Why did British Leyland fail?

[kr79]

windrush:

[zb]
anorak:
Please forgive my lacking a practical education but, if they had exactly the right stroke, how come they were “boat anchors”?

Being low revving, around 1850-1950 rpm max and having a longish stroke, Gardner’s gained by having good pulling power combined with excellent fuel economy. At around the 1100 rpm mark they would slog on forever on hills, however drivers wanted them for speed as well! We had Gardner engined eight leggers that would easily do 60 mph+ so they were not all that slow. I had a Rolls 265 Li in a Foden and that only revved at 1900 rpm but of course it had a ‘snail’ bolted onto the exhaust which made all the difference on hill’s!

I took a newish Foden with a Gardner 201 engine and Fuller gearbox (not as good as Fodens own box with that engine though) back to Patricroft as the driver complained that it was sluggish. Gardner’s test driver tried it loaded up the M63 and across the M62 and said that it went very well, however he also said that if our company had wanted a lorry that romped up hills and kept up with ■■■■■■■ and Rolls powered trucks then it was a simple case of the TM ordering the wrong engine in the first place but don’t expect to get around 9 mpg out of it!

RMC had Gardner’s fitted in Constructors locally but they were not a large order.

Pete.

RMC had 200 constructors fitted with gardner for there 1984 order I know someone who has two in a shed but are pretty rough now

[trev_h]

kr79:

windrush:

[zb]
anorak:
Please forgive my lacking a practical education but, if they had exactly the right stroke, how come they were “boat anchors”?

Being low revving, around 1850-1950 rpm max and having a longish stroke, Gardner’s gained by having good pulling power combined with excellent fuel economy. At around the 1100 rpm mark they would slog on forever on hills, however drivers wanted them for speed as well! We had Gardner engined eight leggers that would easily do 60 mph+ so they were not all that slow. I had a Rolls 265 Li in a Foden and that only revved at 1900 rpm but of course it had a ‘snail’ bolted onto the exhaust which made all the difference on hill’s!

I took a newish Foden with a Gardner 201 engine and Fuller gearbox (not as good as Fodens own box with that engine though) back to Patricroft as the driver complained that it was sluggish. Gardner’s test driver tried it loaded up the M63 and across the M62 and said that it went very well, however he also said that if our company had wanted a lorry that romped up hills and kept up with ■■■■■■■ and Rolls powered trucks then it was a simple case of the TM ordering the wrong engine in the first place but don’t expect to get around 9 mpg out of it!

RMC had Gardner’s fitted in Constructors locally but they were not a large order.

Pete.

RMC had 200 constructors fitted with gardner for there 1984 order I know someone who has two in a shed but are pretty rough now

I’m sure Redland had 8 legger constructors with Gardner engines but maybe they were part of RMC?

[gazsa401]

Trev_H:

kr79:

windrush:

[zb]
anorak:
Please forgive my lacking a practical education but, if they had exactly the right stroke, how come they were “boat anchors”?

Being low revving, around 1850-1950 rpm max and having a longish stroke, Gardner’s gained by having good pulling power combined with excellent fuel economy. At around the 1100 rpm mark they would slog on forever on hills, however drivers wanted them for speed as well! We had Gardner engined eight leggers that would easily do 60 mph+ so they were not all that slow. I had a Rolls 265 Li in a Foden and that only revved at 1900 rpm but of course it had a ‘snail’ bolted onto the exhaust which made all the difference on hill’s!

I took a newish Foden with a Gardner 201 engine and Fuller gearbox (not as good as Fodens own box with that engine though) back to Patricroft as the driver complained that it was sluggish. Gardner’s test driver tried it loaded up the M63 and across the M62 and said that it went very well, however he also said that if our company had wanted a lorry that romped up hills and kept up with ■■■■■■■ and Rolls powered trucks then it was a simple case of the TM ordering the wrong engine in the first place but don’t expect to get around 9 mpg out of it!

RMC had Gardner’s fitted in Constructors locally but they were not a large order.

Pete.

RMC had 200 constructors fitted with gardner for there 1984 order I know someone who has two in a shed but are pretty rough now

I’m sure Redland had 8 legger constructors with Gardner engines but maybe they were part of RMC?

