M P G

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS OLD TIME LORRIES, COMPANIES AND DRIVERS (INTERACT
21

Transport was a different country in 1969/1970. Despite nationalisation in 1948, then removal from State control in the 1950s, it was actually still heavily controlled. To get an ‘A’ licence, which allowed you to transport anybody’s goods, you either bought it (£1,000 was the going rate, a lot of money then - a semi detached house was about £1,500!) or applied, based on need. If you applied, everyone objected. The railways and all local hauliers. You would only get it if a business stood up for you and said that they could not get anyone else to do the work. - and they had to prove it!

Very few businesses were prepared to go to a court room with solicitors for and against to say that they could not get haulage, there was always someone to say they could. I had personal experience of this, Sovereign chemicals said they would come to the court, but the railways, Brady’s, Athersmiths, Shaws of Lindale, even a guy who was the RHA representative and did nothing more than run a roundabout in the market came to court. My application melted like snow in May.

So, rates were generally reasonable if not brilliant. Truck and engine manufacturers could sell into a regulated market.

‘O’ licensing came in about 1970. The difference was now that anyone could run road haulage, provided they could prove finance and vehicle maintenance.

Atkinson, Seddon, ERF, Foden, could not keep up with demand. It was almost impossible to buy a premium lorry. Those wicked Scandinavians saw a marketing opportunity…

Back to MPG. At the time diesel was a major cost, but perhaps not as large a percentage as today. So, a reliable ■■■■■■■ 205, which supped more than a Gardner 180, was more or less as attractive.

I also seem to remember that the Gardner driver didn’t need to check the oil - just pour a gallon in every morning and that would be right!

So, my memory of the time was that you bought what you could get! MPG was only a factor if you were a big enough operator to have some leverage with the manufacturer, and even then, many preferred ■■■■■■■ to Gardner.

My opinion only of course.

John

22

rigsby:

cav551:
We had done this ■■■■■■■ v Gardner argument to death a couple of years ago I thought. The biggest bone of contention was comparing apples with oranges either because of engine size, aspiration, gearing or year-models. Without wishing to go into it all over again, I would say that finding a ■■■■■■■ E290 powered Foden 8 wheeler to have ever existed rates no 3 behind the Gardner 8 pot Guy tractor unit in second place, but both fall at the first fence behind the Gardner 8 cylinder eight wheeler. I could conjure up another near impossibility, but I daren’t mention the name. :slight_smile:

An owner driver near me had an e290 8 wheel foden , but i suspect it had had a heart transplant from a gardner . It went like a rocket up hill and down dale and the od reckoned the extra work it could do far outweighed the extra fuel cost , but as has been said the tare weight suffered .

Coincidentally a quick random check of ERF and Foden 8 wheelers in the used adverts in CM archives of late 1980’s editions turned up plenty of 265 Rolls and a surprising number of 270 Gardner and at least one E 290 powered early/mid 1980’s examples.But the Rolls seemed to be the more common fit than the E 290 ■■■■■■■ although the L10 seems to be more represented regarding the ■■■■■■■ options.In which case I’d suggest that,as in the case of the tractor unit market sector,there was a large scale recognition among the previous naturally aspirated Gardner etc customer base that the 10 litre + turbo was going to be the way forward in the max weight rigid market sector and it took place around the end of the 1970’s/early 80’s. :bulb:

23

You have to remember that payload was very important in the 8x4 sector, at the then GVW of 30.5ton it wasn’t easy to get the magic 20ton payload if you started ticking options boxes for big engines.

24

newmercman:
You have to remember that payload was very important in the 8x4 sector, at the then GVW of 30.5ton it wasn’t easy to get the magic 20ton payload if you started ticking options boxes for big engines.

Dead right, plus companies like Tillings (Tilcon) who bought Fodens by the hundred struggled to get chassis with their preferred Gardner engines and 20 tonne payload (Gardner had strike issues) so went for the Rolls 220 option. These proved reliable and not overly thirsty but a cwt or three heavier so the next purchases were a mixture of Gardner 201’s and RR 265’s (later the Li) chassis. A couple of ■■■■■■■ 250’s were purchased at our base but they were the only pair, RR became the standard eight legger engine. When Fodens also had supply issues a few Sed Ak 400’s were bought, they carried 3/4 tonne less than Fodens though and were not in the same class chassis-wise. To be honest, on our type of work the Rolls engined trucks did no more work that the Gardners but did it slightly faster, carried slightly less payload and used slightly more fuel and a lot less oil! :laughing:

Pete.

