pete smith:
You know better, Dennis! Most BRS Big Js came with the wonderful 205 ■■■■■■■ which, despite the smaller size, would pi** all over your crappy, noisy, uncomfortable, old-fashioned Atkis with the oil-dropping Patricroft boat anchors.
Trust you to put another log on the fire ROF!
I’d be the first to call a Patricoft boat anchor a spade but to be fair how can a 205 ■■■■■■■ possibly ‘■■■■ all over’ a 240 Gardner.
We ran a 220 ■■■■■■■ engine Borderer that could ■■■■ all over 240LXB’s AND 8 speed 240 F88’s ! Cheers Bewick.
[/quote]
Blimey I never thought I’d hear you calling a Gardner a spade.
While to be fair wasn’t the 220 ■■■■■■■ the ‘proper’ 14 litre one ?.
Which leaves the question was Gardner fiddling its dyno figures ?.In which case surely we need anorak to review the whole subject and maybe you both owe me some apologies.
The 240 88 I had for a fortnight was definitely slower than my Akky, she was in the garage for a revamp, but God knows I didn’t want to hand her back. Moral was very low for a good while after that
The ■■■■■■■ 220 must have performed very well to fly past a 240 Gardner because the ‘percy’ would probably be five miles down the road while the ■■■■■■■ was still being wound over trying to get the thing fired up!
windrush:
The ■■■■■■■ 220 must have performed very well to fly past a 240 Gardner because the ‘percy’ would probably be five miles down the road while the ■■■■■■■ was still being wound over trying to get the thing fired up!
Pete.
In your dreams
What about the whip in the crank on the early ones .
windrush:
The ■■■■■■■ 220 must have performed very well to fly past a 240 Gardner because the ‘percy’ would probably be five miles down the road while the ■■■■■■■ was still being wound over trying to get the thing fired up!
Pete.
Defo not Pete ! all our ■■■■■■■ were “on the button” Cheers Dennis.
The 10spd Fuller was a range change, but still with the choice of 20 forward gears, you could keep that thing on the boil all the time, I would’ve still took the F88 though given the choice.
Carryfast:
While to be fair wasn’t the 220 ■■■■■■■ the ‘proper’ 14 litre one ?.
Are you sure it wasn’t a 250 not a 220 Bewick ?.Which sounds more realistic.
‘Unless’ Gardner was actually fiddling its dyno figures.
The clue is in his post- close ratio 5 speed Fuller, splitter plus two speed axle= most of the power, most of the time.
What gearbox did the reference to the 205 have in it ?. While assuming same weight same trailer on the flat or anything other than gently rising terrain the ‘240’ Gardner would still have been expected to ■■■■ all over the 205 or the 220 ?.IE how many gears do you need to hold the thing at 1,800 rpm in top or in 5th.
Carryfast:
While to be fair wasn’t the 220 ■■■■■■■ the ‘proper’ 14 litre one ?.
Are you sure it wasn’t a 250 not a 220 Bewick ?.Which sounds more realistic.
‘Unless’ Gardner was actually fiddling its dyno figures.
The clue is in his post- close ratio 5 speed Fuller, splitter plus two speed axle= most of the power, most of the time.
What gearbox did the reference to the 205 have in it ?. While assuming same weight same trailer on the flat or anything other than gently rising terrain the ‘240’ Gardner would still have been expected to ■■■■ all over the 205 or the 220 ?.IE how many gears do you need to hold the thing at 1,800 rpm in top or in 5th.
Hiya,
Many haulage contractors ran the 240 Percy’s in the 32 ton era in a downrated
state I drove one fitted in an ERF and it was only on a par with a good nick
Percy 180 and it it certainly couldn’t live with the Rollers and ■■■■■■■ of the
day, And when I changed jobs and was driving Seddons and Big Js with the Rs’
and Cs engines and running the same routes and the same weights I could ■■■■
all over my former motor now driven by a pal of mine from my previous outfit.
Carryfast:
What gearbox did the reference to the 205 have in it ?. While assuming same weight same trailer on the flat or anything other than gently rising terrain the ‘240’ Gardner would still have been expected to ■■■■ all over the 205 or the 220 ?.IE how many gears do you need to hold the thing at 1,800 rpm in top or in 5th.
Hiya,
Many haulage contractors ran the 240 Percy’s in the 32 ton era in a downrated
state I drove one fitted in an ERF and it was only on a par with a good nick
Percy 180 and it it certainly couldn’t live with the Rollers and ■■■■■■■ of the
day, And when I changed jobs and was driving Seddons and Big Js with the Rs’
and Cs engines and running the same routes and the same weights I could ■■■■
all over my former motor now driven by a pal of mine from my previous outfit.
Maybe there’s something that the penny pinching ■■■■■■■■ miser has forgotten to tell us about in that regard. .
On that note surely not everything had a 20 speed transmission and there were plenty of others using the Fuller 9 speed which is also what was put with the 240 Gardner ?.On that note over 700 lb/ft of torque isn’t too bad and better than the figures for the 220 or possibly even 250 ■■■■■■■ ?.
Although I never thought that I’d ever be defending a Gardner,against Bewick saying that a ■■■■■■■ could ■■■■ all over it.But taken at face value the dyno figures say otherwise.
