gazsa401:
Out of the 20 401s we ran there was a mixture of 6LXCTs 8LXCTs and 4 6LYTs
XRR was fitted with the 6LXCT
You must of had more look than people with the block cracking DT’s .
Punchy Dan:
gazsa401:
Out of the 20 401s we ran there was a mixture of 6LXCTs 8LXCTs and 4 6LYTs
XRR was fitted with the 6LXCTYou must of had more look than people with the block cracking DT’s .
We had a mixture of 270/290 LXDTs fitted in a batch of C and E series I do recall a few problems in the earlier C series but I can’t remember if it was to do with the blocks cracking
I know the pistons fitted in the LXDTs were the same as the ones fitted to the 8 LXBs
gazsa401:
Carryfast:
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
I was going by the general idea that generally buyers changing from NA Gardner to turbo 10 litre + either went for ■■■■■■■ or more often Rolls.Nor were comments,concerning the variable durability of turbo Gardners,unheard of in the day.Added to/possibly confirmed by the the question why did at least this large scale previously loyal NA Gardner user go for turbo Rolls instead of turbo Gardner for example.While also helping to confirm the advantage of turbo Rolls/■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ v NA Gardner on short haul work.What is certain in that regard is that for ‘some’ reason a massive proportion of previous NA Gardner customers chose turbo Rolls or ■■■■■■■ rather than turbo Gardner and none of them seemed to want to go back to NA anything. 
IMHO the last decent engine to be produced by Gardner was the 8LXC then once they had been taken over and they started to turbo the engines, well that was the end of the line, the era was over and it was sad to see that the flogging of “a dead horse” was a complete waste of time. I was glad my vehicle purchasing requirements had moved on to the Scandinavian products but I can honestly say that when we ran Gardner engine chassis they gave us ultimate reliability and economy, it was just that they were of their time and tried to continue beyond their sell by date ! My opinion and no doubt others will have differing opinions ! Cheers Bewick.
I don’t think it was much of a choice Carryfast, if you want to buy a new lorry, you can’t buy what you can’t get. If dealers couldn’t get hold of Gardner powered chassis they had to look at alternatives.
■■■■■■■ and Rolls Royce were the only other options, they had to go with them or they would lose even more sales to the imports.
I,m still not sure whats what ! Theres more to this than meets the eye
The move to higher powered motors had been going on since day one n made sense to buy if you earned more,yes? Gardner got to 240bhp n then either over charged small motors or RR /CU engines because of perceived Gardner durability probs, yes ? Taking regs out of it for a mo,more n more powerful trucks make more money, yes?
Would I be correct that Gardner with it,s economy/durability reputation was a victim of it,s own success in that operators had to go to foreigners for motors n the foreigners drove the bhp rise or was the need / desire for more bhp just an historical thing or regs driven.
Or n it,s a big OR didn,t it matter too much what you ran back then running costs not so critical ?
The BHP rise was due to a number of factors, beginning with the need for more power as GVW increased, then the onset of the motorway era. It then held steady until the foreign invasion, it steadily climbed from 200bhp up to 250-300bhp and then 38tons saw it jump a little to 320/350bhp, 44ton came and 420/460bhp was the norm.
It’s evolution really, if you didn’t evolve, like Gardner who left it too late, you became extinct.
The fundamentals remain the same though, it’s not the load count that matters, it’s how much money you make on each load. If you can make 15 quid a load on 7 loads you would need to do 11 loads to make a fiver more on a lorry that only makes a tenner a load.
Like I said earlier, busy fools.
There are some interesting details in CM archives which might help to blow away some myths and misconceptions concerning the supposed fuel consumtion invincibility of NA Gardner powered vehicles v turbo Rolls etc in terms of fuel consumption and a surprise to me,that in fact obviously enlightened customers in that regard,were actually putting pressure on manufacturers to move away from NA Gardners,including the 8 wheeler market sector,as early as 1977.
The result being information within a 1977 CM article giving a road test figure of a Rolls 265 powered Foden 8 wheeler,having also stated that spec already being called for by customer demand at that time,which had been specifically geared by its operator for motorway work,and as such returned a consumption of 8.7 mpg at an ‘average’ speed of 53 mph.Which puts the 240 Gardner 1972 record of 7.5 mpg overall into perspective or for that matter the 7.65 mpg of the 8LXC powered SA 401 admittedly at 32t v 30t.Bearing in mind that given a bit lower gearing Foden 8 wheeler probably would have made 8 mpg overall not just in its specified motorway element. 
