@ NMM
On the one hand your explanation…and that of the author of the linked “Thesis” would seem to confirm that all things being equal…on the mechanical side of the argument…the Gardner engine was a better, if not the best engine at that time, and was a more economic choice for operators and hauliers in the UK…which has also been confirmed, by among others, our own in house operator…Dennis.
On the other hand. All things considered… at the time of the L Gardner & Sons demise…the period of transition from Gardner engined chassis to European chassis seems to revolve around the fact that the European builders only offered a more driver friendly cab. I think most on this thread would agree with that.
C/F, you seem to forget that a lot of hauliers ran Gardner engines when Gardners were the best on fuel, & they employed drivers who didnt refer to them as a boat anchor, in fact I knew a lot of old time drivers who never complained about them, & tramped all over the country with them & allways got home, & most likley before you were born, So why dont you become a boat anchor yourself Eh, Regards Larry, The Gardner 150 Man.
Lawrence Dunbar:
C/F, you seem to forget that a lot of hauliers ran Gardner engines when Gardners were the best on fuel, & they employed drivers who didnt refer to them as a boat anchor, in fact I knew a lot of old time drivers who never complained about them, & tramped all over the country with them & allways got home, & most likley before you were born, So why dont you become a boat anchor yourself Eh, Regards Larry, The Gardner 150 Man.
The last bit of your post is wrong Larry,■■■■■ floats it dosent sink !!! Cheers Dennis.
Solly:
@ NMM
On the one hand your explanation…and that of the author of the linked “Thesis” would seem to confirm that all things being equal…on the mechanical side of the argument…the Gardner engine was a better, if not the best engine at that time, and was a more economic choice for operators and hauliers in the UK…which has also been confirmed, by among others, our own in house operator…Dennis.
On the other hand. All things considered… at the time of the L Gardner & Sons demise…the period of transition from Gardner engined chassis to European chassis seems to revolve around the fact that the European builders only offered a more driver friendly cab. I think most on this thread would agree with that.
My time on top of a 6LXC was in a Seddon Atkinson 400, the one I had was a day cab, but I had a sleeper version too, that cab, although a bit plasticky inside was as comfortable and roomy as any Volvo or Scania of the time 
The B/C series ERF cab was comparable too, as were the Fodens, no point talking about Bedford TMs,Ford Transcontinentals or Leyland Marathons as they never had Gardner’s in them, but by the late 70s, the Brits had caught up, in terms of creature comforts at least
Quite right Dennis but he has that much of it in him he must sink, Regards Larry.
Lawrence Dunbar:
C/F, you seem to forget that a lot of hauliers ran Gardner engines when Gardners were the best on fuel, & they employed drivers who didnt refer to them as a boat anchor, in fact I knew a lot of old time drivers who never complained about them, & tramped all over the country with them & allways got home, & most likley before you were born, So why dont you become a boat anchor yourself Eh, Regards Larry, The Gardner 150 Man.
Probably because those drivers and operators never knew any better.If they were the best then they’d still be here because the best means nothing better and not broke so no need to fix it.Instead of which they were already obsolete at least 42 years ago probably even before that.So not long,or at best around 11 years after,I was born. 
Carryfast only two European truck makers produce 700+bhp trucks and there reason is mainly a my ones bigger than yours and it stems back to the 140 and f89. They make up a tiny proportion of scania and volvos sales and knock of the heavy haulage ones and the amount out of there entire volume is tiny.
Carryfast:
If it blows my argument out of the water then you can bet that they wouldn’t have wasted loads of time and money developing 700 hp + motors if 500 is good enough.But it was those relative low outputs,for Scandinavian weights,during the 1970’s and 1980’s,that looked a lot different when they were used here for running at 38 t which of course suddenly turned that 6.2 per tonne into around 10 hp/tonne here.In just the same way as I’ve said a 730 will use less fuel with 20 t less load on it’s back which probably explains why history is repeating itself with people using 730’s to run at 40-44 t now.It probably also explains why that Gardner powered heap which you drove was only worth two baloons an a goldfish compared to the Scania 143 which you said was your all time great if you’d have tried to do the same work with them.The running costs productivety equation would have looked a bit different then.
