coomsey:
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
Coincidentally the previous example I posted of an operator deciding on turbo Rolls rather than turbo Gardner certainly seemed to be a case of that choice being based on local reccomendation and assuming that I’d have ever started up doing local rigid operations I’d have either chosen turbo Rolls powered Foden partly based on local and previous employer example .Or possibly even E290 powered,just based on personal choice,in which case I guess that I might have started off a local example of my own which others might have then followed.Bearing in mind that the whole concept of trade press magazines like CM etc was to provide others with examples of the choices made by others and how such a potential buy could perform in service for them.
coomsey:
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
Coincidentally the previous example I posted of an operator deciding on turbo Rolls rather than turbo Gardner certainly seemed to be a case of that choice being based on local reccomendation and assuming that I’d have ever started up doing local rigid operations I’d have either chosen turbo Rolls powered Foden partly based on local and previous employer example .Or possibly even E290 powered,just based on personal choice,in which case I guess that I might have started off a local example of my own which others might have then followed.Bearing in mind that the whole concept of trade press magazines like CM etc was to provide others with examples of the choices made by others and how such a potential buy could perform in service for them.
I’m still waiting for your list of pre turbocharged Gardner users who in your own words “massive proportions” chose not to purchase Turbocharged Gardner’s and instead purchased Turbocharged Rolls and ■■■■■■■ engines
Plus your own experience of working for operators who ran Gardner engines of both guises
coomsey:
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
It’s more a case of engine speed management in the form of correctly short shifting and downshifting at the right point to make use of the torque while avoiding the use of the power in the higher engine speed range.The problem with the NA Gardner being that there wasn’t much point in the finer points of short shifting upshifts and letting it lug before downshifts because there wasn’t any decent torque there at the bottom end to let it lug down to or keep to on upshifts. While being absolutely crucial to fuel consumption in the case of the modern turbo.While in either case they both ideally needed a decent gearbox with plenty of ratios to keep the engine in its optimum band either as close to peak power as possible in the case of the gutless NA Gardner or peak torque in the case of the turbo ■■■■■■■ etc.On that note it’s surprising how much fuel and time was wasted in either case in the form of 6 or even 9 speed gearboxes.When you’d think that 12 or 13 would/should have been standard fit.
gazsa401:
I’m still waiting for your list of pre turbocharged Gardner users who in your own words “massive proportions” chose not to purchase Turbocharged Gardner’s and instead purchased Turbocharged Rolls and ■■■■■■■ engines
Plus your own experience of working for operators who ran Gardner engines of both guises
I know better than to keep getting into pointless arguments with other posters.If you think that the previous loyal NA Gardner customer base then translated into more or less the same loyal customer base for turbo Gardners great that’s your view.What we do know is that didn’t seem to fit Bewick’s example for one and to my knowledge at least one large operator I knew of.Together with the example I posted in CM archives of at least one operator choosing Rolls 265 over turbo Gardner in large part based on reccomendation and rightly or wrongly fears regarding durability and not the extra 500 quid on the bill.
A NA Gardner engine in good condition came into its own around the 1100-1300 rpm range, it would pull and pull forever on hills at those rpm but a lot of drivers used to high revving AEC’s etc just put their foot flat to the floor at around 2000rpm and went for it big style! The driver could never ‘beat the governor’ though, it always had total control. The worst two things you could do was run them in from new or let them overrun down hills, on dismantling you would find marks where the valves had been lightly touching the pistons. Sometimes though the lock washer securing the camshaft chainwheel bolt failed and the bolt loosened leading to the chainwheel moving slightly on its woodruff key, that also resulting in valves and pistons kissing one another.
windrush:
A NA Gardner engine in good condition came into its own around the 1100-1300 rpm range, it would pull and pull forever on hills at those rpm but a lot of drivers used to high revving AEC’s etc just put their foot flat to the floor at around 2000rpm and went for it big style!
Pete.