In which case it would probably be fair to say that we’re actually discussing the point in time when it was realised that that the 10 litre + turbocharged rigid could do more work at similar if not better fuel consumption than the NA Gardner could.As Bewick rightly said the NA Gardner had reached its sell by date and was taken out by the turbo Rolls and ■■■■■■■ competition among other numerous import options.
The 8w Daf I drive was originally a 360 but has been remapped to 420. When my boss and his Dad ordered it, they were advised to go for the 360 rather than the usual 410 because they did little motorway work and the 360 had a better torque range for singe carriageway, local work.
Since I started we’ve started to go further and with sc way speed limit increase we had it remapped. It’s not much better on fuel but you can pull away in 3rd fully loaded and be up into top gear in 4 changes. It’ll now stay within the green band at 56mph too.
Adblue consumption has significantly reduced too.
Carryfast:
There are some interesting details in CM archives which might help to blow away some myths and misconceptions concerning the supposed fuel consumtion invincibility of NA Gardner powered vehicles v turbo Rolls etc in terms of fuel consumption and a surprise to me,that in fact obviously enlightened customers in that regard,were actually putting pressure on manufacturers to move away from NA Gardners,including the 8 wheeler market sector,as early as 1977.The result being information within a 1977 CM article giving a road test figure of a Rolls 265 powered Foden 8 wheeler,having also stated that spec already being called for by customer demand at that time,which had been specifically geared by its operator for motorway work,and as such returned a consumption of 8.7 mpg at an ‘average’ speed of 53 mph.Which puts the 240 Gardner 1972 record of 7.5 mpg overall into perspective or for that matter the 7.65 mpg of the 8LXC powered SA 401 admittedly at 32t v 30t.Bearing in mind that given a bit lower gearing Foden 8 wheeler probably would have made 8 mpg overall not just in its specified motorway element.
I,m beginning to see the light C, thank heavens.
Gardner not victim of their success but being unable to give better mpg than say RR or Cu, surprised I was convinced that more bhp less mpg but obviously technology ruled. Customers weren,t daft they knew what motors gave best mpg/return for their money n followed their wallet. Gardner then because of management reluctance to charge their engines then playing catch up with the added customer perception of reliability issues were nailed then. Would I be wrong that management would have the mind set that they had waiting list n were invincible like car/motorbike industries ?
Up till now I thought Gardner had been the victims of the nasty under cutting foreigners but it appears that this may not be the case. Paul
Muckaway:
The 8w Daf I drive was originally a 360 but has been remapped to 420. When my boss and his Dad ordered it, they were advised to go for the 360 rather than the usual 410 because they did little motorway work and the 360 had a better torque range for singe carriageway, local work.
Since I started we’ve started to go further and with sc way speed limit increase we had it remapped. It’s not much better on fuel but you can pull away in 3rd fully loaded and be up into top gear in 4 changes. It’ll now stay within the green band at 56mph too.
Adblue consumption has significantly reduced too.
Shows what I know M, were under the impression of “look how much bhp I,ve got” thing n yet it was more mpg Paul
Carryfast:
gazsa401:
Carryfast:
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
I was going by the general idea that generally buyers changing from NA Gardner to turbo 10 litre + either went for ■■■■■■■ or more often Rolls.Nor were comments,concerning the variable durability of turbo Gardners,unheard of in the day.Added to/possibly confirmed by the the question why did at least this large scale previously loyal NA Gardner user go for turbo Rolls instead of turbo Gardner for example.While also helping to confirm the advantage of turbo Rolls/■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ v NA Gardner on short haul work.What is certain in that regard is that for ‘some’ reason a massive proportion of previous NA Gardner customers chose turbo Rolls or ■■■■■■■ rather than turbo Gardner and none of them seemed to want to go back to NA anything.
thumbs1.picclick.com/d/l400/pict … J-Bull.jpg[/quot
I asked you for your experience of operating or working for firms that operated turbocharged Gardner powered lorries■■?
