leylandlover:
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.
At least SOMEBODY is reading the odd post amongst all the âpolitical ramblingsâ that prove nothing regarding whether the engines were good or not! I would imagine that the 5 cylinder would be ideal in a four wheeler and cannot think of anything from that era to better it, either in fuel consumption or reliability, though no doubt I have now opened up another can of worms in stating that.
Regarding differences in engines from the same builder, Waters at Darley Dale had a Guy with a 6 cylinder Gardner (not certain which model) that a friend drove. It wouldnât run right from the outset, missfired slightly and drank fuel, but a fitter from another local firm fettled it and after a little âpump doctoringâ and adjustment to the timing etc it outperformed the rest of the fleet! So even Gardner turned out the occasional âiffyâ engine, just as other makerâs did.
Well I drove a 5 potter Gardner, WTN 58, When it was new in 1954 it pulled a Dyson trailer on distance work going over Standedge & Shap every week fully loaded, I was a trouble free motor appart from the braking system being a bit iffy, but driven carefully as it was it never came to grief, in 1959 it was replaced with an 8 wheeler Atikinson PGR 851 with a 150 in it running solo, WTN 58 Contineud its working life running solo on distance work & ended its days on local after it was sold to Steenburgs in Newcastle, This old Atkinson was on of the best motors that Baxters Road Services ever operated, For reliabilty & good on fuel, not the best of motors to drive but the pay was tops in those days, Regards Larry.
leylandlover:
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.
At least SOMEBODY is reading the odd post amongst all the âpolitical ramblingsâ that prove nothing regarding whether the engines were good or not! I would imagine that the 5 cylinder would be ideal in a four wheeler and cannot think of anything from that era to better it, either in fuel consumption or reliability, though no doubt I have now opened up another can of worms in stating that.
Regarding differences in engines from the same builder, Waters at Darley Dale had a Guy with a 6 cylinder Gardner (not certain which model) that a friend drove. It wouldnât run right from the outset, missfired slightly and drank fuel, but a fitter from another local firm fettled it and after a little âpump doctoringâ and adjustment to the timing etc it outperformed the rest of the fleet! So even Gardner turned out the occasional âiffyâ engine, just as other makerâs did.
Pete.
Any new Gardner chassis you bought,after sticking a few '000 miles on the clock could be booked into the Service dept at Patricroft and they would give it a " medical" F.O.C. I always found them very decent lads who took a pride in their product.I lost touch with them in their final years prior to them closing but my dealings with Gardner in earlier years were without complaint ! Cheers Bewick.
I think Dennis that by the early 80âs they had lost a little enthusiasm, though as I mentioned a while back in this thread they did lend me a protractor for a couple of days to set the cams up on a 6LXC. Not many companies would do that I guess?
Mention was made of the price of spare parts, we used to buy reconditioned sprayers from a Midlands diesel specialist but they leaked and were generally poor, found out the hard way that genuine Gardner ones were much cheaper so changed to them with no more trouble! Lets face it, no engine parts were cheap, Rolls Eagle gasket sets were around the ÂŁ600 mark for starters so Gardner parts would be no better or worse than the competition.
windrush:
I think Dennis that by the early 80âs they had lost a little enthusiasm, though as I mentioned a while back in this thread they did lend me a protractor for a couple of days to set the cams up on a 6LXC. Not many companies would do that I guess?
Mention was made of the price of spare parts, we used to buy reconditioned sprayers from a Midlands diesel specialist but they leaked and were generally poor, found out the hard way that genuine Gardner ones were much cheaper so changed to them with no more trouble! Lets face it, no engine parts were cheap, Rolls Eagle gasket sets were around the ÂŁ600 mark for starters so Gardner parts would be no better or worse than the competition.
Pete.
