Punchy Dan:
I’ve got some magazines from the 70’s ( not ■■■■ ) mainly Truck but no commercial motors sadly, Can the commercial motor archive be searched online for a second Hand sale add of said big j ?
Yep but a needle in a haystack search which still won’t prove whether it was built by Guy as knew or a retrofit.I think we’ve even seen one such ad which did suggest exactly that ( fitted 8LXB ).
Just like the car ads saying Ford Zodiac fitted 289 or 302 V8.Usually the term meaning non factory build retrofit.
Punchy Dan:
I’ve got some magazines from the 70’s ( not ■■■■ ) mainly Truck but no commercial motors sadly, Can the commercial motor archive be searched online for a second Hand sale add of said big j ?
Here is said advert Dan which Dave the Renegade posted a few years ago, I have a book at home detailing all the M A Evans fleet over the years and that is where I got the info from a few pages back regarding the vehicle being new to a Scottish Oil company, bought by Roy Evans from Chaddesley Commercials and sent to Longton Coachcraft to have the sleeper conversion.
Just a thought, Bewick ran 240 Gardners in their Atki’s and ERF’s alongside some Big J’s, so if these 8 pot Big J’s was available wouldn’t Dennis have given one a try?
I think there was a few made to keep Guy motors big fleet users happy, hence Smith’s of Maddison drivers comments, but the biggest user of Guy Big J’s on the factory’s doorstep was R Hampton who worked out of Patent Shaft, I would have thought that they would have got “given” one to trial? It has been mentioned that M A Evans showed Hamptons their 8 pot big J and Hampton’s was unaware of it’s existence.
Dennis,
Please pop down to your barn and get a photo of the rear 2 pots, don’t matter which one of the 39 you photograph!
harry_gill:
Bet none of the ■■■■■■■ engined Big J drivers asked for a Gardner swap
I’d set myself away tramping until the gaffers saw sense.
To be fair the maths say the choice would have been a no brainer in terms of fuel consumption, output, and maintenance costs v NA ■■■■■■■■
Hiya,
Ah’ yes C/F, but you’ve got your hauliers hat on here, now put your hired
hands hat on now and would you give a monkey’s about fuel consumption
and would you be happier driving something that would pull better and
keep you warm and not spend most of your working day choking on those
awful Gardner fumes invisible in the cab yes but in the cab yes. They was
a true gaffers motor, give me a ■■■■■■■ or a Roller anytime.
harry_gill:
Hiya,
Ah’ yes C/F, but you’ve got your hauliers hat on here, now put your hired
hands hat on now and would you give a monkey’s about fuel consumption
and would you be happier driving something that would pull better and
keep you warm and not spend most of your working day choking on those
awful Gardner fumes invisible in the cab yes but in the cab yes. They was
a true gaffers motor, give me a ■■■■■■■ or a Roller anytime.
I think engine spec sheets are generally good enough and there’s not a lot of difference on paper at least between the 8LXB v 250 ■■■■■■■ in terms of respective outputs.If you wanted an NA motor I’d guess the 8LXB had to be the best default choice.Nothing much if anything to lose in terms of go but probably lots to gain in fuel and maintenance costs over high mileages and hours.
I’d guess that can be the only reason why such a rarity got built.Quick enough to get the job done and cheaper to run than the ■■■■■■■ over high mileages, in a cheap ( the cheapest ? ) to buy fleet motor.
I’m sure Bewick only raised the topic because he’s got some regrets with hindsight on all those missed retirement funds in buying 8 LXB Atkis instead of Big J’s.
harry_gill:
Bet none of the ■■■■■■■ engined Big J drivers asked for a Gardner swap
I’d set myself away tramping until the gaffers saw sense.
To be fair the maths say the choice would have been a no brainer in terms of fuel consumption, output, and maintenance costs v NA ■■■■■■■■
Hiya,
Ah’ yes C/F, but you’ve got your hauliers hat on here, now put your hired
hands hat on now and would you give a monkey’s about fuel consumption
and would you be happier driving something that would pull better and
keep you warm and not spend most of your working day choking on those
awful Gardner fumes invisible in the cab yes but in the cab yes. They was
a true gaffers motor, give me a ■■■■■■■ or a Roller anytime.
