Rigsby my man you are talking to LARRY Not Lol & as far C/F Is concerned he is a total waste of space, in fact if he had been around in the early days in the 50s he would have been on the DOLE As a dropout, a useless object that was unemloyable in the haulage industrey, He In my opinion has read a lot of books & I suppose is an intelligent educated bloke, but knows sweet fanney adams about running a haulage Co, So all i can say to him is have ■■■ & travel, Regards Larry.
n
rigsby:
i do envy you the fluent french saviem , i only tried my schoolboy french out once on an exchange student and she slapped my face , i wonder why ?
Hello rigsby, I learned my French mainly on the “line”, at Blainville. I believe that it is quite “colourful”, a bit like an immigrant from the sub continent learning English in Bilston!!! (and believe me there aint nowt wrong with Bilston, [apart from the council])!!But it never let me down, and always created a smile or two at formal functions, (and in the typing pool)!! Cheerio for now.
The only FRENCH I can remember in my younger days was French Letters, which were 3 for halve a dollar, & were readiley avaiable at the local BARBERS SHOP. Regards Larry.
Lawrence Dunbar:
The only FRENCH I can remember in my younger days was French Letters, which were 3 for halve a dollar, & were readiley avaiable at the local BARBERS SHOP. Regards Larry.
hiya,
And Larry a bit like washing your feet with your socks on.
thanks harry, long retired.
What do you put on a ■■■■■■■■■, a French letter in your case CF if the cap fits wear it . F 89s did nt scream ,just like a ■■■■■ when stroked they purred. Crow.
geoffthecrowtaylor:
What do you put on a [zb], a French letter in your case CF if the cap fits wear it . F 89s did nt scream ,just like a ■■■■■ when stroked they purred. Crow.
I do hope that we are not going to get into a argument between the merits of the TD 120 versus a 265 Gardner or any other Gardner for that matter
Of course we re not Tony theres no comparison this thread should have stayed where it started ie Gardner engines ,I m off to the airport now to collect run around Sue who s been to a wedding in UK catch you later, Crow.
Carryfast, you keep extolling the virtues of the American lorries and their engines, along with the rest of your tripe 
So, answer four questions, with a simple yes or no 
When Gardner Engined Lorries (and others without stratospheric power to weight ratios) were charged with hauling goods in our little backward thinking Island, were people starving because food was rotting in fields/warehouses because the slow lorries couldn’t do the job, were factories shutting down because the slow lorries could get raw materials in and finished product out fast enough 
When the slow Gardners and suchlike were finally forced off the roads by the foriegn lorries, did British Industry and the British people immediately benefit from the faster journey times offered in comparison to the Gardners
If the hauliers of the 60s and 70s had shared your remarkable insight (using your sarcasm there [ZB]) and told the British Lorry Builders that they wanted 8v92s and NTC350s instead of Gardners, do you think it would have made the slightest difference to the economy of GB
Finally, if the workers at BL and other State Owned Businesses were paid more money, instead of the money going to ze Germans, do you think they would have still gone on strike for ridiculous reasons like having Custard Creams instead of Garibaldis with their morning cuppa or put out such shoddy workmanship
For the record, my own answers to the above questions are No, No, No and Yes 
You can’t blame them garibaldis are rotten 
Excuse me for my digression here lads…
Although there have been some good arguments put forward from all sides in this thread there are a couple of points that…without reading the whole thread again…I don’t think has been touched on. Maybe someone with a little more historical knowledge may be able to clear it up.
We have to ask ourselves:
If as the agents, and the “Continental lorry manufacturers” themselves claimed at the time, that their products were superior to the British products….why did they buy out the British companies?
What part in these acquisitions did the British and EU governments play in it….and why?
Also worth noting…and I stand to be corrected… is that UK operators were not hauling to the continent with the same volume of traffic as were the other continental countries between themselves. Would this not be one of the reasons that Brit operators and hauliers didn’t need to spec their lorries so highly? Why the need for all the speed and power. After all why spec a lorry to travel thousands of miles per trip…mostly on motorways over 1000’s of miles…. when most of the UK traffic at the time was domestic/within our own borders? Brit hauliers and operators didn’t have to contend with the same regional topography as our continental friends.
IMHO the ultimate need for speed in the UK was introduced by the “Supermarket chains” and the continental manufacturers fitted the bill.
A question:
I may be wrong here, but since the takeover of British lorry manufacture by the continentals, why is it that any new model of lorry is not designed or specc’d for the British market…and why do British hauliers have to wait to purchase them long after they are introduced on the continent?
Just my thoughts. Cheers.
