Not sure what this one had under the engine cowl, but Mike Jeffries made a great job of the painting, as always! Robert
windrush:
Bewick:
You’ve just rattled my brain cell Trev,as I had a bloke come to the workshop and treat all our Guys and Seddons with the internal spray,not just sure what it was called but it wasn’t Ziebart as they were twice the price IIRC,However,I never kept these motors long enough to find out if they started to rot on the rear cab quarters,but they certainly hadn’t by the time I disposed of them ! Cheers Dennis.Probably used your old engine oil Dennis, and charged you for it…
To ask the question AGAIN, (Carryfast did give his theory earlier) were Big J’s cheaper to purchase than Foden, Atkinson and ERF which were basically similar in components? Gardner engines (same) Fuller box (same) etc, you bought all except the Foden so was there a vast price difference?
Pete.
Hiya Pete,the Big J’s I bought were indeed a lump cheaper than anything else and apart from the oldest one they were all 30:5 gvw but served us well as fleet motors.I never went out looking for them they were just offered spasmodically via a dealer pal and obviously they weren’t in the same league as the Scania 81’s but if nothing else they were “bomb proof reliable” then again so were the little Scanias!Fodens were ■■■■■ as far as I was concerned and I wouldn’t entertain them at any price 
But then I can’t recall ever been approached by anyone from Fodens either 
Cheers Dennis.
Well Fodens would be flat out on their regular order’s anyway so the odd one or two for private companies would probably take a few weeks to materialise as the majority would be destined for Tilcon, Tarmac, Robsons, Tate and Lyle etc plus the Military who ordered them by the ship load. I was chatting to an ex Foden line manager at a rally last year and he said that if a private haulier wanted a basic eight legger tipper chassis ASAP they would just ‘borrow’ one off of the Tilcon line to get the order out quickly. Made it look good to the customer I guess!! 
I hadn’t realised that Guy’s were only grossed at 30.5 tonnes, had just assumed that they would be set at 32 tonnes as that was the limit? I remember their 44 tonner though, like a dumper chassis and WAY over strength for the job in hand.
Pete.
windrush:
Well Fodens would be flat out on their regular order’s anyway so the odd one or two for private companies would probably take a few weeks to materialise as the majority would be destined for Tilcon, Tarmac, Robsons, Tate and Lyle etc plus the Military who ordered them by the ship load. I was chatting to an ex Foden line manager at a rally last year and he said that if a private haulier wanted a basic eight legger tipper chassis ASAP they would just ‘borrow’ one off of the Tilcon line to get the order out quickly. Made it look good to the customer I guess!!
I hadn’t realised that Guy’s were only grossed at 30.5 tonnes, had just assumed that they would be set at 32 tonnes as that was the limit? I remember their 44 tonner though, like a dumper chassis and WAY over strength for the job in hand.Pete.
I guess with Gardner engines (180) they didn’t meet the 6bhp/ton - hence the lower weight ■■?
fryske:
windrush:
Well Fodens would be flat out on their regular order’s anyway so the odd one or two for private companies would probably take a few weeks to materialise as the majority would be destined for Tilcon, Tarmac, Robsons, Tate and Lyle etc plus the Military who ordered them by the ship load. I was chatting to an ex Foden line manager at a rally last year and he said that if a private haulier wanted a basic eight legger tipper chassis ASAP they would just ‘borrow’ one off of the Tilcon line to get the order out quickly. Made it look good to the customer I guess!!
I hadn’t realised that Guy’s were only grossed at 30.5 tonnes, had just assumed that they would be set at 32 tonnes as that was the limit? I remember their 44 tonner though, like a dumper chassis and WAY over strength for the job in hand.Pete.
I guess with Gardner engines (180) they didn’t meet the 6bhp/ton - hence the lower weight ■■?
Nonsence, There was plenty of artics running at 32 Tonnes with 180s in them Plus We ran a Foden at 32 tonnes with the good old Leyland 680 Power Plus engine, Regards Larry.
Lawrence Dunbar:
fryske:
windrush:
Well Fodens would be flat out on their regular order’s anyway so the odd one or two for private companies would probably take a few weeks to materialise as the majority would be destined for Tilcon, Tarmac, Robsons, Tate and Lyle etc plus the Military who ordered them by the ship load. I was chatting to an ex Foden line manager at a rally last year and he said that if a private haulier wanted a basic eight legger tipper chassis ASAP they would just ‘borrow’ one off of the Tilcon line to get the order out quickly. Made it look good to the customer I guess!!
I hadn’t realised that Guy’s were only grossed at 30.5 tonnes, had just assumed that they would be set at 32 tonnes as that was the limit? I remember their 44 tonner though, like a dumper chassis and WAY over strength for the job in hand.Pete.