A mate of mine used to drive one for RMC out of Attenborough in Notts
He was Gardner mad he even had polished Gardner side plate as a key ring

[windrush]

kr79:
RMC had 200 constructors fitted with gardner for there 1984 order I know someone who has two in a shed but are pretty rough now

Aye, I thought that there were not many ordered compared to the many they had with Leyland and ■■■■■■■ L10 engines. Leyland did well to get that many Gardner engines in 1984 really, but I suppose that by then the previous big Gardner users like Foden and ERF had switched to ■■■■■■■ and Rollers as the standard fitment so there was a few spare! Butterley Agg had a few around Nottingham and perhaps at Crich. Shining Bank quarry had ■■■■■■■ and Leyland engined ones, I ran with them occasionally and they seemed to go OK.

Pete.

[gazsa401]

windrush:

kr79:
RMC had 200 constructors fitted with gardner for there 1984 order I know someone who has two in a shed but are pretty rough now

Aye, I thought that there were not many ordered compared to the many they had with Leyland and ■■■■■■■ L10 engines. Leyland did well to get that many Gardner engines in 1984 really, but I suppose that by then the previous big Gardner users like Foden and ERF had switched to ■■■■■■■ and Rollers as the standard fitment so there was a few spare! Butterley Agg had a few around Nottingham and perhaps at Crich. Shining Bank quarry had ■■■■■■■ and Leyland engined ones, I ran with them occasionally and they seemed to go OK.

Pete.

Our last Gardner powered Seddon Atkinsons bought were 6 411s on E plates and we had a dozen ERFs on E and F plates
The 3 Roadtrains we ran had the L10 290 fitted real flying machines

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:

gazsa401:
That’s why most modern engines followed the Gardner way of producing long stroke engines to maintain power and torque across a wide rev range

Errr… I was joking. I was hoping for a series of Loon-themed spoof replies. So far, we only have one, from the man himself.

What’s loon spoof about saying that a decent stroke measurement won’t do much unless you also apply some equally decent force to the piston.

The actual idea of the decent stroke being that you need the decent distance side,of the force x distance equation,of the laws of leverage at the crank,in order to maximise the torque output of the engine relative to force applied at the piston.Or conversely minimise the forces required at the piston for the equivalent output at the crank.

On that note,unlike the 14 litre ■■■■■■■■■■■ Gardner 180 was never going to make 80,let alone 130 lb/ft + per litre during its production life because,not withstanding the decent stroke,it couldn’t handle the required force at the piston.While applying the required force at the piston to the shorter stroke TL12,let alone the AEC V8,would probably have resulted in one or more con rods exiting the block and/or other ‘issues’ related to cylinder pressures being used to compensate for lack of leverage at the crank.

[ramone]

Carryfast:

[zb]
anorak:

gazsa401:
That’s why most modern engines followed the Gardner way of producing long stroke engines to maintain power and torque across a wide rev range

Errr… I was joking. I was hoping for a series of Loon-themed spoof replies. So far, we only have one, from the man himself.

What’s loon spoof about saying that a decent stroke measurement won’t do much unless you also apply some equally decent force to the piston.

The actual idea of the decent stroke being that you need the decent distance side,of the force x distance equation,of the laws of leverage at the crank,in order to maximise the torque output of the engine relative to force applied at the piston.Or conversely minimise the forces required at the piston for the equivalent output at the crank.

On that note,unlike the 14 litre ■■■■■■■■■■■ Gardner 180 was never going to make 130 lb/ft + per litre during its production life because,not withstanding the decent stroke,it couldn’t handle the required force at the piston.While applying the required force at the piston to the shorter stroke TL12,let alone the AEC V8,would probably have resulted in one or more con rods exiting the block and/or other ‘issues’ related to cylinder pressures being used to compensate for lack of leverage at the crank.

Eh!

[gazsa401]

ramone:

Carryfast:

[zb]
anorak:

gazsa401:
That’s why most modern engines followed the Gardner way of producing long stroke engines to maintain power and torque across a wide rev range

Errr… I was joking. I was hoping for a series of Loon-themed spoof replies. So far, we only have one, from the man himself.

What’s loon spoof about saying that a decent stroke measurement won’t do much unless you also apply some equally decent force to the piston.

The actual idea of the decent stroke being that you need the decent distance side,of the force x distance equation,of the laws of leverage at the crank,in order to maximise the torque output of the engine relative to force applied at the piston.Or conversely minimise the forces required at the piston for the equivalent output at the crank.

On that note,unlike the 14 litre ■■■■■■■■■■■ Gardner 180 was never going to make 130 lb/ft + per litre during its production life because,not withstanding the decent stroke,it couldn’t handle the required force at the piston.While applying the required force at the piston to the shorter stroke TL12,let alone the AEC V8,would probably have resulted in one or more con rods exiting the block and/or other ‘issues’ related to cylinder pressures being used to compensate for lack of leverage at the crank.

