Dennis Javelin:
Question for the technically minded members. I believe that there was a ruling that the ratio of horsepower to gross weight was 6hp per ton. If that was the case why did so many operators still specify the 6LXB well into the 80’s as this would only allow them to run at 30t gross? Or did this ruling get scrapped at some point in the 70’s?
Because the 6LXB was a relatively light engine, if it was used in a lightweight tractor it could still offer almost as much payload as a vehicle plated to 32 tonnes, with a tax-saving advantage.
windrush:
Oh dear David, I somehow think that there is more chance of converting Dennis to being a fan of Fodens than convincing this bunch of doubters that the vehicle you drove actually really existed? Never say never though, keep the faith!
No doubt they existed but just weren’t made at the factory.All after market bitsas.The running costs of the Gardner v NA ■■■■■■■ over the vehicle’s service life seem a no brainer.
Dennis Javelin:
Question for the technically minded members. I believe that there was a ruling that the ratio of horsepower to gross weight was 6hp per ton. If that was the case why did so many operators still specify the 6LXB well into the 80’s as this would only allow them to run at 30t gross? Or did this ruling get scrapped at some point in the 70’s?
Borderline 30t operation as in our case.I think from memory the last 6 LXB ERF B series we had were V reg.
Dennis Javelin:
Question for the technically minded members. I believe that there was a ruling that the ratio of horsepower to gross weight was 6hp per ton. If that was the case why did so many operators still specify the 6LXB well into the 80’s as this would only allow them to run at 30t gross? Or did this ruling get scrapped at some point in the 70’s?
Borderline 30t operation as in our case.I think from memory the last 6 LXB ERF B series we had were V reg.
As part of the search for the famed “8LXB” I came across a few pics of J4’s with A & B prefixes so it would seem that they were certainly still being put into them as late as 82’ when they closed Fallings Park.
Dennis Javelin:
Question for the technically minded members. I believe that there was a ruling that the ratio of horsepower to gross weight was 6hp per ton. If that was the case why did so many operators still specify the 6LXB well into the 80’s as this would only allow them to run at 30t gross? Or did this ruling get scrapped at some point in the 70’s?
To comply with the 6 bhp / ton legislation the 6LXB was tweaked to produce 188 bhp at 1,850 rpm. With legal tolerances of plus or minus 5% it was still able to be used in tractive units rated at 30 tons gtw. The eight-wheeler gvw was raised to 30 tons also. In the 1970s there were still many artic tractive units in service rated at 24, 28, 30, and 32 tons. The market and industry was completely different then to what it is now.
gingerfold:
To comply with the 6 bhp / ton legislation the 6LXB was tweaked to produce 188 bhp at 1,850 rpm. With legal tolerances of plus or minus 5% it was still able to be used in tractive units rated at 30 tons gtw. The eight-wheeler gvw was raised to 30 tons also. In the 1970s there were still many artic tractive units in service rated at 24, 28, 30, and 32 tons. The market and industry was completely different then to what it is now.
Even when we had our last three new Foden 3000 series eight wheeler tippers in 1996 with the ■■■■■■■ and Perkins 335 engine they were only run at 31.00 gvw instead of 32.00 tonnes, even though they were plated at that, so not everyone used/needed the full payload potential of their vehicles. I think the Gardner 201 was introduced to meet the extra bhp per tonne rating, even though it was mostly a ‘paperwork excercise’ and they performed no different to the LXB’s?
Dennis Javelin:
Question for the technically minded members. I believe that there was a ruling that the ratio of horsepower to gross weight was 6hp per ton. If that was the case why did so many operators still specify the 6LXB well into the 80’s as this would only allow them to run at 30t gross? Or did this ruling get scrapped at some point in the 70’s?
Borderline 30t operation as in our case.I think from memory the last 6 LXB ERF B series we had were V reg.
As part of the search for the famed “8LXB” I came across a few pics of J4’s with A & B prefixes so it would seem that they were certainly still being put into them as late as 82’ when they closed Fallings Park.
