ramone:
I had a 320 Gardner and i was very impressed with it .It could puĺl like a train and never let me down .Wouldn"'t it be more señsible to compare a 290 ■■■■■■■ to a 320 Gardner or even a 320 ■■■■■■■ for that matter Obviously a 180 Gardner or a 240 wouĺdnt live with a 290 ■■■■■■■■
In this case and timeline it’s more about the choice between Scania 110 v first generation turbo Rolls/■■■■■■■ v NA Rolls/■■■■■■■ v 8 cylinder Gardner engined Big J.To which my personal choice would have been either go for the Scania or turbo Rolls Big J.With the Big J probably easily then winning out on purchase price and overall running costs v the Scania at least.
As for turbo Gardner maybe that’s a question for Bewick to answer bearing in mind that the E 290 was well sorted in just about any Brit truck anyone wanted by the end of the 1970’s instead of which he seems to have given the NA Gardner a last come back then deserted the Brits entirely in favour the Swedes etc.But obviously that happening outside the timeline of the Big J.
Also bearing in mind that Bewick made his choice clear between NA ■■■■■■■ Atki v 8 LXB Big J.Raising the question of which,as in the case of if Scania 111 why not 110 before that,seems to have upset him for some reason.
To put it in terms of nmm’s analogy the 8 LXB Big J seems a bit like buying the Beef for the Sunday roast on a Friday with a use by date on it of Saturday.Or the old fighter making one last come back fight and being KO’d in the first round.In which case the idea of the early-mid 1970’s Gardner engined Big J,whether 6 or 8 cylinder,seems as mad to me as the idea of a Gardner engined Crusader or Marathon in the early to late 1970’s.Let alone NA 8 cylinder Gardner engined SA 400/401 in the early 1980’s.
The Guy Big J was a low cost option the Scania 110 / 111 was a premium lorry of the time. The 240 Gardner in a Guy Big J was a very rare beast . The 240 Gardner would be up against probably the NA 240 ■■■■■■■ in a like for like comparison. As for the 180 Gardner you would put that up against the likes of the F86 Scania 80/81 Mercedes 1418 , the thing youve got to remember here is if they couldnt sell them they wouldnt make them. As slow as they were they sold thousands and the waiting list at the time was endless, maybe you knew something all these hauliers who were making money out of them didnt. They were always known as a gaffers motor and many drivers hated them my dad being 1 who came off a 59 Mammoth Major 38mph and got a brand new 1 in a Atki in71. At the end of the day a lorry is a tool to make money ,hauliers buy the best vehicle for their operation , some may have a big profit margin and can afford to buy premium motors others dont
Operating lorries has always been about whole life costs, in their day Gardner powered lorries would have the edge, low operating costs have been proven, they were reliable and economical and would fetch top dollar on the second hand market. They were definitely a premium lorry, were being the operative word.
This is the major bone of contention, as I said, my experience of Gardner power was a miserable one, many will have had similar experiences, whereas the older drivers and operators will remember when a Gardner under the cab meant you were king of the road, I think that needs to be taken into account on both sides.
