Heaters in Gardner powered motors! I agree with you there Trev but the 400 SA sleeper we got in Jan '77(8 LXB) had a cracking heater in it,it was unbelievable,even running unit only! But 3 ERF C series we got in '82,oh dear! I remember a cold snap we had in winter 82/83 and one of them ran into the depot from Bristol and he was that cold he could hardly talk(normally with this driver that would have been a blessing) so I fitted all three with them ( I forget the name) with a night heater to use through the day as well and then from then on all the sleepers we got had the night heaters fitted.cheers Dennis.
Bewick:
Trev_H:
atkidave:
Trev_H:
IF we get positive proof of this Guy, can we look for a Foden with a Detroit diesel next?
flickr.com/photos/37322606@N … 591289155/
A foden with a Detroit Diesel
Hey thanks for that Atkidave, thought I’d try for something rare, I know little about Fodens but in the late 80’s i remember one pulling alongside me at traffic lights on the east lancs rd. When it took off it had that distinct DD sound, twin stacks at the back of the cab and wondered if it was a factory job.
I was just fishing ! this thread has amazed me and given me some laughs
Its kind of difficult to know who’s serious and who’s taking the pee isn’t it.You probably know a foreman off the production Trev and are just keeping him under wraps 'til we’ve had enough! then you’ll wheel him out and give us chapter and verse on the subject! Dennis.
If it was that one with the 60 series it would’nt have had the distinctive sound of a V6 two stroke let alone a V8.I’ve never heard of a Foden being fitted with a two stroke.
there you go carryfast , i remember the article in one of the mags and they were no good by all accounts . i have a picture somewhere of one of those motors parked up looking sorry for itself in a yard somewhere …
bowser:
there you go carryfast , i remember the article in one of the mags and they were no good by all accounts . i have a picture somewhere of one of those motors parked up looking sorry for itself in a yard somewhere …
The four stroke 60 series was at the start of it’s development around that time so it’s not surprising that it probably would’nt have been as competitive with the established and more developed 4 stroke engines from all the other manufacturers at that time.But it seems to have been developed since then.But I’d be surprised if there were any two stroke Detroit powered Fodens.
Carryfast:
bowser:
there you go carryfast , i remember the article in one of the mags and they were no good by all accounts . i have a picture somewhere of one of those motors parked up looking sorry for itself in a yard somewhere …The four stroke 60 series was at the start of it’s development around that time so it’s not surprising that it probably would’nt have been as competitive with the established and more developed 4 stroke engines from all the other manufacturers at that time.But it seems to have been developed since then.But I’d be surprised if there were any two stroke Detroit powered Fodens.
ahh ok not 2 stroke then … i remembered wrong by the looks of it …
Dave the Renegade:
Bewick:
loader8:
i don,t know why you are so interested in the 240,s this is an even rarer motor as far as smiths go.
its the only 290 ■■■■■■■ they had,i got caught doing 69 at lockerbie with this one when it was still 40mph on the 74.The 240 was a rare bird in the Big J and I was quite partial to running a few 8LXBs at Bewick Transport.On the other hand the 290 ■■■■■■■ needed a fuel tanker following behind! and at 69 mph it would need a super tanker!!! Sorry “loader8” but I needed a 290 ■■■■■■■ like a hole in the “heed”!!! I have never said "there is no such thing as a Guy Big J /LXB 240! All I asked for was a photo of one because I’d never seen one,like a lot of others on the thread.But the whole episode has taken on a life of its own,and you have popped up and stirred the smouldering embers up until they’er raging again!!! Cheers Bewick.
Genuine photo of a Guy Big J with a Gardner 240 engine,purchased of Chaddsley Commercials of Kidderminster.
…nice one Dave,but you know who STILL wont be convinced!!!
