Hi Bewick,we did get quite a few Gardners in mostly with water pumps sheared due to no anti freeze.also 180s with dropped valves due to massive engine speeds on overruns going down Beattock summit.Normally required sme valves and a couple of pistons.Gardner engineers reckoned that some engines were revving to 3000RPM before the valves touched.
The mechanic:
Hi Bewick,we did get quite a few Gardners in mostly with water pumps sheared due to no anti freeze.also 180s with dropped valves due to massive engine speeds on overruns going down Beattock summit.Normally required sme valves and a couple of pistons.Gardner engineers reckoned that some engines were revving to 3000RPM before the valves touched.
What about the ■■■■■■■ 205/220 did you see many of those ? Bewick.
Bewick:
3300John:
Well done there muckananick that was a very intresting read. I had a look on google but nothing came up or i was looking in the wrong place.
John.Excellent piece of work Mechanic !! I have the same book but am not as technical advanced as you !! I wonder what spin the bold Carryfast will come up with as his Wind & Pi** DD dosen’t even make it onto the bottom of the list for the repair costings !! Regarding the 1979 engine deliveries to the various manufactures it would appear that the Leyland Group didn’t take any 8LXBs !! Cheers Bewick.
Probably because the Detroit would’nt have been rated for those costings before the 500,000 mile benchmark just as that fleet engineer at Scottish and Newcastle said about the ones that he was using in the TM 3800.But if they’d stressed the 8LXB to the levels of that 9 litre 8V71 motor running at 300 horse + at 32 and 38 tonnes gross and then used the 500,000 mile yardstick maybe you’d have something to shout about.
Yes we had a lot of experience with them.We ran a 205 in the Foden S40 wrecker and a 220 in the Guy big J.Weused to keep loads of spares for them e.g.cyl. heads, injectors,push rods,starters, alternators, water pumps and hoses etc.I can still remember adjusting the valve clearances and torqueing the injectors.If they were torqued to much the fuel timing was advanced,this gave them a lovely cracky sound but they lacked power on the hills.I also had 290 experience when I moved to Fife to work with Jimmy Kemp as the had 5 roadtrains.
The uneducated are obsessed with BHP when they should concentrate on TORQUE.
Bewick:
The mechanic:
That was the year Guy finished I would think that it would have been in the early seventies.Big bro tells me that a chap from Crawford (Adam Thomson )who drove for Smiths in the seventies had a guy with a 240 in it.Sadly he is no longer with us.Yea Mecanic I think Guy’s built their last motors in 1979 and regarding SOM we got a fleet No ND999 off Alex Saville for an 8LXB Big J .Probably you didn’t see many Gardners in the workshops at Abingdon !!Cheers Bewick.
I think they built the last big j’s in 77 although some were registered later than that, the last couple of years after that they were assembling Leyland normal controls (bathgate G cab with a bonnet) for export, I drove one in the factory they had 350 ■■■■■■■ with a back to front 13 speed fuller box.
Carryfast:
Bewick:
3300John:
Well done there muckananick that was a very intresting read. I had a look on google but nothing came up or i was looking in the wrong place.
John.Excellent piece of work Mechanic !! I have the same book but am not as technical advanced as you !! I wonder what spin the bold Carryfast will come up with as his Wind & Pi** DD dosen’t even make it onto the bottom of the list for the repair costings !! Regarding the 1979 engine deliveries to the various manufactures it would appear that the Leyland Group didn’t take any 8LXBs !! Cheers Bewick.
Probably because the Detroit would’nt have been rated for those costings before the 500,000 mile benchmark just as that fleet engineer at Scottish and Newcastle said about the ones that he was using in the TM 3800.But if they’d stressed the 8LXB to the levels of that 9 litre 8V71 motor running at 300 horse + at 32 and 38 tonnes gross and then used the 500,000 mile yardstick maybe you’d have something to shout about.
Right on time Carryfast ! probably there wasn’t enough DDs in operation to obtain a reliable figure ( maybe all the TMs were broken down when they did the survey !)Anyhow there was no need to stress the gardner as you are suggesting as we are talking about sensible UK operations not "airey fairey " b******s that you spout!! and I’ve told you the S&N engineer was probably over doing it on his own product !! Cheers Guess.
Trev_H:
Bewick:
The mechanic:
That was the year Guy finished I would think that it would have been in the early seventies.Big bro tells me that a chap from Crawford (Adam Thomson )who drove for Smiths in the seventies had a guy with a 240 in it.Sadly he is no longer with us.Yea Mecanic I think Guy’s built their last motors in 1979 and regarding SOM we got a fleet No ND999 off Alex Saville for an 8LXB Big J .Probably you didn’t see many Gardners in the workshops at Abingdon !!Cheers Bewick.
I think they built the last big j’s in 77 although some were registered later than that, the last couple of years after that they were assembling Leyland normal controls (bathgate G cab with a bonnet) for export, I drove one in the factory they had 350 ■■■■■■■ with a back to front 13 speed fuller box.