gazsa401:
I’ll give a brief insight to my time at Stirlands I started there in 1981 the fleet was around a 120 strong and 100% Gardner powered with 60% being ERF and approximately 40% Seddon Atkinson with around half a dozen Atkinson Borderers with a mixture of 8LXBs 6LXBs and 6LXCS
The fleet engineer was a genius called Brian Ward a complete dyed in the wool Gardner man
I’ve posted on here before about the mileage the lorries Stirlands ran especially the trunk motors
There was nothing that could touch the Gardner for reliability at the time and as for fuel consumption which was the biggest annual cost not much came close
But no matter how heavy footed the driver was the fuel economy was pretty much the same
We regularly had different lorry manufacturers giving us demos for long term trials but if they didn’t hit the magic MPG Brian Ward wanted they were sent back
Some were sent back because of the excessive mileage reached in a short time
Anyway our first Turbocharged Gardner powered lorry was a 401 Seddon Atkinson XRR 252Y
That stayed in service for 13 years with one major engine overall in that 13 years
Brian Ward was a stickler for using top notch engine oil (with a close eye on consumption)
He worked very close with Gardner’s in getting the right specific oil
Which I don’t know why gave extended engine life in between overhauls
I can’t remember any of the Gardner’s having any bottom end problems
He also maintained that the engine oil level was kept just under the maximum level mark
The LXCs didn’t seem to cover the mileage as the LXBs did before an overhaul was needed plus we had a few seizures due to water pump failures
The turbocharged Gardner’s were much more reliable and just as economical as the LXCs with the trunk motors giving as much as 9 to 10 MPG
From memory we ran about 25 LXCTs in both 6 and 8 cylinder guise
The last 401s we had were 3 6LYTs powered
They were bought for weight saving they were around 400kg lighter than a 320 ■■■■■■■ powered equivalent
2 were “C” reg and 1 “D” reg the 2 “C” reg ones were very reliable but the “D” ref one was a complete lemon
It only stayed on the fleet for about 4 years mostly doing local work
6 301s entered the fleet in the early 80s they leaked more oil than the Gardner’s ( ■■■■■■■ didn’t feature in fleet again until 1996 with the arrival of the EC11 )
ERF became the mainstay of the fleet both in “C and E” series form again with Gardner being the main engine choice both in LYT and LXDTs with a mixture of Perkins TX engines towards the last purchases of the “E”
Series
The Perkins TX was still being purchased in the ERF EC12s
So just to add light to CFs constant put down on anything Gardner or any hauliers decision to buy Gardner powered lorries when more modern engines were available
It’s down to the buyers preference
Stirlands was the 2nd highest profitable company within TDG not bad for a fleet powered mostly by boat anchors!!!
gazsa401:
Which I don’t why gave extended engine life in between overhauls
I can’t remember any of the Gardner’s having any bottom end problems
He also maintained that the engine oil level was kept just under the maximum level mark
The LXCs didn’t seem to cover the mileage as the LXBs did before an overhaul was needed plus we had a few seizures due to water pump failures
The turbocharged Gardner’s were much more reliable and just as economical as the LXCs with the trunk motors giving as much as 9 to 10 MPG
From memory we ran about 25 LXCTs in both 6 and 8 cylinder guise
The last 401s we had were 3 6LYTs powered
They were bought for weight saving they were around 400kg lighter than a 320 ■■■■■■■ powered equivalent
2 were “C” reg and 1 “D” reg the 2 “C” reg ones were very reliable but the “D” ref one was a complete lemon
It only stayed on the fleet for about 4 years mostly doing local work
6 301s entered the fleet in the early 80s they leaked more oil than the Gardner’s ( ■■■■■■■ didn’t feature in fleet again until 1996 with the arrival of the EC11 )
ERF became the mainstay of the fleet both in “C and E” series form again with Gardner being the main engine choice both in LYT and LXDTs with a mixture of Perkins TX engines towards the last purchases of the “E”
Series
The Perkins TX was still being purchased in the ERF EC12s
So just to add light to CFs constant put down on anything Gardner or any hauliers decision to buy Gardner powered lorries when more modern engines were available
It’s down to the buyers preference
Stirlands was the 2nd highest profitable company within TDG not bad for a fleet powered mostly by boat anchors!!!
Firstly most of that comparison relates to turbo Gardners which is more a question again for Bewick not me.IE what made him count out the turbo Gardner ?.
While I’d have automatically just put an E 290/320 in the 401 anyway.Just as I’d have put a turbo Rolls in the Big J instead of 8 LXB.On the grounds that firstly my reference to ‘boat anchors’ only applies to the NA Gardner v the turbo foreign and domestic competition which was established in the 1970’s.While the evidence says that the turbo Gardner couldn’t hack it v the ■■■■■■■ or the Rolls.Which is why Bewick seems to have deserted Gardner completely and the TX was still there after Gardner had actually been closed down with the N14 obviously going on even longer.
As for the Big J there is probably a reason why Leyland Group didn’t choose to offer the Gardner option in the Marathon or the T45.
Having said that a random check of the used truck adverts in the archives suggest that the turbocharged Rolls/■■■■■■■ Big J was also a rare beast.While the Gardner 8LXB version seems to have been unwanted even by loyal Gardner buyers like Bewick.
