From memory back in the 70s Gardner 10mpg n ■■■■■■■ in similar motor 6mpg. If fuel use were make or break for a company then ■■■■■■■ would n,t have survived. Is that over simplifying it or didn,t it matter too much ?
sure my old SedAtki 400 Gardner 180 used to do 9 mpg
Firstly 6 mpg would be a pessimistic figure for a big cam ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ fuel costs didn’t form as much of a proportion of overall costs then as they do now.As for Gardner’s they were all about fuel economy at the expense of power output with ■■■■■■■ among others being based on the opposite mantra.The result being that ■■■■■■■ etc won easily in terms of their ‘combination’ of fuel costs v productivety and the rest is history.IE no one was going to get anywhere with a Gardner v an E290-320 for example especially running at 38t gross. 
carryfast-yeti:
sure my old SedAtki 400 Gardner 180 used to do 9 mpg
But no chance of it managing two return runs from Feltham to Kilworth in a shift. 
Carryfast:
Firstly 6 mpg would be a pessimistic figure for a big cam ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ fuel costs didn’t form as much of a proportion of overall costs then as they do now.As for Gardner’s they were all about fuel economy at the expense of power output with ■■■■■■■ among others being based on the opposite mantra.The result being that ■■■■■■■ etc won easily in terms of their ‘combination’ of fuel costs v productivety and the rest is history.IE no one was going to get anywhere with a Gardner v an E290-320 for example especially running at 38t gross.
H CF I can see where you,re coming from I should have been more specific.
My eg is from firm I worked for n who sold onto another n me with them.
77/79 running out of Desford brick with ERF 180G DB 6 n Akky 205/220 (not sure) 10sp n Octopus 500( never did know engine bhp) 9sp. Usual days were a longish run ,100/120 mls n a short un 30 mls n load for next day. Nowt much between G n Cu the Octo were all over them for speed but still same loads a week. I had a good spell running 2 Glasgows a week ,load up, load down next day n load for wed n repeat.However with the Leyland up back down next day n would get a short n in before loading for wed. Forgetting Leyland reliability this supports your power gain argument, I earned 2 local load money(we were on a radial mls system) n so did gaffer. 80% of his work would be 1 long/1short so why did he buy ■■■■■■■ more fuel no load gain. Not just him but other companies around here tippers n bricks rarely had night out so powerful motors just got you back into yard earlier.
I can understand in your type of work it would mean the difference between 2 trips n 1 1/2, n trampers would get further down the road but not with the above work possibly to the extent that given the same roads to run on as then modern motors couldn,t get extra load a day in. Bit convoluted but hope you get my drift.By the way the guy who bought them ■■■■■■■ motors soon got shut when he realised mpg but not the Leylands strange. Paul
Carryfast:
Firstly 6 mpg would be a pessimistic figure for a big cam ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ fuel costs didn’t form as much of a proportion of overall costs then as they do now.As for Gardner’s they were all about fuel economy at the expense of power output with ■■■■■■■ among others being based on the opposite mantra.The result being that ■■■■■■■ etc won easily in terms of their ‘combination’ of fuel costs v productivety and the rest is history.IE no one was going to get anywhere with a Gardner v an E290-320 for example especially running at 38t gross.
You also forgot to mention the other things Gardner were renowned for other than fuel economy
Reliability and weight saving amongst them
We ran 320 Gardner powered ERFs and Seddon Atkinsons they were nearly half a tonne lighter than a similar ■■■■■■■ powered lorry
They were bought for the lightness fuel economy and not necessary speed
coomsey:
H CF I can see where you,re coming from I should have been more specific.
My eg is from firm I worked for n who sold onto another n me with them.
77/79 running out of Desford brick with ERF 180G DB 6 n Akky 205/220 (not sure) 10sp n Octopus 500( never did know engine bhp) 9sp. Usual days were a longish run ,100/120 mls n a short un 30 mls n load for next day. Nowt much between G n Cu the Octo were all over them for speed but still same loads a week. I had a good spell running 2 Glasgows a week ,load up, load down next day n load for wed n repeat.However with the Leyland up back down next day n would get a short n in before loading for wed. Forgetting Leyland reliability this supports your power gain argument, I earned 2 local load money(we were on a radial mls system) n so did gaffer. 80% of his work would be 1 long/1short so why did he buy ■■■■■■■ more fuel no load gain. Not just him but other companies around here tippers n bricks rarely had night out so powerful motors just got you back into yard earlier.