Another believer by the sounds of it…welcome to the club DJ.
Dennis Javelin:
Somebody at Smith’s of Maddiston must have been so desperate to convince people that they had a J4T with the “240” that they went to the bother of having a painting commissioned. I wonder how they got the driver to park up for so long LOL.
I may be pi**ing on my own chips here but has anyone noticed the air cleaner/stack position on the Smith’s Big J?
ROF,it’s exactly where I remember it!
David
Oh dear David, I somehow think that there is more chance of converting Dennis to being a fan of Fodens than convincing this bunch of doubters that the vehicle you drove actually really existed? Never say never though, keep the faith!
Pete.
Do not be swayed Pete,on the lookout for Covid renegades,the ■■■■■■■ law enforcement have the post code for a suspect barn…to be continued!
Dennis Javelin:
Question for the technically minded members. I believe that there was a ruling that the ratio of horsepower to gross weight was 6hp per ton. If that was the case why did so many operators still specify the 6LXB well into the 80’s as this would only allow them to run at 30t gross? Or did this ruling get scrapped at some point in the 70’s?
Borderline 30t operation as in our case.I think from memory the last 6 LXB ERF B series we had were V reg.
As part of the search for the famed “8LXB” I came across a few pics of J4’s with A & B prefixes so it would seem that they were certainly still being put into them as late as 82’ when they closed Fallings Park.
Another believer by the sounds of it…welcome to the club Dennis Javelin(confusing Christian name!)
There is no rule about being unable to have two “handles” is there Dave ? Well your other one is “Carryfast” isn’t it ? Cheers “DJ” !
[Another believer by the sounds of it…welcome to the club Dennis Javelin(confusing Christian name!)
There is no rule about being unable to have two “handles” is there Dave ? Well your other one is “Carryfast” isn’t it ? Cheers “DJ” !
David
[/quote]
[/quote]
I trust that I’m not getting caught up in a personal spat. As a newcomer to the forum I was naturally interested in a single issue topic that had attracted over 4500 posts without resolution so I decided to throw in my “two penneth worth” and do a bit of digging to satisfy my own curiosity. It intrigued me that posters were so keen to rubbish pics of J4’s with a “240” badge despite pictures of trucks with the badge on the front. I don’t understand why anyone would go to all the bother of doing this as it would have been apparent to anyone with any interest in trucks that the absence of the “two extra pots” at the back would give the game away. I also cannot fathom why someone would show a preserved vehicle with anything other than the original badges.
Regarding my username it’s quite simple. My first name is not Dennis and my surname is not Javelin. However I have been interested in Dennis products for a long time and I own a company that supplies parts for buses, primarily dealing with Dennis products as we used to be agents for them in the 90’s before they decided to get rid of us all and do it themselves. Since then the business has grown and I now supply company’s throughout the world, not just the UK. I recently posted a picture of the first Dennis Javelin that was built for sale as I owned it for ten years and saved it for preservation so the name made sense to me - hope it makes sense to you guys.
For the avoidance of doubt I don’t have an alter ego on here.
Dennis Javelin:
[Another believer by the sounds of it…welcome to the club Dennis Javelin(confusing Christian name!)
There is no rule about being unable to have two “handles” is there Dave ? Well your other one is “Carryfast” isn’t it ? Cheers “DJ” !
David
[/quote]
I trust that I’m not getting caught up in a personal spat. As a newcomer to the forum I was naturally interested in a single issue topic that had attracted over 4500 posts without resolution so I decided to throw in my “two penneth worth” and do a bit of digging to satisfy my own curiosity. It intrigued me that posters were so keen to rubbish pics of J4’s with a “240” badge despite pictures of trucks with the badge on the front. I don’t understand why anyone would go to all the bother of doing this as it would have been apparent to anyone with any interest in trucks that the absence of the “two extra pots” at the back would give the game away. I also cannot fathom why someone would show a preserved vehicle with anything other than the original badges.
