Star down under.:
Another good thread wrecked by Carryfast’s faux authoritive, misconceived expertise. Go back to your own planet Carryfast.
Back on topic, which ■■■■■■■ were common/popular there, in the 60s/70s?
We had:
555, usually called triple five or triple trouble.
VT 190, a good engine for regional use.
855/14 litre* in its many guises from NH 220 to N14+ delivering 525hp. The best engine ever built.
KT, an incredibly robust engine of 19 litre displacement and 450hp, pretty much reserved for extreme applications due to being overweight on a single steer axle.
L10, a bit of a dud, quickly superseded by the new, improved M11.
This engine evolved over many years, the bore and stroke remained the same from the NH 250 to the “black” NTC 444 and N14+, but various changes were made to the block, to strengthen it as outputs increased. The liners tended to chatter once the 400hp threshold was broken.
How could I have forgotten to mention the incredible nine and thrupence?
The V and VT903 were offered with outputs ranging from 290 to 400 hp, but with a little fettling coud be made to rev to 2900 rpm, without compromising reliability. These engines were very popular with express and overnight intercapital operators.
Carryfast, how many ■■■■■■■ or Gardner engines have you owned and operated?
Answer to your question SDU absolutely Zero, Zilch, FA !
Star down under.:
Another good thread wrecked by Carryfast’s faux authoritive, misconceived expertise. Go back to your own planet Carryfast.
Back on topic, which ■■■■■■■ were common/popular there, in the 60s/70s?
We had:
555, usually called triple five or triple trouble.
VT 190, a good engine for regional use.
855/14 litre* in its many guises from NH 220 to N14+ delivering 525hp. The best engine ever built.
KT, an incredibly robust engine of 19 litre displacement and 450hp, pretty much reserved for extreme applications due to being overweight on a single steer axle.
L10, a bit of a dud, quickly superseded by the new, improved M11.
This engine evolved over many years, the bore and stroke remained the same from the NH 250 to the “black” NTC 444 and N14+, but various changes were made to the block, to strengthen it as outputs increased. The liners tended to chatter once the 400hp threshold was broken.
How could I have forgotten to mention the incredible nine and thrupence?
The V and VT903 were offered with outputs ranging from 290 to 400 hp, but with a little fettling coud be made to rev to 2900 rpm, without compromising reliability. These engines were very popular with express and overnight intercapital operators.
Carryfast, how many ■■■■■■■ or Gardner engines have you owned and operated?
Ironically much of the ‘evidence’ which made me see the light, regarding the superiority of the 8 LXB, over the 250 NA ■■■■■■■■ was provided by Bewick in the first instance.
By the same logic ■■■■■■■ UK and ERF and SA not having the 320 + big cam in their armoury and still giving way to the NA Gardner by 1980 was commercial suicide.
As I said history is on my side.
As for the VT 903 it was easily beaten by the Detroit 8v92 T.
You could probably count the amount of Brit drivers who’ve driven both flat out, compared to each other, on one hand and certainly not Bewick.
Now awaits you saying that the 903 was better than the N14 just to spite me.
And don’t forget the fuel tanker that had to always be in attendance behind the unit !
This a shot of a demonstrator we ran for a month and “thirsty” was too kind a word for it I don’t recall it getting above 5 mpg !
Lance Biscomb:
■■■■■■■ 290 SED ATK turbo at the back flying machine 70 mph plus
0
And don’t forget the fuel tanker that had to always be in attendance behind the unit !
This a shot of a demonstrator we ran for a month and “thirsty” was too kind a word for it I don’t recall it getting above 5 mpg !
But we also know that the Gardner generation of Brits didn’t have a clue how to gear it properly nor how to drive it even if they did.
Meanwhile almost 10 years later ■■■■■■■ UK was only just getting its head around the idea that intercooling is essential on turbo engines.While even still some way to go from there in the realisation that 10 hp per tonne is actually more efficient than less.Bearing in mind that DAF and Volvo had successfully been selling that formula in the UK market since the 70’s with the 2800/3300 and F12 respectively
Star down under.:
Another good thread wrecked by Carryfast’s faux authoritive, misconceived expertise. Go back to your own planet Carryfast.
Back on topic, which ■■■■■■■ were common/popular there, in the 60s/70s?