I can understand in your type of work it would mean the difference between 2 trips n 1 1/2, n trampers would get further down the road but not with the above work possibly to the extent that given the same roads to run on as then modern motors couldn,t get extra load a day in. Bit convoluted but hope you get my drift.By the way the guy who bought them ■■■■■■■ motors soon got shut when he realised mpg but not the Leylands strange. Paul
Firstly the Gardner was an exception which proved the rule of the general fuel inefficiency of naturally aspirated diesels.In which case the question is was there a point where the Gardner’s lack of power downside was cancelled out by short haul operations thereby just leaving the upside of its exceptional fuel consumption figures ?.On that note yes quite possibly.Also bearing in mind the other upside of the durability advantages resulting from its under stressed low specific output.
On that note yes I could see the attraction in staying with Gardners for that specific type of work.Even to the point of preferring that over the other theoretically more fuel efficient small capacity turbocharged option along the lines of Volvo F7 or DAF 2300/2500.Although history suggests otherwise in that regard.
While realistically the move from the Gardner fuel consumption v power ( more importantly torque ) type equation to the ■■■■■■■ E 290 among other 10 litre + turbo types was based more on the demands for the optimum combination of durability and/or productivety especially after the move to 38t gross.Natural selection having rightly eventually deciding on the 10 litre + turbo charged option in that case across the board.The 14 litre ■■■■■■■ in the form of the 290 + big cam being there with the best of them.
On that note personally I’d have chosen an E 290 in a Foden 8 wheeler rather than a naturally aspirated Gardner or ■■■■■■■ or a Volvo F7 for example.On the basis of its all round combination of fuel efficiency,durability and productivety potential regardless of any exceptions in the case of short haul work.Which seems to be how history also eventually saw it in the case of the 10 litre + turbo diesel being king.
gazsa401:
Carryfast:
Firstly 6 mpg would be a pessimistic figure for a big cam ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ fuel costs didn’t form as much of a proportion of overall costs then as they do now.As for Gardner’s they were all about fuel economy at the expense of power output with ■■■■■■■ among others being based on the opposite mantra.The result being that ■■■■■■■ etc won easily in terms of their ‘combination’ of fuel costs v productivety and the rest is history.IE no one was going to get anywhere with a Gardner v an E290-320 for example especially running at 38t gross.You also forgot to mention the other things Gardner were renowned for other than fuel economy
Reliability and weight saving amongst them
We ran 320 Gardner powered ERFs and Seddon Atkinsons they were nearly half a tonne lighter than a similar ■■■■■■■ powered lorry
They were bought for the lightness fuel economy and not necessary speed
If I’ve read it right the comparison in the OP seemed to be the older generation naturally aspirated Gardner v the rest including turbo ■■■■■■■ ?.
As for the durability/acceptance of turbo Gardner v turbo ■■■■■■■ or foreign imports the jury still seems to be out but history doesn’t seem to be on the Gardner’s side regardless.
Yes CF thats making sense to me. Obviously counter factual but how would say G 240 compare to E290 or modern engine in 8 whlr compare on fuel, reliability, earning on say brick work as mentioned earlier supposing that they would still only manage 1 long n1 short, n not forgetting Gaz weight comment n extra pack of bricks per load. Or do they pull another load in, suspect not power must be cancelled out by traffic congestion I would imagine
Looking back , the 180 Gardner was the back bone of many fleets and they were used for many different operations. Imagine now an engine that could return 4mpg more than many of its rivals albeit at a slower pace .An owner drivers dream , coupled with a reliability record second to none .The tipper operators loved them , and wasnt there a long waiting list for Gardners in the 70s. They were known as a gaffers motor and would be a nightmare in todays modern traffic but at the time held their own . I`m glad I never had one though
Carryfast:
coomsey:
H CF I can see where you,re coming from I should have been more specific.
My eg is from firm I worked for n who sold onto another n me with them.
77/79 running out of Desford brick with ERF 180G DB 6 n Akky 205/220 (not sure) 10sp n Octopus 500( never did know engine bhp) 9sp. Usual days were a longish run ,100/120 mls n a short un 30 mls n load for next day. Nowt much between G n Cu the Octo were all over them for speed but still same loads a week. I had a good spell running 2 Glasgows a week ,load up, load down next day n load for wed n repeat.However with the Leyland up back down next day n would get a short n in before loading for wed. Forgetting Leyland reliability this supports your power gain argument, I earned 2 local load money(we were on a radial mls system) n so did gaffer. 80% of his work would be 1 long/1short so why did he buy ■■■■■■■ more fuel no load gain. Not just him but other companies around here tippers n bricks rarely had night out so powerful motors just got you back into yard earlier.