I really don’t get why you’re going to all the wasted effort of trying to re write history.
Me re writing history 
That’s classic that is 
At least my observations are based on the evidence I’ve seen for myself and learned from other contributors to this thread, as opposed to your teenage bedroom fantasies of changing the World of Transport by stopping Eisenhoweer from supporting the Germans, blaming everything else on Mrs Thatcher, Hugh Gardner and the mulitude of successful Gardner Engined Lorry operators
For the record, the 730 Scania has only been around for a couple of years, it wasn’t a straight development of a 6.2hp/ton engine, it took more than 40yrs to evolve from one to the other 
People may run them at 44tons, but there is not one single business reason to do so, they do it because they can and because they probably have small todgers and feel the need to compensate 
One other thing you need to remember, look back at my posts about my favourite lorry of all time, almost every time I mention it, I refer to the fact that it was on top of the job, or that it had more than enough power. The relevant part is MORE than enough power
You’ll now come back and try to hit me with the two V8 IVECOs and the 540 Stralis’s that I ran, but I never bough them for the power, I bought them for business reasons, they were all cheap and the lower hp versions were only a few quid cheaper, so the higher residuals of the bigger engines meant that, to me, they made more sense, so don’t waste your breath on that one
newmercman:
Solly:
@ NMM
On the one hand your explanation…and that of the author of the linked “Thesis” would seem to confirm that all things being equal…on the mechanical side of the argument…the Gardner engine was a better, if not the best engine at that time, and was a more economic choice for operators and hauliers in the UK…which has also been confirmed, by among others, our own in house operator…Dennis.
On the other hand. All things considered… at the time of the L Gardner & Sons demise…the period of transition from Gardner engined chassis to European chassis seems to revolve around the fact that the European builders only offered a more driver friendly cab. I think most on this thread would agree with that.My time on top of a 6LXC was in a Seddon Atkinson 400, the one I had was a day cab, but I had a sleeper version too, that cab, although a bit plasticky inside was as comfortable and roomy as any Volvo or Scania of the time
The B/C series ERF cab was comparable too, as were the Fodens, no point talking about Bedford TMs,Ford Transcontinentals or Leyland Marathons as they never had Gardner’s in them, but by the late 70s, the Brits had caught up, in terms of creature comforts at least
^This.
Which just leaves the question would it have been a better competitor to something like an F10/12 with at least a 320 + ■■■■■■■ or Gardner 6LXC .
kr79:
Carryfast only two European truck makers produce 700+bhp trucks and there reason is mainly a my ones bigger than yours and it stems back to the 140 and f89. They make up a tiny proportion of scania and volvos sales and knock of the heavy haulage ones and the amount out of there entire volume is tiny.
It’s actually all about the same reason that plenty of 40 tonners use something with around 480 hp which isn’t considered as particularly overpowered.But efficient probably yes.
Carryfast:
Lawrence Dunbar:
C/F, you seem to forget that a lot of hauliers ran Gardner engines when Gardners were the best on fuel, & they employed drivers who didnt refer to them as a boat anchor, in fact I knew a lot of old time drivers who never complained about them, & tramped all over the country with them & allways got home, & most likley before you were born, So why dont you become a boat anchor yourself Eh, Regards Larry, The Gardner 150 Man.Probably because those drivers and operators never knew any better.If they were the best then they’d still be here because the best means nothing better and not broke so no need to fix it.Instead of which they were already obsolete at least 42 years ago probably even before that.So not long,or at best around 11 years after,I was born.
Of course the didnt know any better , thats because there wasnt anything better than a Gardner in those days, Even a knob like you should know that, that is if your brain can figure it out, Regards Larry, & Im still a Gardner 150 Man.
