RMC ran a large fleet of Leyland Constructor 6LXCTs and Leyland Buses fitted the 6LXB right up to the early 90s
Dennis, do you realise this topic has been running seven years! I tried to jog some memories of one or two people who were responsible for producing engine spec. sheets, at Patricroft, but to no avail, so the 8lxb / Guy saga continues. It is highly unlikely that we did actually get involved in supplying an 8lxb but it was possible that Guy had it down as an option at some period. I note that we still have our resident Claptrap pontificator spouting about a subject he patently does not know anything about. I was saddened to hear of Saviem’s demise, as he was someone you could have a sound technical conversation with, albeit you may have had diametrically opposed points of view. On the subject of Gardner engine pricing I can confirm that the price differential between Gardner and equivalent ■■■■■■■ engines was minimal, the bulk of the differential was purely OEM mark up. I once had to sit in at The Tipcon Forum, in Harrogate.Also on the panel was I think Barney White the MD of S.Atkinson and Roger Wilsdon the sales Director of ■■■■■■■■ The usual array of tipper operators stood up and started to berate Gardner for their pricing policies, Barney kept ‘schtum’ with Roger trying to keep a straight face! All of us new the real cost differentials but it is incumbent upon a supplier, and customer, to keep a commercial confidence in such a situation. After the Forum Barney thanked me for not dropping him, or, Seddon Atkinson in it, his magnanimity obviously new no bounds. On the ■■■■■■■ front, in 1984, at the NEC Roger congratulated me in selling the 6LYT engine to Neoplan, for the 3 axle Skyliner, he said ■■■■■■■ had been trying to sell into Neoplan for quite a long time without success, quite made my day. On the subject of how many engines an OEM bought from Gardner, the following may give you a different perspective on who really bought Gardner engines in volume. ERF 1330 in 1978 and 1349 in 1979. Leyland 1554 in 1978 and 1449 in 1979.
Well C/F Claims he did drive a motor with a Gardner engine, But did he ever own a one to find out just how good & I mean good they were on fuel, In their heyday they were the best one to get, I remember a 4 wheeler Atki, with the 4 LK in a 5 speed D/B box & a Eaton two speed axle that did 22 mpg with 7 ton on its back, Down to Manchester & back loaded , So its little wonder the hauliers liked them, Of course he wont remeber this because he wasnt born, 
, Regards Larry.
Blimey I haven’t even got my head around the idea of old school Atkis and Guy Big J’s being viewed as ‘premium’ wagons,as opposed to the definition of the nasty Brit guvnor’s wagon regardless of wether they were fitted with Gardner 8 LXB or Rolls or ■■■■■■■ motors.IE where do things like the Scania 110,ERF NGC and Bedford TM for example fit in that as that would make them super premium ? .
Let alone the idea that Leyland still considered Gardners as a viable option up to 1980.Let alone again in the T45 which to me realistically,logically,just means ■■■■■■■ or Rolls after the TL12 predictably fell by the way side. 
In which case the 8 LXB Big J saga seems to have raised the even bigger question of the extent of the Gardner engine option in the Leyland Group range in general ?.In which surely it would arguably be fair to say that the Crusader was mostly all about Rolls engines and certainly not Gardners to my knowledge and a three way fight between ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ and TL12 in the Marathon with both Rolls and ■■■■■■■ having effectively totally then won out in the T45 ?.Apparently with the exception of what seems like some obscure special order rigids.Although as in the case of Bewick,regarding the 8LXB Big J,I’m surprised that Leyland Group still seemed to want to bother to meet orders for Gardner engined chassis by that time regardless of type.On the basis that,for Gardner type engine capacity at least,the choice is TL12,■■■■■■■ or Rolls or nothing take it or leave it with the TL12’s days also being numbered. 
5Valve:
On the subject of how many engines an OEM bought from Gardner, the following may give you a different perspective on who really bought Gardner engines in volume. ERF 1330 in 1978 and 1349 in 1979. Leyland 1554 in 1978 and 1449 in 1979.
Blimey that must mean around 3,000 Gardner engined Marathons that we didn’t know about. 
( Or is that figure mostly about buses ? ). 
I would make an educated guess that most of the Gardner engines supplied to Leyland were fitted into bus chassis, with London Transport being a buyer back then.