I can understand in your type of work it would mean the difference between 2 trips n 1 1/2, n trampers would get further down the road but not with the above work possibly to the extent that given the same roads to run on as then modern motors couldn,t get extra load a day in. Bit convoluted but hope you get my drift.By the way the guy who bought them ■■■■■■■ motors soon got shut when he realised mpg but not the Leylands strange. PaulFirstly the Gardner was an exception which proved the rule of the general fuel inefficiency of naturally aspirated diesels.In which case the question is was there a point where the Gardner’s lack of power downside was cancelled out by short haul operations thereby just leaving the upside of its exceptional fuel consumption figures ?.On that note yes quite possibly.Also bearing in mind the other upside of the durability advantages resulting from its under stressed low specific output.
On that note yes I could see the attraction in staying with Gardners for that specific type of work.Even to the point of preferring that over the other theoretically more fuel efficient small capacity turbocharged option along the lines of Volvo F7 or DAF 2300/2500.Although history suggests otherwise in that regard.
While realistically the move from the Gardner fuel consumption v power ( more importantly torque ) type equation to the ■■■■■■■ E 290 among other 10 litre + turbo types was based more on the demands for the optimum combination of durability and/or productivety especially after the move to 38t gross.Natural selection having rightly eventually deciding on the 10 litre + turbo charged option in that case across the board.The 14 litre ■■■■■■■ in the form of the 290 + big cam being there with the best of them.
On that note personally I’d have chosen an E 290 in a Foden 8 wheeler rather than a naturally aspirated Gardner or ■■■■■■■ or a Volvo F7 for example.On the basis of its all round combination of fuel efficiency,durability and productivety potential regardless of any exceptions in the case of short haul work.Which seems to be how history also eventually saw it in the case of the 10 litre + turbo diesel being king.
The firm I worked for used mainly Gardner (both Turbo and non Turbo)powered lorries on long distance UK general haulage work and on 24/7 night and day trunking
They were predominantly bought for their fuel efficiency (going back to the OPs original post MPG)reliability and longevity
Other marquees of the time couldn’t match our fleet engineers targets
And as history shows Gardner left it too late to produce a 10 litre engine to match the up and coming engine designs of the 80s
But back to the 70s nothing much or anything could match a Gardner for fuel economy
coomsey:
Yes CF thats making sense to me. Obviously counter factual but how would say G 240 compare to E290 or modern engine in 8 whlr compare on fuel, reliability, earning on say brick work as mentioned earlier supposing that they would still only manage 1 long n1 short, n not forgetting Gaz weight comment n extra pack of bricks per load. Or do they pull another load in, suspect not power must be cancelled out by traffic congestion I would imagine
Ironically I don’t think there were any contemporary comparisons along the lines of 240 Gardner v E290 under controlled conditions ?.Although in most cases I think the comparison would be more one of 6 cylinder Gardner on the type of work in question anyway.In which case it’s going to take a lot of traffic jams or very short distances in a shift to cancel out the E 290’s productivety advantage.But the 240 v E290 was obviously going to create a smaller margin in that regard.
What is certain is that there is a reason why you won’t find many/any buyers now demanding a naturally aspirated or even small capacity 7 litre type turbo motor in a truck regardless of distances involved.Also bearing in mind that the Gardner was an exception in terms of just its fuel efficiency for its ( NA ) type anyway.
Carryfast:
carryfast-yeti:
sure my old SedAtki 400 Gardner 180 used to do 9 mpgBut no chance of it managing two return runs from Feltham to Kilworth in a shift.
one run was a struggle! 
We had done this ■■■■■■■ v Gardner argument to death a couple of years ago I thought. The biggest bone of contention was comparing apples with oranges either because of engine size, aspiration, gearing or year-models. Without wishing to go into it all over again, I would say that finding a ■■■■■■■ E290 powered Foden 8 wheeler to have ever existed rates no 3 behind the Gardner 8 pot Guy tractor unit in second place, but both fall at the first fence behind the Gardner 8 cylinder eight wheeler. I could conjure up another near impossibility, but I daren’t mention the name. 
cav551:
We had done this ■■■■■■■ v Gardner argument to death a couple of years ago I thought. The biggest bone of contention was comparing apples with oranges either because of engine size, aspiration, gearing or year-models. Without wishing to go into it all over again, I would say that finding a ■■■■■■■ E290 powered Foden 8 wheeler to have ever existed rates no 3 behind the Gardner 8 pot Guy tractor unit in second place, but both fall at the first fence behind the Gardner 8 cylinder eight wheeler. I could conjure up another near impossibility, but I daren’t mention the name.