Your right there Pete it was always cheaper in the long run to buy origional (re-con) parts,we did have a short,sharp, disaster once with buying some âspuriousâ new Scania pistons and liner sets,that were warrented to have come off the same line as genuine Scania ones! We had two very premature engine failures on a couple of 82âs,I could make â â â â all of the âsuppliersâ,they only offered us replacements sets,the cheeky â â â â â â â â â â Cheers Dennis.
newmercman:
Too many people jump on Carryfastâs 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, itâs a simple matter of blocking him so you donât 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 steamâŚeventually
The post above was quoted in Cfâs 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 can assure you it isnât me
The sad thing is, I donât think he is anyoneâs alter ego, heâs actually for real
I donât defend him, on the contrary, but I do get â â â â â â off when peopleâs only contribution to a thread is to say they donât want to read his stuff
Simple solutions to that, either donât read them, block his posts, or counter his arguments with cold hard facts, or sensible opinions, just as you and I do
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. Maybe I should use the internet more to tell me what really happened because it appears that some people truly do believe that the ârevisedâ versions of events as spouted by some contributors on here are actually true.
Evening all, gingerfold, never has a truer word been spoken. Im away to take solace in the Bollinger, its all that I can do!! Cheerio for now.
Saviem,
Re: your comment regarding Gardnerâs European Licencees. Paul Gardner is probably the only one left who can give you chapter and verse, unless that is, Gingerfold was able to elicit some info from Dion Houghton prior to his passing.
The Belgian Coach operator you spoke to was Jo Cannaerts of Mechelen, he operates Van Hool buses and Neoplan Buses and Coaches on the continent.
On the subject of the Gardner âpremiumâ, the truck OEMâs inflated the price differential between, say, a â â â â â â â unit versus a Gardner equivalent, precisely because they could get away with it due to limited supply.
I specifically recall having to sit in on one of the Tipcon panels, at Harrogate in the late 70âs, (when Dion was not âavailableâ). Also on the panel was the American MD of SA (then owned by IH in the States)and a friend of mine ,the Sales Dir. of â â â â â â â â (from the period when I was based out of their New Malden Office).
Lo and behold, up gets one of SA and Gardners upstanding Tipper operators and proceeds to request that the panel divulge the net cost differential between the two engines, as supplied to SA.
He new, very well, that the politics of the situation would not allow us to divulge sensitive commercial information of this nature, but, he had his moment of glory in making us all feel uncomfortable.
The MD of SA later complemented me on my answer to the meeting, i.e. not dropping him in it!
I later compared notes with my â â â â â â â friend, and, on a like for like basis, not easy as engine âdressâ can be quite different between manufacturers, we concluded that the net differential was circa ÂŁ3-400 against circa ÂŁ1000- 1500 premium asked by the truck OEMâs.
I was responsible for selling the Gardner engine into Neoplan, Van Hool, Kabus Oy etc where the engine net costs were not loaded up as the truck side was. Leyland in the UK also tried to load up the costs but having MCW and Dennis around plus some very strong customers like NBC and LTE we were able to negate their attempts.
As this is a truck forum Iâll shut up about their bus and coach business.
I remember RMC/Butterley aggregates having Leyland Constructorâs (or maybe Scammellâs?) eight wheeled tipperâs fitted with Gardner 6LXC engines instead of the more common Leyland engine, I wonder if these were produced solely for RMC as I cant recall other operatorâs using them? Just seemed strange to me as latterly I didnât consider Leyland a big Gardner user and I imagine that there would have been a hefty premium on the price.
First of all- welcome to 5valve, another contributor able to feed my insatiable thirst for old lorry information!
Regarding the relationship between the sales volume and market price: I guess that, if engine production volumes had been increased, the manufacturers would have less opportunity to charge a loaded premium. Operators with a definite Gardner preference would enjoy reduced lead times, and be able to play the chassis assemblers against each other more confidently. Customers forced in the direction of â â â â â â â and Rolls Royce would be more inclined to choose Gardner, if they knew they were not going to be kept waiting. What would be your estimate of the optimum production volume, at the time you were involved?