Well as far as Gardners engines are concerened I ran Gardner 150s, They gave me a good MPG,& were trouble free,This CF ■■■■ has no idea about fuel econemy, Thats how haulage firms that ran the Gardner engined motors made a good living and paid their drivers a decent wage, OK They were a bit slow, But they allways got the job done, Now please may I ask If there is anyone on this fantastic thread would like to comment on what Ive just said, & That includes the ■■■■ formentioned, Regards Larry.
Lawrence Dunbar:
Well as far as Gardners engines are concerened I ran Gardner 150s, They gave me a good MPG,& were trouble free,This CF [zb] has no idea about fuel econemy, Thats how haulage firms that ran the Gardner engined motors made a good living and paid their drivers a decent wage, OK They were a bit slow, But they allways got the job done, Now please may I ask If there is anyone on this fantastic thread would like to comment on what Ive just said, & That includes the [zb] formentioned, Regards Larry.
You’ll have noticed that I’ve ■■■■■■ off the AEC fans a few times too. On that note ‘if’ you were to say would I go for AEC 690 for example v Gardner it would have been the the Gardner that went in my wagon every time not the AEC. However that choice changes when it comes to turbocharged Rolls,let alone Scania 110,for example v Gardner 8 LXB in the mid 1970’s.It’s called objectivety and progress.
Having said that as you’ll have seen my view in the day was obviously clouded by having spent my introduction and first years in the job in those days around things like 200 hp + 4 wheelers and 600 hp +,admittedly heavy special types,six wheelers.In which it’s actually a culture shock to me now to look back at what was going on in the real world among the used truck ads in the CM Archives of the day.In which as I’ve said a turbocharged Rolls or ■■■■■■■ Big J for just one example seems to be more or less about as rare as the 8 LXB Gardner with the ads full of what I’d view then or now as obsolete junk often using the 180 Gardner option let alone the 240 and let alone again turbo ■■■■■■■ or Rolls.So yes I can now see how the 8 LXB would generally have been seen as something very special in the day regardless of my personal view of it.
gazsa401:
Which I don’t why gave extended engine life in between overhauls
I can’t remember any of the Gardner’s having any bottom end problems
He also maintained that the engine oil level was kept just under the maximum level mark
The LXCs didn’t seem to cover the mileage as the LXBs did before an overhaul was needed plus we had a few seizures due to water pump failures
The turbocharged Gardner’s were much more reliable and just as economical as the LXCs with the trunk motors giving as much as 9 to 10 MPG
From memory we ran about 25 LXCTs in both 6 and 8 cylinder guise
The last 401s we had were 3 6LYTs powered
They were bought for weight saving they were around 400kg lighter than a 320 ■■■■■■■ powered equivalent
2 were “C” reg and 1 “D” reg the 2 “C” reg ones were very reliable but the “D” ref one was a complete lemon
It only stayed on the fleet for about 4 years mostly doing local work
6 301s entered the fleet in the early 80s they leaked more oil than the Gardner’s ( ■■■■■■■ didn’t feature in fleet again until 1996 with the arrival of the EC11 )
ERF became the mainstay of the fleet both in “C and E” series form again with Gardner being the main engine choice both in LYT and LXDTs with a mixture of Perkins TX engines towards the last purchases of the “E”
Series
The Perkins TX was still being purchased in the ERF EC12s
So just to add light to CFs constant put down on anything Gardner or any hauliers decision to buy Gardner powered lorries when more modern engines were available
It’s down to the buyers preference
Stirlands was the 2nd highest profitable company within TDG not bad for a fleet powered mostly by boat anchors!!!
Firstly most of that comparison relates to turbo Gardners which is more a question again for Bewick not me.IE what made him count out the turbo Gardner ?.
While I’d have automatically just put an E 290/320 in the 401 anyway.Just as I’d have put a turbo Rolls in the Big J instead of 8 LXB.On the grounds that firstly my reference to ‘boat anchors’ only applies to the NA Gardner v the turbo foreign and domestic competition which was established in the 1970’s.While the evidence says that the turbo Gardner couldn’t hack it v the ■■■■■■■ or the Rolls.Which is why Bewick seems to have deserted Gardner completely and the TX was still there after Gardner had actually been closed down with the N14 obviously going on even longer.
As for the Big J there is probably a reason why Leyland Group didn’t choose to offer the Gardner option in the Marathon or the T45.
