People keep talking about cheap oil being best in a Gardner, I think you mean low grade and without detergents, rather than cheap. The first fill, and Gardner’s recommendation was usually Silkolene Chatsworth straight 30s. This was/is a non-detergent oil, which works at its best at relatively low oil temperatures, but it certainly wasn’t of poor quality or particularly cheap; just well suited to the way a Gardner went about it’s work. Silkolene is after all a recommended oil supplier for Rolls Royce jets, but I don’t think that will be Chatworth 30.
acd1202:
People keep talking about cheap oil being best in a Gardner, I think you mean low grade and without detergents, rather than cheap. The first fill, and Gardner’s recommendation was usually Silkolene Chatsworth straight 30s. This was/is a non-detergent oil, which works at its best at relatively low oil temperatures, but it certainly wasn’t of poor quality or particularly cheap; just well suited to the way a Gardner went about it’s work. Silkolene is after all a recommended oil supplier for Rolls Royce jets, but I don’t think that will be Chatworth 30.
Spot on there “acd1202” I re-call that when Gulf Oil withdrew from the UK market in the late 70’s their rep we dealt with in our area,Bob Fitzgerald,started work for Silkolene Oil and I started buying Lubes from them for a while,I got two grades,one for the Turbo engines and one for the Gardners which was a little bit cheaper,but not much.However,it was always a concern that someone would put the lesser spec oil into the Scanias and Volvos which would cause big trouble!!! so I eventually started buying our Lubes off our Derv suppliers,first Shell then later on BP.You’d be suprised how you could “sharpen” the Derv price up by throwing in 40,000 litres of Lube oil anually !! Cheers Bewick.
Speaking of oils, we used to use GB Lubricants in the 150s, PDXX 30, No problems at all, The PD meant part dertergent if any of yous didnt know, Regards Larry.
During the period Gardner gained the reputation it had, which was for reasons already stated, by the 80’s being rapidly depleted, we have to remember how things were in the industry as a whole in this country. Foreign makes were in the minority and most of the big British makers also produced their own engines, which in some cases, AEC, Leyland, Foden built good economical and reliable engines, bearing in mind the technology available during the 30’s to 60’s British lorry manufacturers built some good examples that also served many countries around the world. At a time when it was par for the course for the workshop staff to strip, repair and re-build engines from the many varied makes a fleet consisted of, it was during this time that Gardners spent less time on the bench than their competitors purely because of the way they were designed. They could handle the weights, speeds and workloads of the time quite easily.
When the artic revolution in the Sixties came about a 150 BHP engined outfit was quite adequate, although by then being seen as dated and an extra 30 or 40 horses would be required into the next decade. The 180 in some peoples experience may not have been a better engine than the previous 6LX but we had now entered an era of fast motorway connections around the country, increased continental operations which also brought in the foreign competition and a general attitude that quicker was best in everything we done. Previous to that the plodding, smokey never tiring Gardner got you there and back. You can’t knock an engine maker that for many years was the backbone of the British haulage industry and putting this into perspective Gardners were top of the class for a longer period than when they slipped to the bottom and finally went under, for that at least they deserve some credit. Cheers Franky.
Lawrence Dunbar:
I drove a few wagons with the 150 in & I prefered it to the 180, But of course gearing played a big part as how the Gardners performed, Hears some data to look at Regards Larry.
If I was a guvnor who was absolutely determined that it had to be a Gardner powered heap then it would have been the 180 with a nine speed fuller and the same final drive ratio as the 150 had in a four or six wheeler at best but an artic or even an eight wheeler no chance. 
But in the real world there wouldn’t have been much difference between the two at 32 t gross especially if someone decided to wipe out the small torque advantage which the 180 had by fitting a higher ratio final drive in it. 
Frankydobo:
During the period Gardner gained the reputation it had, which was for reasons already stated, by the 80’s being rapidly depleted, we have to remember how things were in the industry as a whole in this country. Foreign makes were in the minority and most of the big British makers also produced their own engines, which in some cases, AEC, Leyland, Foden built good economical and reliable engines, bearing in mind the technology available during the 30’s to 60’s British lorry manufacturers built some good examples that also served many countries around the world. At a time when it was par for the course for the workshop staff to strip, repair and re-build engines from the many varied makes a fleet consisted of, it was during this time that Gardners spent less time on the bench than their competitors purely because of the way they were designed. They could handle the weights, speeds and workloads of the time quite easily.