I guess with Gardner engines (180) they didn’t meet the 6bhp/ton - hence the lower weight ■■?
Nonsence, There was plenty of artics running at 32 Tonnes with 180s in them Plus We ran a Foden at 32 tonnes with the good old Leyland 680 Power Plus engine, Regards Larry.
Er -
As posted by Bewick earlier on
Hiya “H”,all ours had the 6LXB and ran at 30:5 tons gross(or thereabouts,dependant on how busy we were !) we also ran 4 Seddon 32/4’s with the 6LXB engine but three of these were prior to the 6BHP law coming in so they were 32 tonners.All the Seddons had the Group axle and were never any problem,but this same axle in the Sed/Atk 8LXB was not up to the job,they needed recon at around 70’000 so on a double shift job @ 3000 miles plus per week it wasn’t long between “dockings”.We never had a minutes problem with big Eaton axles,they did '000’s of miles and were never touched !! Cheers Dennis.
fryske:
Lawrence Dunbar:
fryske:
windrush:
Well Fodens would be flat out on their regular order’s anyway so the odd one or two for private companies would probably take a few weeks to materialise as the majority would be destined for Tilcon, Tarmac, Robsons, Tate and Lyle etc plus the Military who ordered them by the ship load. I was chatting to an ex Foden line manager at a rally last year and he said that if a private haulier wanted a basic eight legger tipper chassis ASAP they would just ‘borrow’ one off of the Tilcon line to get the order out quickly. Made it look good to the customer I guess!!
I hadn’t realised that Guy’s were only grossed at 30.5 tonnes, had just assumed that they would be set at 32 tonnes as that was the limit? I remember their 44 tonner though, like a dumper chassis and WAY over strength for the job in hand.Pete.
I guess with Gardner engines (180) they didn’t meet the 6bhp/ton - hence the lower weight ■■?
Nonsence, There was plenty of artics running at 32 Tonnes with 180s in them Plus We ran a Foden at 32 tonnes with the good old Leyland 680 Power Plus engine, Regards Larry.
Er -
As posted by Bewick earlier on
Hiya “H”,all ours had the 6LXB and ran at 30:5 tons gross(or thereabouts,dependant on how busy we were !) we also ran 4 Seddon 32/4’s with the 6LXB engine but three of these were prior to the 6BHP law coming in so they were 32 tonners.All the Seddons had the Group axle and were never any problem,but this same axle in the Sed/Atk 8LXB was not up to the job,they needed recon at around 70’000 so on a double shift job @ 3000 miles plus per week it wasn’t long between “dockings”.We never had a minutes problem with big Eaton axles,they did '000’s of miles and were never touched !! Cheers Dennis.
Im not doubting what you or Bewick are saying, Im going off my own vehicles, And what year did the 6BHP Come into force, ■■?, Regards Larry.
Lawrence Dunbar:
fryske:
Lawrence Dunbar:
fryske:
windrush:
Well Fodens would be flat out on their regular order’s anyway so the odd one or two for private companies would probably take a few weeks to materialise as the majority would be destined for Tilcon, Tarmac, Robsons, Tate and Lyle etc plus the Military who ordered them by the ship load. I was chatting to an ex Foden line manager at a rally last year and he said that if a private haulier wanted a basic eight legger tipper chassis ASAP they would just ‘borrow’ one off of the Tilcon line to get the order out quickly. Made it look good to the customer I guess!!
I hadn’t realised that Guy’s were only grossed at 30.5 tonnes, had just assumed that they would be set at 32 tonnes as that was the limit? I remember their 44 tonner though, like a dumper chassis and WAY over strength for the job in hand.Pete.
I guess with Gardner engines (180) they didn’t meet the 6bhp/ton - hence the lower weight ■■?
Nonsence, There was plenty of artics running at 32 Tonnes with 180s in them Plus We ran a Foden at 32 tonnes with the good old Leyland 680 Power Plus engine, Regards Larry.
Er -
As posted by Bewick earlier on
Hiya “H”,all ours had the 6LXB and ran at 30:5 tons gross(or thereabouts,dependant on how busy we were !) we also ran 4 Seddon 32/4’s with the 6LXB engine but three of these were prior to the 6BHP law coming in so they were 32 tonners.All the Seddons had the Group axle and were never any problem,but this same axle in the Sed/Atk 8LXB was not up to the job,they needed recon at around 70’000 so on a double shift job @ 3000 miles plus per week it wasn’t long between “dockings”.We never had a minutes problem with big Eaton axles,they did '000’s of miles and were never touched !! Cheers Dennis.Im not doubting what you or Bewick are saying, Im going off my own vehicles, And what year did the 6BHP Come into force, ■■?, Regards Larry.