We had:
555, usually called triple five or triple trouble.
VT 190, a good engine for regional use.
855/14 litre* in its many guises from NH 220 to N14+ delivering 525hp. The best engine ever built.
KT, an incredibly robust engine of 19 litre displacement and 450hp, pretty much reserved for extreme applications due to being overweight on a single steer axle.
L10, a bit of a dud, quickly superseded by the new, improved M11.
This engine evolved over many years, the bore and stroke remained the same from the NH 250 to the “black” NTC 444 and N14+, but various changes were made to the block, to strengthen it as outputs increased. The liners tended to chatter once the 400hp threshold was broken.
How could I have forgotten to mention the incredible nine and thrupence?
The V and VT903 were offered with outputs ranging from 290 to 400 hp, but with a little fettling coud be made to rev to 2900 rpm, without compromising reliability. These engines were very popular with express and overnight intercapital operators.
Carryfast, how many ■■■■■■■ or Gardner engines have you owned and operated?
Ironically much of the ‘evidence’ which made me see the light, regarding the superiority of the 8 LXB, over the 250 NA ■■■■■■■■ was provided by Bewick in the first instance.
By the same logic ■■■■■■■ UK and ERF and SA not having the 320 + big cam in their armoury and still giving way to the NA Gardner by 1980 was commercial suicide.
As I said history is on my side.
As for the VT 903 it was easily beaten by the Detroit 8v92 T.
You could probably count the amount of Brit drivers who’ve driven both flat out, compared to each other, on one hand and certainly not Bewick.
Now awaits you saying that the 903 was better than the N14 just to spite me.
For crying out loud Carryfast, why would I want to spite you? Don’t judge me by your standard.
As an owner/operator it is my opinion that the 14L ■■■■■■■ was unbeatable, whilst conceding that I was not disappointed by by the Cat 3406. These opinions have been formed from real world experience. I have no experience with any Gardner.
The only advantage 8V92 had over the 903 was initial cost, in every other respect the big ■■■■■■■ was superior; or does your experience contradict that?
Lance Biscomb:
■■■■■■■ 290 SED ATK turbo at the back flying machine 70 mph plus
0
And don’t forget the fuel tanker that had to always be in attendance behind the unit !
This a shot of a demonstrator we ran for a month and “thirsty” was too kind a word for it I don’t recall it getting above 5 mpg !
Star down under.:
Now awaits you saying that the 903 was better than the N14 just to spite me.
For crying out loud Carryfast, why would I want to spite you? Don’t judge me by your standard.
As an owner/operator it is my opinion that the 14L ■■■■■■■ was unbeatable, whilst conceding that I was not disappointed by by the Cat 3406. These opinions have been formed from real world experience. I have no experience with any Gardner.
The only advantage 8V92 had over the 903 was initial cost, in every other respect the big ■■■■■■■ was superior; or does your experience contradict that?
[/quote]
Just for the record I was actually paid to evaluate the merits of kit like the 903 v 8v92 from the point of view of both manufacturer and customer.Which both of which would have been a very rare thing in the UK outside of the specialist vehicle sector.
On that note it’s possible to learn a lot about about how the thing will perform without even driving it just by reading the spec sheets.
As you said.yourself you’ll need to take the 903 up to silly rpm to get much out of it.Usually chucking out clouds of smoke in the form of wasted diesel well before that point.
As opposed to the 8v92 which could match turbo and intercooled 14 litre ■■■■■■■ type outputs, including N14, without breaking the 1,300-2,300 rpm barrier.
From memory that was exactly the conclusion reached by Scammell in moving from the 903 to the 8v92 in the Nubian 2 fire truck, not cost.
Can’t possibly think what advantage anyone could possibly have found in the choice of 903 v 8v92 or 14 litre ■■■■■■■ ?.
Bearing in mind that in this case it’s all about ■■■■■■■ UK’s commercially suicidal idea of waiting until the mid 1980’s to put the turbocharged and intercooled 14 litre ■■■■■■■ up against the DAF 2800/3300 and Volvo F12.
That type of stupidity is just too stupid to be true as opposed to deliberate.
Don’t think ■■■■■■■ UK ever manufactured the 903 here.It was a ■■■■■■■ US only product
On topic indeed.
