knew wasn’t as good as fitting a ■■■■■■■ in the thing.Obviously they didn’t make the premium high enough.
gingerfold:
Carryfast:
Bewick:
IIRC,the first new ■■■■■■■ engined Atkinson I bought in '71 was circa £5250,the third one I got in late '72 was circa £6250,a 20% increase in just over 12 months ! I also recall in late '73 paying “List” plus £250 in “readies” ( say no more John,tap on nose !) for a basic 220 engined Borderer,I just can’t recall the exact price but it was up towards 7 grand or maybe more I think!! Cheers Dennis.You can bet that the workers who built the things didn’t get pay rises to match.
Actually they did, as did everyone in employment. Under the Heath government there was a policy of 3-monthly pay increases to match the rise in inflation. In fact it was a self-defeating policy because it actually contributed to the ever increasing annual rate of inflation.
I think you’re forgetting that the inflation rate at the time and since was/is price led not wage led and instead of a policy of (trying to) keep wages in line with prices we then had Healey’s and Thatcher’s idea of (trying to) control price led inflation with wage restraint (for the workers but not the managers and bankers of course) and implementing a policy of factory closures and redundancies and imports to rig the labour market.The rest is history.
But if you’d have read what I wrote I said they didn’t get wage rises ‘to match’ a 20% price hike in products at the factory gate over a year and just like today the inflation figures were obviously being rigged and falsified by the Tory government at the time.
newmercman:
Dave Penn, in my post I specifically mentioned that I was not referring to anyone in particularToo many people jump on Carryfast’s back, yes he does ramble, but he also brings people out of the woodwork who try to shoot him down in flames, from that we all learn something new, so as annoying as his posts can be at times, it does help the flow of things and if he irks anyone that much, it’s a simple matter of blocking him so you don’t see any of his posts at all
One other thing to bear in mind, as soon as you start with those types of posts (this is to everyone, not just you Dave
If it’s good enough for the lot,who believe everything that Thatcher’s lot said and who think it was all the fault of the so called communist workforce in British industry at the time,to keep making the same old bs case,then it’s good enough for me to keep making the case against.No surprise that they’d rather remove the opposition than allow an opposite view to theirs to be heard.
We are back to political ramblings of no interest, this thread is finished for me.
Windrush,I remember an owner driver with a 5 pot Gardner when i worked for Richard Read.He bought a new ERF to replace it.After a short while he complained that the fuel consumption ws heavier than his previous lorry.We did find the cause but I dont remember what it was.I saw the same lorry at an ERF show at Weston and had a chat with the new owner. 
newmercman:
Too many people jump on Carryfast’s back, yes he does ramble, but he also brings people out of the woodwork who try to shoot him down in flames, from that we all learn something new, so as annoying as his posts can be at times, it does help the flow of things and if he irks anyone that much, it’s a simple matter of blocking him so you don’t see any of his posts at allOne other thing to bear in mind, as soon as you start with those types of posts (this is to everyone, not just you Dave
The post above was quoted in Cf’s latest volley of irrelevant political invective, amidst three consecutive posts, without reply! Someone has a sense of humour.
I still suspect he is you, nmm- why else would you seek to justify his existence?
I don’t think he is Mr Geoffrey Carryfast. How about you post a photo of your good self on the aka thread Carryfast
gingerfold:
Bewick:
Again from my distant memory I believe that Gardners were quite wrongly blamed for the “premium” that was charged by the assemblers for a Gardner powered chassis.It was,in fact,the likes of Foden,Atkinson and ERF that took full advantage of the situation and it was they who charged a “premium” and passed the perceived blame back to Gardner!! Gardner spares,from memory,were no dearer than ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ in some cases. It’s a bit like to-days travel agents “jacking up” the price of holidays in the school holidays and then blaming,most unfairly,the Hoteliers, Airlines etc !! When the greedy [zb] bulk buy all their holidays well in advance at usually deep discounts ! Cheers Bewick.Absolutely correct Bewick. It was the chassis assemblers such as ERF and Atkinson that charged a premium for a Gardner engined lorry, much to the chagrin of Gardners themselves. No doubt the backward thinking operators who hadn’t a clue what they were doing were more than happy to fork out extra money for a “boat anchor” of an engine.
If the demand for Gardner engines exceeded the available supply of the things, what else can the assemblers do? First come first served? Favouritism? While these two things probably went on as well, the fairest way to allocate the engines was to sell to those customers who wanted them most, and pocket the reward. The price of a transaction is dictated as much by the buyer as the seller. If the market is willing to pay a price, then that price is the value of the item for sale. Why did Gardner not simply add the premium at their own factory gate? They could have used the extra profit to invest in increasing their production, which would have been the correct long-term policy.
Strange, I pride myself on having a good recollection of events and happenings as long as 50 years ago because I was actually around in those years. Maybe I should use the internet more to tell me what really happened because it appears that some people truly do believe that the ‘revised’ versions of events as spouted by some contributors on here are actually true.
gingerfold:
Strange, I pride myself on having a good recollection of events and happenings as long as 50 years ago because I was actually around in those years.
Would that be the version of events that say that Gardner was brought down by it’s workforce which eventually led to it’s downfall later when it’s customers were still demanding naturally aspirated Gardner powered trucks in the late 1980’s into the 1990’s long after the Thatcherite revolution which fixed all of Britain’s economic problems from 1979 on.
[zb]
anorak:gingerfold:
Bewick:
Again from my distant memory I believe that Gardners were quite wrongly blamed for the “premium” that was charged by the assemblers for a Gardner powered chassis.It was,in fact,the likes of Foden,Atkinson and ERF that took full advantage of the situation and it was they who charged a “premium” and passed the perceived blame back to Gardner!! Gardner spares,from memory,were no dearer than ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ in some cases. It’s a bit like to-days travel agents “jacking up” the price of holidays in the school holidays and then blaming,most unfairly,the Hoteliers, Airlines etc !! When the greedy [zb] bulk buy all their holidays well in advance at usually deep discounts ! Cheers Bewick.Absolutely correct Bewick. It was the chassis assemblers such as ERF and Atkinson that charged a premium for a Gardner engined lorry, much to the chagrin of Gardners themselves. No doubt the backward thinking operators who hadn’t a clue what they were doing were more than happy to fork out extra money for a “boat anchor” of an engine.
Why did Gardner not simply add the premium at their own factory gate? They could have used the extra profit to invest in increasing their production, which would have been the correct long-term policy.
There was no direct connection between profit and investment in British industry the latter always lagged behind the former with the priority being returns for the investors and the banks (not surprising considering Britain’s post war debt levels) not for increased investment.While there wasn’t much point in investing in what they,and the manufacturers who fitted them in their products,knew themselves was an obsolete product living on borrowed time until the domestic customer base came to it’s senses and walked away with at least one example of it’s loyal following eventually doing exactly that shown here.