Well, a good engine, proven track-record, but at 1972 some 75bhp ‘behind’ unfortunately.
abc
8LXBV8BRIAN:
Nice ■■■■■■■ brochure photo
not a Foden S80 with a Gardner 8lxb southbound on the M6, I THINK IT IS
Long live the 8
To be honest…it WAS indeed a Foden S80 but two surprises, LHD and with ■■■■■■■ NTC335!
Thank you for your post, you asked for ■■■■■■■ 
ERF-Continental:
Well, a good engine, proven track-record, but at 1972 some 75bhp ‘behind’ unfortunately.
Gardners were bought on the logic of a cart horse which will live for ever and not eat much but it will be the slowest horse in the stables.
That’s done it.Bewick will be sending in his storm troopers. 
Dan Punchard:
Anyone remember the bloke down at the old transporter depot nr redditch ,can’t just think of his name ,I once went to collect a sandblaster self filtering unit ,he delt in ex us airforce stock and used a bonneted kenworth with if I remember correctly a kta 19 725 ■■■■■■■ ,he even let me start it up !
You are talking about Ian Mumberson, he passed away when he was 60 years old if I remember correctly.I thought the KT was in a Freightliner but I could be wrong. He had a lot of GMC ex US forces tractor units with Detroits in them.
Loving this thread on the 14 litre, had a B series with a 250 when I was about 22 and wild. She didn’t crack under the pressure.
Pursy
Carryfast:
ERF-Continental:
Well, a good engine, proven track-record, but at 1972 some 75bhp ‘behind’ unfortunately.Gardners were bought on the logic of a cart horse which will live for ever and not eat much but it will be the slowest horse in the stables.
That’s done it.Bewick will be sending in his storm troopers.
No need to send the Storm Troopers into Leatherhead “CF” (well for one thing they wouldn’t be able to gain access to the “secure facility” where you are incarcerated )However as regards the era you are referring to (early 70’s) I would sooner have my “stable” full of 8LXB horses rather than ■■■■■■■■■■ bottom line on the P & L would have a head start on fuel saving alone and remember My son I have run both engine applications so I have a firm grasp on reality which unfortunately you don’t appear to have Cheers Bewick.
Evening all,
Great engines though the ■■■■■■■ 6s were, Dennis is quite right. When it came to fuel consumption, driveability, reliability, and of course the residual value of your old vehicle…then Gardner won every single time, and fuel, is a major cost element in any business involving
Slorries.
■■■■■■■ got into the road vehicle engine market in the UK because primarily Gardner simply could not supply enough units to satisfy demand, (either 6, or 8 cylinder. Then of course ■■■■■■■ , because of their availability in the chassis built by the “assemblers”, became an option alongside the engines of the vertically integrated manufacturers.
And of course, the cost per unit to the manufacturer was very competitive indeed. 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.
But a final note, anyone who has driven over long distance an 8 cylinder Gardner, will know just what a beautiful power unit that was. You could cover big distances, without any seeming effort, and she never became hot and flustered, just did the job…very well!
Cheerio for now.
Saviem:
Evening all,Great engines though the ■■■■■■■ 6s were, Dennis is quite right fuel, is a major cost element
The problem was that main upside for the Gardner was outweighed by the downside of and was at the expense of under stressing.While the ■■■■■■■ was the opposite in that it’s ability to handle stress,in the form of ever increasing levels of specific torque output and therefore productivety,outweighed any arguable fuel consumption downside.On that note the ■■■■■■■ was in a different league regards being future proof from the point when it left the drawing board. 
Carryfast:
Saviem:
Evening all,Great engines though the ■■■■■■■ 6s were, Dennis is quite right fuel, is a major cost element
The problem was that main upside for the Gardner was outweighed by the downside of and was at the expense of under stressing.While the ■■■■■■■ was the opposite in that it’s ability to handle stress,in the form of ever increasing levels of specific torque output and therefore productivety,outweighed any arguable fuel consumption downside.On that note the ■■■■■■■ was in a different league regards being future proof from the point when it left the drawing board.
May I ask, CF, Do you suffer from stress, You cerntainly suffer from something IMO,You thick ■■■■■ Regards Larry.
8LXBV8BRIAN:
Nice ■■■■■■■ brochure photo
not a Foden S80 with a Gardner 8lxb southbound on the M6, I THINK IT IS
Long live the 8
How can you tell what engine is in it from that angle?