Leaning on Bewick’s input that Peter Foden told him that 50% (1.500 engines) were ■■■■■■■■■■
what was the UK-effect as Seddon-Atkinson, Foden and all the others also had ■■■■■■■ in their baskets.
In other words…who would have filled that gap in case ■■■■■■■ was not in the UK (in the backyard)
and/or occupied with other customers, wherever…the UK-industry on lorries would have been…?
Lance Biscomb:
■■■■■■■ 290 SED ATK turbo at the back flying machine 70 mph plus
And don’t forget the fuel tanker that had to always be in attendance behind the unit !
This a shot of a demonstrator we ran for a month and “thirsty” was too kind a word for it I don’t recall it getting above 5 mpg !
Split rimes odd for that age
Your right there Lance 'cause when I dug that old shot out today I was thinking the same but looking at those wheels they could easily be 1100 x20 same as the Scania 111’s first came on ? IIRC the shot was late 1976 and it came from Scotts of Penrith . In January I put a new 8LXB Sed Atk Sleeper cab into service on 1100x22:5 Tubeless wheels !Cheers Dennis.
Nosed up to the workshop is the only 250 ■■■■■■■ we operated for about 6 months after I bought out K. Fells in June '76 I replaced it with a new F88 in January '77. We wern’t very impressed with that Sed Atk so that was the end of ■■■■■■■ chassis in the BTS fleet !
^
Those examples contain all the contradictions between NA Gardner and ■■■■■■■ v turbocharged foreign imports being run in the same fleet at the same time.
While even when ■■■■■■■ finally created the supposedly more fuel efficient turbocharged big cam they ( ■■■■■■■ UK operations ) thought it would be a good idea to minimise its potential by failing to intercool/charge cool it until the mid 1980’s ?.
Bearing in mind that 7 + mpg at 38t was only going to be a lot better than that running at 32t.
Carryfast:
^
Those examples contain all the contradictions between NA Gardner and ■■■■■■■ v turbocharged foreign imports being run in the same fleet at the same time.
While even when ■■■■■■■ finally created the supposedly more fuel efficient turbocharged big cam they ( ■■■■■■■ UK operations ) thought it would be a good idea to minimise its potential by failing to intercool/charge cool it until the mid 1980’s ?.
Bearing in mind that 7 + mpg at 38t was only going to be a lot better than that running at 32t.
Just for the record it was a 8LXCT Gardner powered Seddon Atkinson 401 that broke the 7mpg record at 38 tonnes beating the Volvo F12s previous record in Truck magazine’s arduous road test series
Not the quickest by any means but when fuel costs were probably the most annual outlay hauliers had
By the mid to late 90s nearly all loose engine supplies had lost the market to in house lorry manufacturing
I think by the early 2000s no manufacturer offered a loose engine
Well give me a good old Gardner engine , OK They didnt keep up with modern progress when Turbos came into fashion, But the 150 Gardner doing 10 plus MPG, In the 50/60/70s Made a lot of hauliers like myself a good living, And for CF in his wisdom saying the were only good as boat anchors was an insult to The Lewis Gardner family in my oppinion , was totaly out of order.
Lance Biscomb:
■■■■■■■ 290 SED ATK turbo at the back flying machine 70 mph plus
1
And don’t forget the fuel tanker that had to always be in attendance behind the unit !
This a shot of a demonstrator we ran for a month and “thirsty” was too kind a word for it I don’t recall it getting above 5 mpg !
Split rimes odd for that age
Your right there Lance 'cause when I dug that old shot out today I was thinking the same but looking at those wheels they could easily be 1100 x20 same as the Scania 111’s first came on ? IIRC the shot was late 1976 and it came from Scotts of Penrith . In January I put a new 8LXB Sed Atk Sleeper cab into service on 1100x22:5 Tubeless wheels !Cheers Dennis.
0
I think that Lance’s observation on Dennis’s demo photo tells us far more about the mindset which led to the downfall of British truck manufacturers than their willingness to supply their customers with what they demanded engine wise, ie a Gardner. Since when has giving your customers what they want been poor business practice?
