Gardner ENGINES

[zb_anorak]

Bewick:

[zb]
anorak:
Here’s another question for those in the know: what was actually wrong with the 6LYT, which spoiled its reputation in the lorry industry? Bearing in mind that it was a success in coaches, surely the problems were not fundamental?

I’ll stand to be corrected no doubt “anorak” but a coach is never run as “heavy” as say a 32/38 artic,I think there was a similar situation when CAT engines were tried in the Automotive industry as opposed to where they were “Kings” in the construction industry it didn’t work.It was a case of “D’ferrent strokes for d’ferrent folks” ■■? Cheers Bewick.

Must be something to do with it. Coaches, typically, have fewer gears, so they are more prone to over-revving, but lorries’ engines must operate at full load for longer periods, during acceleration and hill-climbing. There would not be much difference in the continuous power requirement, since coaches cruise at higher speeds. I don’t know enough about the fatigue/wear properties of engine components, at different loads, to give a good answer. If someone was familiar with the actual failures, it would be of interest, I believe.

[windrush]

I have no personal experience of the 6LYT engine but I believe that it certainly had problems that presumably could have been overcome eventually had the factory continued. An old work colleague had the last Gardner LYT engine produced, fitted in a Foden, but he only used it on the show circuit and has now sold it on. The engine was certainly different to the standard LXC etc, the timing gears and pump drive were at the flywheel end for one thing, but Gingerfold will know a lot more about the engine and hopefully will explain its shortcomings. I suppose that it just didn’t have the development time afforded it as, lets face it, the LX, LXB and LXC engines were just basically updated LW’s which had been around for 50+ years and were well proven units, though even the 6LXC had teething troubles and required modifications in use (change of heads back to LXB type for instance).

Pete.

[carryfast]

Saviem:
[ZB],“failure to expand production”, now you touch here on a very interesting point, and one that dovetails with the constant doctorine of our dear friend CF. Yes the individual manufacturing companys strategys may have been to stay within the capabilities of the domestic market. But why? Not as CF states “the fault of the buyers”, more that of the political masters, who controlled the legislation that fixed our manufacturers with a set of rules that forced them to produce products that were, (in relation to our cross channel neighbours), both lighter in nett, and gross weight, and lower powered in terms of specification. And culminated in preventing, for commercial reasons, development of a product range compatible with our European “friends” offerings, prior to us joining “their” club. The culpability of the political class in contributing to the demise of so much of our heavy industry is manifest, in terms of our commercial vehicle industry, it is even greater. Cheerio for now.

Saviem I’ve said previously on the topic that it was a ‘combination’ of that issue ‘and’ the relatively investment hostile nature of British industry in general.That hostility to investment applied to both the manufacturers and the customers much of which,as I said,resulted from the lack of available cash from the banks who were more interested in meeting our wartime debt payments than investing in the rebuilding of British industry.Added to which is that question of the discrepancy between the rate of growth in Germany’s post war economy compared to ours which seemed to suggest that investment in British industry got diverted into Germany’s industries instead. I think you identified some possible reasoning for that in an earlier post concerning keeping the Germans onside in the cold war dispute.

So with that in mind would Dutch type weight and vehicle size limits have helped in an economy which was still stuck in a wartime like economy through the 1950’s.The money would’nt have been there to develop the products,provide the tooling and production capacity needed to build them,or for the customers to buy the finished products.From that point on we were always going to end up being behind the combined might of the Germans,Dutch and the Scandinavians in the long term.

Notice the difference between early 1950’s Britain and Germany.

youtube.com/watch?v=sDbJ_ZdJ … ure=relmfu

youtube.com/watch?v=VF46IEGUXvE

[newmercman]

In the immortal words of Sheriff Buford T Justice of Texas “The God Damned Germans ain’t got nothing to do with it”

Whatever the National Debt and repayment scheme was it was paid back by the Government, the Government gets its money from one source, the Taxpayer, so the same taxes would be paid by anyone who had an engine plant here, so that includes ■■■■■■■ and Volvo, British Leyland and Uncle Tom Cobbley

We have already come to the conclusion that Gardner’s demise was caused by the decisions made in the boardroom at Patricroft, it had nothing whatsoever to do with the Government paying off its wartime debts or propping up the German Economy

The Germans rebuilt their industry over a number of years, mostly from hard work, rather than going on strike all the time like their British competition

Put a 1970s German car, lorry, bus, train, plane, ship or bicycle up against it’s British equivalent and there’s no clear winner, although being honest, in most cases the British product was slightly better

It was Volvo and Scania, not Magirus Deutz, MAN or Mercedes Benz who shook up the British Heavy Truck Market and they are not German

[carryfast]

newmercman:
In the immortal words of Sheriff Buford T Justice of Texas “The God Damned Germans ain’t got nothing to do with it”

Whatever the National Debt and repayment scheme was it was paid back by the Government, the Government gets its money from one source, the Taxpayer, so the same taxes would be paid by anyone who had an engine plant here, so that includes ■■■■■■■ and Volvo, British Leyland and Uncle Tom Cobbley

We have already come to the conclusion that Gardner’s demise was caused by the decisions made in the boardroom at Patricroft, it had nothing whatsoever to do with the Government paying off its wartime debts or propping up the German Economy

The Germans rebuilt their industry over a number of years, mostly from hard work, rather than going on strike all the time like their British competition

Put a 1970s German car, lorry, bus, train, plane, ship or bicycle up against it’s British equivalent and there’s no clear winner, although being honest, in most cases the British product was slightly better

It was Volvo and Scania, not Magirus Deutz, MAN or Mercedes Benz who shook up the British Heavy Truck Market and they are not German

That seems to be an oversimplification of the financial system.