Blimey Harry, you must have had some rough old motors to drive if fumes were getting in the cab? My Sed Ak with a Gardner 201 never let any fumes in, well apart from when the engine kicked in backwards on Ashbourne market place and the exhaust smoke came into the cab through the air filter behind my open window!! Gardner/Rolls or ■■■■■■■■ they all ran about the same speed on the level as the engine rpm’s were about the same (unless the ‘pump doctor’ had been in with the carving knife!) but admittedly the Gardner would slow down a little on hills compared to the others. I bet the 8LXB’s pulled almost as well as the ■■■■■■■ though? I did like my Gardner time though, but like you the Rolls I had later performed a little better. I had two ■■■■■■■ L10’s as well but you had to keep them ‘on the boil’ or they were not that brilliant.
harry_gill:
Bet none of the ■■■■■■■ engined Big J drivers asked for a Gardner swap
I’d set myself away tramping until the gaffers saw sense.
To be fair the maths say the choice would have been a no brainer in terms of fuel consumption, output, and maintenance costs v NA ■■■■■■■■
Hiya,
Ah’ yes C/F, but you’ve got your hauliers hat on here, now put your hired
hands hat on now and would you give a monkey’s about fuel consumption
and would you be happier driving something that would pull better and
keep you warm and not spend most of your working day choking on those
awful Gardner fumes invisible in the cab yes but in the cab yes. They was
a true gaffers motor, give me a ■■■■■■■ or a Roller anytime.
Howay “H” we can’t have you fretting about being forced into driving a nasty 8LXB Big J so I’ve decided to give you a choice of a couple of Scania 81’s I think you may plump for the day cab as you were a proper Driver who preferred to stay in digs and not spend 24 hrs per day in the cab ! But the LWB sleeper 81’s were quite spacious but of course the bunk would remain un-used if you chose that one ! Hope you are keeping well mate and steering clear of the virus. Regards Dennis.
harry_gill:
Bet none of the ■■■■■■■ engined Big J drivers asked for a Gardner swap
I’d set myself away tramping until the gaffers saw sense.
To be fair the maths say the choice would have been a no brainer in terms of fuel consumption, output, and maintenance costs v NA ■■■■■■■■
Hiya,
Ah’ yes C/F, but you’ve got your hauliers hat on here, now put your hired
hands hat on now and would you give a monkey’s about fuel consumption
and would you be happier driving something that would pull better and
keep you warm and not spend most of your working day choking on those
awful Gardner fumes invisible in the cab yes but in the cab yes. They was
a true gaffers motor, give me a ■■■■■■■ or a Roller anytime.
Howay “H” we can’t have you fretting about being forced into driving a nasty 8LXB Big J so I’ve decided to give you a choice of a couple of Scania 81’s I think you may plump for the day cab as you were a proper Driver who preferred to stay in digs and not spend 24 hrs per day in the cab ! But the LWB sleeper 81’s were quite spacious but of course the bunk would remain un-used if you chose that one ! Hope you are keeping well mate and steering clear of the virus. Regards Dennis.
1
0
Hiya,
Er’ Dennis do you think I can pass on the offer of those Scania 80 thingy’s
I did for a few days drive a KM and I got sick of blowing them off, Pete
didn’t we (proper drivers I mean) have to drive stuff with ill fitting bits
and bobs and missing bits and bobs (gaiters round the gearstick and the
pedals and when standing still in traffic you taste the damned stuff as
the Gardner fog found it’s way through the aforementioned appendages.
harry_gill:
Er’ Dennis do you think I can pass on the offer of those Scania 80 thingy’s
I did for a few days drive a KM and I got sick of blowing them off, Pete
didn’t we (proper drivers I mean) have to drive stuff with ill fitting bits
and bobs and missing bits and bobs (gaiters round the gearstick and the
pedals and when standing still in traffic you taste the damned stuff as
the Gardner fog found it’s way through the aforementioned appendages.
The only Gardner that I knew was a 180 in the last of our ERF B series heaps.This piece of junk had been relegated to yard shunter duties but I had the misfortune of having to do a run with it because we had nothing else available.
You’re right about their awful smoke issues.Which leaves the question how could such a dirty motor be supposedly so good on fuel.Unless their reputation for durability was overrated and much of that was oil burning not diesel.
Anyway I never bought into the NA diesel idea thinking it was a laughably obsolete design by the mid 1970’s at least.It stands to reason the boat anchors were never going to get enough air into them.
harry_gill:
Hiya,
Er’ Dennis do you think I can pass on the offer of those Scania 80 thingy’s
I did for a few days drive a KM and I got sick of blowing them off, Pete
didn’t we (proper drivers I mean) have to drive stuff with ill fitting bits
and bobs and missing bits and bobs (gaiters round the gearstick and the
pedals and when standing still in traffic you taste the damned stuff as
the Gardner fog found it’s way through the aforementioned appendages.