However when your specifying a demonstrator to show off your current best unit fitted with your largest engine suppliers latest offering, in this case a big cam 290 what posses you to fit split rims when 22.5 tubeless had been available for over a decade and had been rapidly gaining market dominance for the previous 4/5 years, totally missing the market. Just the fact that it had split rims would have put me right off, before having to fill it up.
ERF-Continental:
Leaning on Bewick’s input that Peter Foden told him that 50% (1.500 engines) were ■■■■■■■■■■
what was the UK-effect as Seddon-Atkinson, Foden and all the others also had ■■■■■■■ in their baskets.
In other words…who would have filled that gap in case ■■■■■■■ was not in the UK (in the backyard)
and/or occupied with other customers, wherever…the UK-industry on lorries would have been…?
From ■■■■■■■■ point of view it doesn’t seem to make much commercial sense to set up a local UK manufacturing operation, that’s then being limited to a just over 50% share of the available market, by giving way on such amounts to Gardner.
I guess that Gardner and RR would have taken the rest of ■■■■■■■■ share if ■■■■■■■ had withdrawn from the UK market.
Which leaves the question why did the whole set up seem to be biased in favour of Euro imports here as opposed to US imports in whatever form ?.
Which was a theme which increasingly continued until US product sales were eventually effectively banned here.
Bearing in mind that unlike here ■■■■■■■ engines are still an option in Australian Paccar parent KW products but not DAF.
Carryfast:
^
Those examples contain all the contradictions between NA Gardner and ■■■■■■■ v turbocharged foreign imports being run in the same fleet at the same time.
While even when ■■■■■■■ finally created the supposedly more fuel efficient turbocharged big cam they ( ■■■■■■■ UK operations ) thought it would be a good idea to minimise its potential by failing to intercool/charge cool it until the mid 1980’s ?.
Bearing in mind that 7 + mpg at 38t was only going to be a lot better than that running at 32t.
Just for the record it was a 8LXCT Gardner powered Seddon Atkinson 401 that broke the 7mpg record at 38 tonnes beating the Volvo F12s previous record in Truck magazine’s arduous road test series
Not the quickest by any means but when fuel costs were probably the most annual outlay hauliers had
By the mid to late 90s nearly all loose engine supplies had lost the market to in house lorry manufacturing
I think by the early 2000s no manufacturer offered a loose engine
I actually posted the CM road test article above related to the big cam 320 providing 7 mpg + .Bearing in mind it had been available in the US since the late 70’s.Why the massive time lag in view of the clear efficiency advantage over the non intercooled ‘290’.
Star down under.:
Now awaits you saying that the 903 was better than the N14 just to spite me.
For crying out loud Carryfast, why would I want to spite you? Don’t judge me by your standard.
As an owner/operator it is my opinion that the 14L ■■■■■■■ was unbeatable, whilst conceding that I was not disappointed by by the Cat 3406. These opinions have been formed from real world experience. I have no experience with any Gardner.
The only advantage 8V92 had over the 903 was initial cost, in every other respect the big ■■■■■■■ was superior; or does your experience contradict that?
Just for the record I was actually paid to evaluate the merits of kit like the 903 v 8v92 from the point of view of both manufacturer and customer.
[/quote]
Back in your fantasy world again, mixing your ambitions up with your abilities.
What employer in their right mind would task a failed apprentice to conduct such research?
At best you would have been a junior member of a team, there to make the tea.
I D a new sensible thread that does appear on TN from time to time.
For the next 2 or 3 days trawl through press releases and technical journals etc.
Then launch himself off the key board and proceed to spout his BS on said thread
Keep the BS flowing until most of the usually well informed TN Members are so P— off that they abandon the thread
But the Leatherhead sage keeps going until he has bored the bollox off even only those hardy souls that do make a stand and attempt
to make a futile argument against all the BS The Leatherhead One continues to post !
To sum up “CF” is like an annoying terrier he always has to have the last “yap” so you may as well try p---- into the wind on Shap fell
I agree to SDU and Bewick…at least give feedback from wherever you come from, either owner, mechanic, driver, tax-officer, carwash-apprentice,
but STAY to the point…OKAY (American…bit of a habbit when it comes to ■■■■■■■■ …please focus on WHAT would have and have not caused
the absence of a close engine-supplier, regardless the fact that ■■■■■■■ had global opportunities (and money) to allocate whatever to wherever, true?