OK, if you know the operator- mid blue cab, dark mudguards, carries what look like steel coils and other cylindrical objects South from ■■■■■■■■ you may also know that he only had Gardners.
Either way, I’m with the majority, in that I think that the Foden was little more than an hour’s drive away from the place where the best 14 litre engine was built, and it was heading in the right direction. 
The S80 Foden had twin air intakes for the 8lxb its an S80 because they are slim and square inlets up the back and at the very end
the S83 had round intakes and top pods, the S80 with a ■■■■■■■ in only had 1 air intake on the N/Side
but i could be wrong. - not a Foden fan
I have a strong suspicion that the 14-litre straight-six diesel was probably one of the best designs ever. The smaller capacity straight-sixes just didn’t feel the same - can’t explain it. Without a doubt, the old Fiat / Iveco version of this recipe was superb. Robert
Just adding fuel to the fire but I think that the ■■■■■■■ and Rolls engined S80’s only had one inlet stack, the Gardner engined ones had two as there were a pair of oil bath air cleaners fitted.
Pete.
8LXBV8BRIAN:
The S80 Foden had twin air intakes for the 8lxb its an S80 because they are slim and square inlets up the back and at the very end
the S83 had round intakes and top pods, the S80 with a ■■■■■■■ in only had 1 air intake on the N/Side
but i could be wrong.
The 8LXB was a very good engine. I just didn’t get enough experience of it to tell. I used to shunt trailers about with an old Gardner-engined Guy big-J but it’s not the same as getting out among the hills. I also enjoyed ERFs with Rolls Royce engines but again, I felt the bigger capacity (■■■■■■■■ counted on the road - as a seat-of-the pants driver, that is. Sigh! I can feel old-fartdom setting in here! Robert
robert1952:
I also enjoyed ERFs with Rolls Royce engines but again, I felt the bigger capacity (■■■■■■■■ counted on the road - as a seat-of-the pants driver, that is. Sigh! I can feel old-fartdom setting in here! Robert
Good question Robert.It seems obvious that the Rolls would always have been at a disadvantage in terms of overall capacity.Although it had the same stroke measurement at least and was developed to at least 350.Which seems to suggest that it was at least up to similar ultimate ‘specific’ output potential as the ■■■■■■■■■■■ which again shows that original foresight which was applied at the drawing board stage in the case of the ■■■■■■■ regards choice of overall capacity.
8LXBV8BRIAN:
The S80 Foden had twin air intakes for the 8lxb its an S80 because they are slim and square inlets up the back and at the very end
the S83 had round intakes and top pods, the S80 with a ■■■■■■■ in only had 1 air intake on the N/Side
but i could be wrong.
Nah, I reckon you’re probably right. The advert for the ■■■■■■■ 14 litre engine shows a Gardner 14 litre engine. I wonder if the advert agency had someone as mischievous as us working there?
I think both ERF and Foden used twin air stacks on 8LXB/C engined vehicles. I’m sure their fitment was unique to the big Gardner models.
Lawrence Dunbar:
Carryfast:
Saviem:
Evening all,Great engines though the ■■■■■■■ 6s were, Dennis is quite right fuel, is a major cost element
The problem was that main upside for the Gardner was outweighed by the downside of and was at the expense of under stressing.While the ■■■■■■■ was the opposite in that it’s ability to handle stress,in the form of ever increasing levels of specific torque output and therefore productivety,outweighed any arguable fuel consumption downside.On that note the ■■■■■■■ was in a different league regards being future proof from the point when it left the drawing board.
May I ask, CF, Do you suffer from stress, You cerntainly suffer from something IMO,You thick [zb], Regards Larry.
Larry I have a simple solution to “CF” if you and I could get a hod of him! Shove a hot tattie in his gob and clamp it shut ! Cheers Dennis.
newmercman:
I think both ERF and Foden used twin air stacks on 8LXB/C engined vehicles. I’m sure their fitment was unique to the big Gardner models.
The Foden S80/83’s with the 6LXB engine had two oil bath air cleaners as well, they were also of Gardner manufacture. They didn’t get involved in those ‘new fangled’ replaceable elements until later! Not sure if there was any advantage or disadvantage (apart from the servicing aspect) between the wet and dry types regarding filtration, not a topic for a ■■■■■■■ thread anyway.
Pete.
There is a simple explanation for the question in the photo.It is a Foden with a Gardner in it but the relevant wagon is what looks like a Guy Big J with a ■■■■■■■ in it about 1/4 of a mile ahead of it.