There isn’t an easy answer to this, there isn’t a one size fits all. It is not a simple case of going for the vehicle which will get from A to B quickest, nor the one which will use the least fuel, not the one with the greatest payload. It will depend on the terrain in which you intend to operate - Central London is vastly different to the Peak District as are the Fenlands - motorway, A roads or rural lanes. It depends on whether you will be going off road or not, whether the load will bulk out before weighing out. What will be the average distance from A to B etc. If operation has opening hours time constrants at each end, however attractive might be the vehicle which could potentially cover the distance between plant and tip in 9 hrs for the 3 round trips per day, it is no more profitable in operation than the slower vehicle if the tip closes for the day before it would arrive for the third load. It potentially ends up like the slower vehicle in being able to do just the one short extra rounder to a more local destination.
Interesting debate!!
On the Gardner/ ERF front At Harris Road Services (TDG) in the 80’s I had given up purchasing ERF on quality and reliability, when they - the factory came along with a Gardner 240 turbo charged to 325 I think??for a long term trial, so we put it on a Salt contract tanker with a very good driver who kept meticulous mpg records etc - that vehicle did over 13mpg constantly - ERF gave us the motor in the end and we purchased 17 L10’s ■■■■■■■■ which I have to say we’re very good at 38ton - only one engine failed and they Replaced the engine overnight!! Never got to know what the real issue was but I guess they were testing the engine in fleet On the hoof?? Switched to Daf again due to quality. There was magor differences in overall vehicle total running costs annually.
My nxt real experience on fleet operating was at a Pets at Home with a fleet of Daf CF and a few Volvo - we were pulling double deckers and about 34tons at the beginning, with some restructuring of the decking we increase pallet carrying from 44 to 52 pallets - this brought the ave weight to nearer 44tons. Ave fleet Kpl was 2.1.
I was never really happy with the DAF CF’s that were con contract maintainence but this was more about dealer performance than anything really - we were running in the end 24hrs x 6 days with some 7 days - they never got cold. The Volvo and service were exerlent with good fuel KPL at about 2.6
When it was time for fleet renewal - we trialed many makes including Renault Premium( a Volvo with a Renault cab) this was streets ahead on KPL - so much against my inner feelings (I preferred the Volvo both on quality and service) Renault was the way we went. With modification to a slopping front roof on the double deckers, some serious driver training and a fuel bonus system we took our overall weekly KPL fleet average from 2.1 to 3.2. This is serious money on the type of weekly fleet mileage we were doing weekly, the other thing we did was to reduce the contract period from 5 to 2 years with contract maintainence - THis also brought magor finacial savings.
Regarding the fitment of Gardner versus Rolls/Perkins or ■■■■■■■ it must also be considered that even when they were available again after their ‘industrial problems’ a Gardner engine was far more expensive to specify in a Foden/ERF/Sed-Ak/ Leyland chassis than the other options. Yes there was a substantial weight saving of around 5cwt but I doubt that this was enough to offset the higher purchase price, especially when their competitors engines were returning reasonable fuel returns by that time. Gardner spare parts were not cheap either of course and neither were Rolls, ■■■■■■■ parts I know little about apart from the L10’s.
Pete.
Kenb:
Interesting debate!!
On the Gardner/ ERF front At Harris Road Services (TDG) in the 80’s I had given up purchasing ERF on quality and reliability, when they - the factory came along with a Gardner 240 turbo charged to 325 I think??for a long term trial, so we put it on a Salt contract tanker with a very good driver who kept meticulous mpg records etc - that vehicle did over 13mpg constantly - ERF gave us the motor in the end and we purchased 17 L10’s ■■■■■■■■ which I have to say we’re very good at 38ton - only one engine failed and they Replaced the engine overnight!! Never got to know what the real issue was but I guess they were testing the engine in fleet On the hoof?? Switched to Daf again due to quality. There was magor differences in overall vehicle total running costs annually.
My nxt real experience on fleet operating was at a Pets at Home with a fleet of Daf CF and a few Volvo - we were pulling double deckers and about 34tons at the beginning, with some restructuring of the decking we increase pallet carrying from 44 to 52 pallets - this brought the ave weight to nearer 44tons. Ave fleet Kpl was 2.1.