PS Donât worry about mentioning buses- weâve already had to suffer a page of aeroplanes, from Mr. High-as-a-kite. At least your buses had Gardner engines in them.
windrush:
I remember RMC/Butterley aggregates having Leyland Constructorâs (or maybe Scammellâs?) eight wheeled tipperâs fitted with Gardner 6LXC engines instead of the more common Leyland engine, I wonder if these were produced solely for RMC as I cant recall other operatorâs using them? Just seemed strange to me as latterly I didnât consider Leyland a big Gardner user and I imagine that there would have been a hefty premium on the price.
Pete.
There were a few aggregate firms around my way that ran T45 8 wheelers with Gardner 6LXCs in them, probably for the lighter tare weights, which are useful in that payload sensitive segment. They were badged as Leylands, but the 8 wheeler Constructor range was really a Scammell product and, as we all know, they had a long history with Gardner Engines
newmercman:
There were a few aggregate firms around my way that ran T45 8 wheelers with Gardner 6LXCs in them, probably for the lighter tare weights, which are useful in that payload sensitive segment. They were badged as Leylands, but the 8 wheeler Constructor range was really a Scammell product and, as we all know, they had a long history with Gardner Engines
Good evening Geoffrey, errrâŚMark ( ). This point is often forgotten: power-to-weight ratio is the important thing, power-per-litre is irrelevant. If the fuel consumption is good, is does not matter how big the cylinders are. Another feather in Hugh Gardnerâs cap.
Fascinating information from 5Valve, thank you. The continental engine makers who manufactured Gardner uuits under licence, the arrangements seem shrouded in a mystery. What information Dion Houghton imparted to me was put into the book, and as far as I recall the numbers produced under licence were quite small. It would be interesting to learn if any of these licence built Gardners still survive anywhere. Did they sound the same as a Patricroft built engine?
Just for Windrush and off topic a bit,sorry, RMC used to dictate to Leyland what engines etc they wanted,Their policy was smaller engines with more gears,They also used 220 Rolls instead of the 265.ie;no turbo.
windrush:
I remember RMC/Butterley aggregates having Leyland Constructorâs (or maybe Scammellâs?) eight wheeled tipperâs fitted with Gardner 6LXC engines instead of the more common Leyland engine, I wonder if these were produced solely for RMC as I cant recall other operatorâs using them? Just seemed strange to me as latterly I didnât consider Leyland a big Gardner user and I imagine that there would have been a hefty premium on the price.
Pete.
The constructor was offered with the Gardner up until about 85 to compete with foden and ERF it was never a popular option probaly due to cost but Iâd guess a firm the size of rmc could negotiate a healthy discount off the list price.
Anorak:- Increasing production of truck engines to negate the âpremiumâ asked by the OEMâs was not possible for many reasons, the main one being that perhaps 90 odd percent, of the engine, was built âin-houseâ.
(From the castings made in the foundry, to the completed tested engine). As I have said before, Gardner was a âfamily businessâ and the man in charge, for whatever reason, did not want to relinquish any control to outsiders. This would have been necessary in order to refine the production facilities and increase output. The company, at best, only produced 6090 engines p.a. (in 1971).
Only with the advent of the Hawker Siddeley takeover, in 1977, was there a view that we could at last start the process of improving engine volumes and producing products that met most of the market sectors we were involved in.
As an aside, the American competitor I joined in 1966 already had plants in the US,India,Brazil,Germany and three plants in the UK, the magnitude of the job in hand, if you view it as such, is obvious.
Gingerfold:- Re the engines built under licence. I only ever heard one Kromhout engine, in a boatyard the Danish distributor dragged me into, it was sat on itâs sump with no exhaust manifold and sounded like a bag of spanners! He thought he could bring it back from the dead but thankfully sanity prevailed.
newmercman:
There were a few aggregate firms around my way that ran T45 8 wheelers with Gardner 6LXCs in them, probably for the lighter tare weights, which are useful in that payload sensitive segment. They were badged as Leylands, but the 8 wheeler Constructor range was really a Scammell product and, as we all know, they had a long history with Gardner Engines
Good evening Geoffrey, errrâŚMark ( ). This point is often forgotten: power-to-weight ratio is the important thing, power-per-litre is irrelevant. If the fuel consumption is good, is does not matter how big the cylinders are. Another feather in Hugh Gardnerâs cap.
