Regarding some of the comments about Gardner Diesel Engines.
I’ve always admired the quality,durability,etc,of Gardner engines,including their appearence (they look like proper engines) and the sounds they make.
But as for having any Gardner-engined lorries,buses and motorcoaches in a working fleet,the answer,with one or two exceptions,would be NO! - they are not powerful enough! The first reasonably powerful,(in some respects) automotive engine that Gardner made was the Gardner 6LXB 180,followed by the 8LXB 240-250,prior to these engines,the LW and over rated (in praise) 6LX 150 engines were terriably underpowered.No wonder Atkinson fitted AEC engines in their lorries! To be fair,AEC,Leyland and Foden 125-126 to 150 BHP engines were all underpowered…but they were better than the miserly Gardner 6LW at 102-112 BHP! Gardner didn’t get into the high power stakes until 1984,with the 6LXDT 270-290 and Gardner 6LYT 320-350 engines.
Correction:Gardner did introduce the 8LXC 265 in 1978 and the 8LXCT 300 in 1981.
So I may have had Gardner 8LXB,8LXC,8LXCT,6LXDT and 6LYT engines in some of the lorries in the fleet then - they are the exceptions I am on about.
In what marque?,I hear you ask - FODEN!
PETE ALLARD-MORGAN:
Regarding some of the comments about Gardner Diesel Engines.
I’ve always admired the quality,durability,etc,of Gardner engines,including their appearence (they look like proper engines) and the sounds they make.
But as for having any Gardner-engined lorries,buses and motorcoaches in a working fleet,the answer,with one or two exceptions,would be NO! - they are not powerful enough! The first reasonably powerful,(in some respects) automotive engine that Gardner made was the Gardner 6LXB 180,followed by the 8LXB 240-250,prior to these engines,the LW and over rated (in praise) 6LX 150 engines were terriably underpowered.No wonder Atkinson fitted AEC engines in their lorries! To be fair,AEC,Leyland and Foden 125-126 to 150 BHP were all underpowered…but they were better than the miserly Gardner 6LW at 102-112 BHP! Gardner didn’t get into the high power stakes until 1984,with the 6LXDT 270-290 and Gardner 6LYT 320-350 engines.
So I may have had Gardner 8LXB,8LXC,8LXCT,6LXDT and 6LYT engines in some of the lorries in the fleet then - they are the exceptions I am on about.
In what marque?,I hear you ask - FODEN!
Pete.
If it was me I’d have just put a ■■■■■■■ NTC 400 in it and never run it much above 1,500 rpm.
not right forum, thougth carryfast seems to bee here. why is the dd four stoke now days? why not the great V12 two stokes? all the same possibilities to devolment a great two stoke diesel is free,but not one use the teknology, so was it any god or what,cheers benkku.
bma.finland:
not right forum, thougth carryfast seems to bee here. why is the dd four stoke now days? why not the great V12 two stokes? all the same possibilities to devolment a great two stoke diesel is free,but not one use the teknology, so was it any god or what,cheers benkku.
The fact that it’s only just recently gone out of service with the US and British armies hauling main battle tanks like the Challenger around in 8V92 (less than 12 litre) form in the Oshkosh HET ,which replaced the four stroke 26 Litre Rolls CV12,which is what it took to do the job before it in the Scammell Commander,and the only reason why it was replaced with a C18 CAT seems to be mostly bs emissions issues,should answer the question.Although having said that replacing the 8V92 with the 12V92 would probably have been more powerful than any of those options and a lot cheaper than using the CAT (or the Rolls before it).
However no surprise it’s not been replaced by a Scania V8 let alone a Gardner.
Gardner Engines were the biggest pile of rubbish ever, Stobarts had the largest fleet of them based in ■■■■■■■ and I am told that they were so unreliable so Stobarts got rid of them all and replaced them with DAF’s.
bma.finland:
not right forum, thougth carryfast seems to bee here. why is the dd four stoke now days? why not the great V12 two stokes? all the same possibilities to devolment a great two stoke diesel is free,but not one use the teknology, so was it any god or what,cheers benkku.
The fact that it’s only just recently gone out of service with the US and British armies hauling main battle tanks like the Challenger around in 8V92 (less than 12 litre) form in the Oshkosh HET:shock: ,which replaced the four stroke 26 Litre Rolls CV12,which is what it took to do the job before it in the Scammell Commander,and the only reason why it was replaced with a C18 CAT seems to be mostly bs emissions issues,should answer the question.