I was never really happy with the DAF CF’s that were con contract maintainence but this was more about dealer performance than anything really - we were running in the end 24hrs x 6 days with some 7 days - they never got cold. The Volvo and service were exerlent with good fuel KPL at about 2.6
When it was time for fleet renewal - we trialed many makes including Renault Premium( a Volvo with a Renault cab) this was streets ahead on KPL - so much against my inner feelings (I preferred the Volvo both on quality and service) Renault was the way we went. With modification to a slopping front roof on the double deckers, some serious driver training and a fuel bonus system we took our overall weekly KPL fleet average from 2.1 to 3.2. This is serious money on the type of weekly fleet mileage we were doing weekly, the other thing we did was to reduce the contract period from 5 to 2 years with contract maintainence - THis also brought magor finacial savings.
buying motors on a whim bad then K, more of a scientific affair. Is there or ever been a fleet or O D go under for picking wrong motor
windrush:
Regarding the fitment of Gardner versus Rolls/Perkins or ■■■■■■■ it must also be considered that even when they were available again after their ‘industrial problems’ a Gardner engine was far more expensive to specify in a Foden/ERF/Sed-Ak/ Leyland chassis than the other options. Yes there was a substantial weight saving of around 5cwt but I doubt that this was enough to offset the higher purchase price, especially when their competitors engines were returning reasonable fuel returns by that time. Gardner spare parts were not cheap either of course and neither were Rolls, ■■■■■■■ parts I know little about apart from the L10’s.Pete.
The initial purchase price of a Gardner was a lot more as you said than that of a ■■■■■■■ or Rolls Royce but the overall fuel efficiency and longevity out weighed that
Also Gardner spare parts were considerably a lot cheaper than that of ■■■■■■■ or Rolls Royce
We also ran 2 Seddon Atkinson 401s on a particular contract fitted with the 6LYT these were bought with weight in mind and they weighed nearly 500kg than a equivalent ■■■■■■■ 320 powered 401
gazsa401:
windrush:
Regarding the fitment of Gardner versus Rolls/Perkins or ■■■■■■■ it must also be considered that even when they were available again after their ‘industrial problems’ a Gardner engine was far more expensive to specify in a Foden/ERF/Sed-Ak/ Leyland chassis than the other options. Yes there was a substantial weight saving of around 5cwt but I doubt that this was enough to offset the higher purchase price, especially when their competitors engines were returning reasonable fuel returns by that time. Gardner spare parts were not cheap either of course and neither were Rolls, ■■■■■■■ parts I know little about apart from the L10’s.Pete.
The initial purchase price of a Gardner was a lot more as you said than that of a ■■■■■■■ or Rolls Royce but the overall fuel efficiency and longevity out weighed that
Also Gardner spare parts were considerably a lot cheaper than that of ■■■■■■■ or Rolls Royce
We also ran 2 Seddon Atkinson 401s on a particular contract fitted with the 6LYT these were bought with weight in mind and they weighed nearly 500kg than a equivalent ■■■■■■■ 320 powered 401
I’ve found a typical buying decision made between Rolls 265 v turbo Gardner in the day.
If I’ve read it right the cost difference between Gardner v Rolls was around just an extra £500 quid for the Gardner against a chassis price of around £8,400 and the Rolls’ more or less 8 mpg figure would have marginally beat that of the turbo Gardner as expected with a marginal torque advantage.What is certain is that in both cases we’ve got a significant torque and resulting productivety advantage over the 180 at least,for a fuel consumption of up to around 8 mpg what’s not to like. 
Carryfast:
gazsa401:
windrush:
Regarding the fitment of Gardner versus Rolls/Perkins or ■■■■■■■ it must also be considered that even when they were available again after their ‘industrial problems’ a Gardner engine was far more expensive to specify in a Foden/ERF/Sed-Ak/ Leyland chassis than the other options. Yes there was a substantial weight saving of around 5cwt but I doubt that this was enough to offset the higher purchase price, especially when their competitors engines were returning reasonable fuel returns by that time. Gardner spare parts were not cheap either of course and neither were Rolls, ■■■■■■■ parts I know little about apart from the L10’s.Pete.
