Just a remark…ERF for sure had intentions with the 7MW (NGC EUROPEAN) to proceed on the continent
and with piggybacking on UK-operators also for the far east. Without being negative but in the far east
Gardner is quite unknown and ■■■■■■■ was known (US) for generators, construction, marine and so on.
.
[zb]
anorak:
Last year, I suggested that the 8LXB engine, with the 7MW cab on top of it, would have been a really strong competitor for the F88 et al. I did not know that it was an actual factory option. Were any built at all?
Not that I know of. You could get a straight-framed, non-heavy duty 5MW-cabbed unit with a Gardner 240, a Rolls 220 or a smaller ■■■■■■■ NH 220 all of which must have reduced the price considerably. Robert
Price is ONE thing but costs per kilometre is something else…
.
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
Last year, I suggested that the 8LXB engine, with the 7MW cab on top of it, would have been a really strong competitor for the F88 et al. I did not know that it was an actual factory option. Were any built at all?I’d guess that the average customer looking for something in the ‘7MW’s’ league wasn’t then going to defeat the object by replacing a 300 + bhp turbocharged 6 cylinder option with a 250 bhp naturally aspirated 8 cylinder engine of similar capacity.Probably to the relief of its lucky drivers in the day.
The popular specification of the early 1970s was to put the biggest cab above a 250bhp engine. The F88, LB110, LP1624/26, TR260, 619T1 etc. all fitted that description, and outsold their 300+bhp brethren many times over.
ERF-Continental:
Just a remark…ERF for sure had intentions with the 7MW (NGC EUROPEAN) to proceed on the continent
and with piggybacking on UK-operators also for the far east. Without being negative but in the far east
Gardner is quite unknown and ■■■■■■■ was known (US) for generators, construction, marine and so on.
That is a very good answer to the question. I could say that, for operations within the boundaries of Europe, the Gardner would be well-supported, given its popularity in boats and vehicles like Auto Miesse. However, I can understand ERF not trying too hard to sell the Gardner engine, given the well-documented supply difficulties.
.
@Anorak…it was a spiral-figure…automiesse was also coping/dealing with delivery problems on gardner
but was a lonesome manufacturer in Belgium when it comes to Gardner.
.
Carryfast:
…It would probably be fair to say that not ditching the Gardner engine option and making the whole sale switch to state of the art US major componentry soon enough,like at least the end of the 1960’s,contributed massively to the damage done to the UK truck manufacturers
Forgive me ‘Carryfast’, I don’t follow TN very often, and don’t know who you are ect, but do you have a ‘downer’ on Gardner engines by any chance?.
Just an observation - every post I seem to read of yours slates them in one way or another.
Is this your attempt at trying to re-write British truck building history as you perceive it or something?.
If not, then credit should be given where it is due.
Hugh Gardner was one of the finest internal combustion engine designers that ever lived. That is an undisputed fact (except I’m guessing by you…), agreed even amongst the engine designers of today. It is born out by the fact that his naturally aspirated engine designs have never been bettered in terms of thermal efficiency, reliability, running life and excellence of build quality. Rolls, Perkins and ■■■■■■■ could not come close to the performance in terms of full life running costs of a Gardner engine in a similar chassis of the day.
The memory and legacy of Hugh Gardner deserves better than this.
His LX series design was a triumph of engineering that stayed in production for 40 years - because there was a strong demand for it. I grant you, the Gardner was outpaced in terms of BHP by virtually everything by the late 1970’s because Gardner had nobody to fill Hugh’s shoes when he retired, and with no designer of his calibre at the helm, the company was destined to eventual failure as the competition intensified.
Let us not forget, a lot of people made a lot of money shifting a lot of tonnage with Gardner’s over those 40 years.
You can call them ‘gaffer’s motors’, but as far as I can recall it was the gaffer that had to earn the money to pay the wages every week.
If we could keep personal dislike out of these discussions, TN would be a much better place in my opinion.
Personally I can’t stand Tom Jones - that doesn’t mean he can’t sing!.