When the artic revolution in the Sixties came about a 150 BHP engined outfit was quite adequate, although by then being seen as dated and an extra 30 or 40 horses would be required into the next decade. The 180 in some peoples experience may not have been a better engine than the previous 6LX but we had now entered an era of fast motorway connections around the country, increased continental operations which also brought in the foreign competition and a general attitude that quicker was best in everything we done. Previous to that the plodding, smokey never tiring Gardner got you there and back. You can’t knock an engine maker that for many years was the backbone of the British haulage industry and putting this into perspective Gardners were top of the class for a longer period than when they slipped to the bottom and finally went under, for that at least they deserve some credit. Cheers Franky.
Even before the motorway era took off the idea of 150-180 hp being seen as adequate for an artic or even an 8 wheeler was just a symptom of over conservatism in the British market’s thinking.That conservative thinking existed long after the point where the motorways became a large feature in road transport.The fact that Gardner never went under a lot sooner was just a reflection of the backward thinking in the domestic market and ironically it was that backward thinking that kept Gardner going longer than it should have done and sunk the others like Leyland etc who were held back by it.
Perhaps if Gardners had introduced the later turbo engines 10 years earlier things might have been different.
kr79:
Perhaps if Gardners had introduced the later turbo engines 10 years earlier things might have been different.
If you was their bank manager would you have wanted to bet your investors’ money on Gardner coming up with a better (and cheaper on the economies of production scale) turbocharged engine than ■■■■■■■ could though and then on the possibility of it being accepted by the power hating British guvnors at the time even if they could 
.
Hi all,
This b series had an experimental turbo Gardner fitted when new.as I recall it was very troublesome.
Well yes and no we can design and build quality products here and would ■■■■■■■ have got the foothold in the UK it got if Gardner had produced the later 250 to 320 hp and probaly a lot more out of the big 15.5 engine in the mid to late 70s. Mind you been able to produce enough engines to meet demand in the first place would help.
Frankydobo:
During the period Gardner gained the reputation it had, which was for reasons already stated, by the 80’s being rapidly depleted, we have to remember how things were in the industry as a whole in this country. Foreign makes were in the minority and most of the big British makers also produced their own engines, which in some cases, AEC, Leyland, Foden built good economical and reliable engines, bearing in mind the technology available during the 30’s to 60’s British lorry manufacturers built some good examples that also served many countries around the world. At a time when it was par for the course for the workshop staff to strip, repair and re-build engines from the many varied makes a fleet consisted of, it was during this time that Gardners spent less time on the bench than their competitors purely because of the way they were designed. They could handle the weights, speeds and workloads of the time quite easily.
When the artic revolution in the Sixties came about a 150 BHP engined outfit was quite adequate, although by then being seen as dated and an extra 30 or 40 horses would be required into the next decade. The 180 in some peoples experience may not have been a better engine than the previous 6LX but we had now entered an era of fast motorway connections around the country, increased continental operations which also brought in the foreign competition and a general attitude that quicker was best in everything we done. Previous to that the plodding, smokey never tiring Gardner got you there and back. You can’t knock an engine maker that for many years was the backbone of the British haulage industry and putting this into perspective Gardners were top of the class for a longer period than when they slipped to the bottom and finally went under, for that at least they deserve some credit. Cheers Franky.
Frankydobo, that is a good clear concise analysis, thank you. Cheerio for now.
newmercman:
What’s funny?The words high and horsepower when you’re talking about Gardner engines, not words you would normally associate with Gardner
Oh I see what you mean, sorry. Yes I know 150/180 sounds so small compared to today’s engines but at the time I guess that a 180 was one of the biggest available. We have a Foden here with a 4LK I think that’s around 80 HP
acd1202:
People keep talking about cheap oil being best in a Gardner, I think you mean low grade and without detergents, rather than cheap. The first fill, and Gardner’s recommendation was usually Silkolene Chatsworth straight 30s. This was/is a non-detergent oil, which works at its best at relatively low oil temperatures, but it certainly wasn’t of poor quality or particularly cheap; just well suited to the way a Gardner went about it’s work. Silkolene is after all a recommended oil supplier for Rolls Royce jets, but I don’t think that will be Chatworth 30.