However no surprise it’s not been replaced by a Scania V8 let alone a Gardner.
the finnish army certinly not want cat C 18, we are nabor to russia so we use scania ,it,s safer for us couse they work even in euro5 cheers benkku
Oh dear C/F Must be a Stobbie fan, isnt life full of surprises Eh, Regards Larry, Well Im pleased to say Im a Gardner Man , because the ones I owned made me some real money, with trouble free running & the best fuel return one could wish for., but of course did you run any wagons yourself or are the pair of you parrots repeating what someone else told you.
bma.finland:
not right forum, thougth carryfast seems to bee here. why is the dd four stoke now days? why not the great V12 two stokes? all the same possibilities to devolment a great two stoke diesel is free,but not one use the teknology, so was it any god or what,cheers benkku.
The fact that it’s only just recently gone out of service with the US and British armies hauling main battle tanks like the Challenger around in 8V92 (less than 12 litre) form in the Oshkosh HET:shock: ,which replaced the four stroke 26 Litre Rolls CV12,which is what it took to do the job before it in the Scammell Commander,and the only reason why it was replaced with a C18 CAT seems to be mostly bs emissions issues,should answer the question.
However no surprise it’s not been replaced by a Scania V8 let alone a Gardner.
the finnish army certinly not want cat C 18, we are nabor to russia so we use scania ,it,s safer for us couse they work even in euro5 cheers benkku
One day everyone will have the sense to tell the EU,Obama and the Russians to zb off and then the world will return to how those of us who know better remember it.
But I don’t think the Finns have ever seen a Challenger let alone tried to haul one with a Scania.
Lawrence Dunbar:
Oh dear C/F Must be a Stobbie fan, isnt life full of surprises Eh, Regards Larry, Well Im pleased to say Im a Gardner Man , because the ones I owned made me some real money, with trouble free running & the best fuel return one could wish for., but of course did you run any wagons yourself or are the pair of you parrots repeating what someone else told you.
OK how many did you have? if they were so good why is your company not as big as Stobarts!
bma.finland:
not right forum, thougth carryfast seems to bee here. why is the dd four stoke now days? why not the great V12 two stokes? all the same possibilities to devolment a great two stoke diesel is free,but not one use the teknology, so was it any god or what,cheers benkku.
The fact that it’s only just recently gone out of service with the US and British armies hauling main battle tanks like the Challenger around in 8V92 (less than 12 litre) form in the Oshkosh HET:shock: ,which replaced the four stroke 26 Litre Rolls CV12,which is what it took to do the job before it in the Scammell Commander,and the only reason why it was replaced with a C18 CAT seems to be mostly bs emissions issues,should answer the question.
However no surprise it’s not been replaced by a Scania V8 let alone a Gardner.
the finnish army certinly not want cat C 18, we are nabor to russia so we use scania ,it,s safer for us couse they work even in euro5 cheers benkku
One day everyone will have the sense to tell the EU,Obama and the Russians to zb off and then the world will return to how those of us who know better remember it.
Yes you are so right.
But I don’t think the Finns have ever seen a Challenger let alone tried to haul one with a Scania.
Lawrence Dunbar:
Oh dear C/F Must be a Stobbie fan, isnt life full of surprises Eh, Regards Larry, Well Im pleased to say Im a Gardner Man , because the ones I owned made me some real money, with trouble free running & the best fuel return one could wish for., but of course did you run any wagons yourself or are the pair of you parrots repeating what someone else told you.
No Stobbie’s lot would hate big screaming Detroits and 13 speed fullers.
I didn’t say it wasn’t a guvnor’s motor but the question is would they still have made you a lot of money in competition with other fleets using wagons powered by decent turbocharged motors in the 1980’s.Even Bewick seems to have jumped ship from being a loyal supporter at some point.
Lawrence Dunbar:
Oh dear C/F Must be a Stobbie fan, isnt life full of surprises Eh, Regards Larry, Well Im pleased to say Im a Gardner Man , because the ones I owned made me some real money, with trouble free running & the best fuel return one could wish for., but of course did you run any wagons yourself or are the pair of you parrots repeating what someone else told you.
No Stobbie’s lot would hate big screaming Detroits and 13 speed fullers.
I didn’t say it wasn’t a guvnor’s motor but the question is would they still have made you a lot of money in competition with other fleets using wagons powered by decent turbocharged motors in the 1980’s.Even Bewick seems to have jumped ship from being a loyal supporter at some point.
Yes I agree, Stobbies stopped buying them because they were rubbish and replaced them with the more reliable DAFs.
,which replaced the four stroke 26 Litre Rolls CV12,which is what it took to do the job before it in the Scammell Commander,and the only reason why it was replaced with a C18 CAT seems to be mostly bs emissions issues,should answer the question.Although having said that replacing the 8V92 with the 12V92 would probably have been more powerful than any of those options and a lot cheaper than using the CAT (or the Rolls before it). 