The relevant bit is that the Scandinavians didn’t take over the German market like they did the British one.

As I’ve said British workers wouldn’t have needed to strike if they weren’t being paid less to build to build Jaguars and VC10’s than German workers were paid to build Volkswagens.

But exactly which 1975 Gardner powered British truck was it that was ‘slightly better’ than this and how many British operators would have bought the thing even if Gardner had have made something to compete with it at the time.

germancarforum.com/community … tory.29496

[newmercman]

Anything British was probably better than a 1418 Mercedes Benz, they wouldn’t pull a greasy stick out of a dog’s arse

I’ve nicked this from the CM Archives, read it and digest it Carryfast

Will 290 Volvo horsepower do better than 240 Gardner horsepower? Ron Sinclair of R. Sinclair Ltd, Worcester Road Industrial Estate, Evesham, means to find out. Assessment in due course of the performance of an ERF B-Series 3862 TR tractive unit, powered by a Gardner 8LXB, in comparison with that of a Volvo F88-32 unit with a TDIOOB turbocharged diesel should reveal whether ’ overpowering" pays off.

The vehicles will be operated intensively on the same routes to Scotland and Cornwall and accurate records will be kept of mpg, journey times, driver reactions, servicing requirements, tyre wear and so on.

The opportunity to compare a Volvo F88 and an ERF B-Series came about in an unusual way. Having held back replacement of AEC Mandators and Mercuries of a fleet of 25 vehicles for two years (the acquisition of two haulage companies has recently added 27 Ford trucks to the total) Ron wanted to place an order for 20 B-Series 8LXB-engined units with ERF or, as a second choice, to purchase Foden trucks powered by the same type of diesel. In March he was told by ERF that he might get three units in 1975 and that the first would be delivered in June; Foden advised him that he would have to wait indefinitely.

Should he go foreign? Starting in September last year the company had operated a Volvo F88-32, a MAN 16.232 FT N, a DAF FT 2200 DU, a DAF FT 2800 DKTD and a Fiat 619 Ti as well as a BL Marathon MTL 38.28 F on extended trials of makers’ demonstrator units over distances of not less than 1,000 miles and up to 5,000 miles. The outputs of these models are 216kW (290bhp) at 2,400rpm, 173kW (232bhp) at 2,300rpm, 161kW (216bhp) at 2,400rpm, 185kW (248bhp) at 2,200rpm, 179kW (240bhp) at 2,200 rpm and 204kW (273bhp) at 2,200rpm, respectively.

And the Volvo had come out best by a fairly narrow margin, the good reputation of the make in the UK over the years and its high level of cab comfort being overriding factors. So after facing up to the certain disadvantages of including one or more foreign vehicles in a fleet which had always been UK orientated, Ron opted for a Volvo F88. Delivery was prompt; and in a short while the first ERF arrived a month ahead of time.

Many operators regard the use of higher powered vehicles as uneconomic despite the reduction in journey times they provide because the extra power is abused by the average driver with a resultant increase in wear and tear all round and a greater likelihood of accidents. Ron has four sons, three of whom are directors of the company and have hgv class 1 licences (the fourth son is 13 years old but is showing a keen interest in the business) and the Volvo will be driven by one of the sons and by the foreman who has worked for the company for 17 years. So appraisal of performance will be a strictly co-ordinated and technical exercise with the profitability and good name of the company (and family) in mind.

According to Ron, the 42year-old driver of the ERF is of the same calibre as his vehicle and there’s no doubt that he will make the best of a good thing. Both vehicles are expected to do well. Equipped with extra fuel tanks to increase total capacity to 546 - litres (120gal) and coupled to a Crane Fruehauf semi-trailer each unit can haul a payload of rather more than 21.34 tonnes (21 tons).

A power output of about 230bhp is regarded as adequate for long-distance 32-tonners and the Volvo will normally be driven at speeds that are well within the capabilities of the ERF, although the greater power of the Volvo will undoubtedly save time on some of the steeper gradients. Over a distance of 2,415km (1,500 miles) the ERF has averaged more than 2.83km/I (8rnpg) while the average of the Volvo on demonstrator trials was 2.62km/1 (7.4mpg).

Good matching of engine, gearbox and final drive is cited by Ron as an essential to good economy. He considers that the good lugging power of the Gardner may partly offset the advantage of the greater peak power produced by the Volvo despite the fact that the ERF’s nine-speed transmission is competing with a Volvo 16 speed splitter/range-change gearbox. Time will tell.

All the foreigners did well on the trials of demonstrator vehicles, but although the performance of the Marathon was praised by the drivers it had a lot wrong with it, including a cab fault and door locks which didn’t work. It also showed signs of shoddy workmanship and its fuel consumption of 2.09km/1 (5.9mpg) was higher than that of any other vehicle tested. Moreover, the power steering was faulty and drivers didn’t like the cab.