25

Holey moley this engine things a minefield ! So to recap what I,m getting here is that MPG was not so important back then n you got what engine you could cos of low production of Gardners.
Now I can understand why long haul would want more BHP which seems to have been Gs nemisis, but why short haul,more power in my case did,nt give anymore loads, so what drove short haulers to get more powerful motors was it because foreign motors were able to supply on demand? N if that sector had stuck with NA Gardners would it have kept them G in business ?

26

windrush:

newmercman:
You have to remember that payload was very important in the 8x4 sector, at the then GVW of 30.5ton it wasn’t easy to get the magic 20ton payload if you started ticking options boxes for big engines.

Dead right, plus companies like Tillings (Tilcon) who bought Fodens by the hundred struggled to get chassis with their preferred Gardner engines and 20 tonne payload (Gardner had strike issues) so went for the Rolls 220 option. These proved reliable and not overly thirsty but a cwt or three heavier so the next purchases were a mixture of Gardner 201’s and RR 265’s (later the Li) chassis. A couple of ■■■■■■■ 250’s were purchased at our base but they were the only pair, RR became the standard eight legger engine. When Fodens also had supply issues a few Sed Ak 400’s were bought, they carried 3/4 tonne less than Fodens though and were not in the same class chassis-wise. To be honest, on our type of work the Rolls engined trucks did no more work that the Gardners but did it slightly faster, carried slightly less payload and used slightly more fuel and a lot less oil! :laughing:

Pete.

I think you also need to break the buying choice down a bit further along the lines of durability v payload.In which case by the early 1980’s the previous NA Gardner/Rolls/■■■■■■■ buyer was more likely to be looking for a turbo version of whichever of those than an F7/DAF 2300/2500 for example.Thereby also answering the OP’s question that there were more operators looking to get more possibly longer distance runs done in a shift,with no loss of durability,than a bit more payload per run together with the questionable durability of a small capacity highly stressed motor.

What is certain is that staying with the excessively under stressed NA Gardner/■■■■■■■■■■■■■ was no longer an option either for most customers and as a result to an even greater extent the manufacturers.With it being mostly a question of either turbo Rolls/■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ v F7/2500/2300 from the early 1980’s on.In which the rest is history in that the 10 litre + turbo powered 6/8 wheeler rightly won out over the idea of the smaller capacity highly stressed motor on the durability issue. Just as in the case of the tractor unit market sector. :bulb:

27

coomsey:
Holey moley this engine things a minefield ! So to recap what I,m getting here is that MPG was not so important back then n you got what engine you could cos of low production of Gardners.
Now I can understand why long haul would want more BHP which seems to have been Gs nemisis, but why short haul,more power in my case did,nt give anymore loads, so what drove short haulers to get more powerful motors was it because foreign motors were able to supply on demand? N if that sector had stuck with NA Gardners would it have kept them G in business ?

I’d guess the answer to your question was that a manufacturer trying to base their business model on the small niche sector,in which the NA Gardner ‘might’ still have remained efficient enough for the job,wouldn’t have been viable on the basis of economies of scale.Hence what seems like a shift by all concerned to turbo engines.Including what seems like a surprising take up of the turbo 270 Gardner by loyal Gardner buyers at least among those who didn’t change their allegiance to turbo Rolls or ■■■■■■■■

28

Well Coomsey, in my opinion (worth exactly what you paid for it, I wasn’t an operator!) you are correct as Volvo etc could supply a chassis/cab far quicker than Foden/ERF/ Atkinson as they were virtually built to order and to whatever spec the operator requested which took time. Volvo however built a standard chassis/cab (take it or leave it!) so could provide one virtually off the shelf. Given both Gardner and Fodens industrial problems they lost a lot of customers who couldn’t afford to wait for a vehicle with the engine they preferred, so they purchased a Swede with swift delivery guaranteed, liked it and so did their drivers, and never returned to a UK truck constructor. :frowning:

Pete.

29

No mention so far of the very under-rated RoRo Constructor 8 and TL11 Constructor 6. Nor the go-anywhere Maggie Deutz .

30

The best resource for comparing 8 leg tippers is archive editions of Truck and CM covering the annual Tipcon.

31

coomsey:
Holey moley this engine things a minefield ! So to recap what I,m getting here is that MPG was not so important back then n you got what engine you could cos of low production of Gardners.
Now I can understand why long haul would want more BHP which seems to have been Gs nemisis, but why short haul,more power in my case did,nt give anymore loads, so what drove short haulers to get more powerful motors was it because foreign motors were able to supply on demand? N if that sector had stuck with NA Gardners would it have kept them G in business ?