1971 iirc
Lawrence Dunbar:
fryske:
Lawrence Dunbar:
fryske:
windrush:
Well Fodens would be flat out on their regular order’s anyway so the odd one or two for private companies would probably take a few weeks to materialise as the majority would be destined for Tilcon, Tarmac, Robsons, Tate and Lyle etc plus the Military who ordered them by the ship load. I was chatting to an ex Foden line manager at a rally last year and he said that if a private haulier wanted a basic eight legger tipper chassis ASAP they would just ‘borrow’ one off of the Tilcon line to get the order out quickly. Made it look good to the customer I guess!!
I hadn’t realised that Guy’s were only grossed at 30.5 tonnes, had just assumed that they would be set at 32 tonnes as that was the limit? I remember their 44 tonner though, like a dumper chassis and WAY over strength for the job in hand.Pete.
I guess with Gardner engines (180) they didn’t meet the 6bhp/ton - hence the lower weight ■■?
Nonsence, There was plenty of artics running at 32 Tonnes with 180s in them Plus We ran a Foden at 32 tonnes with the good old Leyland 680 Power Plus engine, Regards Larry.
Er -
As posted by Bewick earlier on
Hiya “H”,all ours had the 6LXB and ran at 30:5 tons gross(or thereabouts,dependant on how busy we were !) we also ran 4 Seddon 32/4’s with the 6LXB engine but three of these were prior to the 6BHP law coming in so they were 32 tonners.All the Seddons had the Group axle and were never any problem,but this same axle in the Sed/Atk 8LXB was not up to the job,they needed recon at around 70’000 so on a double shift job @ 3000 miles plus per week it wasn’t long between “dockings”.We never had a minutes problem with big Eaton axles,they did '000’s of miles and were never touched !! Cheers Dennis.Im not doubting what you or Bewick are saying, Im going off my own vehicles, And what year did the 6BHP Come into force, ■■?, Regards Larry.
All diesel engines manufactured after 1st October 1972 and first used on or after 1st April 1973 must have engines with an " as-installed " power equivalent to at least 6 B.H.P. per ton.
Cheers Dave.
Dave the Renegade:
Lawrence Dunbar:
fryske:
Lawrence Dunbar:
fryske:
windrush:
Well Fodens would be flat out on their regular order’s anyway so the odd one or two for private companies would probably take a few weeks to materialise as the majority would be destined for Tilcon, Tarmac, Robsons, Tate and Lyle etc plus the Military who ordered them by the ship load. I was chatting to an ex Foden line manager at a rally last year and he said that if a private haulier wanted a basic eight legger tipper chassis ASAP they would just ‘borrow’ one off of the Tilcon line to get the order out quickly. Made it look good to the customer I guess!!
I hadn’t realised that Guy’s were only grossed at 30.5 tonnes, had just assumed that they would be set at 32 tonnes as that was the limit? I remember their 44 tonner though, like a dumper chassis and WAY over strength for the job in hand.Pete.
I guess with Gardner engines (180) they didn’t meet the 6bhp/ton - hence the lower weight ■■?
Nonsence, There was plenty of artics running at 32 Tonnes with 180s in them Plus We ran a Foden at 32 tonnes with the good old Leyland 680 Power Plus engine, Regards Larry.
Er -
As posted by Bewick earlier on
Hiya “H”,all ours had the 6LXB and ran at 30:5 tons gross(or thereabouts,dependant on how busy we were !) we also ran 4 Seddon 32/4’s with the 6LXB engine but three of these were prior to the 6BHP law coming in so they were 32 tonners.All the Seddons had the Group axle and were never any problem,but this same axle in the Sed/Atk 8LXB was not up to the job,they needed recon at around 70’000 so on a double shift job @ 3000 miles plus per week it wasn’t long between “dockings”.We never had a minutes problem with big Eaton axles,they did '000’s of miles and were never touched !! Cheers Dennis.Im not doubting what you or Bewick are saying, Im going off my own vehicles, And what year did the 6BHP Come into force, ■■?, Regards Larry.
All diesel engines manufactured after 1st October 1972 and first used on or after 1st April 1973 must have engines with an " as-installed " power equivalent to at least 6 B.H.P. per ton.
Cheers Dave.
That’s right Dave, I know we stopped buying 180’s after 72 for general haulage and had all Rolls and ■■■■■■■ motors to stay at 32t, we did get some that were put on light contract work. It was one of the reasons Gardners released the 240 to keep at the higher weight.
I think the 8lxb was already out by then, wasn’t it?
Gardner eek’d out the extra power needed from the 6lxb to give the 6lxc (201) didn’t they?
fryske:
I think the 8lxb was already out by then, wasn’t it?Gardner eek’d out the extra power needed from the 6lxb to give the 6lxc (201) didn’t they?