The DAF 2200 averaged 2.62km/1 (7.4mpg) but was underpowered for the job, and although the DAF 2800 proved to be a highly satisfactory truck with regard to performance, handling and cab comfort it had a poorish fuel consumption of 2.124km/1 (6mpg) and its cost was not acceptable. While cab comfort is given a high priority, the super-luxury cabs of the DAFs represent a wasteful luxury in Ron’s view. And the relatively high tare weight of the more powerful model did not favour its purchase.

Coming close to the Volvo and DAF 2200 on fuel consumption, the MAN averaged 2.55km/I (7.2mpg) and was a close rival of the Fiat as a second choice after the Volvo, although the Fiat’s higher fuel consumption of 2.16km/1 (6.1mpg) was against it. The MAN’s column-mounted gearchange lever was at first in dis favour because of its apparent sloppiness but the drivers liked it once they had mastered its peculiarities.

In a frank comment on British Leyland, Ron Sinclair told me "We had a long and happy association with AEC before Leyland took over.

Our recommendations regarding modifications were often acceptable. The Mandator and the Mercury are good trucks with a well-matched engine, gearbox and final drive. If they had had better cabs we might well have continued to buy them and benefited from an extra ton of payload. What a pity the association couldn’t go on."

See Carryfast, the Germans were well out of it, the Swedish were the ones kicking arse (Bewick will confirm that) The reason they got in at all was because of poor build quality and shoddy workmanship and the long lead times from the British Manufacturers

And Margaret Thatcher’s name never came up once

This is all from a man who was actually on the ground, earning a living from lorries and after careful consideration he choose to order 20 ERFs with Gardner 8LXB engines first, the Volvo only got in because the ERFs were not available, so those old Gardners can’t have been that bad can they

Here’s another piece of information that may make you think “Many operators regard the use of higher powered vehicles as uneconomic despite the reduction in journey times they provide because the extra power is abused by the average driver with a resultant increase in wear and tear all round and a greater likelihood of accidents.” You may think that the man doesn’t know what he’s talking about, but how many times have you placed an order for 20 brand new lorries

As I know that your answer will be that you have never placed an order for 20 brand new lorries, I reckon that Mr Sinclair’s opinion is a lot more valid than your utopian pipe dreams of high horsepower 6x4 Scandinavian style outfits with Fuller Gearboxes and a permanent live feed into youtube

Oh yeah, while I’m at it, your 2800 Daf only had the same power as the underpowered Gardner 8LXB, its cost was unacceptably high and it had poor fuel consumption to add to the misery

If only Mr Sinclair had been running 8V92 powered Bedford TMs eh? He may have been a successful road haulier, shame you two never met so you could point out his mistakes eh

[carryfast]

newmercman:
Anything British was probably better than a 1418 Mercedes Benz, they wouldn’t pull a greasy stick out of a dog’s arse

I’ve nicked this from the CM Archives, read it and digest it Carryfast

Will 290 Volvo horsepower do better than 240 Gardner horsepower? Ron Sinclair of R. Sinclair Ltd, Worcester Road Industrial Estate, Evesham, means to find out. Assessment in due course of the performance of an ERF B-Series 3862 TR tractive unit, powered by a Gardner 8LXB, in comparison with that of a Volvo F88-32 unit with a TDIOOB turbocharged diesel should reveal whether ’ overpowering" pays off.

The vehicles will be operated intensively on the same routes to Scotland and Cornwall and accurate records will be kept of mpg, journey times, driver reactions, servicing requirements, tyre wear and so on.

The opportunity to compare a Volvo F88 and an ERF B-Series came about in an unusual way. Having held back replacement of AEC Mandators and Mercuries of a fleet of 25 vehicles for two years (the acquisition of two haulage companies has recently added 27 Ford trucks to the total) Ron wanted to place an order for 20 B-Series 8LXB-engined units with ERF or, as a second choice, to purchase Foden trucks powered by the same type of diesel. In March he was told by ERF that he might get three units in 1975 and that the first would be delivered in June; Foden advised him that he would have to wait indefinitely.

Should he go foreign? Starting in September last year the company had operated a Volvo F88-32, a MAN 16.232 FT N, a DAF FT 2200 DU, a DAF FT 2800 DKTD and a Fiat 619 Ti as well as a BL Marathon MTL 38.28 F on extended trials of makers’ demonstrator units over distances of not less than 1,000 miles and up to 5,000 miles. The outputs of these models are 216kW (290bhp) at 2,400rpm, 173kW (232bhp) at 2,300rpm, 161kW (216bhp) at 2,400rpm, 185kW (248bhp) at 2,200rpm, 179kW (240bhp) at 2,200 rpm and 204kW (273bhp) at 2,200rpm, respectively.

And the Volvo had come out best by a fairly narrow margin, the good reputation of the make in the UK over the years and its high level of cab comfort being overriding factors. So after facing up to the certain disadvantages of including one or more foreign vehicles in a fleet which had always been UK orientated, Ron opted for a Volvo F88. Delivery was prompt; and in a short while the first ERF arrived a month ahead of time.

Many operators regard the use of higher powered vehicles as uneconomic despite the reduction in journey times they provide because the extra power is abused by the average driver with a resultant increase in wear and tear all round and a greater likelihood of accidents. Ron has four sons, three of whom are directors of the company and have hgv class 1 licences (the fourth son is 13 years old but is showing a keen interest in the business) and the Volvo will be driven by one of the sons and by the foreman who has worked for the company for 17 years. So appraisal of performance will be a strictly co-ordinated and technical exercise with the profitability and good name of the company (and family) in mind.