5Valve:
Dennis, do you realise this topic has been running seven years! I tried to jog some memories of one or two people who were responsible for producing engine spec. sheets, at Patricroft, but to no avail, so the 8lxb / Guy saga continues. It is highly unlikely that we did actually get involved in supplying an 8lxb but it was possible that Guy had it down as an option at some period. I note that we still have our resident Claptrap pontificator spouting about a subject he patently does not know anything about. I was saddened to hear of Saviem’s demise, as he was someone you could have a sound technical conversation with, albeit you may have had diametrically opposed points of view. On the subject of Gardner engine pricing I can confirm that the price differential between Gardner and equivalent ■■■■■■■ engines was minimal, the bulk of the differential was purely OEM mark up. I once had to sit in at The Tipcon Forum, in Harrogate.Also on the panel was I think Barney White the MD of S.Atkinson and Roger Wilsdon the sales Director of ■■■■■■■■ The usual array of tipper operators stood up and started to berate Gardner for their pricing policies, Barney kept ‘schtum’ with Roger trying to keep a straight face! All of us new the real cost differentials but it is incumbent upon a supplier, and customer, to keep a commercial confidence in such a situation. After the Forum Barney thanked me for not dropping him, or, Seddon Atkinson in it, his magnanimity obviously new no bounds. On the ■■■■■■■ front, in 1984, at the NEC Roger congratulated me in selling the 6LYT engine to Neoplan, for the 3 axle Skyliner, he said ■■■■■■■ had been trying to sell into Neoplan for quite a long time without success, quite made my day. On the subject of how many engines an OEM bought from Gardner, the following may give you a different perspective on who really bought Gardner engines in volume. ERF 1330 in 1978 and 1349 in 1979. Leyland 1554 in 1978 and 1449 in 1979.
Hiya “5Valve” can I say what a fine and interesting post ! “Saviem” was indeed a very sad and tragic loss to all who knew him and, of course, devastating for his Family. He really was a mine of precise and interesting information about “our” industry and at times he certainly opened my eyes to things I didn’t really appreciate that occurred further up the HGV supply chain ! I was only an end user ! With regards to engine pricing viz-a-viz Gardner’s it was as you rightly confirm the vehicle assemblers that “stuck” a premium onto the Gardner chassis as the demand during those far off days was literally insatiable ( a bit like the holiday firms upping the cost in school holiday time! 
) But Atki’s, ERF and Foden could get away with it so the premium charged probably went some way to making up for the heavy discounts they had to offer on particularly the RR engine chassis and maybe the Leyland engine Foden ( and their poxy Two Stroke offering!) Just a thought, Cheers Dennis.
Bewick:
“Saviem” was indeed a very sad and tragic loss to all who knew him and, of course, devastating for his Family. He really was a mine of precise and interesting information about “our” industry and at times he certainly opened my eyes to things.
Don’t forget that Saviem ( rightly ) thought the RR was a great motor.Also bearing in mind that it was still in existence in the form of the TX after Gardner had been closed down let alone from when you’d chosen to walk away from the things yourself.
Here you are “■■■■■■■■■” this is a shot of the only RR we operated which was acquired in a “buy out” IIRC it only survived 6 months and I replaced it with a Scania 111. Cheers Bewick.
The Rolls (well the 265 LI in particular) WAS a decent motor, we had a fleet of them and they gave very few problems in the 10-15 years that we kept the trucks. About 1-2 mpg difference compared to the Gardner 6LXC’s. Our Gardner’s DID give problems however, they just couldn’t stand the pace I suppose and drank oil like it was going out of fashion, but still gave around 6 years service with usually only one major rebuild. According to users Fodens ‘stroker’ was OK driven correctly, keep them above 2000 rpm and they kept cool but letting them labour was the kiss of death to them as they overheated badly at low revs partly due to the slow fan speed. Thirsty compared to a Gardner though, but you got twice as much work done in the day… . If only we could have got hold of some of the 8LXB powered Foden eight leggers…
Pete.
windrush:
The Rolls (well the 265 LI in particular) WAS a decent motor, we had a fleet of them and they gave very few problems in the 10-15 years that we kept the trucks. About 1-2 mpg difference compared to the Gardner 6LXC’s. Our Gardner’s DID give problems however, they just couldn’t stand the pace I suppose and drank oil like it was going out of fashion, but still gave around 6 years service with usually only one major rebuild. According to users Fodens ‘stroker’ was OK driven correctly, keep them above 2000 rpm and they kept cool but letting them labour was the kiss of death to them as they overheated badly at low revs partly due to the slow fan speed. Thirsty compared to a Gardner though, but you got twice as much work done in the day…Pete.
Sorry, the ■■■■■■■ computer was playing up so reposted ! Apologies Dennis.
Now then Pete just lets put your post into perspective ( “CF” style ) As far as I was concerned during the time I was involved in the industry the RR engine was crap and couldn’t hold a candle to the Gardner 180/240 LXB or the ■■■■■■■ and as for what I used to hear about that “joke” of a Foden engine doesn’t warrant a civil comment ! I can honestly admit that I never considered the 6LXC as it couldn’t fit into our operation but you freely admit that it was far more frugal on fuel than the RR. Now as for your comment about the Foden Stroker’s ability to get through TWICE as much work in the day than the Gardner 6LXC, really ! No doubt the “Leatherhead keyboard Warrior” will be flexing his “pinkeys” to advise us that had all your Fodens been fitted with DD’s there would have been no problems whatsoever i.e. Reliability, fuel economy, increased payload and minimum servicing ! Cheers Dennis.
