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.
Have you got a sore a—hole CF 'cause you are always talking out of it ! Cheers Bewick.
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?
In their day the Gardner engines were the most economical, reliable, engines on the heavy automotive market and any attempt to discredit them will only be by individuals who never operated them ! If Bewick Transport could have got hold of Gardner engine chassis they would never have operated ■■■■■■■ units ! Fact ! Cheers Bewick.
Bewick:
In their day the Gardner engines were the most economical, reliable, engines on the heavy automotive market and any attempt to discredit them will only be by individuals who never operated them ! If Bewick Transport could have got hold of Gardner engine chassis they would never have operated ■■■■■■■ units ! Fact ! Cheers Bewick.
And that ‘day’ seems to have ran out in 1969. Bearing in mind the evidence here,like 205 ■■■■■■■ could ■■■■ all over it,which seems to suggest real world power outputs which didn’t match the quoted figures and 1950’s expectations regarding output levels in that regard and let’s say at best a motor,that even if if did manage to last the distance,still cost more to fix if/when it eventually broke like all the rest.All obviously contradicted at face value.
In which case maybe the rarity of the beast says it all when push came to shove in finding and making the choice of the best money saving package in terms of the bottom line which the Big J was obviously all about.
In their day they probably were the most economical and reliable but those days had gone when we ran 40+ of them in the 70’s and 80’s! Economical, yes, but they gave many problems when only a few years old. Using oil was the first sign of trouble, and the’ Gardner Smell’ (a mild burning aroma) was another indication that something wasn’t right inside. The camshaft sprocket securing bolt used to come loose when the tab washer failed, valves and pistons used to kiss each other then! The 6LXC 201 series in Foden Haulmasters had problems from new and they ended up being rebuilt under warranty with LXB heads supplied by Gardner and heavily modified cooling systems. They still knocked pistons out (sometimes literally through the block and crankcase !) on a regular basis. Kept me busy though so I shouldn’t complain and they are still my favourite engine regarding the engineering quality of components…
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.
I know where you’re coming from, old fruit, but you have to remember that most small & medium-sized hauliers in our part of the world were still using Mk! Atkis and ERF LVs powered by LW & LX when the Big J/■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ was released. It was considered very exotic if you got your mitts on something like a 220 ■■■■■■■ or a Fuller gearbox.
But of course, being so much younger than I, you wouldn’t remember much about the Good Old Days when we had to start work at 3.00am to clean the boiler out & light the fire, let alone arrange for a change of horses at lunchtime!
coomsey:
Did the lorry assemblers make more profit if they fitted Gardner’s ? Bigger the engine size more profit? Cheers Coomsey
Yes they did make more profit by fitting Gardner engines. it wasn’t anything to do with engine size but the fact that Gardner engines had the reputation as described in above posts by Bewick. Typically a chassis with a Gardner engine was 10 to 15% dearer than a chassis by the same assembler with a non-Gardner engine fitted. The policy of assemblers charging a premium to a purchaser for a Gardner engine annoyed Hugh Gardner who was selling engines to chassis assemblers at only a little more than his competitors’ prices. The assemblers’ response was along the lines that Gardner engines were rationed, (which they were such was the demand and again I refer you to my learned friend Bewick’s response above), so they could charge more for a Gardner engined chassis. Each year Hugh Gardner gave his sales department an allocation total of engines for each assembler, for lorries these were Atkinson, ERF, Foden, Seddon and Guy as the major purchasers. After a dispute with Atkinson about engines allocation, Hugh Gardner halved their allocation. Then there were the passenger vehicle users as well. Plus Gardner’s other engine types, LW, LX, L2, L3 used in static, rail, and marine applications, all with any number of cylinders between 1 and 8. Engine production and assembly at Patricroft was labour intensive with virtually every component made in-house. they didn’t record annual production in completed engines, but in the number of cylinders made.
Dion Houghton, Gardner’s Sales Director, was convinced that ■■■■■■■ set up production in the Uk after senior ■■■■■■■ management had visited Patricroft in the mid 1950s and seen how old fashioned even by 1950s standards the Patricroft engine works was.
coomsey:
Did the lorry assemblers make more profit if they fitted Gardner’s ? Bigger the engine size more profit? Cheers Coomsey
Yes they did make more profit by fitting Gardner engines. it wasn’t anything to do with engine size but the fact that Gardner engines had the reputation as described in above posts by Bewick. Typically a chassis with a Gardner engine was 10 to 15% dearer than a chassis by the same assembler with a non-Gardner engine fitted. The policy of assemblers charging a premium to a purchaser for a Gardner engine annoyed Hugh Gardner who was selling engines to chassis assemblers at only a little more than his competitors’ prices. The assemblers’ response was along the lines that Gardner engines were rationed, (which they were such was the demand and again I refer you to my learned friend Bewick’s response above), so they could charge more for a Gardner engined chassis. Each year Hugh Gardner gave his sales department an allocation total of engines for each assembler, for lorries these were Atkinson, ERF, Foden, Seddon and Guy as the major purchasers. After a dispute with Atkinson about engines allocation, Hugh Gardner halved their allocation. Then there were the passenger vehicle users as well. Plus Gardner’s other engine types, LW, LX, L2, L3 used in static, rail, and marine applications, all with any number of cylinders between 1 and 8. Engine production and assembly at Patricroft was labour intensive with virtually every component made in-house. they didn’t record annual production in completed engines, but in the number of cylinders made.
