ParkRoyal2100:
newmercman:
You can still get a ■■■■■■■ and a Fuller box in a Volvo in North America. Although they don’t sell many now and the ishift is now standard behind the Volvo engines. The Fuller doesn’t really suit the Volvo engines either from what I gather from a friend that has such a beast. Mine has ishift and I’m glad it does, even though a Fuller presents no problems for me…
Thanks NMM, I know it’s an aside but was curious about what I’d seen. I get the impression retro-fitting anything in the new FH would be all but impossible.
Anything is possible, as long as you have deep enough pockets!
newmercman:
ParkRoyal2100:
newmercman:
You can still get a ■■■■■■■ and a Fuller box in a Volvo in North America. Although they don’t sell many now and the ishift is now standard behind the Volvo engines. The Fuller doesn’t really suit the Volvo engines either from what I gather from a friend that has such a beast. Mine has ishift and I’m glad it does, even though a Fuller presents no problems for me…
Thanks NMM, I know it’s an aside but was curious about what I’d seen. I get the impression retro-fitting anything in the new FH would be all but impossible.
Anything is possible, as long as you have deep enough pockets!
According to the info available the early Oz spec FH did at least have the Signature and 18 speed Fuller as a factory fit which might at least explain the description of ■■■■■■■ powered older versions of the FH.
“CF” I’m most impressed with your knowledge of ■■■■■■■ engines which is a major improvement on your past rantings and ravings ( and general bollox) on Detriot Diesels so now then my Son it’s only a small step up from ■■■■■■■ to you finally acknowledging that the Legendary Gardner engines were the finest of their era,and I impress upon the words “of their era”. Cheers Bewick.
Bewick:
“CF” I’m most impressed with your knowledge of ■■■■■■■ engines which is a major improvement on your past rantings and ravings ( and general bollox) on Detriot Diesels so now then my Son it’s only a small step up from ■■■■■■■ to you finally acknowledging that the Legendary Gardner engines were the finest of their era,and I impress upon the words “of their era”. Cheers Bewick.
Sorry Bewick if it was all about fuel consumption the Gardner would be at the top of the list.But when it’s all about getting the best ‘combination’ of fuel consumption ‘and’ specific torque output then it will need something special to get near the 14 litre ■■■■■■■ and the Gardner never really got close.Bearing in mind the ‘era’ in question in this case runs from around 1960-2000.As for Detroit v ■■■■■■■ think of it like Chelsea v Manchester United at least during that ‘era’. 
Or Patricroft - Celtic won by Celtic after penalties?
ERF-Continental:
Or Patricroft - Celtic won by Celtic after penalties?
Blimey more like Patricroft had given up before the final whistle.Then the EU changed the rules to make sure that ze Germans and the Scandinavians won. 
I think the m11 deserves some credit here,we have 2 380s ,one of which has done 1.5 million ks and has never been touched and still is going strong every day ,the other has been remapped around 10 yrs ago it’s had a head gasket ,it breaths a bit but is developing 440 hp and has done 1.3 million ks,they’re both 15 yrs old .
Totally agree Dan we went back to ■■■■■■■ after a string of problems with the L10s
Our fleet engineer wouldn’t touch ■■■■■■■ again until the M11 was launched
It’s a shame MAN and DAF couldn’t have fitted them as an option
Carryfast:
Bewick:
“CF” I’m most impressed with your knowledge of ■■■■■■■ engines which is a major improvement on your past rantings and ravings ( and general bollox) on Detriot Diesels so now then my Son it’s only a small step up from ■■■■■■■ to you finally acknowledging that the Legendary Gardner engines were the finest of their era,and I impress upon the words “of their era”. Cheers Bewick.
Sorry Berwick if it was all about fuel consumption the Gardner would be at the top of the list.But when it’s all about getting the best ‘combination’ of fuel consumption ‘and’ specific torque output then it will need something special to get near the 14 litre ■■■■■■■ and the Gardner never really got close.Bearing in mind the ‘era’ in question in this case runs from around 1960-2000.As for Detroit v ■■■■■■■ think of it like Chelsea v Manchester United at least during that ‘era’.