ERF…I don’t dislike (though my footer is “■■■■■■■ anything less is a gamble”) Gardner at all and agree with
the vita; and obvious existence in the British Industry…but same as ERF…when you are hindered on financials
or capacity (lack of investments in extra buildings, staff etc) the sales volumes frequently will having you doubt
on new investments on new types etc. DAF encountered a demand for 500hp engines, without having own sources
to manufacture as the demand was that low…■■■■■■■ was for some vehicles the ‘solution’ and now DAF prefers
to emphasize on what the majority of the market wants…brrrr
For ■■■■■■■ automotive was important as was marine and construction, but all disciplines/markets added up in
a very big global player…unfortunately ERF, Gardner, Rolls Royce, Detroit, Perkins did not reach
.
Carryfast:
…unfortunately the Brits got left behind by listening to those with your views…
Not just my views my friend. A visit to the design office at Perkins today would tell you that. Credit must be given where due in history, and in the case of Gardner they are very much due credit for what they did achieve.
What a shame you were not around at the time to single-handedly save the great British truck industry Carryfast.
I hope wikipedia (or the like) credit you in it’s history as ‘the man who could…’!
I can see I’m wasting my time - and unfortunately haven’t the foggiest idea what you’re on about in the rest of your reply, so we’ll leave it there.
.
We operated and ran many Gardner powered ERFs some into the early 2000s
I went to work for money I couldn’t give a monkeys what badge was on the lorry I drove
I’d rather my gaffer pay me a decent wage than go out and buy lorries to please the “badge snobs”
Our firm operated Gardner powered ERFs for their reliability and to call a operator a penny pincher in buying Gardners is a laugh cos you payed a premium in buying Gardner engines
We also ran them to keep the tare weight down as a lot of our traffic was weight related
We did run 14ltr ■■■■■■■ powered ERFs but the 8 pot Gardner ERFs were a quarter of a tonne lighter and a lot more economical and reliable
Going back to the original post I can remember JB McBeans of Kirknewton Mid Lothian we used to do a lot of work with them they used to run MW cabbed ERFs all powered by the mighty “240” Gardner
.
ERF:
…
I can see I’m wasting my time - and unfortunately haven’t the foggiest idea what you’re on about in the rest of your reply, so we’ll leave it there.
Please do not be put off contributing by the blurtings of the Loon. Nobody has the foggiest idea what he is on about, least of all the man himself.
.
ERF:
Carryfast:
…It would probably be fair to say that not ditching the Gardner engine option and making the whole sale switch to state of the art US major componentry soon enough,like at least the end of the 1960’s,contributed massively to the damage done to the UK truck manufacturersForgive me ‘Carryfast’, I don’t follow TN very often, and don’t know who you are ect, but do you have a ‘downer’ on Gardner engines by any chance?.
Just an observation - every post I seem to read of yours slates them in one way or another.Is this your attempt at trying to re-write British truck building history as you perceive it or something?.
If not, then credit should be given where it is due.
Hugh Gardner was one of the finest internal combustion engine designers that ever lived. That is an undisputed fact (except I’m guessing by you…), agreed even amongst the engine designers of today. It is born out by the fact that his naturally aspirated engine designs have never been bettered in terms of thermal efficiency, reliability, running life and excellence of build quality. Rolls, Perkins and ■■■■■■■ could not come close to the performance in terms of full life running costs of a Gardner engine in a similar chassis of the day.The memory and legacy of Hugh Gardner deserves better than this.
His LX series design was a triumph of engineering that stayed in production for 40 years - because there was a strong demand for it. I grant you, the Gardner was outpaced in terms of BHP by virtually everything by the late 1970’s because Gardner had nobody to fill Hugh’s shoes when he retired, and with no designer of his calibre at the helm, the company was destined to eventual failure as the competition intensified.Let us not forget, a lot of people made a lot of money shifting a lot of tonnage with Gardner’s over those 40 years.
You can call them ‘gaffer’s motors’, but as far as I can recall it was the gaffer that had to earn the money to pay the wages every week.
If we could keep personal dislike out of these discussions, TN would be a much better place in my opinion.
Personally I can’t stand Tom Jones - that doesn’t mean he can’t sing!.
An excellent post.
.