Bearing in mind its torque figures even 1,300 rpm would have only given around 120 hp at that point in the range let alone 1,100 rpm reducing that to around 110 hp.In which case it depends on the definition of ‘pull’ when divided by 30t gross.No surprise in that case that most drivers would want to keep it around its 1,850 rpm power peak to actually keep the thing moving which itself only meant the difference between 6 hp per t v 3-4 hp per t but a significant improvement all the same.Make no mistake around 500 lb/ft max isn’t an engine made for lugging.
gazsa401:
I’m still waiting for your list of pre turbocharged Gardner users who in your own words “massive proportions” chose not to purchase Turbocharged Gardner’s and instead purchased Turbocharged Rolls and ■■■■■■■ engines
Plus your own experience of working for operators who ran Gardner engines of both guises
I know better than to keep getting into pointless arguments with other posters.If you think that the previous loyal NA Gardner customer base then translated into more or less the same loyal customer base for turbo Gardners great that’s your view.What we do know is that didn’t seem to fit Bewick’s example for one and to my knowledge at least one large operator I knew of.Together with the example I posted in CM archives of at least one operator choosing Rolls 265 over turbo Gardner in large part based on reccomendation and rightly or wrongly fears regarding durability and not the extra 500 quid on the bill.
Now come on “CF” you just love getting into, and prolonging, pointless arguments but I can tell you that the NA Gardner was the most reliable and economical engine I ever operated, OK the chassis it was fitted to may have been past their sell by date but by the time they ( Gardners) had started to Turbo their engines I had moved on to Scania and to a lesser extent Volvo, and am I glad I guessed correctly that Gardners time “in the sun” was over . Now ■■■■■■■ as far as I was concerned were every bit as reliable as Gardner but they couldn’t match the Gardner economy ( unless I was driving ) but as I was unable to get my hands on Gardner engined chassis when I wanted I had to opt for ■■■■■■■ ! But I never considered RR now they were crap ! Cheers Bewick.
Bewick:
I can tell you that the NA Gardner was the most reliable and economical engine I ever operated, OK the chassis it was fitted to may have been past their sell by date but by the time they ( Gardners) had started to Turbo their engines I had moved on to Scania and to a lesser extent Volvo, and am I glad I guessed correctly that Gardners time “in the sun” was over . Now ■■■■■■■ as far as I was concerned were every bit as reliable as Gardner but they couldn’t match the Gardner economy ( unless I was driving ) but as I was unable to get my hands on Gardner engined chassis when I wanted I had to opt for ■■■■■■■ ! But I never considered RR now they were crap ! Cheers Bewick.
The issue with gazsa was just about the choice between turbo Gardner v the rest in which history suggests the turbo Gardner had nothing like the loyal customer acceptance of the previous NA generation including your own case ?.IE you could have had SA 401 with turbo Gardner and I’m guessing that the engine was a big deal deal breaker in that regard ?.
As for turbo RR my own personal view,in part based on experience,was that it was second to none.Also seemingly confirmed by the comments of sadly passed Saviem previously ?.
As for NA Gardner durability,like its fuel consumption,nothing to write home about considering the low stressed nature of its design mantra and resulting output levels.That mantra arguably being what finished the firm when the customer base rightly realised that they needed at least a reliable and proven 200 hp + produced at less than 1,500 rpm not 100 hp +.It’s just that you seem to have gone for turbo powered foreign import rather than turbo Rolls or ■■■■■■■ powered Brit in that regard.
I have to agree about the RR dennis , the one i got saddled with about '89 went like a rocket but blew head gaskets for fun and supped more water than a carthorse . dave
rigsby:
I have to agree about the RR dennis , the one i got saddled with about '89 went like a rocket but blew head gaskets for fun and supped more water than a carthorse . dave
Amazing then that our thirty plus fleet of Rollers gave hardly any problems, some were almost 18 years old when sold on?
coomsey:
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
Coincidentally the previous example I posted of an operator deciding on turbo Rolls rather than turbo Gardner certainly seemed to be a case of that choice being based on local reccomendation and assuming that I’d have ever started up doing local rigid operations I’d have either chosen turbo Rolls powered Foden partly based on local and previous employer example .Or possibly even E290 powered,just based on personal choice,in which case I guess that I might have started off a local example of my own which others might have then followed.Bearing in mind that the whole concept of trade press magazines like CM etc was to provide others with examples of the choices made by others and how such a potential buy could perform in service for them.
C your spot on, bet you ain,t read that for a while you don,t half get some stick wrong or right who knows not me. without previous knowledge of anything n without the net take a stab in the dark, or better ask your peers. They always know best, n always will.Tipper guys went for Leyland n then Gardners, n then RR Cu n turbo n so on . Must have gone on since the invention of the wheel. Computer age now but I feel still not a done deal. Can it ever be ? I,m going for a no, and hoping to God I,m right. cheers Paul
Torque /power to weight/ lbs to sq inch/ratios to lots of gears n so on. Most if not all,probably all, my gaffers were either lorry drivers or sons of, they couldn,t possibly hold a conversation about all this malarkey. Through experience they knew which motors made em money, if they,d got a good few motors they might possibly try a different one,but almost certainly wouldn,t if there were any chance it would cost em.If it were in industry mags which they may have read they n me as well would still go on gut instincts until they were proved wrong, seems good to me. What do you all reckon ? Paul
We’re back to being busy fools again, I’m sure Dennis will agree with me here, but the real reason for the rise in HP was the O licence.