Right Trev lets get to the bottom of it !! WHEN WAS THE LAST BIG J BUILT ■■? I think I read in one of the Vintage Mags that the last Big J was registered in 81 but had been stood in store for a couple of years . I’ll see if I can dig the mag out ! It was a haulier in the Black country that had it . Cheers Bewick.
The mechanic:
The uneducated are obsessed with BHP when they should concentrate on TORQUE.
Power is just a measurement of torque x rpm divided by 5250.So if you’re comparing the Gardner with a Detroit the conclusion which you come up with is that the Gardner has below average torque per litre (BMEP) output everywhere in the rev range and it won’t sustain the relatively low amount of torque it does have at higher revs so it’s basically zb gutless. 
Carryfast:
The mechanic:
The uneducated are obsessed with BHP when they should concentrate on TORQUE.Power is just a measurement of torque x rpm divided by 5250.So if you’re comparing the Gardner with a Detroit the conclusion which you come up with is that the Gardner has below average torque per litre (BMEP) output everywhere in the rev range and it won’t sustain the relatively low amount of torque it does have at higher revs so it’s basically zb gutless.
Hiya Carryfast I think you must eat technical publications for your breakfast !! But I can tell you this I would sooner operate "below average Gardners " than Mickey Mouse DDs ---- Absolutley no contest unless I was to have suicidal tendencies !! However my old son you keep marching out of step with the rest of the regiment as your waffling is excellent entertainment believe me !! Keep taking the tablets Bewick.
hi dennis,
i used to tip steel at the firm that had a very late guy big j in the midlands,oooooooooooh engles or ingles,something like that.
regards andrew
hi with regard to you question i think they stopped making the guy big j before gardener made the eight pot .so if such a ting existed it may have been after market made . i have driven a E R F with the eight pot and a bij 4 .but this is the first time i heard of a big j8
Bewick:
3300John:
Hiya this is the best i can do at the moment just let your mind wonder a little bit and your dream will come true (Guy big J was not in this legue really)
this is heavyweight.
John
ps …i’am only trying to keep the site going a bit longer,Hiya John what a sight for sore eyes that chassis is !! it looks like it has a Kirkstall hub reuction axle fitted ! I didn’t think that axle was introduced 'til around 74 but I’m probably wrong !! I wonder which lucky firm took delivery of that machine ? Cheers Bewick.
Yes you are wrong Bewick,that Atkinson chassis is dated 1971,but who’s counting?
bobw123:
hi with regard to you question i think they stopped making the guy big j before gardener made the eight pot .so if such a ting existed it may have been after market made . i have driven a E R F with the eight pot and a bij 4 .but this is the first time i heard of a big j8
The latest Big J I’ve seen is the one referred to above, which now belongs to Richard Stanier. It carries a B-prefix registration mark, which puts it around 1984, although it was stored for a number of years before being registered. It was originally bought by Thos Ingles, as referred to in pete359s post, whereafter it passed through the hands of a haulage contractor in Scotland by the name of Jim Horn, before Richard became the current owner.
The 8LXB was very much in production while the Big J was being built - it was launched in 1970 and was still in production up to at least 1983 (I’ve driven vehicles built that year with them installed)so the production lifespan of the engine clearly outran the vehicle. Richard Stanier has already contributed to this thread with anicdotal evidence from a Guy employee that 30-odd Big Js left the factory with 8LXBs installed - at least one of which we now know went to Smiths of Maddiston; all of which being built around 1973-4.
The only thing we haven’t got in all of this is a photograph of one of the 30-odd 8LXB-engined Big Js.
If torque was not important how come a 200BHP petrol engined car can’t pull 30 tons.
bobw123:
hi with regard to you question i think they stopped making the guy big j before gardener made the eight pot .so if such a ting existed it may have been after market made . i have driven a E R F with the eight pot and a bij 4 .but this is the first time i heard of a big j8
Now BoB we are all getting confused !! The 8LXB was launched in 1972 and there appears to be some confusion as to when Leyland stopped building the Guy Big J but popular opinion has it somewhere between 77&79 !! We took delivery of our last new Big J in 1977 and I know they were still still producing them after 77 as I was in touch with the factory about a mod to the gearbox and the chap I dealt with went onto the production line to check out the problem .Cheers Bewick.
The mechanic:
If torque was not important how come a 200BHP petrol engined car can’t pull 30 tons.