Rgds,
David 
5thwheel:
Dave the Renegade:
Bewick:
loader8:
i don,t know why you are so interested in the 240,s this is an even rarer motor as far as smiths go.
its the only 290 ■■■■■■■ they had,i got caught doing 69 at lockerbie with this one when it was still 40mph on the 74.The 240 was a rare bird in the Big J and I was quite partial to running a few 8LXBs at Bewick Transport.On the other hand the 290 ■■■■■■■ needed a fuel tanker following behind! and at 69 mph it would need a super tanker!!! Sorry “loader8” but I needed a 290 ■■■■■■■ like a hole in the “heed”!!! I have never said "there is no such thing as a Guy Big J /LXB 240! All I asked for was a photo of one because I’d never seen one,like a lot of others on the thread.But the whole episode has taken on a life of its own,and you have popped up and stirred the smouldering embers up until they’er raging again!!! Cheers Bewick.
Genuine photo of a Guy Big J with a Gardner 240 engine,purchased of Chaddsley Commercials of Kidderminster.
…nice one Dave,but you know who STILL wont be convinced!!!
Rgds,
David
Hi David,
Even the proverbial Ostrich had to take his head out of the sand eventually .
Cheers Dave.
Carryfast:
bowser:
there you go carryfast , i remember the article in one of the mags and they were no good by all accounts . i have a picture somewhere of one of those motors parked up looking sorry for itself in a yard somewhere …The four stroke 60 series was at the start of it’s development around that time so it’s not surprising that it probably would’nt have been as competitive with the established and more developed 4 stroke engines from all the other manufacturers at that time.But it seems to have been developed since then.But I’d be surprised if there were any two stroke Detroit powered Fodens.
Hiya “Carryfast” 'Ere what you doing contaminating this “superior” thread with garbage about DDs? **** off and infect some other richly “deserving” thread(theres a few on the P/drivers site) that could benefit from your DDs garbage!! Bewick.
Bewick:
Carryfast:
bowser:
there you go carryfast , i remember the article in one of the mags and they were no good by all accounts . i have a picture somewhere of one of those motors parked up looking sorry for itself in a yard somewhere …The four stroke 60 series was at the start of it’s development around that time so it’s not surprising that it probably would’nt have been as competitive with the established and more developed 4 stroke engines from all the other manufacturers at that time.But it seems to have been developed since then.But I’d be surprised if there were any two stroke Detroit powered Fodens.
Hiya “Carryfast” 'Ere what you doing contaminating this “superior” thread with garbage about DDs? **** off and infect some other richly “deserving” thread(theres a few on the P/drivers site) that could benefit from your DDs garbage!! Bewick.
Only trouble with this thread,is the fact that it’s got a lot of none believers on it .
And here’s me thinking that “all’s quiet on the Western Front to-night” and then a stray mortar shell is lobbed over from no mans land!!!(Radnorshire)!!! Dennis.
Bewick:
And here’s me thinking that “all’s quiet on the Western Front to-night” and then a stray mortar shell is lobbed over from no mans land!!!(Radnorshire)!!! Dennis.
Got you out of your foxhole Dennis .
Cheers Dave.
Dave the Renegade:
Bewick:
And here’s me thinking that “all’s quiet on the Western Front to-night” and then a stray mortar shell is lobbed over from no mans land!!!(Radnorshire)!!! Dennis.Got you out of your foxhole Dennis
Cheers Dave.
I think the thread will just “fizzle out” Dave!!! The Jovs Witnesses are more convincing during the few minutes I spare them when they say they would refuse me a Blood transfusion if I was dying!!! Cheers Dennis.
Bewick:
Dave the Renegade:
Bewick:
And here’s me thinking that “all’s quiet on the Western Front to-night” and then a stray mortar shell is lobbed over from no mans land!!!(Radnorshire)!!! Dennis.Got you out of your foxhole Dennis
Cheers Dave.I think the thread will just “fizzle out” Dave!!! The Jovs Witnesses are more convincing during the few minutes I spare them when they say they would refuse me a Blood transfusion if I was dying!!! Cheers Dennis.
This thread doesn’t need any transfusion Dennis,we have loader8 on board now,who will dig more evidence out,as well as the proof that I will produce 
.
Cheers Dave.