If thatâs right then everyone would still be speccing naturally aspirated Gardner designs to this day remembering that thereâs nothing stopping any other manufacturer using the same formula as Gardner were using âifâ of course that idea is/was correct.The fact is specific outputs are just as important as making an engine which leaves âenoughâ margin for a productive payload.
History shows that the only mistake is when customers then throw away that advantage by going for a smaller engine,with (what looks good on paper) specific power outputs.When the idea is to go for a decent sized engine together with high specific outputs because as everyone knows productivety and fuel efficiency is all about high specific torque outputs and lots of it.Which,of course,was the naturally aspirated Gardnerâs weak point.
Iâm have nowhere as near as much engendering knowledge as others but what Carryfast says rungs true with me in the fact a modern truck I have driven a lot of in the last few years is the man tga tgx with the 440d20 engine which is a 10.5 litre felt nowhere as nearly as lively as the older v8 scania and 14 litre â â â â â â â fodens with similar outputs I drove.
Wether is the ccs or modern electronic and trick turbos that did it I donât know.
kr79:
Iâm have nowhere as near as much engendering knowledge as others but what Carryfast says rungs true with me in the fact a modern truck I have driven a lot of in the last few years is the man tga tgx with the 440d20 engine which is a 10.5 litre felt nowhere as nearly as lively as the older v8 scania and 14 litre â â â â â â â fodens with similar outputs I drove.
Wether is the ccs or modern electronic and trick turbos that did it I donât know.
This is indeed odd. It suggests that the manufacturers are not being completely honest with their published torque curves, or the older injection pumps are easier to âadjust.â V8lenny seems familiar with the dynamometer- maybe will have some answers.
newmercman:
There were a few aggregate firms around my way that ran T45 8 wheelers with Gardner 6LXCs in them, probably for the lighter tare weights, which are useful in that payload sensitive segment. They were badged as Leylands, but the 8 wheeler Constructor range was really a Scammell product and, as we all know, they had a long history with Gardner Engines
Good evening Geoffrey, errrâŚMark ( ). This point is often forgotten: power-to-weight ratio is the important thing, power-per-litre is irrelevant. If the fuel consumption is good, is does not matter how big the cylinders are. Another feather in Hugh Gardnerâs cap.
If thatâs right then everyone would still be speccing naturally aspirated Gardner designs to this day remembering that thereâs nothing stopping any other manufacturer using the same formula as Gardner were using âifâ of course that idea is/was correct.The fact is specific outputs are just as important as making an engine which leaves âenoughâ margin for a productive payload.
History shows that the only mistake is when customers then throw away that advantage by going for a smaller engine,with (what looks good on paper) specific power outputs.When the idea is to go for a decent sized engine together with high specific outputs because as everyone knows productivety and fuel efficiency is all about high specific torque outputs and lots of it.Which,of course,was the naturally aspirated Gardnerâs weak point.
Are you serious
Other manufacturers are using the same formula Thatâs why the L10 â â â â â â â at 290hp was a hundred times more popular in an 8 wheeler than the E290 was
You continue to show your lack of experience in the real world of haulage with your power crazy theories Tearing up and down the M1 or M4 at night in your lightly loaded 2800 or belting a fire engine around a test track are totally different to most haulage operations, in some cases payload is critical, in some cases speed is irrelevant, but in every single case, making money is the reason for running a lorry and Gardner Engined lorries made people money
I would imagine that the 5 cylinder would be ideal in a four wheeler and cannot think of anything from that era to better it, either in fuel consumption or reliability, though no doubt I have now opened up another can of worms in stating that. 
) 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 steamâŚeventually 
). This point is often forgotten: power-to-weight ratio is the important thing, power-per-litre is irrelevant. If the fuel consumption is good, is does not matter how big the cylinders are. Another feather in Hugh Gardnerâs cap.
Thatâs why the L10 â â â â â â â at 290hp was a hundred times more popular in an 8 wheeler than the E290 was