Having said that a random check of the used truck adverts in the archives suggest that the turbocharged Rolls/■■■■■■■ Big J was also a rare beast.While the Gardner 8LXB version seems to have been unwanted even by loyal Gardner buyers like Bewick.
What proof do you have that in your words Turbocharged Gardner’s couldn’t hack it
Did you have any personal experience of driving or operating Turbocharged Gardner engines■■?
Please enlighten us all and for once don’t use Bewick as your usual yardstick
Dennis as already gave us his own reasons and opinions why he started buying other marquees it’s called buyers preference
So once and for all tell the hundreds of successful hauliers big and small why they were wrong in operating Turbocharged Gardner engines
I admire your tenacity gazsa401 in defending Gardner’s corner but I think that you are seriously over estimating their sales figures in the 1980s. (Your last sentence above). For example the 6LXCT was introduced in 1981 but only 175 were sold to lorry builders in the first year of availability. By 1985 Gardner’s employed just 600 people compared with about 3,500 in its heyday. By 1989 ERF and SA had de-listed any Gardner engine option.
gazsa401:
What proof do you have that in your words Turbocharged Gardner’s couldn’t hack it
Did you have any personal experience of driving or operating Turbocharged Gardner engines■■?
Please enlighten us all and for once don’t use Bewick as your usual yardstick
Dennis as already gave us his own reasons and opinions why he started buying other marquees it’s called buyers preference
So once and for all tell the hundreds of successful hauliers big and small why they were wrong in operating Turbocharged Gardner engines
Firstly I don’t think Bewick ever actually ran any turbo Gardners either so why the double standard regarding his ‘personal preference’ v my own.In which case as I said I ‘would’ have automatically gone for the ■■■■■■■ E 290/320 option in the SA without giving it a second thought.Ironically on the basis that I think that the Brit product was a better bet than the Scania in that case.
Meanwhile this seems as good a reason ( proof ) as any that confirms my sixth sense and educated guess rather than blind prejudice in that regard.In addition to,as I said,the question why didn’t Leyland Group seem to wish to want to carry on its previous relationship with Gardner,in addition to ■■■■■■■ and Rolls,in the case of the Marathon and T45 ?.While if you’re saying that Gardner was closed down ultimately because of false claims/doubts,regarding the reliabilty/durability of its turbocharged products in the day,which like many others I’ve taken at face value,bearing in mind the unarguable relative bullet proof nature of the ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ opposition,that’s not exactly my fault or anything to do with me is it.
I engaged the old brain cell last night IIRC over a period from the mid 70’ to the late 80’s I had somewhere approaching 40 Gardner engine chassis through the fleet this number was made up of about 15 or 16 8LXB/C’s, a 6LW, 3 LX150’s with the remainder being 180LXB’s. I can honestly say that, without exception, they all gave us reliable and economical service and I can only recall and odd rebuild of some of the 180LXB’s but none of the 8 cylinders required major surgery during the time they were in the fleet. Ironically I can also say that the very last two 8LXC engine Sed/Atks I bought in 1984 were excellent motors, with the Fuller 95909 box and Rockwell axle. But by this time Scania and to a lesser extent Volvo had become the mainstay of the Bewick fleet. I had also become aware of Gardners attempt to “catch up” so to speak had led it to add turbocharging to their engines which IMHO was a failure waiting to happen so I just never showed any further enthusiasm to buy anymore Gardner engined Sed/Atks or ERF’s and I believe my decision was vindicated ! To put things in further perspective I stopped buying anymore ■■■■■■■ engine motors in the mid 70’s when the 250 engine replaced the 220 ! also I wouldn’t entertain a RR engine ever !!. Cheers Bewick.
Hiya,
I’ll bet “Dr” John Killingbeck could have taught the Gardner boys
how to make their products go a bit without doing harm to the
engine and making them more driver friendly, they were always
gaffer friendly and after being given a good coat of looking at
by Dr John they were certainly driver friendly and his doctoring
didn’t in any way affect the reliability and I was told his fitting
of turbo’s to his Gardeners was frowned on by the Patricrofters’
which wouldn’t bother John in the least, I’ve driven a 180 Percy
“breathed on” by John and it was equal to and better than lots
of stuff on the road at that time.
thanks harry, long retired.
harry_gill:
Hiya,
I’ll bet “Dr” John Killingbeck could have taught the Gardner boys
how to make their products go a bit without doing harm to the
engine and making them more driver friendly, they were always
gaffer friendly and after being given a good coat of looking at
by Dr John they were certainly driver friendly and his doctoring
didn’t in any way affect the reliability and I was told his fitting
of turbo’s to his Gardeners was frowned on by the Patricrofters’
which wouldn’t bother John in the least, I’ve driven a 180 Percy
“breathed on” by John and it was equal to and better than lots
of stuff on the road at that time.
thanks harry, long retired.
