The 500 Buffalo was better on fuel than a 240 Gardner and much faster , the F86 had a 6.72 liter motor was for 36 or 40 ton wid double reduction ,three ratios available so three top speeds and the small but turbo engine gave higher payloads than Sudden Accidents or what ever they were from lancs , the Gardners low specific fuel consumption on the test bed , was no where near as good on the road , because Gardner made only the engine , not the transmission , if the F12 had stayed behind the Gardner and took as long it would have used less fuel ( see how much faster was the Volvo) , i have got 10.72 mpg from an F12 at 32 ton buy just staying below 60 mph , Volvo set new economy records all through the 1970s/ 80s , the most economic uk 38 tonner was the Volvo FL7 , it was taught in engineering schools around Europe that no engine maker couls beat Gardners 39 % thermal efficiency , HA ! Volvo of Sweden smashed through this to 44 % and higher ever higher , where is Gardner now ? plod plod plod , saw an F88 wid a 240 Gardner once in cheshire ! no more 75 mph , plod plod are we there yet ?
Lilladan:
The 500 Buffalo was better on fuel than a 240 Gardner and much faster , the F86 had a 6.72 liter motor was for 36 or 40 ton wid double reduction ,three ratios available so three top speeds and the small but turbo engine gave higher payloads than Sudden Accidents or what ever they were from lancs , the Gardners low specific fuel consumption on the test bed , was no where near as good on the road , because Gardner made only the engine , not the transmission , if the F12 had stayed behind the Gardner and took as long it would have used less fuel ( see how much faster was the Volvo) , i have got 10.72 mpg from an F12 at 32 ton buy just staying below 60 mph , Volvo set new economy records all through the 1970s/ 80s , the most economic uk 38 tonner was the Volvo FL7 , it was taught in engineering schools around Europe that no engine maker couls beat Gardners 39 % thermal efficiency , HA ! Volvo of Sweden smashed through this to 44 % and higher ever higher , where is Gardner now ? plod plod plod , saw an F88 wid a 240 Gardner once in cheshire ! no more 75 mph , plod plod are we there yet ?
I knew it was a 6. something, really then it had an engine that was the same capacity as a Rolls Royce Silver Shadow!!. As for the Gardner engines, well I have very limited experience of them ( occasionally I have driven my mates vintage Foden S80 6x4 tipper that was fitted with a 180 Gardner) however it would appear the longevity of them cannot be argued with. Elgin based haulier & once Foden dealer Baillie Bros must have had the oldest fleet of road going Fodens anywhere all fitted with Gardner 180’s. After running them for in some cases 20yrs they broke them for spares and they exported dozens of engines to China for powering Chinese Junk boats. So after god knows how many road miles these engines had done they were then powering boats, amazing! Also the Scottish Bus Group had a huge fleet of Alexander bodied Leyland Leopard service buses fitted with Gardner engines that lay flat under the mid section of the bus floor. It wasn’t uncommon for these buses to be run at 20yrs plus.
Anyway the topic seems to be getting plenty comments but I will emphasis it is all about opinions. Just like everything else somethings loved by one is hated by another and so forth. Nobody in their definition of what they see as the best British long haul truck is wrong, they just see it differently from how others do. I myself think it to be the Atkinson Borderer but even so, I wouldn’t want to give up driving a modern DAF XF or MAN TGX to go tramping in a Borderer in this day & age lol, although there is a lot to be said about it not being cut to 52mph lol ( as most of my employers fleet are!! )
The best for me was Mk V AEC Mammoth Major. AEC jumped 2 or 3 generations when it was introduced and it was at its best in 8 wheeler form.
I am a biased old git and only travelled in a Borderer once when hiking and it was a tanker full of tar and stank. A Foden once and wondered why theyput the bunk on the dash-board - it was one of those plastic contraptions with the forward sloping windscreens - felt more like the wheelhouse on a boat. Jim
Lilladan:
The 500 Buffalo was better on fuel than a 240 Gardner and much faster , the F86 had a 6.72 liter motor was for 36 or 40 ton wid double reduction ,three ratios available so three top speeds and the small but turbo engine gave higher payloads than Sudden Accidents or what ever they were from lancs , the Gardners low specific fuel consumption on the test bed , was no where near as good on the road , because Gardner made only the engine , not the transmission , if the F12 had stayed behind the Gardner and took as long it would have used less fuel ( see how much faster was the Volvo) , i have got 10.72 mpg from an F12 at 32 ton buy just staying below 60 mph , Volvo set new economy records all through the 1970s/ 80s , the most economic uk 38 tonner was the Volvo FL7 , it was taught in engineering schools around Europe that no engine maker couls beat Gardners 39 % thermal efficiency , HA ! Volvo of Sweden smashed through this to 44 % and higher ever higher , where is Gardner now ? plod plod plod , saw an F88 wid a 240 Gardner once in cheshire ! no more 75 mph , plod plod are we there yet ?