Dion Houghton, Gardner’s Sales Director, was convinced that ■■■■■■■ set up production in the Uk after senior ■■■■■■■ management had visited Patricroft in the mid 1950s and seen how old fashioned even by 1950s standards the Patricroft engine works was.
Thanks Gf interesting. So just on profit alone Guy must have shoe horned a 240 in their motors. Just a thought I don’t recall seeing a 240 Seddon ? Or did that occur after the Akky buy out?
There are definitely pics of 8LXB Seddons on here. IIRC, they were derated to 200bhp. Very odd- the most expensive engine on the market, with 18% of its performance lopped off, fitted into the cheapest chassis.
[zb]
anorak:
There are definitely pics of 8LXB Seddons on here. IIRC, they were derated to 200bhp. Very odd- the most expensive engine on the market, with 18% of its performance lopped off, fitted into the cheapest chassis.
[zb]
anorak:
There are definitely pics of 8LXB Seddons on here. IIRC, they were derated to 200bhp. Very odd- the most expensive engine on the market, with 18% of its performance lopped off, fitted into the cheapest chassis.
Odd as you want! What box did they use?
For some unexplained reason Seddons used the DB 6:600 box behind the derated 200BHP 8LXB ! needless to say it didn’t catch on and only a handful, literally, were built ! Cheers Bewick.
[zb]
anorak:
There are definitely pics of 8LXB Seddons on here. IIRC, they were derated to 200bhp. Very odd- the most expensive engine on the market, with 18% of its performance lopped off, fitted into the cheapest chassis.
If left at 240 they would have probably broke the chassis just behind the o/s/f/r spring hanger.
[zb]
anorak:
There are definitely pics of 8LXB Seddons on here. IIRC, they were derated to 200bhp. Very odd- the most expensive engine on the market, with 18% of its performance lopped off, fitted into the cheapest chassis.
If left at 240 they would have probably broke the chassis just behind the o/s/f/r spring hanger.
Good info. DD. Were Seddons known to be weak there?
We had quite a few of these fitted with 220 RR engines & Fuller boxes and after about three years of use we were always welding the chassis in that area, they also had some with 180 Gardners which never had this problem, it was the general view within the workshop that it was the extra power which caused the problem, I was told that a couple of units operating out of the Heywood depot had to have new chassis rails fitted as they had almost completely sheared off in that area.
I bet the Akky boys were well happy to have the Seddon men coming to show them where they were going wrong!!
Back to the point,if Seddon were putting 240s in Guy must have done. Does anyone know how many 240 Seddons were built? What their allocation of Gardners was compared to Guys?
If Mr. Hugh was deciding the allocation on a whim, it is surprising he allowed any of his best engine to go to a chassis manufacturer who could not do that job properly.
What caused the problem with the Seddon chassis? Crossmembers too rigid/in the wrong place?
[zb]
anorak:
There are definitely pics of 8LXB Seddons on here. IIRC, they were derated to 200bhp. Very odd- the most expensive engine on the market, with 18% of its performance lopped off, fitted into the cheapest chassis.
Odd as you want! What box did they use?
For some unexplained reason Seddons used the DB 6:600 box behind the derated 200BHP 8LXB ! needless to say it didn’t catch on and only a handful, literally, were built ! Cheers Bewick.
And then the foreign competition somehow managed to persuade the same bonkers domestic market to go from Gardner powered SA to expensive big power turbo DAF/Scania/Volvo etc etc in one leap while in many cases turning its back on E290/320 13 speed fuller in the home product when it eventually arrived. It would all be pure Brit comedy if it wasn’t so bleedin sad.
It seems like I was right the first time.
Bearing in mind the evidence here,like 205 ■■■■■■■ could ■■■■ all over it,which seems to suggest real world power outputs which didn’t match the quoted figures and 1950’s expectations regarding output levels in that regard and let’s say at best a motor,that even if if did manage to last the distance,still cost more to fix if/when it eventually broke like all the rest.All obviously contradicted at face value.
It would all be pure Brit comedy if it wasn’t so bleedin sad. 