The initial purchase price of a Gardner was a lot more as you said than that of a ■■■■■■■ or Rolls Royce but the overall fuel efficiency and longevity out weighed that
Also Gardner spare parts were considerably a lot cheaper than that of ■■■■■■■ or Rolls Royce
We also ran 2 Seddon Atkinson 401s on a particular contract fitted with the 6LYT these were bought with weight in mind and they weighed nearly 500kg than a equivalent ■■■■■■■ 320 powered 401I’ve found a typical buying decision made between Rolls 265 v turbo Gardner in the day.
If I’ve read it right the cost difference between Gardner v Rolls was around just an extra £500 quid for the Gardner against a chassis price of around £8,400 and the Rolls’ more or less 8 mpg figure would have marginally beat that of the turbo Gardner as expected with a marginal torque advantage.What is certain is that in both cases we’ve got a significant torque and resulting productivety advantage over the 180 at least,for a fuel consumption of up to around 8 mpg what’s not to like.
A HIDDEN BENIFFIT!!
When a Gardner comes to end of its life it had a £3000 plus cash back for sale to the Far East. Didn’t really matter what condition - Just the engine nothing else! I was amazed when this first happen to be in 1982 when I started to clear out some of the well past sell day ERF s at Harris
Ken b
No matter what the vehicle there is always the manufacturers MPG
and what the vehicle achieves in its normal operating environment
whether it is a Truck Van Car etc.
I have always thought the most important factor in
MPG and the life of the vehicle was the Driver.
You could always tell the good drivers when viewing the Profit & Loss
Accounts.
Providing the operator was getting the right rate for the job and not
do what a lot of operators did and cut the rate to get the work.
Come on gents this is the modern age. Tipper operators don’t look at payloads and MPG, they set up a Facebook page and post lots of pictures of their trucks parked up in their yard, washed, polished and tarted with spotlights amd Super badges. Well we don’t but we’re old fashioned.
Anecdotal cos I havn,t the technical knowledge.
N Leic,s in the 70s mostly tippers , coal granite clay, from memory 70/80% of motors Erf,Akky n Foden. Rest Leyland group with the odd Guy Seddon Ford Bedford. Of the big 3 all were Gardner I never recall seeing any other, although there must have been some,so even with Gs industrial/waiting list it seems operators would hang on till they got one. This was to the extent that over an 8 yr period on tippers n different operators I only drove Gs, the one exception Trev Glover all Foden one with NA RR, never asked him why, he had numerous after her, back to Gs.The only foreign ones An F88 Emmersons n an F86 Meynells 78 ish
So I,m assuming pre turbo era ,for tippers, there were one choice to the point they,d hang on rather than fit Cu or RR. Now however , for tipper work at least, it seems no one manufacturer or engine rules the roost
Muckaway:
Come on gents this is the modern age. Tipper operators don’t look at payloads and MPG, they set up a Facebook page and post lots of pictures of their trucks parked up in their yard, washed, polished and tarted with spotlights amd Super badges. Well we don’t but we’re old fashioned.
The less means of easily identifying your truck the better in my opinion, no signwriting plus plenty of ■■■■ on your numberplate for when you slipped through weight limits! 
Pete.
Like Windrush I had the somewhat dubious pleasure of keeping six and eight wheel tippers going in the days when this market sector was principally dominated by the home grown manufacturers.This was mainly in workshops which only saw the customer’s vehicle when he had a problem which he either could not overcome himself, or quite frequently did not feel like doing, preferring instead to have someone else suffer the pain - particularly in an era when manufacturers were competing with each other to advertise simply unrealistic repair times. The Gardner time for an in-chassis overhaul as per their instructions for example, would have been achievable IF the tools and equipment were available to remove block and heads in one lump, and renew pistons without disturbing the bottom end; afterwards reassembling with a service exchange block and heads. Without the facilities this was a different task entirely. Both methods however necessitated accessing the evil cambox oil drain O ring. Strangely enough just about the only special tools kept were the obstruction spanners for the block and the head nuts. Although the quarter whitter inside the head doors needed a CAV 551 made effort to undo. With the heads off one had to be mighty careful not to drop a water tube down one of the pushrod holes in the block, because if one did then there would be a lot of swearing to follow.