Again it depends on your company
The company I worked for ran over 80 lorries with around 40% of them being used on trunks both long and short trunks and some on double trunks (2 x Bedfords from Nottingham)
These lorries ran mostly 24 hours a day 6 days a week some would work 24/7
The remaining 60% of the fleet were a mixture of roaming lorries day lorries and shunting lorries
Fuel was the biggest cost so that’s why the fleet engineer would only have Gardner’s fitted
Plus Gardner’s downfall started with it not bringing in a new design in a small capacity engine ( the LXB/LXC and LXCT were all 10.45)
They fitted Turbos to an already old design
So by the early 80s with ■■■■■■■ launching the L10 range (which was just as light and economical)
The writing was on the wall
We had 8 Seddon Atkinson 301s fitted with the L10s some 250s and some 290s they were put on trunking duties to be fair they were good lorries but leaked more oil than the Gardner’s especially from the side plates
That put our fleet engineer off so the firm carried on buying Gardner’s (when it could)
The last Gardner engined lorries they bought were 7 Seddon Atkinson 401s in about 86 and 2 “F” reg ERFs
In between times all ERFs bought came with the Eagle TX engines fitted
■■■■■■■ were not bought again until the launch of the M11 which were at the time unbeatable
Gardner wouldn’t have carried on even if they did produce new engines because heavy truck manufacturing was shrinking IVECO had bought out Seddon Atkinson MAN had bought out ERF PACCAR had bought out Foden so along with ■■■■■■■ and Perkins no truck assembler existed to fit these engines

32

gazsa401:
Plus Gardner’s downfall started with it not bringing in a new design in a small capacity engine ( the LXB/LXC and LXCT were all 10.45)
They fitted Turbos to an already old design

It would probably be fair to say that the market split between those who were prepared to go along the line of the small capacity highly stressed turbo like the Volvo F7.As opposed to those who just wanted to combine the efficiency of turbocharging with their previous tried and proven lower stressed larger capacity options.On that note Gardner’s problem was probably more a case of it not being able to bridge the gap between its previous naturally aspirated engines to turbocharging as good/easily as Rolls and ■■■■■■■ could.The E 290 and 265 Rolls at least both being successful turbocharged developments of previous naturally aspirated designs.Although admittedly ■■■■■■■ seems to have had to downsize from the 14 litre mark in the rigid market sector but still in line with the idea of not less than 10 litre.

While even the import invasion eventually settled on the larger capacity ( 10 litre + ) is better than smaller ( under 10 litre ) formula.Not surprisingly bearing in mind that there was never any real evidence to back up the idea that a smaller capacity highly stressed engine was ever more efficient than a larger capacity one.As opposed to the durability and ultimate torque output advantages of lower stressed larger capacity engines. :bulb:

33

A bit technical for me but I can see where you,re all coming from. So back to the plot NA compared to Turbo, in that sort of swap over time,was there much difference in MPG ?
N just another was the Gardner engine by its very design unable to be charged, or were their engineers not on the ball ?

34

windrush:
Well Coomsey, in my opinion (worth exactly what you paid for it, I wasn’t an operator!) you are correct as Volvo etc could supply a chassis/cab far quicker than Foden/ERF/ Atkinson as they were virtually built to order and to whatever spec the operator requested which took time. Volvo however built a standard chassis/cab (take it or leave it!) so could provide one virtually off the shelf. Given both Gardner and Fodens industrial problems they lost a lot of customers who couldn’t afford to wait for a vehicle with the engine they preferred, so they purchased a Swede with swift delivery guaranteed, liked it and so did their drivers, and never returned to a UK truck constructor. :frowning:

Pete.

Couldn,t possibly argue with that Pete

35

cav551:
The best resource for comparing 8 leg tippers is archive editions of Truck and CM covering the annual Tipcon.

Interesting C Ive got loads of late 70 to mid 80 Truck mags I,ll sort em out n have a peek, possibly under the duvet with my torch. Paul

36

coomsey:
A bit technical for me but I can see where you,re all coming from. So back to the plot NA compared to Turbo, in that sort of swap over time,was there much difference in MPG ?
N just another was the Gardner engine by its very design unable to be charged, or were their engineers not on the ball ?

Gardner did have a turbocharged engine many years before it became ‘normal’ to fit them, some of the Gardner family designed it. However Hugh Gardner was in charge and gave them the choice of either scrapping the idea or they would be ‘removed’ from the company as he was against turbocharging in any form. Gingerfold knows all about it but Hugh and his brother John believed that an unstressed engine was far more reliable. Interestingly we had a Foden with the Gardner 201 LXC engine and Fuller nine speed gearbox and it wasn’t a great performer (the fuller was no match compared to the old 12 speed box) so I took it to fully loaded Gardners for evaluation. Their test pilot took it up the M62 and we passed a loaded Scania 80 struggling up Death Valley with a load of steel on a triaxle trailer “Look, we passed a Scania, tell your gaffer that” the tester said! I wasn’t convinced and told him that but all he said was “If you want power then your boss ordered the wrong engine, we give economy and weight saving” which I suppose was correct?

