Carryfast, this takes me back to my college days 40 years ago. The Gardner engine produced max. torque at mid rev range due to the long stroke of the engine this was the main reason for their frugal use of fuel and also their ability to hold on when climbing hills.In their day they were the most thermally efficient diesel engine being built.I have to concede though that their blinkered approach to modernisation brought about their demise.In the global world that we now live in they would never have survived any way.You must however agree with Bewick that operating vehicles at 8MPG is better than ones at 5MPG.Also horses for courses comes to mind.There is no need for 300BHP to carry 10 tons,whether the driver likes it or not.
The mechanic:
Carryfast, this takes me back to my college days 40 years ago. The Gardner engine produced max. torque at mid rev range due to the long stroke of the engine this was the main reason for their frugal use of fuel and also their ability to hold on when climbing hills.In their day they were the most thermally efficient diesel engine being built.I have to concede though that their blinkered approach to modernisation brought about their demise.In the global world that we now live in they would never have survived any way.You must however agree with Bewick that operating vehicles at 8MPG is better than ones at 5MPG.Also horses for courses comes to mind.There is no need for 300BHP to carry 10 tons,whether the driver likes it or not.
Running at 8 mpg would be better than running at 5 mpg IF all else was equal.But it’s a natural characteristic of most,if not all,large capacity engines to produce lots of power at low revs (torque).But what seperates the men from the boys after that is their specific outputs.Like that Spitfire the idea of an efficient truck engine is one which can put out a lot of power at low revs (torque) in relation to it’s size and weight which comes back to that old yardstick of BMEP or specific torque without blowing up and with decent reliability.The idea of an efficient truck is one which can haul as much volume and weight in payload as the law will allow and then provide decent service levels to the customer in getting the freight there on time.During the Gardner 240’s production lifetime the gross weights allowed were raised to 38 tonnes here and often much more in export markets.There’s not much point in using a zb great big 14 litre motor which has less power than a 7 litre one in a 16 tonner.So 5 mpg in a fast 38 tonner was better than 8 or even 10 mpg in a 16 tonner.But less than 300 horse in a 38 tonner or even a 32 tonner was something which lots of British guvnors thought was ok but the drivers usually voted with their feet in the case of those places where they said wether the driver likes it or not.The problem then was that every driver wanted to work for firms using decent kit on decent continental work and the rest told guvnors like bewick that they liked the job to his face but cursed it behind his back while they sat for ever on the waiting lists of those firms using those decent wagons on decent work.I know that because I spent enough time on those same waiting lists.But yeah the Gardner produced it’s max torque at low revs but that maximum was nowhere near enough for a 32 or 38 tonner and there was nothing at the top end either so it was the worst of all worlds.But it was the idea of not sacrificing power/torque for economy which is the reason why manufacturers like DAF and the Scandinavians survived but the Brits went under.
HIya Carryfast I had a TM V6 for 2 weeks it was fun and sounded wowowowo but after going from Stoke to London and back I was Knackered. you
never stopped changing gear i was so taken up with the bleeding gears i did’nt have time to listen to the radio. I can agree with what you say about
whizzing of like mad. But i’am saying the truth they was to much work to keep going…I am going on the Ayrshire road run with two mates,one has a F88
the other has a TM V6 they are going on the lowloader and i’am pulling the lot of them with my dutch machine.
We have a new Truck Net member TC and if its who i think it is he had a V8 TM and he will explane how good they was and how much golden
liquid he put in her.
John
3300John:
HIya Carryfast I had a TM V6 for 2 weeks it was fun and sounded wowowowo but after going from Stoke to London and back I was Knackered. you
never stopped changing gear i was so taken up with the bleeding gears i did’nt have time to listen to the radio. I can agree with what you say about
whizzing of like mad. But i’am saying the truth they was to much work to keep going…I am going on the Ayrshire road run with two mates,one has a F88
the other has a TM V6 they are going on the lowloader and i’am pulling the lot of them with my dutch machine.
We have a new Truck Net member TC and if its who i think it is he had a V8 TM and he will explane how good they was and how much golden
liquid he put in her.
John
It was putting that 6V71 in it which got it it’s bad name.7 Litre non turbo motor which should have stayed where it belonged in a bus and even the 9 Litre V8 was really better suited to long distance buses than 32 or 38 tonners but at least it stood a much better chance with around 300 horses than either the V6 or a Gardner 240 when competing with most of the Scandinavians and the DAF 2800 and if he had a 4400 it would have been worth all of that overpriced European diesel by the standards of what was available with around 400 horse at the time.
Carryfast, were the detroits naturally aspirated or supercharged.
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.
somebody put a merlin engine from a spitfire in a car at one time. i will try and find the story about it
The mechanic:
Carryfast, were the detroits naturally aspirated or supercharged.
It’s arguable depending on how you look at the job of the two stroke blower.It charges the cylinders and helps to clear them because there’s no induction or exhaust stroke but it’s not supplying air at much,if at all,over atmospheric pressure so the cylinders are only charged at around the same level as a naturally aspirated four stroke.Most of the 71 AND 92 series could also have a turbocharger as an option and the 8V92 in the TM 4400 had that on it as standard.
jonmea:
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.
somebody put a merlin engine from a spitfire in a car at one time. i will try and find the story about it
I remember the beast but it was’nt a merlin it was a meteor like the one in the Centurion tank.Only around 650 horses not the 1000+ of the Merlin because it did’nt have the supercharger.