Without a doubt the ■■■■■■■ 12 and 14 litre engines were the easier to overhaul between the two, but they were generally more of a pain to deal with if the operator had not maintained them well, or even just their major servicing requirements. The Gardner’s vital often-ignored idiosynchratic major service requirements - timing chain check/adjustment, rack linkage check/adjustment - were compensated for by the ease of filter changes and getting the thing running again in contrast to the ■■■■■■■■ What the Yanks call a ‘top end set’ was a knuckle bruising mission to perform on a ■■■■■■■■ with the radiator fan or the cowling trying to remove sections of skin from the arms as one struggled to rotate the engine to the A, B and C timing marks in order to set the injectors and valves - in itself a comparatively finickity operation - only very slightly out would see a noticeable effect and a repeat performance necessary. This would be one of the first tasks necessary to investigate performance or emission issues, particularly if more sophisticated diagnostic equipment was not available. Decompressor levers on a Gardner and priming levers on the injector pump made a similar operation much easier. The ■■■■■■■ filter changes either needed a very long bar and strap wrench and/or a careful cleaning job because the canister or bowl was mounted under the wheel arch and covered in road dirt. Then came the job of getting it running, for some reason clean fuel to top up the filter was often a scarce commodity, though even with a full filter the necessary churning on the starter frequently required recourse to the battery booster - if one could find an extension lead.
I don’t recall ever having to change a Gardner head gasket - the things picked up a piston before blowing the gasket if they got too hot. The ■■■■■■■ was a different story, like the AEC AV590 it would suffer a gas blow to atmosphere or a dribble down the side of the block. Cue battles with leaking top water rail O rings, jammed fuel rail connections and the back breaking job of torquing the heads down to 330 or 440 lb ft - not that easy in a tilt cab - but a double ■■■ break job in a fixed cab ( or give it to the boy to do as “education”).
The Rolls engine was more akin to a conventional simpler layout, but plagued with manifold and injector stud breakages and the notorious seized - in - situ injector or the injector sleeve weep. Like the ■■■■■■■ it was a wet liner engine so prone to inadequate cooling system maintenance resulting in liner cavitation and a strip down to rectify.
Directly referring to MPG, upon hopefully which Bewick will concur, the Gardner engine’s fuel consumption was considerably less affected by a clog happy driver than was in particular the ■■■■■■■ E 290. Such a driver could ruin the fuel consumption of a vehicle so powered. The design of the Gardner governor was such that it was in complete control of how much torque was developed . It didn’t matter how hard the driver shoved his foot into the floor or tried to rev the engine, the engine was only going to overcome its load and no more.
coomsey:
Anecdotal cos I havn,t the technical knowledge.
N Leic,s in the 70s mostly tippers , coal granite clay, from memory 70/80% of motors Erf,Akky n Foden. Rest Leyland group with the odd Guy Seddon Ford Bedford. Of the big 3 all were Gardner I never recall seeing any other, although there must have been some,so even with Gs industrial/waiting list it seems operators would hang on till they got one. This was to the extent that over an 8 yr period on tippers n different operators I only drove Gs, the one exception Trev Glover all Foden one with NA RR, never asked him why, he had numerous after her, back to Gs.The only foreign ones An F88 Emmersons n an F86 Meynells 78 ish
So I,m assuming pre turbo era ,for tippers, there were one choice to the point they,d hang on rather than fit Cu or RR. Now however , for tipper work at least, it seems no one manufacturer or engine rules the roost
It could probably be taken for granted that pre 1980 the NA Gardner powered 8 wheeler was a big player.However I’m wondering if we had a local regional variation on that down south in which it was almost as,if not more,likely that it would be a Scammell Routeman,or Leyland 680 powered Foden,or Leyland/AEC Ergo.Or sometimes Volvo F86 which I think from memory was the preferred choice of Redland Brick at least.IE it would be fair to say that Leyland were also a big player in that market sector with Foden as always rightly being well regarded regardless of what they were powered by.
cav551:
Directly referring to MPG, upon hopefully which Bewick will concur, the Gardner engine’s fuel consumption was considerably less affected by a clog happy driver than was in particular the ■■■■■■■ E 290. Such a driver could ruin the fuel consumption of a vehicle so powered. The design of the Gardner governor was such that it was in complete control of how much torque was developed . It didn’t matter how hard the driver shoved his foot into the floor or tried to rev the engine, the engine was only going to overcome its load and no more.
