coomsey:
It,s a git every answer gives me a dozen questions. So a 230 in an 8 whlr gave you load advantage on tipper/brick work, an supposing that any more power wouldn,t ,if you were running that now ( dodging the emission/noise thing) would it be competitive today, what sort of mpg
Some say that modern engines are getting more than 8 mpg at 44t gross.So I’d guess that firstly,as in the day,it would need more like the 270 version of the turbo Gardner to make much difference.But at the end of the day would still probably get absolutely massacred in terms of productivety v fuel consumption at least bearing in mind the type of torque output from something along the lines of a Volvo FM with a D11 in it.While the turbo Gardners weren’t known for their durability in the day v Rolls 265 etc.Although they seem to have been surprisingly popular going by the for sale ads in the day.IE fuel efficiency and productivety is all about torque not peak power output.
Looking back to the thread on the OD’s Forum referring to payload, the CM tipper test report lists the Merc Arocs as having a payload which converts to 18ton 2 cwt. A fairly typical tipper from the mid 1970s would achieve a figure hovering around a full 20 tons. To achieve that figure it would not be dragging around an extra ton and a half of ironwork either.
windrush:
Gardner did have a turbocharged engine many years before it became ‘normal’ to fit them, some of the Gardner family designed it. However Hugh Gardner was in charge and gave them the choice of either scrapping the idea or they would be ‘removed’ from the company as he was against turbocharging in any form. Gingerfold knows all about it but Hugh and his brother John believed that an unstressed engine was far more reliable.
That’s a good mantra to go by but history suggests that Gardner took it too literally and to an extreme thereby leaving the company dangerously exposed to its competition.
cav551:
Looking back to the thread on the OD’s Forum referring to payload, the CM tipper test report lists the Merc Arocs as having a payload which converts to 18ton 2 cwt. A fairly typical tipper from the mid 1970s would achieve a figure hovering around a full 20 tons. To achieve that figure it would not be dragging around an extra ton and a half of ironwork either.
To be fair it would also take things like plastic cabs,not just the difference between the weight of an old NA Gardner v more modern turbo counterpart,would account for that type of discrepancy ?. While something which can get one or possibly more,if very slighty less,but still truck loads,done in a shift at similar,if not possibly even better,fuel consumption,still means a net advantage at the end of the day.
There’s always two sides to every story, yes having the ability to get an extra run in each day seems good on paper, but you can’t lose sight of the main reason for owning a lorry, making money.
Is that extra load going to make more profit? If you factor in the higher fuel costs, higher maintenance costs, less reliability and less payload of the higher powered lorries, then those old Gardner plodders that turned up for work every day, had the ability to carry more payload and had very low operating costs were more than capable.
As an operator I would rather have a lorry that made money than one that put a smile on the driver’s face.
newmercman:
There’s always two sides to every story, yes having the ability to get an extra run in each day seems good on paper, but you can’t lose sight of the main reason for owning a lorry, making money.
Is that extra load going to make more profit? If you factor in the higher fuel costs, higher maintenance costs, less reliability and less payload of the higher powered lorries, then those old Gardner plodders that turned up for work every day, had the ability to carry more payload and had very low operating costs were more than capable.
As an operator I would rather have a lorry that made money than one that put a smile on the driver’s face.
When I was forced to do poorly rated work on dry stone if our regular quarry didn’t want me my gaffer used to tell me to just do a few loads instead of doing all the work they (the quarry) expected from me, those extra loads could actually be run at a loss whereas the previous ones would usually just about break even or possibly make a slight profit. His favourite expression was “I don’t need an accountant to tell me what money I’m making, a tank on the lorry tells me that every week!”
And that’s the way it is Pete, you can do all the forecasts and theoretical stuff you want, but it’s not about how much you earn, it’s about how much of it you can keep.
newmercman:
And that’s the way it is Pete, you can do all the forecasts and theoretical stuff you want, but it’s not about how much you earn, it’s about how much of it you can keep.
newmercman:
There’s always two sides to every story, yes having the ability to get an extra run in each day seems good on paper, but you can’t lose sight of the main reason for owning a lorry, making money.
Is that extra load going to make more profit? If you factor in the higher fuel costs, higher maintenance costs, less reliability and less payload of the higher powered lorries, then those old Gardner plodders that turned up for work every day, had the ability to carry more payload and had very low operating costs were more than capable.
As an operator I would rather have a lorry that made money than one that put a smile on the driver’s face.