Eh!

You can’t compare a 14ltr ■■■■■■■ to a 10.45ltr Gardner 180 !!!

[carryfast]

gazsa401:

Carryfast:
On that note,unlike the 14 litre ■■■■■■■■■■■ Gardner 180 was never going to make 130 lb/ft + per litre during its production life because,not withstanding the decent stroke,it couldn’t handle the required force at the piston.While applying the required force at the piston to the shorter stroke TL12,let alone the AEC V8,would probably have resulted in one or more con rods exiting the block and/or other ‘issues’ related to cylinder pressures being used to compensate for lack of leverage at the crank.

You can’t compare a 14ltr ■■■■■■■ to a 10.45ltr Gardner 180 !!!

I’m guessing you missed the reference to ‘specific’ torque output IE torque ‘per litre’.In which case what difference does overall capacity make to the comparison.Although you can use the 8 LXB if it really matters in which case you’re still stuck at less than 55 lb/ft per litre with the TL 12 not much better at around 63 lb/ft per litre.

[gazsa401]

Carryfast:

gazsa401:

Carryfast:
On that note,unlike the 14 litre ■■■■■■■■■■■ Gardner 180 was never going to make 130 lb/ft + per litre during its production life because,not withstanding the decent stroke,it couldn’t handle the required force at the piston.While applying the required force at the piston to the shorter stroke TL12,let alone the AEC V8,would probably have resulted in one or more con rods exiting the block and/or other ‘issues’ related to cylinder pressures being used to compensate for lack of leverage at the crank.

You can’t compare a 14ltr ■■■■■■■ to a 10.45ltr Gardner 180 !!!

I’m guessing you missed the reference to ‘specific’ torque output IE torque ‘per litre’.In which case what difference does overall capacity make to the comparison.Although you can use the 8 LXB if it really matters in which case you’re still stuck at less than 55 lb/ft per litre.

I wasn’t using the 240 as an example you were referring a 14ltr ■■■■■■■ engine which by memory went from 250 to 500 plus BHP with the same block and head to a 10.45ltr engine which in its guise went from 150 to 230BHP again the torque per litre would be different from a 250 ■■■■■■■ to a 500 ■■■■■■■ depending on the revs quoted
Likewise with the Gardner the power and torque outputs are different despite the same engine capacity

[splitshift]

kr79:

windrush:

[zb]
anorak:
]

RMC had 200 constructors fitted with gardner for there 1984 order I know someone who has two in a shed but are pretty rough now

Haha that’s got to be young Mr G in Tilbury did he save any of those old Hinos as well, iirc worked around the power station area, did Vince Milman or Brocks have any? cause back in the day they seemed to like an ex RMC/Halls motor

[carryfast]

gazsa401:
I wasn’t using the 240 as an example you were referring a 14ltr ■■■■■■■ engine which by memory went from 250 to 500 plus BHP with the same block and head to a 10.45ltr engine which in its guise went from 150 to 230BHP again the torque per litre would be different from a 250 ■■■■■■■ to a 500 ■■■■■■■ depending on the revs quoted
Likewise with the Gardner the power and torque outputs are different despite the same engine capacity

Torque is all about the combination of force at the piston x leverage ( stroke ) at the crank not engine speed.Power is just torque multiplied by engine speed the more torque the less engine speed required to make the equivalent power.Like ‘Specific’ Power,‘Specific’ Torque has no relationship to overall engine capacity it’s a common measure and yardstick of engine efficiency.

[rastone]

gazsa401:
It’s ironic that around 30 years ago you could buy a lorry of different makes fitted with different proprietary engines
Yet today you can’t have a proprietary engine of your choice fitted as today’s lorry manufacturers only fit their own engines especially at the top weight end
Also today the choice of lorries is limited to around 6 manufacturers
Is that a good thing ?
I don’t think there’s much to choose from nowadays

Just read this and brings back a memory of a talk we had by a chap called Ron Armstrong from Iveco Ford at the Jug and Glass between Ashbourne and and Buxton c1988 to a lot of tipper lads ( Jug and Glass Gang ) he said that there would be about five major players in the truck building industry.Nobody thought that would be right but spot on I reckon

Tony

[newmercman]

Carryfast:

[zb]
anorak:

gazsa401:
That’s why most modern engines followed the Gardner way of producing long stroke engines to maintain power and torque across a wide rev range

Errr… I was joking. I was hoping for a series of Loon-themed spoof replies. So far, we only have one, from the man himself.