I can give you a list of hauliers who carried on purchasing Gardner’s after they became turbocharged
J B McBean
W J Riding
Boughey Distribution
James Moffat and Sons
Suttons of St Helens
Drapers
Legget Freightways
David G Davies
Brian Harris
Bassett
Beresfords
A J Bull
Torridge Tramsport
Amos Meer
Dixons of Derby
Meeks of Kirkby
Longcliffe
S and S Transport
E H Nicholls
Just to name a few
So let us all know which massive number of Non Turbo Gardner operators went over to running turbocharged Rolls Royce and ■■■■■■■
I remember when Smiths reversed their buying policy of over-powered engines in 6wheelers, and went for Volvo FEs with the 7litre 320 Maggie Deutz engine. They were gutless and had to have the diff ratios changed to suit. Unfortunately this meant that going above 50mph sent the revs out of the green band. The adblue system was crap too.
When a fellow driver at my depot was given one, some unnamed troublemaker would scrawl things in the dirt on the tailboard like…
“Gardner 180 power” “Hearses, please pass me wide and slow” and thanks to said troublemakers’ father “0-56 in 3 weeks…”
Altitude might know who was responsible. 
Note the Volvos driver also had an answerphone message claiming to be from English Heritage, saying “your vehicle is so ■■■■■■■ slow, we’ve put a preservation order on it.” 'Orrible little ■■■■■■■■ 
Muckaway:
The 8w Daf I drive was originally a 360 but has been remapped to 420. When my boss and his Dad ordered it, they were advised to go for the 360 rather than the usual 410 because they did little motorway work and the 360 had a better torque range for singe carriageway, local work.
Since I started we’ve started to go further and with sc way speed limit increase we had it remapped. It’s not much better on fuel but you can pull away in 3rd fully loaded and be up into top gear in 4 changes. It’ll now stay within the green band at 56mph too.
Adblue consumption has significantly reduced too.
You pull away in 3rd fully loaded? Would you pull away in anything other than 1st in your own car? You’re putting a lot of heat into the clutch by pulling away in 3rd, heat that causes premature wear.
newmercman:
You pull away in 3rd fully loaded? Would you pull away in anything other than 1st in your own car? You’re putting a lot of heat into the clutch by pulling away in 3rd, heat that causes premature wear.
Not always but it will do it. Look at autos they do it even on gradients. Yes I do pull away in second sometimes in our car, strangely though my works Hilux doesn’t like doing it, even empty with a 2.5l engine.
The Daf is an 09 plate and still on its’ original clutch, 347000km of mostly very local work.
So apart from the odd squabble here n there can we say you lot have sorted it ?
To my mind now the truck manufacturers that remain currently have sussed operating costs /reliability (to the best that they can) n have come out on top. If I were to start tipper/brick work would it matter which make or just go for best financial package, operating costs pretty much the same for all ?
coomsey:
So apart from the odd squabble here n there can we say you lot have sorted it ?
To my mind now the truck manufacturers that remain currently have sussed operating costs /reliability (to the best that they can) n have come out on top. If I were to start tipper/brick work would it matter which make or just go for best financial package, operating costs pretty much the same for all ?
There’s the matter now that you couldn’t have the choice of a ■■■■■■■ Gardner or Rolls Royce/Perkins engine or choice of Eaton Fuller or Spicer gearbox fitted as no truck manufacturer nowadays fits theses engines or gearboxes
The firm I work these days are moving away from Scania and buying DAF and Mercedes lorries we do get asked our opinions also I think dealer network and customer support helps
gazsa401:
Carryfast:
I was going by the general idea that generally buyers changing from NA Gardner to turbo 10 litre + either went for ■■■■■■■ or more often Rolls.Nor were comments,concerning the variable durability of turbo Gardners,unheard of in the day.Added to/possibly confirmed by the the question why did at least this large scale previously loyal NA Gardner user go for turbo Rolls instead of turbo Gardner for example.While also helping to confirm the advantage of turbo Rolls/■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ v NA Gardner on short haul work.What is certain in that regard is that for ‘some’ reason a massive proportion of previous NA Gardner customers chose turbo Rolls or ■■■■■■■ rather than turbo Gardner and none of them seemed to want to go back to NA anything.I asked you for your experience of operating or working for firms that operated turbocharged Gardner powered lorries■■?