This is all wrong. The 1958 6LX had a peak efficiency of 42%, or 200.7g/kWh. IIRC, the first engine to come close to this was the one in the Scania 142 (intercooled or not, I can’t remember), which achieved 202g/kWh. Later Gardners and Scanias achieved 191g/kWh. The best was the turbocompound Scania, which was reported to do 186g/kWh, or 45.2%. To my knowledge, Volvo and the rest could not match these figures. After that, it was downhill all the way for efficiency, as emissions regulations ruined everything.
As for the Leyland 500 beating the Gardner for fuel consumption, can anyone back this up, from actual experience?
[zb]
anorak:Lilladan:
The 500 Buffalo was better on fuel than a 240 Gardner and much faster , the F86 had a 6.72 liter motor was for 36 or 40 ton wid double reduction ,three ratios available so three top speeds and the small but turbo engine gave higher payloads than Sudden Accidents or what ever they were from lancs , the Gardners low specific fuel consumption on the test bed , was no where near as good on the road , because Gardner made only the engine , not the transmission , if the F12 had stayed behind the Gardner and took as long it would have used less fuel ( see how much faster was the Volvo) , i have got 10.72 mpg from an F12 at 32 ton buy just staying below 60 mph , Volvo set new economy records all through the 1970s/ 80s , the most economic uk 38 tonner was the Volvo FL7 , it was taught in engineering schools around Europe that no engine maker couls beat Gardners 39 % thermal efficiency , HA ! Volvo of Sweden smashed through this to 44 % and higher ever higher , where is Gardner now ? plod plod plod , saw an F88 wid a 240 Gardner once in cheshire ! no more 75 mph , plod plod are we there yet ?This is all wrong. The 1958 6LX had a peak efficiency of 42%, or 200.7g/kWh. IIRC, the first engine to come close to this was the one in the Scania 142 (intercooled or not, I can’t remember), which achieved 202g/kWh. Later Gardners and Scanias achieved 191g/kWh. The best was the turbocompound Scania, which was reported to do 186g/kWh, or 45.2%. To my knowledge, Volvo and the rest could not match these figures. After that, it was downhill all the way for efficiency, as emissions regulations ruined everything.
As for the Leyland 500 beating the Gardner for fuel consumption, can anyone back this up, from actual experience?
The 500 was brilliant on fuel, but only because it was always on the end of a wrecker!!! 
bloody headless wonders were only ever good enough for buses, and even then they were getting towed in more times than enough. by far the worst engine ever conceived by Leyland. As for the 8 pot F88, well if that was a later 290 version, its no wonder why the Gardner went in, the 290 was a reliability nightmare when it arrived, several operators retro fitted the earlier 240s in place of the 290 as at was a mutch more reliable engine. And Plod plod plod gets you home, sitting on a hard shoulder doesnt 
Regards, Chris.
The mid 1980`s Volvo Engines had the highest thermal efficency FL7 fL10 f10 /12 , BUT WHAT MATTERED WAS MPG , V8 Scania not very good
After a change of management in the mid 90s and more interference from TDG at head office we had a batch of FL10s a solitary FH 12 and later some FM12 they were far the most unreliable lorries ever to grace our fleet
Constant clutch problems engines overheating
Air valve failures
The FL10s could only manage about early 7sMPG at 38 tonnes so they were eventually relegated to trunk work where after 2 years they were worn out
The FH12 did 200000ks then it shoved a con rod through the block coming up the A606 at Ab Kettleby just out side of Melton Mowbray loaded with 24 tonnes of pet food
We went back to running ERF EC 11s and 12s
The EC11 were superb on fuel in fact when ERF were doing the "Fuel Duel " nothing could match them for fuel economy
Our fleet engineer often told sales reps don’t knock on my door until you can bring a lorry that’ll beat the ERF/■■■■■■■
So many years ERF ruled the roost in our fleet
As it’s been quoted it’s all about MPG
Just to prove the reliability of a Gardner powered Seddon Atkinson
This was took when XRR 252Y was about a year old in 1983
And this is the same lorry 13 years later still going strong but when we changed colours
Maybe I was just lucky with my much-loved F88/290, but I have to say that, worked hard, mostly on bulk tipping work, it only let me down once. I believe the secret was to over-maintain them- mine seemed to be happy when running on clean oil & filters, and keeping everything tight. If it did have faults, they were that it drank fuel like nothing else and I was almost permanently lying underneath adjusting the p*ss poor brakes.