That’s right “CF” "fuel consumption 
not forgetting “reliability” 
which the Gardner delivered in “spades” so “CF” notwithstanding all the “technical bollox” you spout you have finally conceded what a great engine the Gardner was during it’s “hayday” and there My son I rest my case as speaking from a former hard working haulier’s perspective the two elements aforementioned were nos.1 and 2 on the list of requirements,and it’s BEWICK you ■■■■ Berwick is a town on the Scottish Border! Cheers Bewick.
Bewick:
Carryfast:
Sorry Berwick if it was all about fuel consumption the Gardner would be at the top
That’s right “CF” "fuel consumption not forgetting “reliability” which the Gardner delivered in “spades” so “CF” notwithstanding all the “technical bollox” you spout you have finally conceded what a great engine the Gardner was during it’s “hayday” and there My son I rest my case as speaking from a former hard working haulier’s perspective the two elements aforementioned were nos.1 and 2 on the list of requirements,and it’s BEWICK you [zb] Berwick is a town on the Scottish Border! Cheers Bewick.
To be fair the 14 litre ■■■■■■■ wasn’t exactly an unreliable piece of junk.Especially,probably unlike the basic Gardner design,as it stood as of 1960, ‘would’ have been if pushed to deliver the type of specific torque outputs which the ■■■■■■■ delivered until its eventual,maybe even arguably premature,production life end.On that note the importance of specific torque certainly wasn’t/isn’t ‘technical bollox’ being that your list should be (1) productivety (2) reliability (3) fuel consumption.
Which is why the 14 litre ■■■■■■■ lived on to see the 21st Century while the Gardner didn’t.With the ■■■■■■■■ demise having nothing to do with its unarguable durability while still being able to deliver 21st Century type productivety expectations.
There you go again C/F Insulting Lewis Gardner, How dare you, I think your attitude to the british is crap, Just like you, So why don’t you ■■■■ off & live a another country you ■■■■■ Regards Larry.
Lawrence Dunbar:
There you go again C/F Insulting Lewis Gardner, How dare you, I think your attitude to the british is crap, Just like you, So why don’t you [zb] off & live a another country you [zb], Regards Larry.
You might have missed it but the topic is about the 14 litre ■■■■■■■ not Gardner.
While ironically for your argument as I’ve said the Rolls Royce Eagle ( or CV12 ) made a better comparison/match for their ■■■■■■■ competition during the time period in question.Although again wether even they would ever have matched the combination of durability and ultimate specific output capability of the 14 litre ■■■■■■■ is another matter.Unfortunately that is all a matter of fact not national engineering capabilities.In which case the Americans had already lost that contest in 1940 because we’d now be speaking German as part of 1,000 year reich if it wasn’t for the Rolls Royce Merlin.
We here are all ■■■■■■■ fans operators through and through ,but we have a 410 rolls eagle that’s been tuned by David Huxley who worked in development at Shrewsbury and it revs a lot higher than any of the ■■■■■■■ is better on fuel and will give any ■■■■■■■ up to 500 a run for its money .plus it starts on the flick of the key ! I used this lorry at 44 tonne the last rolls Eagles were really smooth engines .
Dan Punchard:
rolls Eagles were really smooth engines .
I only drove the 265 in Foden 24 tonners but from what I knew at least in that case was exactly the same.
Saviem:
Evening all,
Couple that to availability, (Shotts were producing 50/80 complete units per day early `80s), and the “get up and go” driving characteristics of all the range, (even if exuberant use of the throttle would result in a rather thirsty, “economic” design), made the 14 litre a very acceptable package to power any vehicle.
ERF C, Shotts was built originally to provide power units to Euclid, by avoiding the punitive importation tax then in force. In its early days Euclid were its sole client, but that changed rapidly.
Cheerio for now.
EUCLID had more stakes…as the attached scan of a 1958 Rolls Royce brochure shows
By the way Mr Saviem (for insiders John) and I drank some nice grape-products, so business as usual
Wow, Bewick, you take the biscuit when it comes to being acerbic and vile when it comes to Carryfast’s posting. Is it a requirement for ‘has beens’ (no matter how successful in the past) to be this negative?
Have you noticed how well CF rises above it and has done for several years now, exemplary behaviour. I’m certainly glad my grandpa isn’t as grumpy as Victor Meldrew. Point made…
the 205 was a nice engine 