Some good points there Solly,I also think that Company policy regarding stock levels played a part.In earlier times Companies kept quite high levels of stock and delivery times were not crucial.Some smart economist must have realised that keeping hugh amounts of stock is just dead money.So as stock levels fell delivery times became essential and truck speeds needed to be increased,so bigger and faster engines were introduced,most of them non British.I can remeber arriving at one factory and being told ‘thank god you got here on time,the production line can only run for another half hour’.I know this is only one factor,but I think a valid point all the same.
newmercman:
Carryfast, you keep extolling the virtues of the American lorries and their engines, along with the rest of your tripeSo, answer four questions, with a simple yes or no
When Gardner Engined Lorries (and others without stratospheric power to weight ratios) were charged with hauling goods in our little backward thinking Island, were people starving because food was rotting in fields/warehouses because the slow lorries couldn’t do the job, were factories shutting down because the slow lorries could get raw materials in and finished product out fast enough
When the slow Gardners and suchlike were finally forced off the roads by the foriegn lorries, did British Industry and the British people immediately benefit from the faster journey times offered in comparison to the Gardners
If the hauliers of the 60s and 70s had shared your remarkable insight (using your sarcasm there [ZB]) and told the British Lorry Builders that they wanted 8v92s and NTC350s instead of Gardners, do you think it would have made the slightest difference to the economy of GB
Finally, if the workers at BL and other State Owned Businesses were paid more money, instead of the money going to ze Germans, do you think they would have still gone on strike for ridiculous reasons like having Custard Creams instead of Garibaldis with their morning cuppa or put out such shoddy workmanship
For the record, my own answers to the above questions are No, No, No and Yes
There’s no point in me answering any of those questions because thay are irrelevant although having worked in a successful British truck manufacturing factory building decent products sold without complaint around the world during the 1970’s the final question just requires answering with the contempt it deserves.
My ‘relevant’ question is.
- Do you think that a decent sized turbocharged engine that provides at least 10-12 hp per tonne gross weight on the roads a they stood here post 1960 to date will be more productive and fuel efficient than a naturally aspirated boat anchor which provides a lot less.If the answer is no then you’ll need to re write truck engine development history to date including the (eventual) buying habits of financially expert operators like Bewick.
The question wasn’t one of which is the right option between those two but just a question of how long it took the backward Brits to get to the right answer compared to their foreign counterparts. 
Carryfast:
My ‘relevant’ question is.
- Do you think that a decent sized turbocharged engine that provides at least 10-12 hp per tonne gross weight on the roads a they stood here post 1960 to date will be more productive and fuel efficient than a naturally aspirated boat anchor which provides a lot less.
Gardners were the most efficient automotive engines in the world until the early 1980s. This was stated, with reference to published data, many pages back in this thread. Please desist from this tedious repetition. If the accepted methods of measuring machinery do not support your complicated arguments, just give up. If an ad hoc assembly of drivers, fitters, engineers, salesmen and hauliers are unanimously against you, in their spare time, imagine the reception you would get in an office full of people designing and developing engines.
The subject that, I believe, has not been investigated at length, on this thread or anywhere else, is the Gardner company’s decision not to keep pace with the European market’s demand for higher power outputs from about 1960. This, combined with their apparent indifference to the great sales opportunities in Europe at that time, is at the root of their eventual demise. From promising beginnings in the early 1950s, they just seemed to let the fruit rot on the vine. We have already heard about the 8LW Fodens in the Netherlands, selling well until the lack of service support sent the custom elsewhere. Are there any other tales of opportunities wasted?
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
My ‘relevant’ question is.
- Do you think that a decent sized turbocharged engine that provides at least 10-12 hp per tonne gross weight on the roads a they stood here post 1960 to date will be more productive and fuel efficient than a naturally aspirated boat anchor which provides a lot less.
Gardners were the most efficient automotive engines in the world until the early 1980s.
The subject that, I believe, has not been investigated at length, on this thread or anywhere else, is the Gardner company’s decision not to keep pace with the European market’s demand for higher power outputs from about 1960.
So in one case you’re saying that they were the most efficient engines in the world until the 1980’s.
But in another you’re saying that they were too gutless for the job as of 1960 which is exactly what I’ve been saying.
So which is it because it can’t be both . 
However that post was actually directed at nmm not you anyway.
hiya,
Anorak and others the best advice to you all is written in Zoo’s everywhere
“Don’t feed the animals” the more information you give this CF fellah’ is just
food for him to spout more crap and it’s the same repetative crap over and
over again, the solution don’t feed and he’ll fade away or just have to talk to
himself, I’ll bet he talks to himself anyway he’ll most likely consider himself
the most intelligent person he knows, what a wally.
thanks harry, long retired.
Carryfast:
So in one case you’re saying that they were the most efficient engines in the world until the 1980’s.But in another you’re saying that they were too gutless for the job as of 1960 which is exactly what I’ve been saying.