What’s loon spoof about saying that a decent stroke measurement won’t do much unless you also apply some equally decent force to the piston.

The actual idea of the decent stroke being that you need the decent distance side,of the force x distance equation,of the laws of leverage at the crank,in order to maximise the torque output of the engine relative to force applied at the piston.Or conversely minimise the forces required at the piston for the equivalent output at the crank.

On that note,unlike the 14 litre ■■■■■■■■■■■ Gardner 180 was never going to make 80,let alone 130 lb/ft + per litre during its production life because,not withstanding the decent stroke,it couldn’t handle the required force at the piston.While applying the required force at the piston to the shorter stroke TL12,let alone the AEC V8,would probably have resulted in one or more con rods exiting the block and/or other ‘issues’ related to cylinder pressures being used to compensate for lack of leverage at the crank.

You really need to get out more Geoff.

[gazsa401]

Carryfast:

gazsa401:
I wasn’t using the 240 as an example you were referring a 14ltr ■■■■■■■ engine which by memory went from 250 to 500 plus BHP with the same block and head to a 10.45ltr engine which in its guise went from 150 to 230BHP again the torque per litre would be different from a 250 ■■■■■■■ to a 500 ■■■■■■■ depending on the revs quoted
Likewise with the Gardner the power and torque outputs are different despite the same engine capacity

Torque is all about the combination of force at the piston x leverage ( stroke ) at the crank not engine speed.Power is just torque multiplied by engine speed the more torque the less engine speed required to make the equivalent power.Like ‘Specific’ Power,‘Specific’ Torque has no relationship to overall engine capacity it’s a common measure and yardstick of engine efficiency.

■■? CF I don’t know which polytechnic book your using but I know what torque is torque is based on rpm that’s why Gardners torque range was massive from as low as 1000rpm up to 1850rpm hence long stroke slow revving engines
Again the difference between a 6 LX 150 maximum torque at 1700rpm to a 6LXB 180 maximum torque at 1850 is revolutions and again the engine capacity but different power and torque settings
A modern day 6ltr 220bhp powered puddle jumper wouldn’t have the same torque characteristics as a 220bhp Rolls 8 wheeler Scammell

[kr79]

splitshift:

kr79:

windrush:

[zb]
anorak:
]

RMC had 200 constructors fitted with gardner for there 1984 order I know someone who has two in a shed but are pretty rough now

Haha that’s got to be young Mr G in Tilbury did he save any of those old Hinos as well, iirc worked around the power station area, did Vince Milman or Brocks have any? cause back in the day they seemed to like an ex RMC/Halls motor

No hino as far as I know he must have 30 constructors a few scammell too and a few other odds and ends.
Aparently he is ■■■■■■■ with a film co to use some to make new hell drivers
Tge last few were only parked up at Xmas as they was on internal work

[carryfast]

gazsa401:
A modern day 6ltr 220bhp powered puddle jumper wouldn’t have the same torque characteristics as a 220bhp Rolls 8 wheeler Scammell

‘Characteristics’,or ‘where’ the torque is produced in the engine speed range,aren’t the same thing as specific torque ( BMEP ) which is the same yardstick used to determine the efficiency of everything from a moped engine to a container ship engine.IE it’s just the overall ‘amount’ of torque divided by the overall capacity of the engine which will give the equivalent relevant answer in all cases applicable to all.

[ramone]

newmercman:
Geoffrey a 5min ride in a 560 Stralis would have you reaching for the Kleenex!

I owned four of the 540 versions and they were very powerful, but had to be driven to get the best out of them, they do their best work higher up the rpm range than a traditional 500+hp lorry, split a gear at the bottom of a hill and they would blast up on the limiter, or if you fancied ■■■■■■■ off a mate in a 580 Scania, drop a full gear going up the Medway hill on the M2 and fly past him half way up and be in Sheerness 15minutes before him, he’ll come up with plenty of excuses, but deep down he’ll know he spent an extra 30grand for leather seats and a louder exhaust!

Anyway…

I’ve had an idea to breathe some new life into this thread as it has got a bit carryfast (repetitive) how about we discuss what we would’ve done if we held the reins at Leyland at the time of the T45 launch?