The commer two strokes had a twin vane blower.This was also the case with the Fodens.
jonmea:
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.
somebody put a merlin engine from a spitfire in a car at one time. i will try and find the story about it
In the early seventies, a british automobile enthusiast named John Dodd decided to build a car around a 27 Litre Rolls Royce Merlin engine.The first signs that he succeeded were numerous reports of puzzled supercar owners that were driving flat-out on the German autobahn in their Ferraris, Porsches and Lamborghinis, only to be blown off the road by a huge and very unaerodynamical looking car that was traveling at least 200 MPH
found it its the one dave the renegade has heard of 
I know of one that came out the factory with the 8 pot Gardner in, it was double drive and went on to Pickfords heavy haulage. I first saw it many years later when it was a breakdown truck for Pickfords, the then removals company, but the 240 Gardner had been replaced with a big Caterpillar, 365 or 375 i think. Now that was a beast! It must have been around 1985 i think.
My dad ran a few Gardners in his fleet, mainly the 180 in A series ERFs along with BigJ4 rigid, as well as later Merc 1418’s Maggie 232’s and in 1980 the 240 in Seddon Atki 400.
The seddon was an amazing truck, had the 9 speed fuller roadmaster was it, ‘all around the houses’ my dad use to say, because of the shift pattern. It wasnt a double h, you started in top left corner and worked your way round clockwise.
Thats how dad sorted out the ‘real’ drivers when he took em on, stick em in the seddon that 'll sort em out!
I remember it dropping a liner coming back over the old severn bridge. Was towed back to yard, no:8 pot had gone.Back on road next day with new liner piston and rings! Wouldnt happen these days. That truck was still running with same engine, never been touched up until 2000 when it was taken off the road. You wouldnt get that with a Detroit!
Dave the Renegade:
jonmea:
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.
somebody put a merlin engine from a spitfire in a car at one time. i will try and find the story about it
In the early seventies, a british automobile enthusiast named John Dodd decided to build a car around a 27 Litre Rolls Royce Merlin engine.The first signs that he succeeded were numerous reports of puzzled supercar owners that were driving flat-out on the German autobahn in their Ferraris, Porsches and Lamborghinis, only to be blown off the road by a huge and very unaerodynamical looking car that was traveling at least 200 MPH
I read about that merlin engined car the aticle said the guy was a auto transmission expert and would go all over europe o the request of rich people to fix rolls royce autos and he burnt out a lot of tranmissions till he found one which would take the merlin power he had problems with rolls as they did not like the rolls rad he had on the car, thats what I can recall from the article, in early 70s I drove for a firm who built exibition stands and we were doing the earls court motor show and the car was parked outside the main entrance it was very long to take that big engine I suppose , I did read somewhere later that the car caught fire and burnt out
jonmea:
found it its the one dave the renegade has heard of
But an 18 litre 16V71 non turbocharged Detroit put out around 600 bhp + at around 2100 rpm.So if he had of decided to put a diesel in it instead and if anyone decided to put a diesel in a Centurion tank or a Spitfire it would be the Detroit that they would use not the Gardner 240 
But when the brains at the MOD reached the same conclusion and fitted a two stroke diesel in the Cheiftan tank they used the L60 instead of the Detroit and everyone knows what happened next.
The mechanic:
Carryfast, were the detroits naturally aspirated or supercharged.
With all the “Wind” that Carryfast blows out his DDs would only need to be nat/asp !! Bewick.
As regards when the last Big J’s were built, I had a new one, full sleeper in 1978 S reg, My brother had one on Cartransport BRS new on a T reg.
The Merlin engine…if anyone used to follow tractor pulling in the 80’s, the was a green one with a Merlin engine, nothing could touch it, another one had 3 TS3 engines, sounded great, but couldn’t touch the merlin.
Bewick:
Bewick:
Has anyone ever built one,sold one when new,repaired one,DRIVEN one,or at least seen one or possibly got a photo (side view) showing the 8 potter sticking out the rear of the cab .I think we should change the name of this Thread to ------ WHO AND WHAT IS CARRYFAST ■■?
.
Carryfast:
Bewick:
Bewick:
Has anyone ever built one,sold one when new,repaired one,DRIVEN one,or at least seen one or possibly got a photo (side view) showing the 8 potter sticking out the rear of the cab .I think we should change the name of this Thread to ------ WHO AND WHAT IS CARRYFAST ■■?
.
I think he was that bloke that got nicked going the wrong way up the Southbound hard shoulderat Watford on the M1 with his wheelbarrow !! U NO HU .
Dieseldogsix:
As regards when the last Big J’s were built, I had a new one, full sleeper in 1978 S reg, My brother had one on Cartransport BRS new on a T reg.The Merlin engine…if anyone used to follow tractor pulling in the 80’s, the was a green one with a Merlin engine, nothing could touch it, another one had 3 TS3 engines, sounded great, but couldn’t touch the merlin.
Except one fitted with a Griffon.But there were also some built with multiple Merlins or Griffons.
Incase anyopne is interested.
Ref the meteor / merlin / griffon engine cars.
Theres a very nice chap who writes for Practical Performance Car who has shoved one into a Rover SD1. Impressed? I AM!!