I’m was only referring to a hypothetical/theoretically possible spec in the day.While agreed the change in customer expectations away from NA Gardner or ■■■■■■■ or F7/DAF 2300/2500 took place gradually into the 1980’s.By which time,by at least 1981,it wasn’t unusual to find something along the lines of a turbo 265 Rolls Eagle at least in a Foden 6 wheeler 24 tonner,having actually driven such a spec in the day,let alone 8 wheeler.
While I don’t think the OP’s question was timeline limited.To which I just answered it along the lines of a general question of NA Gardner type v 10 litre + turbo.History having answered that question arguably over a very short period between mid to late 1970’s/early 80’s.
cav551:
We had done this ■■■■■■■ v Gardner argument to death a couple of years ago I thought. The biggest bone of contention was comparing apples with oranges either because of engine size, aspiration, gearing or year-models. Without wishing to go into it all over again, I would say that finding a ■■■■■■■ E290 powered Foden 8 wheeler to have ever existed rates no 3 behind the Gardner 8 pot Guy tractor unit in second place, but both fall at the first fence behind the Gardner 8 cylinder eight wheeler. I could conjure up another near impossibility, but I daren’t mention the name.
Atkinson fitted the Gardner 8LW in the 50s in several 8 wheelers
carryfast-yeti:
Carryfast:
no chance of it managing two return runs from Feltham to Kilworth in a shift.one run was a struggle!
I know.Having only been asked to do it once by a very apologetic guvnor.If I remember it right because of some availability crisis among the units and putting the old Gardner heap we had parked up in the yard and destined for the gas axe,on a Dewsbury run,wasn’t going to work.I can still remember the call to Kilworth what you can’t get on one trailer will have just have to stay there.
cav551:
We had done this ■■■■■■■ v Gardner argument to death a couple of years ago I thought. The biggest bone of contention was comparing apples with oranges either because of engine size, aspiration, gearing or year-models. Without wishing to go into it all over again, I would say that finding a ■■■■■■■ E290 powered Foden 8 wheeler to have ever existed rates no 3 behind the Gardner 8 pot Guy tractor unit in second place, but both fall at the first fence behind the Gardner 8 cylinder eight wheeler. I could conjure up another near impossibility, but I daren’t mention the name.
An owner driver near me had an e290 8 wheel foden , but i suspect it had had a heart transplant from a gardner . It went like a rocket up hill and down dale and the od reckoned the extra work it could do far outweighed the extra fuel cost , but as has been said the tare weight suffered .
rigsby:
cav551:
We had done this ■■■■■■■ v Gardner argument to death a couple of years ago I thought. The biggest bone of contention was comparing apples with oranges either because of engine size, aspiration, gearing or year-models. Without wishing to go into it all over again, I would say that finding a ■■■■■■■ E290 powered Foden 8 wheeler to have ever existed rates no 3 behind the Gardner 8 pot Guy tractor unit in second place, but both fall at the first fence behind the Gardner 8 cylinder eight wheeler. I could conjure up another near impossibility, but I daren’t mention the name.An owner driver near me had an e290 8 wheel foden , but i suspect it had had a heart transplant from a gardner . It went like a rocket up hill and down dale and the od reckoned the extra work it could do far outweighed the extra fuel cost , but as has been said the tare weight suffered .
Ya buga gentlemen that set a ball rolling if ever you did, surprised me big time . Cav 51 says been done big time, Hi cav, I,m a new comer n you,re being a bit naughty I think
Is it just horses for courses ? Were rates so good in the 70s it didn,t matter too much ? I,m asking cos it don,t make any sense to me. Why buy a motor thats got less mpg without getting more loads in. Availability ? surely you, d hang on a bit for the one that paid best. Driver getting into yard later wouldn,t bother you . Most of the big 3 did unbelieveable mls so why rush. Tax thing ? Go steady I,m a slow reader. Paul
rigsby:
cav551:
We had done this ■■■■■■■ v Gardner argument to death a couple of years ago I thought. The biggest bone of contention was comparing apples with oranges either because of engine size, aspiration, gearing or year-models. Without wishing to go into it all over again, I would say that finding a ■■■■■■■ E290 powered Foden 8 wheeler to have ever existed rates no 3 behind the Gardner 8 pot Guy tractor unit in second place, but both fall at the first fence behind the Gardner 8 cylinder eight wheeler. I could conjure up another near impossibility, but I daren’t mention the name.An owner driver near me had an e290 8 wheel foden , but i suspect it had had a heart transplant from a gardner . It went like a rocket up hill and down dale and the od reckoned the extra work it could do far outweighed the extra fuel cost , but as has been said the tare weight suffered .
Sam Beldom of Heathrow once had a pair of beautiful 8 wheel Foden 4000 tippers fitted with NTE500’s ordered from the factory, heavy and thirsty but he didn’t care