You know the truth Steve, as you have met Roy and David Edwards, owners of M A Evans.
Cheers Dave.
fryske:
I think the 8lxb was already out by then, wasn’t it?Gardner eek’d out the extra power needed from the 6lxb to give the 6lxc (201) didn’t they?
That’s correct, our Foden Haulmaster eight leggers from 1979 on had the 6LXC engine which was an uprated LXB with different cylinder heads, pistons and cooling. However they drank oil badly from new and ran hot so while under warranty Gardner supplied us with LXB heads and pistons to replace the ‘new’ parts and that (plus yet another modified water rail on the head and a different waterpump impeller) finally cured them. So, they ended up as LXB’s really, though the pump was slightly tweaked to meet the 201 minimum limit which of course didn’t apply to eight wheeler’s anyway! 
Pete.
With the legally permissible bhp variation under test-bed conditions then the Gardner 6LXB ‘180’ could just meet the 6 bhp per ton requirement to run at 32 tons gvw, but it was marginal and achieved by a bit of engine tweaking by Paul Gardner. The 6LXC was rated at 201 bhp installed.
From my experience those 201 horses were Shetland Ponies rather than Shire Horses.
A 201hp lorry at 32.5t GVW and a 275hp lorry at 38t GVW were only 1hp per ton different, but the 38tonner had the extra drag from another axle, in theory they should offer similar on the road performance, however that was not the case, a 2800 Daf or F10, 111, 290 ■■■■■■■ (in the 270s installed HP) would leave a 6LXC engined 32tonner for dead.
So if that applied to the 8 pot version, I’m not surprised to see that they were thin on the ground, a good 220 ■■■■■■■ or Rolls would probably live with one on all but the biggest of climbs.
newmercman:
From my experience those 201 horses were Shetland Ponies rather than Shire Horses.A 201hp lorry at 32.5t GVW and a 275hp lorry at 38t GVW were only 1hp per ton different, but the 38tonner had the extra drag from another axle, in theory they should offer similar on the road performance, however that was not the case, a 2800 Daf or F10, 111, 290 ■■■■■■■ (in the 270s installed HP) would leave a 6LXC engined 32tonner for dead.
So if that applied to the 8 pot version, I’m not surprised to see that they were thin on the ground, a good 220 ■■■■■■■ or Rolls would probably live with one on all but the biggest of climbs.
The extra “drag” is accounted-for in the power/weight ratio. Rolling resistance is independent of the number of axles (except in corners, when tyre scrub must be added), just like “ordinary” friction is independent of contact area. Somewhere in this forum, I posted a link to a research paper, which compared three different models of rolling resistance. All of them gave about the same results, generally: by far the most significant factor affecting the force is the vehicle weight.
If both of the lorries in your example were both the same size and shape, wind resistance would be the same. At motorway speeds, it takes very roughly 100bhp to get through the air, so your 275bhp lorry has 175bhp left over versus the Gardner’s 100bhp. That is a 50% advantage in acceleration and hillclimbing (or going faster through the air!), so it is unsurprising that the 32 tonner would be left for dead.
newmercman:
From my experience those 201 horses were Shetland Ponies rather than Shire Horses.A 201hp lorry at 32.5t GVW and a 275hp lorry at 38t GVW were only 1hp per ton different, but the 38tonner had the extra drag from another axle, in theory they should offer similar on the road performance, however that was not the case, a 2800 Daf or F10, 111, 290 ■■■■■■■ (in the 270s installed HP) would leave a 6LXC engined 32tonner for dead.
So if that applied to the 8 pot version
It’s probably more a case that the way any engine performs in the real world is more dependent on it’s torque curve than it’s peak power output.People make the mistake of thinking that performance is all about the peak power to weight ratio when in fact it’s the ‘average’ power to weight ratio that matters which is all about torque.In general something with a higher peak power output will have more torque and a flatter torque curve unless the extra peak power output has been obtained by taking similar torque up to significantly higher engine speed.On that basis it’s obvious that so long as engine capacity hasn’t been compromised to a large degree something with a turbocharger will usually beat a naturally aspirated engine of similar capacity all based on the torque and resulting ‘average’ power to weight ratio advantage. 
This thread is heading towards 100 pages and still nowhere near to establishing whether it is fact or fiction 
cheers Johnnie
sammyopisite:
This thread is heading towards 100 pages and still nowhere near to establishing whether it is fact or fictioncheers Johnnie
Fact Johnnie, its just a few non believers.
Cheers Dave.
Dave the Renegade:
sammyopisite:
This thread is heading towards 100 pages and still nowhere near to establishing whether it is fact or fictioncheers Johnnie
Fact Johnnie, its just a few non believers.
Cheers Dave.
The truth will be revealed soon…