No Harry, I worked for a company where the vehicles were maintained pretty much regardless of cost so never experienced driving anything with ‘bits’ missing from them? No ‘make do and mend’ on Tilcon’s squadron, owner drivers used to raid our scrap box for parts for their trucks and if we had a problem it was soon sorted. I remember one driver complaining of wheel shimmy (some early eigjt wheeler Foden S80’s suffered from it until they modified the steering set up) and balancing the wheels didn’t satisfy him even though nobody else complained about it! Anyway four new front wheels with new tyres and four new brake drums were fitted and he was happy then as he could see something had been done! I’m guessing that Dennis ran his fleet in a similar style?
pete smith:
Here is said advert Dan which Dave the Renegade posted a few years ago,
It’s obvious that it’s referring to a non standard retro fitted motor.If you look at the wording of the same seller’s other ads it’s clear that they are using the word literally either in the case of body types or in this case a retro fitted motor.Their other vehicle ads don’t use the word fitted when describing engine types.
pete smith:
Here is said advert Dan which Dave the Renegade posted a few years ago,
It’s obvious that it’s referring to a non standard retro fitted motor.If you look at the wording of the same seller’s other ads it’s clear that they are using the word literally either in the case of body types or in this case a retro fitted motor.Their other vehicle ads don’t use the word fitted when describing engine types.
I’ve been agreeing with much of your recent imput CF and I think we sing on the same page as regards dealer-modified supplied new lorries. However, with regard to that advert, my initial reaction was the same as yours: Ah! the word ‘fitted’ implies re-fitted. But the language of the day, if you remember, was just that: we all referred to lorries being ‘fitted’ with a 240 / V8 / Turbo-diesel or whatever. You only have to look at the small-ads for cars or lorries of that period to know that the clerk who entered the advert would have used the common parlance of the day. ‘Fitted’ could equally mean ‘factory-fitted new’, ‘retro-fitted new’ or even ‘fitted 15 years later’! Just a semantic point, dear boy!
harry_gill:
Bet none of the ■■■■■■■ engined Big J drivers asked for a Gardner swap
I’d set myself away tramping until the gaffers saw sense.
To be fair the maths say the choice would have been a no brainer in terms of fuel consumption, output, and maintenance costs v NA ■■■■■■■■
Hiya,
Ah’ yes C/F, but you’ve got your hauliers hat on here, now put your hired
hands hat on now and would you give a monkey’s about fuel consumption
and would you be happier driving something that would pull better and
keep you warm and not spend most of your working day choking on those
awful Gardner fumes invisible in the cab yes but in the cab yes. They was
a true gaffers motor, give me a ■■■■■■■ or a Roller anytime.
Blimey Harry, you must have had some rough old motors to drive if fumes were getting in the cab? My Sed Ak with a Gardner 201 never let any fumes in, well apart from when the engine kicked in backwards on Ashbourne market place and the exhaust smoke came into the cab through the air filter behind my open window!! Gardner/Rolls or ■■■■■■■■ they all ran about the same speed on the level as the engine rpm’s were about the same (unless the ‘pump doctor’ had been in with the carving knife!) but admittedly the Gardner would slow down a little on hills compared to the others. I bet the 8LXB’s pulled almost as well as the ■■■■■■■ though? I did like my Gardner time though, but like you the Rolls I had later performed a little better. I had two ■■■■■■■ L10’s as well but you had to keep them ‘on the boil’ or they were not that brilliant.
Pete.
For the best part of 2 years,I drove a B series ERF for SoM with the big Percy on night trunk,a great reliable and trouble free motor,apart from servicing never had a spanner on it,and with a good heater too!
Carryfast:
It’s obvious that it’s referring to a non standard retro fitted motor.If you look at the wording of the same seller’s other ads it’s clear that they are using the word literally either in the case of body types or in this case a retro fitted motor.Their other vehicle ads don’t use the word fitted when describing engine types.
I’ve been agreeing with much of your recent imput CF and I think we sing on the same page as regards dealer-modified supplied new lorries. However, with regard to that advert, my initial reaction was the same as yours: Ah! the word ‘fitted’ implies re-fitted. But the language of the day, if you remember, was just that: we all referred to lorries being ‘fitted’ with a 240 / V8 / Turbo-diesel or whatever. You only have to look at the small-ads for cars or lorries of that period to know that the clerk who entered the advert would have used the common parlance of the day. ‘Fitted’ could equally mean ‘factory-fitted new’, ‘retro-fitted new’ or even ‘fitted 15 years later’! Just a semantic point, dear boy!