We did have one of the Gardner 230 turbos, a 6LXCT, and that went well. It could just do two loads to the Ladbroke bypass below Southam in its driving time whereas we couldn’t with the standard engine and gave no problems.

Pete.

37

windrush:

coomsey:
A bit technical for me but I can see where you,re all coming from. So back to the plot NA compared to Turbo, in that sort of swap over time,was there much difference in MPG ?
N just another was the Gardner engine by its very design unable to be charged, or were their engineers not on the ball ?

Gardner did have a turbocharged engine many years before it became ‘normal’ to fit them, some of the Gardner family designed it. However Hugh Gardner was in charge and gave them the choice of either scrapping the idea or they would be ‘removed’ from the company as he was against turbocharging in any form. Gingerfold knows all about it but Hugh and his brother John believed that an unstressed engine was far more reliable. Interestingly we had a Foden with the Gardner 201 LXC engine and Fuller nine speed gearbox and it wasn’t a great performer (the fuller was no match compared to the old 12 speed box) so I took it to fully loaded Gardners for evaluation. Their test pilot took it up the M62 and we passed a loaded Scania 80 struggling up Death Valley with a load of steel on a triaxle trailer “Look, we passed a Scania, tell your gaffer that” the tester said! I wasn’t convinced and told him that but all he said was “If you want power then your boss ordered the wrong engine, we give economy and weight saving” which I suppose was correct?

We did have one of the Gardner 230 turbos, a 6LXCT, and that went well. It could just do two loads to the Ladbroke bypass below Southam in its driving time whereas we couldn’t with the standard engine and gave no problems.

Pete.

It,s a git every answer gives me a dozen questions. So a 230 in an 8 whlr gave you load advantage on tipper/brick work, an supposing that any more power wouldn,t ,if you were running that now ( dodging the emission/noise thing) would it be competitive today, what sort of mpg

38

I drove both the Cat and ■■■■■■■ 10 litre 340 powered Fodens (6wheelers) at Smiths. The Cats could push 8mpg average but the ■■■■■■■ was poor, around 6.5mpg. The ■■■■■■■ was a lot quieter and when one was MOTd, it’s emissions test equalled a one year old (at the time) Daf CF 310, rated to Euro 5.
The one which equalled the Daf test result was bought by NA Wood and restored and improved. It’d be interesting to know how it compares today.

39

Muckaway:
I drove both the Cat and ■■■■■■■ 10 litre 340 powered Fodens (6wheelers) at Smiths. The Cats could push 8mpg average but the ■■■■■■■ was poor, around 6.5mpg. The ■■■■■■■ was a lot quieter and when one was MOTd, it’s emissions test equalled a one year old (at the time) Daf CF 310, rated to Euro 5.
The one which equalled the Daf test result was bought by NA Wood and restored and improved. It’d be interesting to know how it compares today.

Ya buga M that had got some woomph in it,I had Reivers n thought they weren,t so bad. Now you might be able to answer this, was there a point when you noticed has the power of your motors increased your wages stopped following, assuming you were on load bonus Paul

40

coomsey:
It,s a git every answer gives me a dozen questions. So a 230 in an 8 whlr gave you load advantage on tipper/brick work, an supposing that any more power wouldn,t ,if you were running that now ( dodging the emission/noise thing) would it be competitive today, what sort of mpg

I don’t think that our firm worried too much about fuel used Coomsey, they were there to provide a reliable service shifting their own products so as long as that went OK the TM was happy. We just filled the tank up every day! :wink: On some long runs, South West Wales for instance, I took a five gallon drum of diesel and a gallon of oil in the cab as I couldn’t do it without topping up. To be honest they spent a fortune on maintenance, no expense spared and some hauliers ran their trucks from parts out of our scrap bin! Engine oil/filter, all fuel, breather and air filters changed every four weeks regardless of mileage on around 40 trucks and possibly twice as many vans and cars. So fuel mpg possibly wouldn’t be a big issue, however payload was king. If we came onto the weighbridge at 30.30 or less gvw (running at 30.50) we would be sent back for a few more cwt which could be a pain as you usually got half a ton dropped on and then had to shovel the excess off again! :unamused:

Pete.