So which is it because it can’t be both
Here we have the crux of the misunderstanding. Efficiency and power are not the same thing. That’s why they are shown as different curves on the specification sheets.
Note to those contributors who are averse to technical discussion- nothing on this thread is complicated, unless you attempt to understand the arguments of those who don’t understand the simple stuff.
Harry- like bindweed, it carries on regardless. The moderators have glyphosate, but they seem reluctant to use it. The occasional thrash about with a scythe is good fun, though. I also planted a seed of good stuff in my previous thread.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
So in one case you’re saying that they were the most efficient engines in the world until the 1980’s.But in another you’re saying that they were too gutless for the job as of 1960 which is exactly what I’ve been saying.
So which is it because it can’t be both
Here we have the crux of the misunderstanding. Efficiency and power are not the same thing. That’s why they are shown as different curves on the specification sheets.
Note to those contributors who are averse to technical discussion- nothing on this thread is complicated, unless you attempt to understand the arguments of those who don’t understand the simple stuff.
Harry- like bindweed, it carries on regardless. The moderators have glyphosate, but they seem reluctant to use it. The occasional thrash about with a scythe is good fun, though. I also planted a seed of good stuff in my previous thread.
Maybe the mods don’t see a bit of harmless good old fashioned disagreement as a reason to take the nuke or chemical weapons approach like you seem to.
If outputs don’t contribute to the efficiency equation then you can bet that Gardner,or at least it’s old naturally aspirated designs,would have survived to this day in one form or another,under one of the large surviving manufacturers or other,on the basis of it wouldn’t heve been broke so no need to fix it.
Carryfast:
newmercman:
Carryfast, you keep extolling the virtues of the American lorries and their engines, along with the rest of your tripeSo, answer four questions, with a simple yes or no
When Gardner Engined Lorries (and others without stratospheric power to weight ratios) were charged with hauling goods in our little backward thinking Island, were people starving because food was rotting in fields/warehouses because the slow lorries couldn’t do the job, were factories shutting down because the slow lorries could get raw materials in and finished product out fast enough
When the slow Gardners and suchlike were finally forced off the roads by the foriegn lorries, did British Industry and the British people immediately benefit from the faster journey times offered in comparison to the Gardners
If the hauliers of the 60s and 70s had shared your remarkable insight (using your sarcasm there [ZB]) and told the British Lorry Builders that they wanted 8v92s and NTC350s instead of Gardners, do you think it would have made the slightest difference to the economy of GB
Finally, if the workers at BL and other State Owned Businesses were paid more money, instead of the money going to ze Germans, do you think they would have still gone on strike for ridiculous reasons like having Custard Creams instead of Garibaldis with their morning cuppa or put out such shoddy workmanship
For the record, my own answers to the above questions are No, No, No and Yes
There’s no point in me answering any of those questions because thay are irrelevant although having worked in a successful British truck manufacturing factory building decent products sold without complaint around the world during the 1970’s the final question just requires answering with the contempt it deserves.
My ‘relevant’ question is.
- Do you think that a decent sized turbocharged engine that provides at least 10-12 hp per tonne gross weight on the roads a they stood here post 1960 to date will be more productive and fuel efficient than a naturally aspirated boat anchor which provides a lot less.If the answer is no then you’ll need to re write truck engine development history to date including the (eventual) buying habits of financially expert operators like Bewick.
The question wasn’t one of which is the right option between those two but just a question of how long it took the backward Brits to get to the right answer compared to their foreign counterparts.
Really Over the last 30 odd pages you’ve been harping on about how British Hauliers should have been getting higher horsepower lorries, so those questions are very relevant
The fact is, that you cannot honestly say yes to any of the first three questions and you cannot say no to the last one, a small matter of history would make you a liar if you did try
in one and only skandinavian country(finland) the britt,s(leyland AEC) did the work forcummins for a market score of near30% when ■■■■■■■ came in score goes to20 and change to cat scores 0, long live the yankee,s,think bedfordcsold about 20 DD powered motors in hole skandinavia,but here the branch is as stupip as in britt,s just read that big fleet,s in sweden, home of the charged engines bid use mainly uncharged engines into 80,s in normal trunking,couse no need for more.same in finland to.we did not undersand enything either,so the only man whit the seeing is the brilliante carry,cheers foe him ,unfortunatly he can,t do enyting about the misstakes we did,and now is to lateto get the DD back
OK gents. As the thread is in danger of descending into a personal slanging match maybe this PhD thesis will resolve some of the arguments, dispel many of the myths surrounding the industrial relationships that were propounded as to the demise of L Gardner by a certain Prime Minister and her MSM mouthpieces at the time and offer a more truthful insight into what really happened to L Gardner & Sons of Patricroft.
It is lengthy, but if patient, well worth reading by those who are interested in truthful research.