I can give you a list of hauliers who carried on purchasing Gardner’s after they became turbocharged
J B McBean
W J Riding
Boughey Distribution
James Moffat and Sons
Suttons of St Helens
Drapers
Legget Freightways
David G Davies
Brian Harris
Bassett
Beresfords
A J Bull
Torridge Tramsport
Amos Meer
Dixons of Derby
Meeks of Kirkby
Longcliffe
S and S Transport
E H Nicholls
Just to name a few
So let us all know which massive number of Non Turbo Gardner operators went over to running turbocharged Rolls Royce and ■■■■■■■
Firstly I’ve already stated that even the CM archive used truck ads in the day suggest a higher take up of turbo Gardners than I was ever aware of until digging a bit further.
However having said that it would be a big jump to translating that as the turbo Gardner being anywhere close to the success of the Rolls Eagle or turbo ■■■■■■■ or for that matter the import invasion.
As for your list unsurprisingly I wasn’t generally aware of the specific buying policy of all those specific operators.But,having spent enough time working with/around them,but unfortunately being a dead man’s shoes job,not for them,in the day I would be very surprised if AJ Bull at least translated its previous use of NA Gardners into any large scale use of turbo Gardners,as opposed to Rolls 265.With the random photo I posted seeming to confirm that view.As in the case of my own ( local government ) employers in the day also going from NA ■■■■■■■ to Rolls 265 even in the 24 tonner sector.Also bearing in mind that,unlike the Rolls,the military in the day also never felt that either NA or turbo Gardners were up to the job.Also bearing in mind that it would be fair to say that both Rolls and ■■■■■■■ were still there with competitive products right until the effective end of the Brit truck manufacturing industry,unlike Gardner.
In which case the point is the amount of both previously loyal NA Gardner users ‘and’ non NA Gardner users who didn’t choose to take up the turbo Gardner option choosing one of the other turbo options instead.Bewick obviously being one.Not those who did.Which leaves the question why in that case.
coomsey:
Carryfast:
There are some interesting details in CM archives which might help to blow away some myths and misconceptions concerning the supposed fuel consumtion invincibility of NA Gardner powered vehicles v turbo Rolls etc in terms of fuel consumption and a surprise to me,that in fact obviously enlightened customers in that regard,were actually putting pressure on manufacturers to move away from NA Gardners,including the 8 wheeler market sector,as early as 1977.The result being information within a 1977 CM article giving a road test figure of a Rolls 265 powered Foden 8 wheeler,having also stated that spec already being called for by customer demand at that time,which had been specifically geared by its operator for motorway work,and as such returned a consumption of 8.7 mpg at an ‘average’ speed of 53 mph.Which puts the 240 Gardner 1972 record of 7.5 mpg overall into perspective or for that matter the 7.65 mpg of the 8LXC powered SA 401 admittedly at 32t v 30t.Bearing in mind that given a bit lower gearing Foden 8 wheeler probably would have made 8 mpg overall not just in its specified motorway element.
I,m beginning to see the light C, thank heavens.
Gardner not victim of their success but being unable to give better mpg than say RR or Cu, surprised I was convinced that more bhp less mpg but obviously technology ruled. Customers weren,t daft they knew what motors gave best mpg/return for their money n followed their wallet. Gardner then because of management reluctance to charge their engines then playing catch up with the added customer perception of reliability issues were nailed then. Would I be wrong that management would have the mind set that they had waiting list n were invincible like car/motorbike industries ?
Up till now I thought Gardner had been the victims of the nasty under cutting foreigners but it appears that this may not be the case. Paul
The key is torque not power.Which translates as more torque = more power at lower engine speeds.Which means more work done quicker for the same if not better fuel consumption.In this case both the Rolls 265 and even moreso the E290 could kill an NA 240,let alone a 180,Gardner in terms of torque.
I think dealership backup is up there. Daf is 5 minutes down the road from our yard but expensive parts we find and silly faults. Our other two trucks are Isuzu and MAN, the Izusu was new the MAN secondhand. Impressed with both but the local MAN/Isuzu dealer is Cordwallis and they are hopeless. Hopeless being very polite. Our MAN came as an ex rental poverty spec motor from LC Vehicles and my boss is more impressed with the service from a hire firm flogging off basic trucks than two main dealers selling new. We have Rygor ten minutes away but Mercs have a reputation around here for having long waiting times for spares. Scania about half hour away but I don’t get the Scania hype and find them a tarts’ motor, and the boss doesn’t like their price premiums.
Iveco? Who cares.