Yes sorry I meant cheap compared to today’s expensive oil prices. We use 20w50 classic motor mineral oil in our gardners now. We used to use silkoline straight 30
AshleyP:
newmercman:
What’s funny?The words high and horsepower when you’re talking about Gardner engines, not words you would normally associate with Gardner
Oh I see what you mean, sorry. Yes I know 150/180 sounds so small compared to today’s engines but at the time I guess that a 180 was one of the biggest available. We have a Foden here with a 4LK I think that’s around 80 HP
And I went to Italy twice in a Foden S20 with a 4LK, (and not through any tunnel)! also, Paris, Marseilles, Bordeaux , Antwerp, Nice, and Pau, Glasgow, Inverness, Fort William, Truro, London, Durham, Coventry, Carlisle, Cardiff, Newport, Swansea, Porthcawl, Ebbow Vale, Grangemouth, and goodness knows where else , (and many , many miles around the Black Country`s hills), before I was “upgraded”, on skill achieved, to a S36 150 LX.
Power is relative to the time in which it was available, and I never ever felt, “disadvantaged” !! Cheerio for now.
kr79:
Well yes and no we can design and build quality products here and would ■■■■■■■ have got the foothold in the UK it got if Gardner had produced the later 250 to 320 hp and probaly a lot more out of the big 15.5 engine in the mid to late 70s. Mind you been able to produce enough engines to meet demand in the first place would help.
We can design and build quality products here but sometimes there isn’t a lot of point if it’s a case of trying (and more likely than not failing in the case of Gardner with the basis of the type of technology which the firm was based on) to re invent technology that’s already available both cheaper across the Atlantic anyway,and with a trading relationship (at the time),which was favourable to outsourced or licence built UK production of US technology here,and in which we already had engines like the Leyland 680,which were the type of exceptions to the rule,of forced induction engines needing to be designed as such from the outset,which Gardners designs certainly weren’t in any way.It was those type of exceptions which were needed in order for manufacturers to be able to make that jump easily and cheaply.Which is how DAF,Detroit and ■■■■■■■ all managed to get ahead in the race.
In addition to that it also required favourable market conditions in the domestic market in which such a jump would have been widely accepted.As Bewick has shown previously that market for the product wasn’t here at that time.Which is why Gardner could still sell every one of it’s naturally aspirated,1930’s technology boat anchors that it could turn out and it’s also why Leyland decided to give away one of those valuable exceptions to the rule which would have allowed them to make something like the DAF 2800 before DAF did it instead.Because they knew that the market here was too backward to have provided sufficient demand at the time even if they had and it required the abilities of a fortune teller to know when things might eventually change here.
Bewick:
acd1202:
People keep talking about cheap oil being best in a Gardner, I think you mean low grade and without detergents, rather than cheap. The first fill, and Gardner’s recommendation was usually Silkolene Chatsworth straight 30s. This was/is a non-detergent oil, which works at its best at relatively low oil temperatures, but it certainly wasn’t of poor quality or particularly cheap; just well suited to the way a Gardner went about it’s work. Silkolene is after all a recommended oil supplier for Rolls Royce jets, but I don’t think that will be Chatworth 30.Spot on there “acd1202” I re-call that when Gulf Oil withdrew from the UK market in the late 70’s their rep we dealt with in our area,Bob Fitzgerald,started work for Silkolene Oil and I started buying Lubes from them for a while,I got two grades,one for the Turbo engines and one for the Gardners which was a little bit cheaper,but not much.However,it was always a concern that someone would put the lesser spec oil into the Scanias and Volvos which would cause big trouble!!! so I eventually started buying our Lubes off our Derv suppliers,first Shell then later on BP.You’d be suprised how you could “sharpen” the Derv price up by throwing in 40,000 litres of Lube oil anually !! Cheers Bewick.
Hi Berwick,
How correct you are,
i used to agree 5 year contracts for diesel and oil with Esso, then BP, then Shell. I was told although we used about 7,000 gallon of diesel per week, and obviously much less engine oil, the reps got no commission on selling diesel, but good commission on engine oil. The companies could really sharpen their pencil for a good order of engine oil.
Carl.
