I think you know which post I was referring to 
My own experience with a Patricroft engine was not a pleasant one, having been demoted from a 111 Scania for taking a holiday when we were busy at work only made the bitter pill more bitter.
However the Gardner was, for many years, the best there was and the thermal efficiency achieved is, from an engineering point something special.
Yes they were outdated and lacklustre when compared with far more modern designs, but that shouldn’t take anything away from their past achievements.
Rubbish, we’ve discussed this at length on numerous threads, tear arseing up the motorways was not the way things were done in those days, handball and roping and sheeting were still the order of the day and there wasn’t a big rush to get to places, the name of the game was cost efficiency and despite hearing this from successful operators of the time and seeing the cost per mile figures of the time, you still deny the truth.
Regarding the statement that in 1973 few operator’s went for the Gardner option could be because Gardner engine’s were in short supply then due to the factories internal disputes, therefore (as Tillings who I worked for did) if folk wanted a new truck (by Foden,ERF, Atkinson) they were ‘forced’ to have a ■■■■■■■ or a Roller installed and suffered a weight and fuel penalty with doing so. Then they stayed with those engine choices as Gardner never really recovered. Not sure what all this has to do with the original thread title of course, but just thought I would chuck my twopennyworth in! 
Pete.
These ERF threads have made people check their facts, do some research, ask questions, make deductions- all the things a group do, in order to learn, which is what we have done. Our knowledge of this interesting period of British automotive history has been improved, as well as that of anyone else who reads our ramblings. There is, as usual, one who stands apart from the team. Notice how, when that member stands erect, the honest contributors sit down and the productive discussion dies. Please desist, Geoffrey.
Pun intended.
When the shoe fits…
To all, let’s respect input and posts, as in many cases it triggers us and we again check, search and regard
our believed marque/type of vehicle more thoroughly…facts and figures give evidence, opinions and
ideas give atmosphere towards what was the ordinary life!?
[zb]
anorak:
ERF-Continental:
When the shoe fits…
Clarify this, please.
The clarification is in acceptance and awareness that other people know more?
A question is one thing but when the answers don’t appear to what you want or like…yeah, we have posts
and a lot of pages waisted…the ERF European-thread now has >50 pages but without the dislikes and what
was expected it would have been 30 pages and we would all now read Robert’s first book.
Could not resist this:
Tea break over, carry on as normal.
Very mature…you experienced ealier on your posts I guess
Raising daft questions does not makes you a wise man though
so don’t blame others (Geoffrey…or other participants who do
prefer to remain private) to judge on their posts
Without pointing to someone…I now understand 3300John’s decision to abandon over here,
remaing all the rest as automotive-popes with all the knowledge but destroying nice threads!
Carryfast:
newmercman:
Rubbish, we’ve discussed this at length on numerous threads, tear arseing up the motorways was not the way things were done in those days, handball and roping and sheeting were still the order of the day and there wasn’t a big rush to get to places, the name of the game was cost efficiency and despite hearing this from successful operators of the time and seeing the cost per mile figures of the time, you still deny the truth.
The inconvenient fact being that productivety then as later was measured on loaded miles run and you ain’t going to be running the same amount of miles in a day/week/month/year using a Gardner as opposed to a 300 + NCT powered beast which zb’s question was referring to.IE the money was only earn’t on the amount of miles covered between the roping sheeting etc.On that note I think you’re confusing fuel economy at the expence of productivety with fuel consumption in isolation and if a big naturally aspirated lump was the way to go then that’s what the average max weight wagon would still be fitted with.Especially considering the reduction in motorway speeds since the time in question. 
You completely miss the point…
Productivity is not all about getting from A to B as fast as possible, it’s about money in the bank and that’s where Gardner engines did well.
The Gardner was light, which in 32ton Britain was essential, cheap to maintain and economical. This enabled operators to make money as they only got paid for how much they carried and only spent money on maintenance and fuel, more of the first and less of the latter meant high productivity, it’s simple maths.
ERF had an existing customer base and they wanted Gardner engines, they also had plans to expand and enter new markets, so they introduced the MW range and ■■■■■■■ power.
Now the idea would’ve been to get the new range into the fleets of existing customers and get the product out there, so obviously Gardner engines would be part of the plan.
This way they could keep their loyal customers happy, make money to develop the new range of lorries in order to attract new customers and conquer new markets.
If they had gone down the Carryfast route of only offering big ■■■■■■■ engines they would’ve lost all their existing customers long before they got any new ones and gone out of business.
ERF-Continental:
Very mature…you experienced ealier on your posts I guess
Raising daft questions does not makes you a wise man though
so don’t blame others (Geoffrey…or other participants who do
prefer to remain private) to judge on their posts
I ask questions. That is how I learn. If you think they are daft, ignore them. However, since you have raised the point, quote one question that I have asked, then explain why it is daft.
I honestly don’t think that we did anymore work with RR 265 power than we did with a 180/201 Gardner? Sixty mph is just the same whatever engine you have under the cab, OK the larger engine was better on hills but there was not enough time saved to get any more loads in realistically. Plus, on an eight legger, you were losing 5 cwt per load on payload, four loads a day was a tonne lost which back then equalled the price of a gallon or two of diesel. It wasn’t like Parcel Force (or Carry-Fast etc) rip tearing around, you had your days work and did it just the same, and if it took you a while longer then so what? Anyway I will shut up and ■■■■ out now, and let those who know more about these things continue with this interesting topic as I was only a driver.
Pete.