Regarding my username it’s quite simple. My first name is not Dennis and my surname is not Javelin. However I have been interested in Dennis products for a long time and I own a company that supplies parts for buses, primarily dealing with Dennis products as we used to be agents for them in the 90’s before they decided to get rid of us all and do it themselves. Since then the business has grown and I now supply company’s throughout the world, not just the UK. I recently posted a picture of the first Dennis Javelin that was built for sale as I owned it for ten years and saved it for preservation so the name made sense to me - hope it makes sense to you guys.
For the avoidance of doubt I don’t have an alter ego on here.
[/quote]
No personal spat DJ,just a disagreement in reality,may I suggest,for some light bedside reading you start at page 1just to get the feel of the topic,but as soon as the fun stops,you stop,it could drive you around the bend.
Do I detect a “sense of humour blockage” ? However in order to clarify----- We ran 6 Big J’s at Bewick Transport so in the absence of rear cab shots and the substitution of the “180” badges on the grilles for “240” badges it would be fair to claim that they were all fitted with 8LXB engines ? well a “badge” doesn’t lie --does it ! Is this thread never going to die and fizzle ? All I ever asked for was a side view shot of a Big J with an 8LXB engine and after many many years none has been forthcoming ! Cheers Bewick.
Bewick:
Do I detect a “sense of humour blockage” ? However in order to clarify----- We ran 6 Big J’s at Bewick Transport so in the absence of rear cab shots and the substitution of the “180” badges on the grilles for “240” badges it would be fair to claim that they were all fitted with 8LXB engines ? well a “badge” doesn’t lie --does it ! Is this thread never going to die and fizzle ? All I ever asked for was a side view shot of a Big J with an 8LXB engine and after many many years none has been forthcoming ! Cheers Bewick.
Have any rear cab shots of an A series ERF been seen, Just asking
Dennis. Please don’t be upset by Dennis. He’s equally as rude to everybody! Ok, not perhaps equally - some more than others, but generally he gets as good as he gives!
He also has some great tales, so is well worth reading.
Bewick:
Do I detect a “sense of humour blockage” ? However in order to clarify----- We ran 6 Big J’s at Bewick Transport so in the absence of rear cab shots and the substitution of the “180” badges on the grilles for “240” badges it would be fair to claim that they were all fitted with 8LXB engines ? well a “badge” doesn’t lie --does it ! Is this thread never going to die and fizzle ? All I ever asked for was a side view shot of a Big J with an 8LXB engine and after many many years none has been forthcoming ! Cheers Bewick.
Have any rear cab shots of an A series ERF been seen, Just asking
Yes I have one Dave so bear with me and I’ll dig it out ! Cheers Dennis.
Now in an effort to keep the thread on track so just to refresh all interested Parties as to the exact shot we have been looking for----this is the side view of a Big J which unfortunately just has the 180LXB engine, but you get the idea—if it had been fitted with the 8LXB the two back pots would be protruding !
John West:
Dennis. Please don’t be upset by Dennis. He’s equally as rude to everybody! Ok, not perhaps equally - some more than others, but generally he gets as good as he gives!
He also has some great tales, so is well worth reading.
John.
Well said John I’m a believer and Dennis tells me off about it but I still search the globe for a rear shot of the GUY Big J
Thanks Gary [emoji4]
Bewick:
Now in an effort to keep the thread on track so just to refresh all interested Parties as to the exact shot we have been looking for----this is the side view of a Big J which unfortunately just has the 180LXB engine, but you get the idea—if it had been fitted with the 8LXB the two back pots would be protruding !
0
Hold up Bewick.Even if they find the required photo to go with the badge that doesn’t mean the thing was built new on the production line with an 8LXB motor in it.Just like there are/were plenty of 289 and 302 V8 powered Mk2 Zodiacs but none of them were ever made by Ford.
Never say never though, keep the faith! 