Realistically the NA Gardner just wasn’t capable to producing much torque or power regardless of how much fuel was chucked into it.So might as well cut the fuel supply to what the engine can use.Which,with the exception of its reputed thermal efficiency,seems to be the key to the NA Gardner’s,maybe up to a point,undeserved fuel consumption reputation.Also bearing in mind that the Gardner was all about spending as much time as possible in the relative higher reaches of its rev range,to utilise its meagre power output,in the absence of any decent torque output in the lower range.It’s obvious that transferring that driving style,to an engine which needs to be driven based on the exact opposite mantra and,as in the case of all first generation big power engines,that produced within a very narrow rev range,will cause havoc with the fuel figures.While it seems obvious that issue was soon sorted out very early into the changeover period by driver training/advice and/or familiarity.
Carryfast:
cav551:
Directly referring to MPG, upon hopefully which Bewick will concur, the Gardner engine’s fuel consumption was considerably less affected by a clog happy driver than was in particular the ■■■■■■■ E 290. Such a driver could ruin the fuel consumption of a vehicle so powered. The design of the Gardner governor was such that it was in complete control of how much torque was developed . It didn’t matter how hard the driver shoved his foot into the floor or tried to rev the engine, the engine was only going to overcome its load and no more.Realistically the NA Gardner just wasn’t capable to producing much torque or power regardless of how much fuel was chucked into it.So might as well cut the fuel supply to what the engine can use.Which,with the exception of its reputed thermal efficiency,seems to be the key to the NA Gardner’s,maybe up to a point,undeserved fuel consumption reputation.Also bearing in mind that the Gardner was all about spending as much time as possible in the relative higher reaches of its rev range,to utilise its meagre power output,in the absence of any decent torque output in the lower range.It’s obvious that transferring that driving style,to an engine which needs to be driven based on the exact opposite mantra and,as in the case of all first generation big power engines,that produced within a very narrow rev range,will cause havoc with the fuel figures.While it seems obvious that issue was soon sorted out very early into the changeover period by driver training/advice and/or familiarity.
Total lack of understanding.
Carryfast:
coomsey:
Anecdotal cos I havn,t the technical knowledge.
N Leic,s in the 70s mostly tippers , coal granite clay, from memory 70/80% of motors Erf,Akky n Foden. Rest Leyland group with the odd Guy Seddon Ford Bedford. Of the big 3 all were Gardner I never recall seeing any other, although there must have been some,so even with Gs industrial/waiting list it seems operators would hang on till they got one. This was to the extent that over an 8 yr period on tippers n different operators I only drove Gs, the one exception Trev Glover all Foden one with NA RR, never asked him why, he had numerous after her, back to Gs.The only foreign ones An F88 Emmersons n an F86 Meynells 78 ish
So I,m assuming pre turbo era ,for tippers, there were one choice to the point they,d hang on rather than fit Cu or RR. Now however , for tipper work at least, it seems no one manufacturer or engine rules the roostIt could probably be taken for granted that pre 1980 the NA Gardner powered 8 wheeler was a big player.However I’m wondering if we had a local regional variation on that down south in which it was almost as,if not more,likely that it would be a Scammell Routeman,or Leyland 680 powered Foden,or Leyland/AEC Ergo.Or sometimes Volvo F86 which I think from memory was the preferred choice of Redland Brick at least.IE it would be fair to say that Leyland were also a big player in that market sector with Foden as always rightly being well regarded regardless of what they were powered by.