Here’s my plan…

First I would’ve disolved the group, Austin - Morris, MG, Rover, Triumph and Jaguar would’ve been seperated and Austin - Morris and MG sold off to the highest bidder. Triumph would’ve made sports cars, Rover and Jaguar would carry on doing what they were doing and unhindered by the abortions coming out of Cowley and Longbridge they could concentrate on their premium products.

I would’ve abandoned the Sherpa, the Transit was too formidable to take on and with Mercedes Benz and Volkswagen gaining momentum it had too small a potential market share to warrant the investment needed to bring the range up to scratch, so it would’ve gone.

I would’ve started the Roadrunner with the ■■■■■■■ B series right from the launch, the rest of the middleweight range would also have been ■■■■■■■ powered. For the heavy rigids I would’ve gone with ■■■■■■■ for the 16tonners and stuck with the Leyland engines for the heavier stuff until the L10 ■■■■■■■ was launched. For the eight wheelers and artic I would’ve gone with Rolls Royce engines as well as the ■■■■■■■ option and Fuller gearboxes.

I would’ve gone into a partnership with ■■■■■■■ to use existing engine plants to build licensed engines, to lower costs, keep the workforce and unions happy and keep the products away from the competition. For the Rolls Royce engines I would’ve used the money from the sale of Austin -Morris and MG to buy the company instead of letting it go to Perkins.

With the amount of money the government had thrown at BL, I’m pretty sure that it would’ve all been made to happen, Maggie was no fan of the unions, so I’m pretty sure she would’ve signed off on the deal to get rid of the Midlands operations and it’s militant workforce and the rest of it would be a pretty good deal too, Rolls Royce was a bit of a thorn in her side and she would’ve welcomed the investment by ■■■■■■■■

I think rationalization was definitely needed but deciding on which models you would be basing the next generation on would be difficult . Scammell imho would have been the specialist builder , and then a pooling of the best bits of the rest , which to be fair in`76 would have been a hard task. I think headhunting would have been the best route , the chief cab designers at Volvo , the chief engine designers at Scania and of course Carryfast to over see proceedings ,well 2 out of 3 aint bad

[robert1952]

The talk of buying out Rolls Royce earlier, reminded me that I used to think it was a shame that Rolls Royce didn’t build their own lorries. If they’d built a strong chassis in the early-ish '70s and put their Eagle 290 or 305 in it, they could have used the tall version of the Motor Panels Mk 4 cab, worked out a way of tilting it (like ERF did) and given it a rugged but majestic-looking front end. It could have had the split-windscreen of the Crusader and the full sleeper depth (like the ERF 7MW and French Mack). The interior cab quality could have been based on Continental practise (as the 7MW was). The centre-piece of the Crusader grille leant itself perfectly to the incorporation of a proper ‘exposed’-style Rolls Royce radiator, which might have looked slightly dated if regal, but then the Atkinson Borderer had a similar radiator well into the '70s when the SA400 came along. Then just add a decent sun-visor (for the export and ‘colonial’ look) and make sure that it exudes a bit of affordable quality (like Volvo did) and hey-presto: there you have your Rolls Royce Oriental, ready to hit the 1973 Brussels Show and the TIR-trail!

Good, now I’ve got that off my chest, I’ll go back to bed. Nighty-night! Robert

[cav551]

Carryfast:

gazsa401:
A modern day 6ltr 220bhp powered puddle jumper wouldn’t have the same torque characteristics as a 220bhp Rolls 8 wheeler Scammell

‘Characteristics’,or ‘where’ the torque is produced in the engine speed range,aren’t the same thing as specific torque ( BMEP ) which is the same yardstick used to determine the efficiency of everything from a moped engine to a container ship engine.IE it’s just the overall ‘amount’ of torque divided by the overall capacity of the engine which will give the equivalent relevant answer in all cases applicable to all.

Specific torque or torque ratio is not the same thing as BMEP (a theoretical figure). Both are used to compare engines, it is just easier mathematically to use ST. If you divide the maximum torque output by the cubic capacity (the specific torque) for a Gardner 6lxb you get 538lbft /10.45 litres = 51.4 lbft per litre. Its BMEP is 127psi.

Comparing its in-period reasonably apple-like competitor the unblown ■■■■■■■ NHK 250, this has a specific torque figure of 46.7 lbft per litre. Its BMEP is 115psi. The 6lxb’s direct equivalent the 11 litre 6" stroke ■■■■■■■ NH 180 = 45.8lbft/litre

I was not aware that a short length of iron bar was easier to bend and more likely to fracture than a longer bit.