The key point being that a load of bricks/rubble/earth etc is usually going to pay the same in terms of tonne/miles shifted.In which case it’s easy to see how let’s say even on short haul work just one extra 18-19 t truck load done in a shift would outweigh an extra ton or so per run over let’s say a 5-10 run day.IE 18 t extra at worse possibly more at best v an extra 5t at worse to 15 t at best and not significantly better fuel consumption,or even worse at today’s levels of fuel efficiency.The fact is if the figures didn’t work out and if the Gardner mantra was the way forward Gardner would have wiped out its competition because there was no better or more fuel efficient NA engine than a Gardner.
As for putting a smile on the guvnor’s v the driver’s face I’d suggest that the Foden S85 with a Rolls 265,or possibly even better an E 290 ■■■■■■■ in it,was one of the best guvnors 6 or 8 wheelers ever made.
With just a doubt over the crash worthiness of the plastic cab to make it slightly less of a drivers’ one.
In which case it was no surprise that the steel cabbed 10 litre + turbo formula was the one which the import invasion ended up using to such great effect.Having realised that those 265 etc buyers had got it right v the blind alley of trucks like the F7 and DAF 2300/2500.
You lot are doing my head in ! So would I be right in saying on 1long /1short Gardner beat ■■■■■■■ on mpg n so then earned more for boss,the octopus though more bhp ( what was the bhp of mk 2 octopus ? ) probably didn,t, but on my experience I got 2 extra loads a week but boss might think great what a man but possibly out of pocket compared to the G n Cu.
What I,m trying to work out, although I wasn,t at the start, is on tipper/brick type work at what point more bhp was for show n didn,t give you anymore profit especially regarding what Gardner had on offer at the time
cav551:
Looking back to the thread on the OD’s Forum referring to payload, the CM tipper test report lists the Merc Arocs as having a payload which converts to 18ton 2 cwt. A fairly typical tipper from the mid 1970s would achieve a figure hovering around a full 20 tons. To achieve that figure it would not be dragging around an extra ton and a half of ironwork either.
Good point I were getting 20t payload so for all I would be later into the quarry surely I,d have a bob or two more in my pocket.However that would only hold up if most Quarry work was being done by 20/30 yr old motors today
coomsey:
It,s a git every answer gives me a dozen questions. So a 230 in an 8 whlr gave you load advantage on tipper/brick work, an supposing that any more power wouldn,t ,if you were running that now ( dodging the emission/noise thing) would it be competitive today, what sort of mpg
I don’t think that our firm worried too much about fuel used Coomsey, they were there to provide a reliable service shifting their own products so as long as that went OK the TM was happy. We just filled the tank up every day! On some long runs, South West Wales for instance, I took a five gallon drum of diesel and a gallon of oil in the cab as I couldn’t do it without topping up. To be honest they spent a fortune on maintenance, no expense spared and some hauliers ran their trucks from parts out of our scrap bin! Engine oil/filter, all fuel, breather and air filters changed every four weeks regardless of mileage on around 40 trucks and possibly twice as many vans and cars. So fuel mpg possibly wouldn’t be a big issue, however payload was king. If we came onto the weighbridge at 30.30 or less gvw (running at 30.50) we would be sent back for a few more cwt which could be a pain as you usually got half a ton dropped on and then had to shovel the excess off again!
Pete.
Can,t argue yet again, when I was at Cliffe Hill never recorded fuel but that doesn,t alter the fact that if management had started to take care of fuel consumption there would be more money in the pot. I suspect they do now or am I wrong again
coomsey:
It,s a git every answer gives me a dozen questions. So a 230 in an 8 whlr gave you load advantage on tipper/brick work, an supposing that any more power wouldn,t ,if you were running that now ( dodging the emission/noise thing) would it be competitive today, what sort of mpg
Some say that modern engines are getting more than 8 mpg at 44t gross.So I’d guess that firstly,as in the day,it would need more like the 270 version of the turbo Gardner to make much difference.But at the end of the day would still probably get absolutely massacred in terms of productivety v fuel consumption at least bearing in mind the type of torque output from something along the lines of a Volvo FM with a D11 in it.While the turbo Gardners weren’t known for their durability in the day v Rolls 265 etc.Although they seem to have been surprisingly popular going by the for sale ads in the day.IE fuel efficiency and productivety is all about torque not peak power output.
Where do you get your info about the durability of a Gardner turbocharged engine from ?