Any Tom, ■■■■ or Harry could get into the game and they did, a realistic rate for a realistic day’s work was suddenly getting the burning a candle at both ends treatment.
The rate cutters came along and slashed the rates, then realised they had to do a few more loads to make a couple of quid and the race to the bottom began.
newmercman:
We’re back to being busy fools again, I’m sure Dennis will agree with me here, but the real reason for the rise in HP was the O licence.
Any Tom, ■■■■ or Harry could get into the game and they did, a realistic rate for a realistic day’s work was suddenly getting the burning a candle at both ends treatment.
The rate cutters came along and slashed the rates, then realised they had to do a few more loads to make a couple of quid and the race to the bottom began.
Firstly we know that there was legislation applying to all new vehicles registered after 1972 that imposed a 6 hp per t minimum.With 10 hp per t being arguably ideal which is more or less where we are now.While it’s equally clear that legislative move had nothing to do with getting more loads done but keeping the traffic moving without being brought to a crawl on hills etc.The obvious next move being all about do we want that power to weight ratio to be produced in the form of more torque and hence at around 1,200-1,500 rpm or by having to hold the thing against the guvnor at peak power at 1,850 rpm.
The fact that such progress also increased productivety and efficiency in the form of more loads done for similar,if not less,fuel cost surely being a bonus not a liability to the industry,all else being equal.
newmercman:
We’re back to being busy fools again, I’m sure Dennis will agree with me here, but the real reason for the rise in HP was the O licence.
Any Tom, ■■■■ or Harry could get into the game and they did, a realistic rate for a realistic day’s work was suddenly getting the burning a candle at both ends treatment.
The rate cutters came along and slashed the rates, then realised they had to do a few more loads to make a couple of quid and the race to the bottom began.
Much food for thought there N. Would I be correct to say the removal of the licencing system,being good or bad for operators being left out of it, resulted in higher mpg ? the collapse of british lorry manufacturing ? Paul
coomsey:
…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
This sums it up for me. Regardless of the finer points, I guess most drivers would go as fast as they liked, regardless of the gaffer’s fuel bill. Atkinson submitted their 8LXB-engined Borderer to Commercial Motor for testing with a geared top speed of 58mph. I used to wonder why they did not put a higher top gear in it, so that it was more economical on the motorway parts of the route. The answer is that 58mph at 1800rpm is much more economical than 68mph at 1800rpm, and that is what Atkinson’s customers wanted to buy. The CM tester might obey the speed limit, especially with the manufacturer’s salesman sat next to him, but why would anyone else care? The only reliable way of keeping the engine speed at 1300rpm or whatever is a mechanical governor effective at that engine speed. The low-revving, high torque engines only realised their full potential for improved economy after the introduction of speed limiters.
newmercman:
We’re back to being busy fools again, I’m sure Dennis will agree with me here, but the real reason for the rise in HP was the O licence.
Any Tom, ■■■■ or Harry could get into the game and they did, a realistic rate for a realistic day’s work was suddenly getting the burning a candle at both ends treatment.
The rate cutters came along and slashed the rates, then realised they had to do a few more loads to make a couple of quid and the race to the bottom began.
Much food for thought there N. Would I be correct to say the removal of the licencing system,being good or bad for operators being left out of it, resulted in higher mpg ? the collapse of british lorry manufacturing ? Paul
I wouldn’t go that far, but I would say that it was the start of transport being seen as a commodity rather than a service.
Rates went down, the return load phenomenon started, the extra productivity only benefitted the user of transport, not the provider.
coomsey:
…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
This sums it up for me. Regardless of the finer points, I guess most drivers would go as fast as they liked, regardless of the gaffer’s fuel bill. Atkinson submitted their 8LXB-engined Borderer to Commercial Motor for testing with a geared top speed of 58mph. I used to wonder why they did not put a higher top gear in it, so that it was more economical on the motorway parts of the route. The answer is that 58mph at 1800rpm is much more economical than 68mph at 1800rpm, and that is what Atkinson’s customers wanted to buy. The CM tester might obey the speed limit, especially with the manufacturer’s salesman sat next to him, but why would anyone else care? The only reliable way of keeping the engine speed at 1300rpm or whatever is a mechanical governor effective at that engine speed. The low-revving, high torque engines only realised their full potential for improved economy after the introduction of speed limiters.