Lawrence Dunbar:
Carryfast:
Lawrence Dunbar:
C/F, you seem to forget that a lot of hauliers ran Gardner engines when Gardners were the best on fuel, & they employed drivers who didnt refer to them as a boat anchor, in fact I knew a lot of old time drivers who never complained about them, & tramped all over the country with them & allways got home, & most likley before you were born, So why dont you become a boat anchor yourself Eh, Regards Larry, The Gardner 150 Man.Probably because those drivers and operators never knew any better.If they were the best then they’d still be here because the best means nothing better and not broke so no need to fix it.Instead of which they were already obsolete at least 42 years ago probably even before that.So not long,or at best around 11 years after,I was born.
Of course the didnt know any better , thats because there wasnt anything better than a Gardner in those days, Even a knob like you should know that, that is if your brain can figure it out, Regards Larry, & Im still a Gardner 150 Man.
My brain was way ahead of yours because I was thinking a bit further down the road than just as things stood in 1970 probably a bit before that.
Which just shows that a lot of the problem was caused by backward thinking customers not backward thinking truck manufacturers.
Look CF you cannot re-write history to suit your own,may I say,“warped view” of how the transport industry should have developed during the 50’s,60’s and 70’s,some of us actually had to operate within the financial constraints of the times and,if we could actually get our hands on a Gardner chassis,never mind afford one, we then had the finest motor possible and therefore the ability to offer our customers a reliable service.Bewick.
Bewick:
Look CF you cannot re-write history to suit your own,may I say,“warped view” of how the transport industry should have developed during the 50’s,60’s and 70’s,some of us actually had to operate within the financial constraints of the times and,if we could actually get our hands on a Gardner chassis,never mind afford one, we then had the finest motor possible and therefore the ability to offer our customers a reliable service.Bewick.
It’s not a case of me re writing history to show how things ‘should’ have developed during the 1970’s (forget the 1960’s because at that point it wasn’t a lost cause).It’s actually me writing history as it actually happened in that the 1970’s were the make or break point and by 1979 it was effectively all over for the Brits.
Which isn’t really much different to the timeline which reflects your own buying policies and no one in the industry,both operators and those manufacturers selling into the uk market,ever went forwards,from that point on through the 1980’s,by staying with the type of power to gross weight ratios provided by the 240/265 Gardner.
HI, Dennis,
You , and the majority of people on this thread have backed up what I have said about Gardner’s. What a certain member can’t seem to grasp is that we are talking about an engine in a period when there was hardly any European competition. And I still maintain for that period and in it’s class Gardner’s had no equal. You and your business , Larry Dunbar and his business and many many more haulage companies bear testament to that.
A Member has got it right ,bigger and bigger power outputs are a sign of "if you can do it ,so can I"between the manufacturers. Where in this country, do we need power outputs like we are getting now (possibly with the exception of heavy , I mean heavy , like ALE, haulage ). I can see that there might be a need for engines rated at 600 plus in certain operations on the continent, i.e. logging and running at the weights that they do, but mainstream haulage doesn,t need it.
But all that is now , not when Gardner’s were King, they satisfied all requirements ,they went and they came back and they earned money. Drivers of the time didn’t object to them, and we all know that somebody at Gardner threw away all the reputation they had built up by lack of initiative and under investment and so ended what was a British institution
Cheers Bassman
Bassman:
HI, Dennis,You , and the majority of people on this thread have backed up what I have said about Gardner’s. What a certain member can’t seem to grasp is that we are talking about an engine in a period when there was hardly any European competition. And I still maintain for that period and in it’s class Gardner’s had no equal. You and your business , Larry Dunbar and his business and many many more haulage companies bear testament to that.
A Member has got it right ,bigger and bigger power outputs are a sign of "if you can do it ,so can I"between the manufacturers. Where in this country, do we need power outputs like we are getting now (possibly with the exception of heavy , I mean heavy , like ALE, haulage ). I can see that there might be a need for engines rated at 600 plus in certain operations on the continent, i.e. logging and running at the weights that they do, but mainstream haulage doesn,t need it.