Bewick:
Now then Pete just lets put your post into perspective ( “CF” style
Let’s get this right you would have turned down an 8 LXB Big J regardless.In favour of ■■■■■■■ Atkis.You also decided to offload a delayed 8 LXB order again in favour of keeping the ■■■■■■■ Atkis which you say gave you 100% service.Then you later inherited an obviously knackered Rolls Seddon which had to be at least 3 years old assuming we’re talking 1978 at the earliest.While we don’t know what work it had done up to that point.Then ran it for 6 months at which point you got rid and replaced it with a … turbocharged 6 cylinder Scania the basic design of which had been around since the start of the 1970’s in the form of the 110.
Now be honest Bewick are you really trying to convince us that you were a committed Gardner fan.Or just that you found out late,like so many others,that 6 cylinders and a turbocharger was the way to go.On that note assuming the Rolls was supposedly such a dog remind us which of the two types was it that took to turbocharging like a duck to water and which one couldn’t hack it.Thereby proving the basic strength of the design of the Rolls v the weakness of the Gardner. 
As for two strokes they are a bit like Marmite.But on the basis of comparing apples with apples, in the form of turbo ■■■■■■■ v turbo 92 series.As close to 6 mpg as makes no difference,in Euro terrain,lumbered with a 9 speed box,at 40 t gross,ain’t that bad by the standards of the late 1970’s.Remind us again what was the 8 LXB’s fuel consumption figure running at 40t in Euro terrain,under Italian power to weight ratio requirements.Oh wait.
Which just leaves the question didn’t H say that it was possible to get the Big J in turbocharged Rolls and/or ■■■■■■■ form ?.
Well Dennis, I wouldn’t call a couple of mpg as being “far more frugal” but there you go! By the time a gallon of oil a day in the ‘percy’ was added to the cost there wasn’t much in it, our ■■■■■■■ engined eight leggers could sup juice like there was no tomorrow though! What I do know is that with the Rolls engine more work could be done in a day and more easily compared to the 6LXC powered trucks but (as the Gardner test driver told me personally while testing one of our tankers that wouldn’t pull your ■■■■■■■■ off) “If you wanted more power then Rolls or ■■■■■■■ are the engines your firm should have specified” which was straight and to the point I suppose?
Pete.
I know you could get the 240T ■■■■■■■ in a Big J, there were slso a number of E290 and RR290 powered ones too, British Telecom had quite a few as did Midlands BRS.
Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
newmercman:
I know you could get the 240T ■■■■■■■ in a Big J, there were slso a number of E290 and RR290 powered ones too, British Telecom had quite a few as did Midlands BRS.
I’m guessing we might be talking a bit more than 57 in that case ?. 
Put that bombshell together with Bewick’s liking for the Scania maybe a bit more thermonuclear evidence that the issue of the 8 LXB Big J’s rarity had less to do with Guy Motors not being able to get its hands on Gardner’s boat anchors.But more like the pace of development going on during that crucial period of change.When even the cheapest nastiest guvnor’s motor could expect to ideally have a decent turbocharged motor in it.
Now awaits Bewick’s reply that he did actually ask Scania if they could put a Gardner motor in his Scanias instead of that new fangled turbo 6 thing.But they said no because Gardner wouldn’t let the Swedes have any under its product rationing policy.
Carryfast:
newmercman:
I know you could get the 240T ■■■■■■■ in a Big J, there were slso a number of E290 and RR290 powered ones too, British Telecom had quite a few as did Midlands BRS.I’m guessing we might be talking a bit more than 57 in that case ?.
Put that bombshell together with Bewick’s liking for the Scania maybe a bit more thermonuclear evidence that the issue of the 8 LXB Big J’s rarity had less to do with Guy Motors not being able to get its hands on Gardner’s boat anchors.But more like the pace of development going on during that crucial period of change.When even the cheapest nastiest guvnor’s motor could expect to ideally have a decent turbocharged motor in it.
Now awaits Bewick’s reply that he did actually ask Scania if they could put a Gardner motor in his Scanias instead of that new fangled turbo 6 thing.But they said no because Gardner wouldn’t let the Swedes have any under its product rationing policy.
Can I ask you one question “CF” why is the total consensus of opinion on this site that you have always, and will no doubt continue to do,insist on spouting an utter load of Bollox on any subject and thread you decide to infect ! 
Cheers Bewick.
You must be as mad as him if you expect a sensible response to that Dennis.
Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
Catch up, NMM, we are all half a sandwich short of a picnic. Why else would we have chosen to go into road transport?
Bewick:
Can I ask you one question “CF” why is the total consensus of opinion on this site that you have always, and will no doubt continue to do,insist on spouting an utter load of Bollox on any subject and thread you decide to infect !
More like too many inconvenient questions for you to answer. As to what changed and when between Gardners being the best thing around,to suddenly Scania had actually got it right with its turbocharged motors since around at least 1970.The Big J’s production run obviously falling across that dividing line and which would probably,arguably,in large part,explain the rarity of the NA 8 cylinder Gardner option and Guy then eventually putting a similar,arguably even better,premium engine spec,in what were otherwise still cheap and nasty Brit guvnor’s wagons,more than Guy having run out of its supposed ration of the things.