According to Ron, the 42year-old driver of the ERF is of the same calibre as his vehicle and there’s no doubt that he will make the best of a good thing. Both vehicles are expected to do well. Equipped with extra fuel tanks to increase total capacity to 546 - litres (120gal) and coupled to a Crane Fruehauf semi-trailer each unit can haul a payload of rather more than 21.34 tonnes (21 tons).

A power output of about 230bhp is regarded as adequate for long-distance 32-tonners and the Volvo will normally be driven at speeds that are well within the capabilities of the ERF, although the greater power of the Volvo will undoubtedly save time on some of the steeper gradients. Over a distance of 2,415km (1,500 miles) the ERF has averaged more than 2.83km/I (8rnpg) while the average of the Volvo on demonstrator trials was 2.62km/1 (7.4mpg).

Good matching of engine, gearbox and final drive is cited by Ron as an essential to good economy. He considers that the good lugging power of the Gardner may partly offset the advantage of the greater peak power produced by the Volvo despite the fact that the ERF’s nine-speed transmission is competing with a Volvo 16 speed splitter/range-change gearbox. Time will tell.

All the foreigners did well on the trials of demonstrator vehicles, but although the performance of the Marathon was praised by the drivers it had a lot wrong with it, including a cab fault and door locks which didn’t work. It also showed signs of shoddy workmanship and its fuel consumption of 2.09km/1 (5.9mpg) was higher than that of any other vehicle tested. Moreover, the power steering was faulty and drivers didn’t like the cab.

The DAF 2200 averaged 2.62km/1 (7.4mpg) but was underpowered for the job, and although the DAF 2800 proved to be a highly satisfactory truck with regard to performance, handling and cab comfort it had a poorish fuel consumption of 2.124km/1 (6mpg) and its cost was not acceptable. While cab comfort is given a high priority, the super-luxury cabs of the DAFs represent a wasteful luxury in Ron’s view. And the relatively high tare weight of the more powerful model did not favour its purchase.

Coming close to the Volvo and DAF 2200 on fuel consumption, the MAN averaged 2.55km/I (7.2mpg) and was a close rival of the Fiat as a second choice after the Volvo, although the Fiat’s higher fuel consumption of 2.16km/1 (6.1mpg) was against it. The MAN’s column-mounted gearchange lever was at first in dis favour because of its apparent sloppiness but the drivers liked it once they had mastered its peculiarities.

In a frank comment on British Leyland, Ron Sinclair told me "We had a long and happy association with AEC before Leyland took over.

Our recommendations regarding modifications were often acceptable. The Mandator and the Mercury are good trucks with a well-matched engine, gearbox and final drive. If they had had better cabs we might well have continued to buy them and benefited from an extra ton of payload. What a pity the association couldn’t go on."

See Carryfast, the Germans were well out of it, the Swedish were the ones kicking arse (Bewick will confirm that) The reason they got in at all was because of poor build quality and shoddy workmanship and the long lead times from the British Manufacturers

And Margaret Thatcher’s name never came up once

This is all from a man who was actually on the ground, earning a living from lorries and after careful consideration he choose to order 20 ERFs with Gardner 8LXB engines first, the Volvo only got in because the ERFs were not available, so those old Gardners can’t have been that bad can they

Here’s another piece of information that may make you think “Many operators regard the use of higher powered vehicles as uneconomic despite the reduction in journey times they provide because the extra power is abused by the average driver with a resultant increase in wear and tear all round and a greater likelihood of accidents.” You may think that the man doesn’t know what he’s talking about, but how many times have you placed an order for 20 brand new lorries

As I know that your answer will be that you have never placed an order for 20 brand new lorries, I reckon that Mr Sinclair’s opinion is a lot more valid than your utopian pipe dreams of high horsepower 6x4 Scandinavian style outfits with Fuller Gearboxes and a permanent live feed into youtube

The way I read it was that everyone concerned in the article seems to have forgotten that it’s high torque outputs that we’re looking for to provide a decent combination of journey times and fuel economy not zb levels of torque taken up to relatively stratospheric engine speeds that provide horsepower figures that just look good on paper.

Which is why it’s no surprise that an 8 LXB could compete with an F 88 But things didn’t look so good when it’s compared to a decent sized engine with more torque than any of those options.Although the DAF 2800 seemed to be the best option to me if they’d have compared the 290 or 310 options but no surprise that it was considered as being too luxurious and wasteful anyway.

As I’ve said it’s not a utopian dream to suggest that the best way to get a decent combination of fuel economy and journey times is with more power not less,but there’s a big difference between power made by high engine speeds as opposed to high torque and the more gears it’s got doesn’t do any harm so long as the driver knows how to use them.Which is why you’re driving a piece of good old fashioned yank technology today not a Gardner 8 LXB powered Pete with a 9 speed box at best.