There wasn’t much that could live with a decently set-up 205 ■■■■■■■ back in the day. And we didn’t need dozens of gears, either: The six speed AEC/Thorneycroft constant mesh 'box was quite adequate for seeing most other “fleet” motors off. Maybe the secret was in slipping the fitter at Guy Motors, North Woolwich a ten bob note to work his magic!
And for the “non-BRS” fleets, it had to be remembered that you could rebuild a ■■■■■■■ for the same price as a top overhaul on a Gardner! (Tin hat time!)
Bewick:
0 This was the Borderer that could tramp past 8LXB’s and 240 F88’s up hill and down dale !, 220 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 610/2 speed axle.
I’ve always been a ■■■■■■■ man, (and Gardner hater) but I have to say, my Atki 220 + 10speed roadranger (NTY683M), while marginally faster on the flat couldn’t live with our 240 Gardner’s on a long hill, ie. the long drags on the M62, and around Leicester on the M1.
The 180’s I could walk all over, but not the our 240’s. PS I still wouldn’t have swapped my ■■■■■■■ for ANY Gardner!!! regards Kev.
Retired Old ■■■■:
it had to be remembered that you could rebuild a ■■■■■■■ for the same price as a top overhaul on a Gardner! (Tin hat time!)
Oh wait another inconvenient fact that Bewick seems to have over looked in his previous praise of Gardners and which he now seems to be back tracking on.
Retired Old ■■■■:
it had to be remembered that you could rebuild a ■■■■■■■ for the same price as a top overhaul on a Gardner! (Tin hat time!)
Oh wait another inconvenient fact that Bewick seems to have over looked in his previous praise of Gardners and which he now seems to be back tracking on.
Strange as it may seem I can only recall rebuilding one ■■■■■■■ 220 but we did recon a number of 180/240LXB’s ! Cheers Bewick.
Retired Old ■■■■:
There wasn’t much that could live with a decently set-up 205 ■■■■■■■ back in the day. And we didn’t need dozes of gears, either: The six speed AEC/Thorneycroft constant mesh 'box was quite adequate for seeing most other “fleet” motors off. Maybe the secret was in slipping the fitter at Guy Motors, North Woolwich a ten bob note to work his magic!
And for the “non-BRS” fleets, it had to be remembered that you could rebuild a ■■■■■■■ for the same price as a top overhaul on a Gardner! (Tin hat time!)
You are a real argumentative Scrote ROF ! There is no way a Thorneycroft box’d motor ( with equivalent engine) could “see off” a 610/609 Fuller box’d motor ! From first hand experience we ran an “A” Series 180LXB/Fuller 609 unit along with 6 identical, 6 speed box’d Big J’s and the ERF could out perform any of the Big J’s ! You see it was “the superior gearing” of the “A” Series simples ! Oh! and the 610 box’d 220 Borderers could out perform the DB 6:600 220 engine Borderers FACT ! It was the gearing my Son what done it ! Have you been smoking some funny gear in your Allotment shed or what ? Cheers Bewick.
Retired Old ■■■■:
it had to be remembered that you could rebuild a ■■■■■■■ for the same price as a top overhaul on a Gardner! (Tin hat time!)
Oh wait another inconvenient fact that Bewick seems to have over looked in his previous praise of Gardners and which he now seems to be back tracking on.
Strange as it may seem I can only recall rebuilding one ■■■■■■■ 220 but we did recon a number of 180/240LXB’s ! Cheers Bewick.
Now the truth is coming out.I’ve changed my mind my Big J is now deffo going to get a Rolls or a ■■■■■■■ in it and I’ve cancelled the order for the 8 LXB special bitsa.Then I’ll use the money that earns me to buy the 8 v 92 powered TM later on.
So now we know why the things were so rare.Loads of aggro to get hold of a gutless unreliable boat anchor that cost a fortune to fix when it broke. It seems like I was right the first time.
Gardner engines were costly (and time consuming) to rebuild without a doubt, but then they were the more expensive engine option in a new vehicle anyway. Rolls were not cheap to rebuild either, back in the 70’s a full gasket set for a Rolls 220 was around £800, but they and the later 265 Li’s did outlast the Gardner’s for reliability in our fleet. I only ever rebuilt a couple of ■■■■■■■ 220’s in dumpers as the few 250’s we had in road wagons were not kept for long. I did drive a couple with L10’s in, fixing oil leaks and waterpumps plus replacing one turbo (twice!) was the extent of my spannering on those thank God!
windrush:
Gardner engines were costly (and time consuming) to rebuild without a doubt, but then they were the more expensive engine option in a new vehicle anyway. Rolls were not cheap to rebuild either, back in the 70’s a full gasket set for a Rolls 220 was around £800, but they and the later 265 Li’s did outlast the Gardner’s for reliability in our fleet. I only ever rebuilt a couple of ■■■■■■■ 220’s in dumpers as the few 250’s we had in road wagons were not kept for long. I did drive a couple with L10’s in, fixing oil leaks and waterpumps plus replacing one turbo (twice!) was the extent of my spannering on those thank God!
Pete.
The Transport Engineer report that Gingerfold put on here has the Gardner at the top of the table of low maintenance costs. Maybe that report covered only “first life” service, IE prior to rebuild?