You’re comparing apples with oranges.The fact is that a Guy Big J with a Gardner 240 in it would get it’s doors blown off by a 300 + bhp Bedford TM 3800 running at 38 tonnes.Torque is the thing which matters but there’s a big difference between sustaining a lot of torque from low revs up to relatively high revs to make big power outputs and just sustaining a low amount of torque up to much higher revs to reach similar relatively high power output.However the Gardner produces relatively zb all torque for it’s size at any revs hence it’s low power output at any revs .But petrol engines versus diesel no chance.That’s why they put the Merlin in the Spitfire not a Gardner.Around 1,400 bhp at 2,300 rpm.That’s torque.To return bhp figures into torque just multiply the horsepower figures by 5,250 and divide the result by the rpm which it’s being produced at.That’s why I prefer Detroits because at every point in the rev range they put out more torque than the Gardner especially if you compare like with like on engine size.But if I was pulling an Ozzy roadtrain I’d prefer that Merlin running on LPG over any thing else thanks.Having said all that now try comparing that car if it had a 14 Litre petrol engine producing 700bhp at 2000 rpm.And to think you said that you’re educated you are now if you can understand all that 
Bewick:
bobw123:
hi with regard to you question i think they stopped making the guy big j before gardener made the eight pot .so if such a ting existed it may have been after market made . i have driven a E R F with the eight pot and a bij 4 .but this is the first time i heard of a big j8Now BoB we are all getting confused !! The 8LXB was launched in 1972 and there appears to be some confusion as to when Leyland stopped building the Guy Big J but popular opinion has it somewhere between 77&79 !! We took delivery of our last new Big J in 1977 and I know they were still still producing them after 77 as I was in touch with the factory about a mod to the gearbox and the chap I dealt with went onto the production line to check out the problem .Cheers Bewick.
The 8LXB was launched by Gardner in 1970. The picture of the Leader chassis was taken that year. The launch date and availability date seem to have some ‘lag’ between them as is generally the case with most ‘new’ things.
There was such a thing as a Guy Big J8 - it was the eight-wheeler chassis, just as the Big J6 was the six-wheeler chassis. The 4x2 tractor was the Big J4T, the 6x4 tractor was the Big J6T & the 4x2 rigid was the Big J4.
I hope this clarifies things as we seem to be getting very confused over unrelated matters - all at once.
I’ve ignored the argumentative & provocational statto post from Carryfast which appeared while I was replying because, quite frankly - his attempts at ■■■■ point-scoring bore me almost to the point of tears.
Can we lock this one now?
Carryfast:
The mechanic:
If torque was not important how come a 200BHP petrol engined car can’t pull 30 tons.You’re comparing apples with oranges.The fact is that a Guy Big J with a Gardner 240 in it would get it’s doors blown off by a 300 + bhp Bedford TM 3800 running at 38 tonnes.Torque is the thing which matters but there’s a big difference between sustaining a lot of torque from low revs up to relatively high revs to make big power outputs and just sustaining a low amount of torque up to much higher revs to reach similar relatively high power output.However the Gardner produces relatively zb all torque for it’s size at any revs hence it’s low power output at any revs .But petrol engines versus diesel no chance.That’s why they put the Merlin in the Spitfire not a Gardner.Around 1,400 bhp at 2,300 rpm.That’s torque.To return bhp figures into torque just multiply the horsepower figures by 5,250 and divide the result by the rpm which it’s being produced at.That’s why I prefer Detroits because at every point in the rev range they put out more torque than the Gardner especially if you compare like with like on engine size.But if I was pulling an Ozzy roadtrain I’d prefer that Merlin running on LPG over any thing else thanks.Having said all that now try comparing that car if it had a 14 Litre petrol engine producing 700bhp at 2000 rpm.And to think you said that you’re educated you are now if you can understand all that
A Merlin Spitfire running on LPG in an Aussie Roadtrain !!! I think the Clinic have just let you out of the Rubber room sunshine !! What stuff do they give you to read when they sling you back in at night ? A Dan Dare comic it would seem !! Cheers Bewick.
Bewick:
Carryfast:
The mechanic:
If torque was not important how come a 200BHP petrol engined car can’t pull 30 tons.You’re comparing apples with oranges.The fact is that a Guy Big J with a Gardner 240 in it would get it’s doors blown off by a 300 + bhp Bedford TM 3800 running at 38 tonnes.Torque is the thing which matters but there’s a big difference between sustaining a lot of torque from low revs up to relatively high revs to make big power outputs and just sustaining a low amount of torque up to much higher revs to reach similar relatively high power output.However the Gardner produces relatively zb all torque for it’s size at any revs hence it’s low power output at any revs .But petrol engines versus diesel no chance.That’s why they put the Merlin in the Spitfire not a Gardner.Around 1,400 bhp at 2,300 rpm.That’s torque.To return bhp figures into torque just multiply the horsepower figures by 5,250 and divide the result by the rpm which it’s being produced at.That’s why I prefer Detroits because at every point in the rev range they put out more torque than the Gardner especially if you compare like with like on engine size.But if I was pulling an Ozzy roadtrain I’d prefer that Merlin running on LPG over any thing else thanks.Having said all that now try comparing that car if it had a 14 Litre petrol engine producing 700bhp at 2000 rpm.And to think you said that you’re educated you are now if you can understand all that
A Merlin Spitfire running on LPG in an Aussie Roadtrain !!! I think the Clinic have just let you out of the Rubber room sunshine !! What stuff do they give you to read when they sling you back in at night ? A Dan Dare comic it would seem !! Cheers Bewick.
Don’t panic bewick it’s only theory not practice.Just a 6 cylinder version would do the job fine or that spark ignition 8LXB.But whatever it is I’ve been reading I was obviously years ahead of you lot when I read it all because the Gardner fans seem as retarded as those gutless motors.I think it’s what you’re supposed to learn in basic school by the age of about 12