[newmercman]

You’ve missed the point

In those days the main objective wasn’t tear arseing around all over the country as fast as possible doing as many loads as possible, money was being made at the more relaxed pace of the day, handball and roping and sheeting were the order of the day, so an extra half hour on a journey never made a lot of difference, so what was the point in wearing everything out faster and burning more fuel to earn the same revenue

The British Haulage scene changed into the madness it is today because of the faster lorries, it was the other way around to your theory of underpowered motors holding the industry back, there was no forward until the Foreign Invasion

Long distance trunking was the order of the day, a night man would run the lorry down to the smoke, or up north, east or west, check into some digs and the day man would go and tip and reload his lorry, that night he’d come back and go home with it where the process would be repeated. The trunker was in his own bed every other day and two men earned a wage out of the lorry. When the new faster lorries came on the job, the night trunker became a day man, left early, belted down the road, tipped and loaded his own trailer and then headed back home, he never saw his bed all week and the day man was down the Labour Exchange

The drivers may have had F88s instead of Gardner powered Atkis and ERFs, but were they any better off

I think not

[gingerfold]

On the topic of the non-increase of engine output at Patricroft. I’m fairly sure that one factor was the shortage of a skilled labour force. In the late '60 and early '70s I can remember Gardner’s running adverts in the local press nightly for weeks and months on end advertising vacancies for every engineering skill associated with engine manufacture. In those years they would have been competing for skilled operatives with many other large engineering companies in Trafford Park, such as Metrovick and others in the area.

The comparative trials conducted by Ron Sinclair. Now there was a man that knew his stuff. He’d started as an owner driver and built up a highly respected business. Some hard facts in that report that are indisputable. Great reading.

[cav551]

Funny that, the man never even considered a V16 Detroit or a ■■■■■■■ KTA let alone an NT400 - must have been a very unsuccessful business.

[zb_anorak]

gingerfold:
On the topic of the non-increase of engine output at Patricroft. I’m fairly sure that one factor was the shortage of a skilled labour force. In the late '60 and early '70s I can remember Gardner’s running adverts in the local press nightly for weeks and months on end advertising vacancies for every engineering skill associated with engine manufacture. In those years they would have been competing for skilled operatives with many other large engineering companies in Trafford Park, such as Metrovick and others in the area.

It appears that they tried to do the right thing, but hit a brick wall. It is an unpleasant job, raking over the failure of good work (unless one takes a perverse pleasure from it, of course. See the acid-tongued invective above), but I am drawn to 5valve’s mention of one of Gardner’s competitors having set up satellite assembly plants in other countries. Perhaps Gardner’s licensing agreements in the fifties would have had longer-term benefits if Gardner had taken a more active role in the European manufacture of the engines, either by buying premises or taking a shareholding in one of the licensees. This may have required the company to take a big deep breath, but it would have given them some respite from the restrictive British labour market. The potential for increased sales across Europe would have been a benefit, too.

My opinion is that Gardner’s unsurpassed design engineering deserved a wider audience, in the post-war years.

[ramone]

newmercman:
Anything British was probably better than a 1418 Mercedes Benz, they wouldn’t pull a greasy stick out of a dog’s arse

I’ve nicked this from the CM Archives, read it and digest it Carryfast

Will 290 Volvo horsepower do better than 240 Gardner horsepower? Ron Sinclair of R. Sinclair Ltd, Worcester Road Industrial Estate, Evesham, means to find out. Assessment in due course of the performance of an ERF B-Series 3862 TR tractive unit, powered by a Gardner 8LXB, in comparison with that of a Volvo F88-32 unit with a TDIOOB turbocharged diesel should reveal whether ’ overpowering" pays off.

The vehicles will be operated intensively on the same routes to Scotland and Cornwall and accurate records will be kept of mpg, journey times, driver reactions, servicing requirements, tyre wear and so on.

The opportunity to compare a Volvo F88 and an ERF B-Series came about in an unusual way. Having held back replacement of AEC Mandators and Mercuries of a fleet of 25 vehicles for two years (the acquisition of two haulage companies has recently added 27 Ford trucks to the total) Ron wanted to place an order for 20 B-Series 8LXB-engined units with ERF or, as a second choice, to purchase Foden trucks powered by the same type of diesel. In March he was told by ERF that he might get three units in 1975 and that the first would be delivered in June; Foden advised him that he would have to wait indefinitely.

Should he go foreign? Starting in September last year the company had operated a Volvo F88-32, a MAN 16.232 FT N, a DAF FT 2200 DU, a DAF FT 2800 DKTD and a Fiat 619 Ti as well as a BL Marathon MTL 38.28 F on extended trials of makers’ demonstrator units over distances of not less than 1,000 miles and up to 5,000 miles. The outputs of these models are 216kW (290bhp) at 2,400rpm, 173kW (232bhp) at 2,300rpm, 161kW (216bhp) at 2,400rpm, 185kW (248bhp) at 2,200rpm, 179kW (240bhp) at 2,200 rpm and 204kW (273bhp) at 2,200rpm, respectively.

And the Volvo had come out best by a fairly narrow margin, the good reputation of the make in the UK over the years and its high level of cab comfort being overriding factors. So after facing up to the certain disadvantages of including one or more foreign vehicles in a fleet which had always been UK orientated, Ron opted for a Volvo F88. Delivery was prompt; and in a short while the first ERF arrived a month ahead of time.

Many operators regard the use of higher powered vehicles as uneconomic despite the reduction in journey times they provide because the extra power is abused by the average driver with a resultant increase in wear and tear all round and a greater likelihood of accidents. Ron has four sons, three of whom are directors of the company and have hgv class 1 licences (the fourth son is 13 years old but is showing a keen interest in the business) and the Volvo will be driven by one of the sons and by the foreman who has worked for the company for 17 years. So appraisal of performance will be a strictly co-ordinated and technical exercise with the profitability and good name of the company (and family) in mind.