Did you ever drive a turbocharged Gardner engined lorry ? or did whoever you work for operate them?
The firm I worked for operated them as they still wanted optimum fuel efficiency and longevity
A lot of the turbocharged Gardner’s we ran gave sterling service we had the odd bad egg but overall they were very reliable
This is XRR 252Y
The first picture is when she was a year old and the second picture was taken 13 years later
The only major problem it ever had was when the water pump seized up and it pick upped on number 1
When the engine was stripped the bottom end was like new so other than a set pistons and liners it was ultra reliable
They need to improve MPG for 8wheelers, to counter the ever increasing tare weights. Payloads for alloy bodies used to be 21t, with muckshifters at 19.5. To be fair steel bodies have gotten lighter thanks to Hardox. You don’t see muckshifters with those big steel ribs down the sides anymore. Sheehans MANs with said bodies used to carry 18.5 (M and N regs) the new MANs they run now carry roughly the same, despite all the FORS nonsense.
coomsey:
It,s a git every answer gives me a dozen questions. So a 230 in an 8 whlr gave you load advantage on tipper/brick work, an supposing that any more power wouldn,t ,if you were running that now ( dodging the emission/noise thing) would it be competitive today, what sort of mpg
Some say that modern engines are getting more than 8 mpg at 44t gross.So I’d guess that firstly,as in the day,it would need more like the 270 version of the turbo Gardner to make much difference.But at the end of the day would still probably get absolutely massacred in terms of productivety v fuel consumption at least bearing in mind the type of torque output from something along the lines of a Volvo FM with a D11 in it.While the turbo Gardners weren’t known for their durability in the day v Rolls 265 etc.Although they seem to have been surprisingly popular going by the for sale ads in the day.IE fuel efficiency and productivety is all about torque not peak power output.
Where do you get your info about the durability of a Gardner turbocharged engine from ?
Did you ever drive a turbocharged Gardner engined lorry ? or did whoever you work for operate them?
The firm I worked for operated them as they still wanted optimum fuel efficiency and longevity
A lot of the turbocharged Gardner’s we ran gave sterling service we had the odd bad egg but overall they were very reliable
This is XRR 252Y
The first picture is when she was a year old and the second picture was taken 13 years later
The only major problem it ever had was when the water pump seized up and it pick upped on number 1
When the engine was stripped the bottom end was like new so other than a set pistons and liners it was ultra reliable
So G what engine were that un and what sort of mpg did she get. Please don,t set about me no such thing as turbo Gardner when I were at it
Ok then Carryfast listen up, you are forgetting one important factor, you make make an extra 100 quid for that extra load, but you still have to take fuel costs and wear and tear out of that, so you only earn a percentage of that 100 quid.
You would actually need to do more than a couple of loads to earn as much profit as the old Gardner plodder would.
newmercman:
Ok then Carryfast listen up, you are forgetting one important factor, you make make an extra 100 quid for that extra load, but you still have to take fuel costs and wear and tear out of that, so you only earn a percentage of that 100 quid.
You would actually need to do more than a couple of loads to earn as much profit as the old Gardner plodder would.
No point in being a busy fool.
Hi N know this not aimed at me but I,m intrigued n trying best as to work out whats what. You might have the knowledge in your opinion was my Octopus earning more than Gardner/■■■■■■■ on Scotch runs, same amount of bricks.
The one that earned the most was the one that cost the least to run. Rates would be the same for each, tax, insurance, parking and wages too, so purchase price and depreciation, maintenance and repairs and fuel costs are the variables, the lorry that had the lowest figure there was the most productive. No if, ands or buts. That’s how it works.
While something which can get one or possibly more,if very slighty less,but still truck loads,done in a shift at similar,if not possibly even better,fuel consumption,still means a net advantage at the end of the day.
On some long runs, South West Wales for instance, I took a five gallon drum of diesel and a gallon of oil in the cab as I couldn’t do it without topping up. To be honest they spent a fortune on maintenance, no expense spared and some hauliers ran their trucks from parts out of our scrap bin! Engine oil/filter, all fuel, breather and air filters changed every four weeks regardless of mileage on around 40 trucks and possibly twice as many vans and cars. So fuel mpg possibly wouldn’t be a big issue, however payload was king. If we came onto the weighbridge at 30.30 or less gvw (running at 30.50) we would be sent back for a few more cwt which could be a pain as you usually got half a ton dropped on and then had to shovel the excess off again! 