I was only around the used car scene at that time.But I only recognise ‘fitted’ as meaning not as it left the factory gate/factory fit option.So Rover 2000 or 3500 V8 auto/manual. Triumph 2000 or 2.5 pas auto/manual/manual o/d.Jag Mk2/S-type 3.4 or 3.8 or 4.2 auto/manaul/o/d .The word fitted was never used to describe engine type or factory fit options.
But if you saw an advert Ford Zodiac fitted, ( meaning ‘retrospectively’ ‘fitted’ ‘with’ because words cost money ), 289 or 302 V8, then the phone would be permanently engaged and when you did eventually get through the seller would say sorry its sold if only I had 3 or 4 more like it to sell.
While by your logic surely wouldn’t every other truck advertised by the same seller also be expected to say fitted together with their respective engine types which they clearly don’t again because words cost money ?.
IE Why would they want to spend the extra ad money on a needless discriptor.Obviously because the vehicle is ‘fitted’ with a different ‘type’ of engine than it left the factory with.
Or in the case of body type left the factory with no body type at all.
It would be interesting to find out if the 240 Gardner was still considered as such a good bet at that point in time as opposed to when it was fitted.Or maybe like me by then many might have said the worst of all worlds old heap of junk with a big NA boat anchor fitted in it for good measure and not even worth putting a turbo ■■■■■■■ in it now.Put the cash into something better.
I think we have to remember that back then you really only had the option of a engine which was used by the car manufacturer, the dealer would have stated cc size and model spec in the advert, if an operator was looking for a commercial vehicle in the adds, he would want to know what engine was fitted, now for the Guy in question there would be a premium to pay for it to be fitted with a Gardner engine especially a eight potter rather than ■■■■■■■■ if it had a fuel thirsty RR fitted that I believe this would put its value at the bottom end in the aftermarket.
dave docwra:
I think we have to remember that back then you really only had the option of a engine which was used by the car manufacturer, the dealer would have stated cc size and model spec in the advert, if an operator was looking for a commercial vehicle in the adds, he would want to know what engine was fitted,
So why does the first advert for the '74 one just say ■■■■■■■ 220 fitted ally body.Why not also fitted ■■■■■■■ 220 ?.
dave docwra:
I think we have to remember that back then you really only had the option of a engine which was used by the car manufacturer, the dealer would have stated cc size and model spec in the advert, if an operator was looking for a commercial vehicle in the adds, he would want to know what engine was fitted,
So why does the first advert for the '74 one just say ■■■■■■■ 220 fitted ally body.Why not also fitted ■■■■■■■ 220 ?.
You’re asking the wrong person, you would need to ask the person who posted the advert for their views on why.
Carryfast:
So why does the first advert for the '74 one just say ■■■■■■■ 220 fitted ally body.Why not also fitted ■■■■■■■ 220 ?.
You’re asking the wrong person, you would need to ask the person who posted the advert for their views on why.
No chance of that.We’ve only got logical deduction to go by and we do know that adverts are charged for by the amount of words.Doubtful that anyone would be randomly putting unnecessary words in without a reason for it.
Carryfast:
So why does the first advert for the '74 one just say ■■■■■■■ 220 fitted ally body.Why not also fitted ■■■■■■■ 220 ?.
You’re asking the wrong person, you would need to ask the person who posted the advert for their views on why.
No chance of that.We’ve only got logical deduction to go by and we do know that adverts are charged for by the amount of words.Doubtful that anyone would be randomly putting unnecessary words in without a reason for it.
you couldn’t be wronger on that point if you tried, CF! I’ve run old bangers most of my life and I spent many happy hours reading through the small ads in the local rags ( or Adscene). Likewise, I was well aware of how each word counts along with the pennies. I was frequently appalled at the money people wasted on long-winded unnecessary verbiage in their small ads. Dave Docwra is right: you need to ask the bloke who wrote the ad, not second-guess his motives, his aptitude for succinct copy or his colloquial usage. Drop the bone, Rover! Oh, lordy I’ve gone and mentioned Rover. We’ll get the 3500 P4 and the P5 thrown in now. What have I done Ro
mainly Truck but no commercial motors sadly, Can the commercial motor archive be searched online for a second Hand sale add of said big j ?