According to Ron, the 42year-old driver of the ERF is of the same calibre as his vehicle and there’s no doubt that he will make the best of a good thing. Both vehicles are expected to do well. Equipped with extra fuel tanks to increase total capacity to 546 - litres (120gal) and coupled to a Crane Fruehauf semi-trailer each unit can haul a payload of rather more than 21.34 tonnes (21 tons).

A power output of about 230bhp is regarded as adequate for long-distance 32-tonners and the Volvo will normally be driven at speeds that are well within the capabilities of the ERF, although the greater power of the Volvo will undoubtedly save time on some of the steeper gradients. Over a distance of 2,415km (1,500 miles) the ERF has averaged more than 2.83km/I (8rnpg) while the average of the Volvo on demonstrator trials was 2.62km/1 (7.4mpg).

Good matching of engine, gearbox and final drive is cited by Ron as an essential to good economy. He considers that the good lugging power of the Gardner may partly offset the advantage of the greater peak power produced by the Volvo despite the fact that the ERF’s nine-speed transmission is competing with a Volvo 16 speed splitter/range-change gearbox. Time will tell.

All the foreigners did well on the trials of demonstrator vehicles, but although the performance of the Marathon was praised by the drivers it had a lot wrong with it, including a cab fault and door locks which didn’t work. It also showed signs of shoddy workmanship and its fuel consumption of 2.09km/1 (5.9mpg) was higher than that of any other vehicle tested. Moreover, the power steering was faulty and drivers didn’t like the cab.

The DAF 2200 averaged 2.62km/1 (7.4mpg) but was underpowered for the job, and although the DAF 2800 proved to be a highly satisfactory truck with regard to performance, handling and cab comfort it had a poorish fuel consumption of 2.124km/1 (6mpg) and its cost was not acceptable. While cab comfort is given a high priority, the super-luxury cabs of the DAFs represent a wasteful luxury in Ron’s view. And the relatively high tare weight of the more powerful model did not favour its purchase.

Coming close to the Volvo and DAF 2200 on fuel consumption, the MAN averaged 2.55km/I (7.2mpg) and was a close rival of the Fiat as a second choice after the Volvo, although the Fiat’s higher fuel consumption of 2.16km/1 (6.1mpg) was against it. The MAN’s column-mounted gearchange lever was at first in dis favour because of its apparent sloppiness but the drivers liked it once they had mastered its peculiarities.

In a frank comment on British Leyland, Ron Sinclair told me "We had a long and happy association with AEC before Leyland took over.

Our recommendations regarding modifications were often acceptable. The Mandator and the Mercury are good trucks with a well-matched engine, gearbox and final drive. If they had had better cabs we might well have continued to buy them and benefited from an extra ton of payload. What a pity the association couldn’t go on."

See Carryfast, the Germans were well out of it, the Swedish were the ones kicking arse (Bewick will confirm that) The reason they got in at all was because of poor build quality and shoddy workmanship and the long lead times from the British Manufacturers

And Margaret Thatcher’s name never came up once

This is all from a man who was actually on the ground, earning a living from lorries and after careful consideration he choose to order 20 ERFs with Gardner 8LXB engines first, the Volvo only got in because the ERFs were not available, so those old Gardners can’t have been that bad can they

Here’s another piece of information that may make you think “Many operators regard the use of higher powered vehicles as uneconomic despite the reduction in journey times they provide because the extra power is abused by the average driver with a resultant increase in wear and tear all round and a greater likelihood of accidents.” You may think that the man doesn’t know what he’s talking about, but how many times have you placed an order for 20 brand new lorries

As I know that your answer will be that you have never placed an order for 20 brand new lorries, I reckon that Mr Sinclair’s opinion is a lot more valid than your utopian pipe dreams of high horsepower 6x4 Scandinavian style outfits with Fuller Gearboxes and a permanent live feed into youtube

Oh yeah, while I’m at it, your 2800 Daf only had the same power as the underpowered Gardner 8LXB, its cost was unacceptably high and it had poor fuel consumption to add to the misery

If only Mr Sinclair had been running 8V92 powered Bedford TMs eh? He may have been a successful road haulier, shame you two never met so you could point out his mistakes eh [/quote

What a great article , the point i picked up on was that they were quite happy with the AECs they were running and if they had a better cab more could have been ordered .Isnt that the old way of thinking ,if it isnt broken dont mend it (not a criticism by the way).The points about torque and bhp probably wouldnt have entered Mr Sinclairs head he wanted a reliable lorry that wouldn`t use much fuel ,the big problem with the english offerings were the cabs and build quality not the engines and i personaly think that was a major factor in the demise of english lorry manufacturing we got left way behind and left it far too late to respond.

[zb_anorak]

archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … the-future
This is CM’s report on the 1964 Commercial Motor Show. Already, there are grumblings about Gardner’s lack of a 200+bhp engine. The consensus seemed to be that the ■■■■■■■ “small” V8 range was the way forward!

The article compares the power of these engines with that of the Mercedes LP1620 on show, without mention of the new LP1624 or the other recently-introduced 240bhp lorries over the water. It correctly predicts future demand for 280-300bhp, speculating that turbocharged in-line sixes may be one solution.