A 16 speed 290F88 was a real flyer and that splitter lever on the panel was a dream to use , but if you read the drivers hand book it says the RED section of the rev counter MUST NEVER BE USED , and so if the speed was kept down to only 60 to 70 mph the engine gave a long enough life , but an overhaul could be done in a few hours , or one piston /liner at a time as it had 6 cylinder heads , but a Gardner 180 could not be better than a Volvo before the 180 was even sold ! it was the even slower 150 Gardner out when Volvo had a 230 TD100 from 1964
It’s about British built lorries you clown
I know, but us clowns still can’t get over having such modern vehicles to ride around in while the rest of you were still trying to justify freezing winters and baking summers in Mk2 Atkis! 
gazsa401:
It’s about British built lorries you clown
And of course some of us other clowns have the manners to appreciate & respect other people’s opinions or there would be no posts at all!!!
rivits:
gazsa401:
It’s about British built lorries you clownAnd of course some of us other clowns have the manners to appreciate & respect other people’s opinions or there would be no posts at all!!!
My apologies for any offence taken it was meant in jest
One of the contributors on this topic clearly doesn’t engage his or her brain when they post things on here
Go back and read his or hers previous posts and they contradict themselves many a time
Know matter how many times different contributors put proven facts on this topic
So wouldn’t it be rather better to tell the said contributor to stop posting unproven tales and keep to proven facts
Finally I’ve read other topics on this site where this so called “expert” has posted things which don’t weigh up
At least I can back my posts up with facts and actual experience on the posts I put on here
All the best
I’m probably leaving myself wide open to screams of derision here, but I’m tentatively wondering if this thread shouldn’t be called , “The Least Bad British Long Haul Truck Ever”.
Just a thought.
Don’t all fire those guns at once, you’ll deafen the whole of the country.
i am not anti-european, indeed i have very good experiences in Scania 111’s, 113’s and 142’s and like wise in Volvo F12’s, F7’s and an F16. But this always happens, a thread is started to cover British engineering and before you know it, everything listed gets slagged off by pro european members and ends up with everybody bickering instead of talking about the subjects of the thread. We all have an opinion, granted, but it’s not always needed. The thread is called “The best british built long truck ever”, not “what do you think is wrong about trucks and engines”!! Those who wish to rubbish british engineering, this is probably not the thread for you, but let those of us who dont enjoy the thread eh?
Like i say, there have been some cracking European motor’s over the years, and some were more comfortable for drivers and more modern in apearance and design than their British counterparts, but no-one should knock our automotive heritage, alot of this country (and others) was built on it, and it done us proud for many a year.
Chris.
STRAIGHT EIGHT:
i am not anti-european, indeed i have very good experiences in Scania 111’s, 113’s and 142’s and like wise in Volvo F12’s, F7’s and an F16. But this always happens, a thread is started to cover British engineering and before you know it, everything listed gets slagged off by pro european members and ends up with everybody bickering instead of talking about the subjects of the thread. We all have an opinion, granted, but it’s not always needed. The thread is called “The best british built long truck ever”, not “what do you think is wrong about trucks and engines”!! Those who wish to rubbish british engineering, this is probably not the thread for you, but let those of us who dont enjoy the thread eh?
Like i say, there have been some cracking European motor’s over the years, and some were more comfortable for drivers and more modern in apearance and design than their British counterparts, but no-one should knock our automotive heritage, alot of this country (and others) was built on it, and it done us proud for many a year.
Chris.
hiya,
YO !!!
thanks harry, long retired.
STRAIGHT EIGHT:
i am not anti-european, indeed i have very good experiences in Scania 111’s, 113’s and 142’s and like wise in Volvo F12’s, F7’s and an F16. But this always happens, a thread is started to cover British engineering and before you know it, everything listed gets slagged off by pro european members and ends up with everybody bickering instead of talking about the subjects of the thread. We all have an opinion, granted, but it’s not always needed. The thread is called “The best british built long truck ever”, not “what do you think is wrong about trucks and engines”!! Those who wish to rubbish british engineering, this is probably not the thread for you, but let those of us who dont enjoy the thread eh?
Like i say, there have been some cracking European motor’s over the years, and some were more comfortable for drivers and more modern in apearance and design than their British counterparts, but no-one should knock our automotive heritage, alot of this country (and others) was built on it, and it done us proud for many a year.
Chris.
I couldn’t of put it better myself my experience of driving European lorries is limited to the last few years with my former employer
I spent most of my driving career driving
British built lorries which I have posted on quite a few topics on here and we always had great service from them that’s why they were kept for over 10 years or more
I often had the “badge snobs” ask me why I was I driving a 10 year old lorry
My usual reply was because I go to work to earn money and I couldn’t care less what I drive as long as I’m paid well
Well I still think the Atkinson Borderer is the top dog, the amount of them still on the vintage scene is amazing along side the ERF A series and a lot of these vehicles will have done in excess of a million miles before being retired as yard shunters before eventually falling into the hands of restorers. Most of these vehicles will still be fitted with their original engines, transmissions and back axles.Whilst the vehicles of Johnny Foreigner may have been more refined, the longevity of the British prime mover cannot be denied guys
,