Sums it up for me as well. You,ve only got to view “what speed did they go at” topic. It,s human nature n most of us suffer with it,even now if you get put on lorry that does 1/4 mph faster you,ll want to hang onto it. I don,t drive but know many that do, passing on motoroad 0.1 mph faster trying to put foot through the floor, when common sense says just keep behind.
newmercman:
We’re back to being busy fools again, I’m sure Dennis will agree with me here, but the real reason for the rise in HP was the O licence.
Any Tom, ■■■■ or Harry could get into the game and they did, a realistic rate for a realistic day’s work was suddenly getting the burning a candle at both ends treatment.
The rate cutters came along and slashed the rates, then realised they had to do a few more loads to make a couple of quid and the race to the bottom began.
Much food for thought there N. Would I be correct to say the removal of the licencing system,being good or bad for operators being left out of it, resulted in higher mpg ? the collapse of british lorry manufacturing ? Paul
I wouldn’t go that far, but I would say that it was the start of transport being seen as a commodity rather than a service.
Rates went down, the return load phenomenon started, the extra productivity only benefitted the user of transport, not the provider.
Yes N there were many factors that got transport industry where it is today. But wouldn,t it be amazing,to me at least, if the scrapping of licencing was the root cause of the demise of lorry manufacturing in Britain. Some of you guys with such a good knowledge of the industry would be able to sort it. Paul
[zb]
anorak:
This sums it up for me. Regardless of the finer points, I guess most drivers would go as fast as they liked, regardless of the gaffer’s fuel bill. Atkinson submitted their 8LXB-engined Borderer to Commercial Motor for testing with a geared top speed of 58mph. I used to wonder why they did not put a higher top gear in it, so that it was more economical on the motorway parts of the route. The answer is that 58mph at 1800rpm is much more economical than 68mph at 1800rpm, and that is what Atkinson’s customers wanted to buy. The CM tester might obey the speed limit, especially with the manufacturer’s salesman sat next to him, but why would anyone else care? The only reliable way of keeping the engine speed at 1300rpm or whatever is a mechanical governor effective at that engine speed. The low-revving, high torque engines only realised their full potential for improved economy after the introduction of speed limiters.
Firstly unsurprisingly the 8LXB was still lacking in torque compared to Rolls 265 and even moreso E290.In which case the higher torque engines could afford to run with higher gearing at higher speeds combined with more fuel efficient lower engine speeds.To the point where a Rolls 265 or E290 powered truck would have been as,if not more,economical at 60 mph + max as the 8 LXB at 58 mph.As shown by the example of a Rolls 265 powered 8 wheeler managing a motorway consumption 8.7 mpg at an ‘average’ speed of 53 mph given optimised motorway gearing.In which the old 60 mph and sometimes real world 65 mph motorway speeds were arguably also an asset not a liabilty compared to today’s plodding motorway speed regime.
While the idea of derating the E290,governed to 270 for example,was actually an option.Although doing that just removes the advantage of also having the advantage of an even higher reserve of power in the 1,500 + range for more severe terrain especially in the case of European type work.
On that note I’d guess it’s easy to over estimate the level of bad driver discipline.When most drivers would have known that they’ve been entrusted with a more driver management critical piece of kit.But which made the job far easier for the driver and more productive for the guvnor,than the previous NA generation of engines and then drove it accordingly.Bearing in mind that returning silly fuel consumption figures by careless driver management and silly speeds was in no one’s interests.
The driver could never ‘beat the governor’ though, it always had total control. The worst two things you could do was run them in from new or let them overrun down hills, on dismantling you would find marks where the valves had been lightly touching the pistons. Sometimes though the lock washer securing the camshaft chainwheel bolt failed and the bolt loosened leading to the chainwheel moving slightly on its woodruff key, that also resulting in valves and pistons kissing one another. 
but I can tell you that the NA Gardner was the most reliable and economical engine I ever operated, OK the chassis it was fitted to may have been past their sell by date but by the time they ( Gardners) had started to Turbo their engines I had moved on to Scania and to a lesser extent Volvo, and am I glad I guessed correctly that Gardners time “in the sun” was over 
. Now ■■■■■■■ as far as I was concerned were every bit as reliable as Gardner but they couldn’t match the Gardner economy ( unless I was driving 