Britain, not just Gardner, was starting to fall behind.

[carryfast]

newmercman:
You’ve missed the point

In those days the main objective wasn’t tear arseing around all over the country as fast as possible doing as many loads as possible, money was being made at the more relaxed pace of the day, handball and roping and sheeting were the order of the day, so an extra half hour on a journey never made a lot of difference, so what was the point in wearing everything out faster and burning more fuel to earn the same revenue

The British Haulage scene changed into the madness it is today because of the faster lorries, it was the other way around to your theory of underpowered motors holding the industry back, there was no forward until the Foreign Invasion

Long distance trunking was the order of the day, a night man would run the lorry down to the smoke, or up north, east or west, check into some digs and the day man would go and tip and reload his lorry, that night he’d come back and go home with it where the process would be repeated. The trunker was in his own bed every other day and two men earned a wage out of the lorry. When the new faster lorries came on the job, the night trunker became a day man, left early, belted down the road, tipped and loaded his own trailer and then headed back home, he never saw his bed all week and the day man was down the Labour Exchange

The drivers may have had F88s instead of Gardner powered Atkis and ERFs, but were they any better off

I think not

Blimey nmm you moan about me often repeating my previous posts when the only reason that I sometimes need to do that is because everyone has obviously either not read my previous points or forgotten them.In this case I was a night trunker remember,working through the period of the changeover from Gardner 180 powered heaps, (which rightly ended up at the wrong end of a gas axe at best or short runs or yard shunters at worst),to DAF 2800 on night trunking,job and finish start at around 20.00 finish at around 05.00 sometimes even sooner.Whereas if I’d have been driving those old heaps doing the same runs I certainly would have been a day driver parked up with a zb day cab ERF or SA out of hours with a load that needed to be back at the depot in time for transhipment onto the local delivery wagons.Not stuck out on the road somewhere.

[carryfast]

gingerfold:
On the topic of the non-increase of engine output at Patricroft. I’m fairly sure that one factor was the shortage of a skilled labour force. In the late '60 and early '70s I can remember Gardner’s running adverts in the local press nightly for weeks and months on end advertising vacancies for every engineering skill associated with engine manufacture. In those years they would have been competing for skilled operatives with many other large engineering companies in Trafford Park, such as Metrovick and others in the area.

Which seems to be the same issue that I made concerning skilled aircraft engineers building aircraft like the VC10 at Vickers Weybridge chucking the job in because (1) German workers were being paid more to build Volkswagens (2) They could find (much) better paying jobs in small local engineering firms which,as I’ve said,luckily for my standard of living as a child,is exactly what my Dad did.

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:
The Die is Cast for the Future | 2nd October 1964 | The Commercial Motor Archive
This is CM’s report on the 1964 Commercial Motor Show. Already, there are grumblings about Gardner’s lack of a 200+bhp engine. The consensus seemed to be that the ■■■■■■■ “small” V8 range was the way forward!

The article compares the power of these engines with that of the Mercedes LP1620 on show, without mention of the new LP1624 or the other recently-introduced 240bhp lorries over the water. It correctly predicts future demand for 280-300bhp, speculating that turbocharged in-line sixes may be one solution.

Britain, not just Gardner, was starting to fall behind.

Which seems to confirm what I’ve said .

[trev_h]

Carryfast:

[zb]
anorak:
The Die is Cast for the Future | 2nd October 1964 | The Commercial Motor Archive
This is CM’s report on the 1964 Commercial Motor Show. Already, there are grumblings about Gardner’s lack of a 200+bhp engine. The consensus seemed to be that the ■■■■■■■ “small” V8 range was the way forward!

The article compares the power of these engines with that of the Mercedes LP1620 on show, without mention of the new LP1624 or the other recently-introduced 240bhp lorries over the water. It correctly predicts future demand for 280-300bhp, speculating that turbocharged in-line sixes may be one solution.

Britain, not just Gardner, was starting to fall behind.

Which seems to confirm what I’ve said .

So everything you have said seems to be confirmed, you’re not going to leave it at that though are you !

[saviem]

Evening all, Mark (Nmm), you could not have picked a better hire and reward haulier as an example, Ron Sinclair, of Evesham. Wonderful man, disciplined, knowlegable, and considered. It was my colleague, and great friend, Rob Owens , who introduced Volvo into Rons fleet, (and was later as a director of “Midland DAF”, who was to put all the DAFs into Evesham)! But the KEY POINT, Volvo was the number two choice, it was the Lack of supply, that let us in…and believe me, when there was a problem ,…well we moved mountains to correct it!! Example…, gearbox failure on an F88,…same night up to Scotland, collect complete box, deliver to Evesham, along with two mechanics, …swop box… Lorry rolls at 0500, we go home…tommorow sort out the paper work, and who pays!!! (what we did from Walsall used to drive Phill Ives , (El Supremo at Ailsa Trucks, ex Ford, but a “proper lorry man”) nuts,…(but he knew that we were right, our repeat business said so)!! but the operator rolls!!! That dear CF, is what was the success of the Importers, SERVICE above all else!!! And it was not just the product, but its “back up”. And as an aside that really was the “Death”, of Bedford,…9 till 5.!!!