But could they keep up with a Scania 80 “H” and have you had a “butchers” at the Scania adverts on The Paul Gee thread ? Regards Dennis.
harry_gill:
Hiya,
I’ll bet “Dr” John Killingbeck could have taught the Gardner boys
how to make their products go a bit without doing harm to the
engine and making them more driver friendly, they were always
gaffer friendly and after being given a good coat of looking at
by Dr John they were certainly driver friendly and his doctoring
didn’t in any way affect the reliability and I was told his fitting
of turbo’s to his Gardeners was frowned on by the Patricrofters’
which wouldn’t bother John in the least, I’ve driven a 180 Percy
“breathed on” by John and it was equal to and better than lots
of stuff on the road at that time.
thanks harry, long retired.
But could they keep up with a Scania 80 “H” and have you had a “butchers” at the Scania adverts on The Paul Gee thread ? Regards Dennis.
Hiya,
Dennis, as a kid I remember having a pedal car, now that even
went better than a Scania 80.
thanks harry, long retired.
I think but not 100% positive that Leyland made the Gardner engine an option in the Scammell Constructor T45
at 1 point. Im not sure how Dennis can be such an expert on Gardners having operated a couple and was the bill payer . A question that doesnt seem to be answered yet is why on earth would a Gardner be described as a boat anchor when the waiting time for a new 1 in the 70s was ridiculously long. Just how many of these hauliers knew what they were doing im surprised how they got by
ramone:
I think but not 100% positive that Leyland made the Gardner engine an option in the Scammell Constructor T45
at 1 point. Im not sure how Dennis can be such an expert on Gardners having operated a couple and was the bill payer . A question that doesnt seem to be answered yet is why on earth would a Gardner be described as a boat anchor when the waiting time for a new 1 in the 70s was ridiculously long. Just how many of these hauliers knew what they were doing im surprised how they got by
Firstly yes it might have been possible to find a few Gardners used in T45 tippers but no chance across the max weight tractor unit etc range.That being the choice of TL12 or turbo Rolls/■■■■■■■ with the TL12 on its way out.
As for Bewick’s example it would have been interesting to see what his balance sheet might have looked like if he’d have gone for Scania 110/1 from the start,then replaced by big cam ■■■■■■■ SA. Instead of the contradiction of the mish mash of obsolete NA ■■■■■■■ and Gardners and the choice of NA Gardner SA 401 then wholesale move to Scania etc.When the reasons for buying Scania were even greater earlier and the Big Cam ■■■■■■■ could have easily sorted out the Scania with its combination of fuel efficiency and output later. I just don’t get it.
As for me if only I’d have been a bit older my plan of new start owner driver with a used 280 Rolls Big J then use the money it made me to buy an 8v92 TM 4400 ( or more likely E 290 followed by E 320 SA ) would have been defeated by the unbelievable shocking content of total junk contained in the used truck ads of the day.I’d include that seeming staple diet of NA ■■■■■■■ and 180 Gardner engined heaps in that. In which case it’s anyone’s guess why Bewick wouldn’t have wanted a share of some of those very rare,‘premium’ by that standard,57 8 LXB Big J’s at least.
ramone:
I think but not 100% positive that Leyland made the Gardner engine an option in the Scammell Constructor T45
at 1 point. Im not sure how Dennis can be such an expert on Gardners having operated a couple and was the bill payer . A question that doesnt seem to be answered yet is why on earth would a Gardner be described as a boat anchor when the waiting time for a new 1 in the 70s was ridiculously long. Just how many of these hauliers knew what they were doing im surprised how they got by
They did Hall Aggregates had some B reg constructors.
Carryfast, You talk about what vehicles you would start with to build your fleet, Can I ask what you did purchase & how many you have if you still operate?
and after being given a good coat of looking at
( or more likely E 290 followed by E 320 SA