harry_gill:
Hiya,
Conveniently blurred.
Very blurred Harry, I do wish that someone would put a decent photo of a Big J showing the 8 potter Gardner Engine sticking out off the cab, Then all will end well I hope, So heres a toast to the future responces, Im just having a Large Glenmorangie before I retire & go to bed, But I wont be dreaming of the Big J, Only the great old Gardner Engine & Single Malts too. 
Take care & stay safe to all on this thread,Regards Larry.
We already know that the 40 or whatever number of tractor units went to Smith’s, with maybe one finding its way to another operator- as I remember the previous pages. Wincanton was a huge fleet, which would have taken large batches of similar vehicles, I would have thought. The chances of it buying one or a handful of very highly-specified machines is unlikely. I reckon the rectangular lump behind the cab is an hydraulic pump, with a big tank up above it, or something like that.
Edit- there’s a pipey thing sticking out the back of the lower rectangle. I reckon it is a pump for blowing fresh water through the trailer tank. The lump above it is a detergent tank.
There looks like fresh air below much of the lower rectangle, IE no engine parts there.
[zb]
anorak:
There are two rectangular lumps behind the cab. The top of the lower one is a lot higher than the top of the engine. Is it a bonnet, to keep the engine out of the rain? Is it something to do with the milk equivalent of pet regs?We already know that the 40 or whatever number of tractor units went to Smith’s, with maybe one finding its way to another operator- as I remember the previous pages. Wincanton was a huge fleet, which would have taken large batches of similar vehicles, I would have thought. The chances of it buying one or a handful of very highly-specified machines is unlikely. I reckon the rectangular lump behind the cab is an hydraulic pump, with a big tank up above it, or something like that.
Edit- there’s a pipey thing sticking out the back of the lower rectangle. I reckon it is a pump for blowing fresh water through the trailer tank. The lump above it is a detergent tank.
There looks like fresh air below much of the lower rectangle, IE no engine parts there.
Another one here with a bonnet hiding the rear 2 pots!
If you look closely you can see at the back of that new Big J the cover that is over the rear two pots on the 8LXB engine. 
It looks more like a heat shield to me, Lots of tractor units pulling tankers had them, Plus front mounted exhaust silencers too, Regards Larry.
That’s a nice photo. Out of all the motor panel cabs, I prefer the Guy big J version. Mr Dunbar makes a good point.
One day perhaps!
Paul John:
That’s a nice photo. Out of all the motor panel cabs, I prefer the Guy big J version. Mr Dunbar makes a good point.
One day perhaps!
Little bit of Motor Panel history here:
Lawrence Dunbar:
It looks more like a heat shield to me, Lots of tractor units pulling tankers had them, Plus front mounted exhaust silencers too, Regards Larry.
I believe the front-mounted exhaust was the standard on Big J tractor units, Larry.
Retired Old ■■■■:
Lawrence Dunbar:
It looks more like a heat shield to me, Lots of tractor units pulling tankers had them, Plus front mounted exhaust silencers too, Regards Larry.I believe the front-mounted exhaust was the standard on Big J tractor units, Larry.
Only a matter of time… 
Lets get this right in a world in which more than 250 hp was supposedly considered to be silly power until at least 1980 they sold the grand total of 40 8LXB powered Big J’s v how many ‘290’ Rolls and ■■■■■■■■
Optional in the brochure doesn’t mean there was a guaranteed supply of engines from Gardner to match the narrative.
To be fair to the believers there just ain’t going to be many people left who actually saw or drove or worked on an 8LXB BigJ.
The thing was almost as rare as rocking horse zb.
While to be fair to Bewick he’s not far wide of the mark. 
Remember the original question Dennis asked was a pic of the rear of a Big J showing the rear 2 pots and a tongue in cheek question if Guy ever built any
What surprises me is that the nearest 2 big fleets to the Guy factory were BRS at Jenner street Wolverhampton and Goodyear factory which was less than a mile from the factory. Now Goodyears had always split their fleet with some of their own motors and some supplied by BRS, the Big J’s on that fleet had Gardners, RR, ■■■■■■■ 14 ltr as well as the ■■■■■■■ V6, why no 240’s in that fleet even as a seed motor as Guy’s could have kept a very close eye on it? I talked to the old lads when I did my stint in Goodyears and they hated the site of the V6 motors and managed to get them put on the carbon black tank job.