Yes, “sans doubt”, when Sinclairs forsook AEC for Volvo it was a major coup!..but “we” worked B…y hard for it, the Imported product really was not that superior, but the people involved really were the “bogs dollocks”, (if this old man can use a contemporary expression)!! and it was a vital fact in the success of the “continentals” in the UK market, not the “engineering”, believe me,( we were just as good), but the systems to support the product, and the lines of communication with the “factory”, … in the UK universally…(what example can I give)■■..Perhaps I would liken to pushing a bin liner full of cold custard up steep marble steps!!! So thats it, it was across the board, no element of British Industry could be exempted,…or perhaps someone with contemporary knowlege will challenge me, but for now Im away to copioius Bollinger, Salmon en Croute, and a good nights sleep, for tommorow,…of course its rain!! Bon Nuit mes Braves, Cheerio for now.

[lawrence_dunbar]

Just for a moment forget the Lx Models of the Famous Gardners, & Go back to the LKs & The LWs, The were one of the best oil engines in their day, Baxters on Newcastle Quayside ran a 4 Wheeler Aki DGR 822, & It did 22 to 25 MPG, Carrying 7/8 Tons to Manchester in the 50s, Earning about £30.00 a round trip three times a week , The drivers in those days went to work to earn money & they did just that, there was no flying around like to-day, anyway the old motors just plodded along & I think everybody was happy, I certainley was, Regards Larry.

[carryfast]

Saviem:
Evening all, Mark (Nmm), you could not have picked a better hire and reward haulier as an example, Ron Sinclair, of Evesham. Wonderful man, disciplined, knowlegable, and considered. It was my colleague, and great friend, Rob Owens , who introduced Volvo into Rons fleet, (and was later as a director of “Midland DAF”, who was to put all the DAFs into Evesham)! But the KEY POINT, Volvo was the number two choice, it was the Lack of supply, that let us in…and believe me, when there was a problem ,…well we moved mountains to correct it!! Example…, gearbox failure on an F88,…same night up to Scotland, collect complete box, deliver to Evesham, along with two mechanics, …swop box… Lorry rolls at 0500, we go home…tommorow sort out the paper work, and who pays!!! (what we did from Walsall used to drive Phill Ives , (El Supremo at Ailsa Trucks, ex Ford, but a “proper lorry man”) nuts,…(but he knew that we were right, our repeat business said so)!! but the operator rolls!!! That dear CF, is what was the success of the Importers, SERVICE above all else!!! And it was not just the product, but its “back up”. And as an aside that really was the “Death”, of Bedford,…9 till 5.!!!

Yes, “sans doubt”, when Sinclairs forsook AEC for Volvo it was a major coup!..but “we” worked B…y hard for it, the Imported product really was not that superior, but the people involved really were the “bogs dollocks”, (if this old man can use a contemporary expression)!! and it was a vital fact in the success of the “continentals” in the UK market, not the “engineering”, believe me,( we were just as good), but the systems to support the product, and the lines of communication with the “factory”, … in the UK universally…(what example can I give)■■..Perhaps I would liken to pushing a bin liner full of cold custard up steep marble steps!!

Saviem that sounds to me more like they just got lucky owing to the double standards applied by customers in relation to forgiving zb engineering in examples like those synchro Volvo gearboxes and turning a blind eye to the difference between paper horsepower figures v the real thing based on torque not engine speed in the case of that Trojan Horse F 88 heap.When any customer worth their salt,certainly the ones in the type of export markets that I knew,would have said along the lines we don’t care how good the service is we’ve got a relatively new wagon here with a failed transmission and that’s not acceptable.So either we can have a Fuller or Spicer in the things or you can shove it that’s assuming the alarm bells hadn’t been ringing as soon as they saw the amount of engine speed required to get that 290 hp and the obvious implications of that in respect of the amount of power the thing was turning out at more reasonable engine speeds which explains the Gardner 240’s fuel consumption advantage.Which of course was fools gold to the Gardner operators and Gardner’s management as soon as the Swedes got their act together in making bigger turbocharged engines on the basis,as I’ve said,that the aim is to combine high sepecific ouputs with a decent engine size hence the F12.

As you’ve admitted yourself,with the exception of the V8 Scania engine,the Scandinavians didn’t do it by better engineering.Whereas we blew it by having the ability of being able to turn out decent engineering but we didn’t have the money to put in the infrastructure required or our engineers to work making something as good or better as the Americans or the Germans could in time to challenge the Scandinavian competition.Which is why our truck manufacturing industry sank in the face of the Scandinavian invasion but theirs didn’t.As I’ve said most of the reason for that had it’s roots a lot further back in Britain’s financial situation caused by fighting two world wars and not getting the type of financial breaks which Germany got in the years after WW2.

However notwithsatanding any of that,even with in an ideal situation of the Germans being in the situation that Britain was,during the post war years,and Britain being in the position of Germany,no one with any sense would have invested money in Gardner to be the ones to beat the Swedish invasion.Just like WW2 the smart money would have been on a joint venture between AEC and Rolls Royce to have done the job.

Which just leaves the issue of who was going to buy an expensive superior British product when the Brits still wanted Gardner powered wagons,the Germans wouldn’t buy British anyway and bought Mercs and MAN’s etc because they knew the future of their country depended on buying domestically made products not imports,the Scandinavians obviously had their own products too,and the old colonial markets could get something with at least as much power for a lot less money from the Americans.