Saviem:
AshleyP:
newmercman:
What’s funny?The words high and horsepower when you’re talking about Gardner engines, not words you would normally associate with Gardner
Oh I see what you mean, sorry. Yes I know 150/180 sounds so small compared to today’s engines but at the time I guess that a 180 was one of the biggest available. We have a Foden here with a 4LK I think that’s around 80 HP
And I went to Italy twice in a Foden S20 with a 4LK, (and not through any tunnel)! also, Paris, Marseilles, Bordeaux , Antwerp, Nice, and Pau, Glasgow, Inverness, Fort William, Truro, London, Durham, Coventry, Carlisle, Cardiff, Newport, Swansea, Porthcawl, Ebbow Vale, Grangemouth, and goodness knows where else , (and many , many miles around the Black Country`s hills), before I was “upgraded”, on skill achieved, to a S36 150 LX.
Power is relative to the time in which it was available, and I never ever felt, “disadvantaged” !! Cheerio for now.
Which is probably exactly what all those die hard Gardner engine customers were all saying up to the late 1970’s.
When they all jumped ship and bought a more powerful turbocharged euro or scandinavian wagon or something with a turbocharged ■■■■■■■ in it when they finally realised that the early-mid 20 th century was over. 
Saviem:
Power is relative to the time in which it was available, and I never ever felt, “disadvantaged” !! Cheerio for now.
Wise words indeed 
I started out in this game somewhat later than you (and others who contributed to this thread) so I totally understand where you’re coming from on that. I do have the experience of driving a 180, but I was quite fortunate that most of my driving was done in lorries with over 250hp. A big power engine was something with more than 350hp, but 275ish hp was more than adequate for any operation, including following in your tyre tracks (or should that be exhaust smoke ) down to Southern Europe, although I did the odd expedition over the top, I must admit to using the tunnels whenever I could
I read posts on the UK forums about drivers moaning that their 400+hp high roof sleeper cab is not up for the job and I shake my head, just as you old codgers do when my generation talk about the 150s and 180s. Now pulling 38tons over mountains with 275hp and running 150s and 180s have a lot in common, you need to keep momentum going, so you learned to read the road, and also read the behaviour of the other lorries, so you could give someone with a heavy load a helping hand by not getting in the way. All these 600hp merchants just want to be on the limiter all day, whether it’s up hill or down dale, they don’t have to think, they just flick the cruise control switch and woe betide anybody who gets in their way
If the good old 6LX series was still around maybe there would still be lorry drivers driving lorries, rather than steering wheel attendants moving freight around
newmercman:
8)Saviem:
Power is relative to the time in which it was available, and I never ever felt, “disadvantaged” !! Cheerio for now.Wise words indeed
I started out in this game somewhat later than you (and others who contributed to this thread) so I totally understand where you’re coming from on that. I do have the experience of driving a 180, but I was quite fortunate that most of my driving was done in lorries with over 250hp. A big power engine was something with more than 350hp, but 275ish hp was more than adequate for any operation, including following in your tyre tracks (or should that be exhaust smoke
I read posts on the UK forums about drivers moaning that their 400+hp high roof sleeper cab is not up for the job and I shake my head, just as you old codgers do when my generation talk about the 150s and 180s. Now pulling 38tons over mountains with 275hp and running 150s and 180s have a lot in common, you need to keep momentum going, so you learned to read the road, and also read the behaviour of the other lorries, so you could give someone with a heavy load a helping hand by not getting in the way. All these 600hp merchants just want to be on the limiter all day, whether it’s up hill or down dale, they don’t have to think, they just flick the cruise control switch and woe betide anybody who gets in their way
If the good old 6LX series was still around maybe there would still be lorry drivers driving lorries, rather than steering wheel attendants moving freight around
Exactly, Steeering wheel attendants, blue line merchants, not proper “lorry” drivers today I’m afraid.
about turboengines volvo started out early -54 and scania -59 (DS10) and the power output was very moderat in begining 190hp,no turbo 165hp,so no much differens to gardener.
scania did not have a middelrange turbomotor before 68 whit the 80 series,so not very early. even in finland and sweden(not norway)big fleets did use free aspirated diesels in to the 80,s.thought the companys in scandinavia are to 90% owner operators whit less then 5 lorries and volvo scania market shear is 90 % insweden and 70% in finland,the customers seems to be different from uk. back to gardener, only roadvelige i know here in north using gardener was a lightweigt bus ,KABUS using a 180 for a while in late 80,s cheers benkku