But all that is now , not when Gardner’s were King, they satisfied all requirements ,they went and they came back and they earned money. Drivers of the time didn’t object to them, and we all know that somebody at Gardner threw away all the reputation they had built up by lack of initiative and under investment and so ended what was a British institutionCheers Bassman
What that ‘majority’ on this thread can’t seem to grasp is that everything you’ve written there proves my case that it was the domestic customer base that was a large contributor to the downfall of the British truck manufacturing industry.History proves that ‘bigger’ power outputs and the horsepower race have never been about if you can do it so can I.They’re actually an inherent,important part of forward product planning and the requirement to compete.Everything which you’ve written there was exactly what any British truck salesman would have been told in 1975-1979 if he’d have tried to flog something like that SA 400 with a 320-350 big cam ■■■■■■■ in it.
Meanwhile the Scandinavian and European manufacturers were busy taking advantage of exactly what you’ve said there relating to the erroneous view of big power only being relevant in the foreign markets.Until that is,no surprise,the British customers suddenly found out that what was an average power output at Scandinavian and Dutch type weights was actually even more efficient when it was run at lower British type weights.Hence the British market ended up dominated by more powerful imports which then made even more sense when the British market raised it’s weight limit to 38 t.
History now seems to be repeating itself in the typical British view of 600 + hp only being relevant for STGO etc etc which is total bs.All it would take now for Volvo and Scania to find itself in a stronger position in the European markets as a whole than they’ve ever been in history is a decision to be taken in the Euro parlaiment to allow 60 tonners to be used throughout Europe as they are in Scandinavia.All based on the foresight of their designers who are just going by the engineering princibles that any British trainee truck manufacturing worker could have told them during the 1970’s.
Carryfast:
it was the domestic customer base that was a large contributor to the downfall of the British truck manufacturing industry.
No it wasn’t.
The Dutch now there is a nation known for running high power trucks.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
it was the domestic customer base that was a large contributor to the downfall of the British truck manufacturing industry.No it wasn’t.
L. GARDNER AND SONS LIMITED: THE HISTORY OF A BRITISH INDUSTRIAL FIRM. A STUDY WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO MARKETS,
WORKPLACE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, AND MANUFACTURING ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY, 1955 — 1986
Analysed from the perspective of markets and workplace industrial relations, it was found that the Gardner family managers coped reasonably well with most of the macroenvironmental shifts that occurred between 1955 and 1975. However, two serious errors were made: the first, which caused a short-term loss of revenue and a long-term loss of market leadership, was a result of negligence, the second stemmed from an outdated authoritarian approach to industrial relations that resulted in intense discord in the workplace, alleviated only after the management was replaced by a more astute and enlightened regime.
A third error occurred after Gardner was sold to Hawker Siddeley, a large British industrial group, in 1977. Based on a perception that Gardner’s plant was outdated, the new owners invested in expensive computer controlled manufacturing systems, and increased the volume of subcontracted components, strategies that caused disruptions to production schedules, eroded quality standards, and failed to improve output. As a result, Gardner’s superlative reputation for reliability and service became tarnished and its market share plummeted. In 1986, when mounting trading losses became unacceptable, the firm was sold-on to a competitor and production effectively
ceased.
This thesis asserts that, as a family firm, Gardner traded profitably and provided incomes for thousands of employees for more than a century. Moreover, the sale to Hawker Siddeley conferred wealth on the family shareholders and financial security on their descendents. Gardner was not therefore, a failure either between 1898 and 1955, or before 1978.
Sorry CF, but the history books do not support your assertion that it was the “Customers” that contributed to the downfall of L Gardner & Sons.
kr79:
The Dutch now there is a nation known for running high power trucks.
This one isn’t exactly short of power and if he thought that he could make more money by running it with an old 240 Gardner in it I’m sure he could get one out of a Chinese junk for peanuts.