Strange that you should say it C. From memory again n though further back it seems to me n appears to be backed up by evidence on this forum that most if not all the Erf,Akky,Foden men, around here, were running if not all mostly Leyland kit ,late 50/late 60s. Commers , Dodge and Scammel were also well used. Makes you wonder why the shift to the big 3. MPG ? Regs ?
Now having said that it also seems to me but with no reliable proof that a lot of brick wagons were Leyland, Redland, Butterly being some of them n remained so more or less regardless and that brickyard/concrete n associated manufacturer hauliers n general hauliers in Leics n south of used more exotic lorries, IE ■■■■■■■ RR n Foreigners.This as no basis in truth just what I perceived at the time as a 10yr old co pilot. Travelling into London for scrap back 60s in my head Leyland/Scammel ruled, on my theory you would say northern motors for up north southern motors south,but why Leyland
I ask Qs on here but very rare I get ans, but I wonder what regional differences were n why.Did the tipper operators around here buy on reccomendation from one another 50/60/70s hence the very definite Leyland then Gardner split. Cheers Paul
cav551:
Carryfast:
cav551:
Directly referring to MPG, upon hopefully which Bewick will concur, the Gardner engine’s fuel consumption was considerably less affected by a clog happy driver than was in particular the ■■■■■■■ E 290. Such a driver could ruin the fuel consumption of a vehicle so powered. The design of the Gardner governor was such that it was in complete control of how much torque was developed . It didn’t matter how hard the driver shoved his foot into the floor or tried to rev the engine, the engine was only going to overcome its load and no more.Realistically the NA Gardner just wasn’t capable to producing much torque or power regardless of how much fuel was chucked into it.So might as well cut the fuel supply to what the engine can use.Which,with the exception of its reputed thermal efficiency,seems to be the key to the NA Gardner’s,maybe up to a point,undeserved fuel consumption reputation.Also bearing in mind that the Gardner was all about spending as much time as possible in the relative higher reaches of its rev range,to utilise its meagre power output,in the absence of any decent torque output in the lower range.It’s obvious that transferring that driving style,to an engine which needs to be driven based on the exact opposite mantra and,as in the case of all first generation big power engines,that produced within a very narrow rev range,will cause havoc with the fuel figures.While it seems obvious that issue was soon sorted out very early into the changeover period by driver training/advice and/or familiarity.
Total lack of understanding.
You’re going to need to run the 180 at around 1,800 rpm to get 180 hp’s worth of work out of it.The E290 is putting out more than 200 hp at 1,300 rpm.Which part have I got wrong.
cav551:
Carryfast:
cav551:
Directly referring to MPG, upon hopefully which Bewick will concur, the Gardner engine’s fuel consumption was considerably less affected by a clog happy driver than was in particular the ■■■■■■■ E 290. Such a driver could ruin the fuel consumption of a vehicle so powered. The design of the Gardner governor was such that it was in complete control of how much torque was developed . It didn’t matter how hard the driver shoved his foot into the floor or tried to rev the engine, the engine was only going to overcome its load and no more.Realistically the NA Gardner just wasn’t capable to producing much torque or power regardless of how much fuel was chucked into it.So might as well cut the fuel supply to what the engine can use.Which,with the exception of its reputed thermal efficiency,seems to be the key to the NA Gardner’s,maybe up to a point,undeserved fuel consumption reputation.Also bearing in mind that the Gardner was all about spending as much time as possible in the relative higher reaches of its rev range,to utilise its meagre power output,in the absence of any decent torque output in the lower range.It’s obvious that transferring that driving style,to an engine which needs to be driven based on the exact opposite mantra and,as in the case of all first generation big power engines,that produced within a very narrow rev range,will cause havoc with the fuel figures.While it seems obvious that issue was soon sorted out very early into the changeover period by driver training/advice and/or familiarity.
Total lack of understanding.
I fear to tread here for some reason C n Cav but I,ll give you my view on the matter, that is foot flat to the floor regardless of engine n suspect all drivers were same n would remain so unless gaffer threatened em. If a company didn,t monitor fuel, on a driver to driver basis, then all theoretical fuel consumption figures went out the window. Please don,t set about me I,m at a funny age you know. cheers Paul