Other local fleets that were big users of the Big J would have been Fordhouses Transport, Coopers, Coopers Roadways and ■■■■ Hampton all with in 5 miles of the factory.
pete smith:
Remember the original question Dennis asked was a pic of the rear of a Big J showing the rear 2 pots and a tongue in cheek question if Guy ever built anyWhat surprises me is that the nearest 2 big fleets to the Guy factory were BRS at Jenner street Wolverhampton and Goodyear factory which was less than a mile from the factory. Now Goodyears had always split their fleet with some of their own motors and some supplied by BRS, the Big J’s on that fleet had Gardners, RR, ■■■■■■■ 14 ltr as well as the ■■■■■■■ V6, why no 240’s in that fleet even as a seed motor as Guy’s could have kept a very close eye on it? I talked to the old lads when I did my stint in Goodyears and they hated the site of the V6 motors and managed to get them put on the carbon black tank job.
Other local fleets that were big users of the Big J would have been Fordhouses Transport, Coopers, Coopers Roadways and ■■■■ Hampton all with in 5 miles of the factory.
Those fleets you mentioned had obviously seen the light and decided that other engine makers were out-performing the old “boat anchors” and would have nothing to do with Gardners in future, no matter how many cylinders were tacked on the back of them. And long term, the ■■■■■■■ could be completely overhauled for the same cost as a decoke on a Gardner and, with the introduction if the Big Cam E-series, ■■■■■■■ were able to match the Patricroft’s fuel consumption.
Retired Old ■■■■:
Those fleets you mentioned had obviously seen the light and decided that other engine makers were out-performing the old “boat anchors” and would have nothing to do with Gardners in future, no matter how many cylinders were tacked on the back of them. And long term, the ■■■■■■■ could be completely overhauled for the same cost as a decoke on a Gardner and, with the introduction if the Big Cam E-series, ■■■■■■■ were able to match the Patricroft’s fuel consumption.
Blimey they’ll be saying that my account has been hacked. 
Yep two more cylinders added to something which ‘arguably’ doesn’t seem to match the advertised output and durability is just increasing the issue by 30%.On paper and by Bewick’s reckoning the 8LXB looks like a very good bet though.
We need some sales figures for the advertised ‘‘290’’ options for more evidence. 
Well ROF I would like to see comfirmation that ■■■■■■■ engines were as good as the good old Gardners on MPG, Dont get me wrong I know ■■■■■■■ engines were good pullers, And cheap to overhaul, But IMO How many times did a Gardner have to be overhauled, I ran wagons with the Gardners in & did very high milage too, But I never had to take any of them to bits , The only ■■■■■■■ I ran was a 220 & it was rubbish on fuel rI know lots of hauliers liked them & swore by them, But one buys & runs what suits their purpose,Regards Larry.
Lawrence Dunbar:
Well ROF I would like to see comfirmation that ■■■■■■■ engines were as good as the good old Gardners on MPG, Dont get me wrong I know ■■■■■■■ engines were good pullers, And cheap to overhaul, But IMO How many times did a Gardner have to be overhauled, I ran wagons with the Gardners in & did very high milage too, But I never had to take any of them to bits
Which leaves the question why would there have only been 40 8LXB BigJ’s ordered.
Lawrence Dunbar:
Well ROF I would like to see comfirmation that ■■■■■■■ engines were as good as the good old Gardners on MPG, Dont get me wrong I know ■■■■■■■ engines were good pullers, And cheap to overhaul, But IMO How many times did a Gardner have to be overhauled, I ran wagons with the Gardners in & did very high milage too, But I never had to take any of them to bits
The pre- E series were a different animal, Larry. We had ■■■■■■■ motors of 180, 205 & 220 bhp and struggled to get 5/6 mpg out of any of them., although they went like trains for their time. It was a whole new ball game when they introduced the E-series- same power as the previous models but fuel consumption similar to the Gardner. I was definitely a convert!
Punchy Dan:
0
A great snapshot of time gone by Dan