Bewick:
Carryfast:
bowser:
there you go carryfast , i remember the article in one of the mags and they were no good by all accounts . i have a picture somewhere of one of those motors parked up looking sorry for itself in a yard somewhere …The four stroke 60 series was at the start of it’s development around that time so it’s not surprising that it probably would’nt have been as competitive with the established and more developed 4 stroke engines from all the other manufacturers at that time.But it seems to have been developed since then.But I’d be surprised if there were any two stroke Detroit powered Fodens.
Hiya “Carryfast” 'Ere what you doing contaminating this “superior” thread with garbage about DDs? **** off and infect some other richly “deserving” thread(theres a few on the P/drivers site) that could benefit from your DDs garbage!! Bewick.
Looks alrayt to me Dennis,were they that bad?
Chris Webb:
Bewick:
Carryfast:
bowser:
there you go carryfast , i remember the article in one of the mags and they were no good by all accounts . i have a picture somewhere of one of those motors parked up looking sorry for itself in a yard somewhere …The four stroke 60 series was at the start of it’s development around that time so it’s not surprising that it probably would’nt have been as competitive with the established and more developed 4 stroke engines from all the other manufacturers at that time.But it seems to have been developed since then.But I’d be surprised if there were any two stroke Detroit powered Fodens.
Hiya “Carryfast” 'Ere what you doing contaminating this “superior” thread with garbage about DDs? **** off and infect some other richly “deserving” thread(theres a few on the P/drivers site) that could benefit from your DDs garbage!! Bewick.
Looks alrayt to me Dennis,were they that bad?
There’s more chance that someone would have been daft enough to put that zb great boat anchor Gardner 240 motor in a Big J than the fact that he’ll ever believe that 600 horse motor would probably be more economical,running at half power,than that Gardner would be running flat out. 
But only 600 horses would’nt have beat a 12V71 two stroke let alone a 12V92.
Carryfast:
Chris Webb:
Bewick:
Carryfast:
bowser:
there you go carryfast , i remember the article in one of the mags and they were no good by all accounts . i have a picture somewhere of one of those motors parked up looking sorry for itself in a yard somewhere …The four stroke 60 series was at the start of it’s development around that time so it’s not surprising that it probably would’nt have been as competitive with the established and more developed 4 stroke engines from all the other manufacturers at that time.But it seems to have been developed since then.But I’d be surprised if there were any two stroke Detroit powered Fodens.
Hiya “Carryfast” 'Ere what you doing contaminating this “superior” thread with garbage about DDs? **** off and infect some other richly “deserving” thread(theres a few on the P/drivers site) that could benefit from your DDs garbage!! Bewick.
Looks alrayt to me Dennis,were they that bad?
There’s more chance that someone would have been daft enough to put that zb great boat anchor Gardner 240 motor in a Big J than the fact that he’ll ever believe that 600 horse motor would probably be more economical,running at half power,than that Gardner would be running flat out.
But only 600 horses would’nt have beat a 12V71 two stroke let alone a 12V92.
You don’t need 600 horses for 44 ton gross in this country,500 is plenty.600 and over is for the heavy haulage motors.
Dave the Renegade:
Carryfast:
Chris Webb:
Bewick:
Carryfast:
bowser:
there you go carryfast , i remember the article in one of the mags and they were no good by all accounts . i have a picture somewhere of one of those motors parked up looking sorry for itself in a yard somewhere …The four stroke 60 series was at the start of it’s development around that time so it’s not surprising that it probably would’nt have been as competitive with the established and more developed 4 stroke engines from all the other manufacturers at that time.But it seems to have been developed since then.But I’d be surprised if there were any two stroke Detroit powered Fodens.
Hiya “Carryfast” 'Ere what you doing contaminating this “superior” thread with garbage about DDs? **** off and infect some other richly “deserving” thread(theres a few on the P/drivers site) that could benefit from your DDs garbage!! Bewick.
Looks alrayt to me Dennis,were they that bad?
There’s more chance that someone would have been daft enough to put that zb great boat anchor Gardner 240 motor in a Big J than the fact that he’ll ever believe that 600 horse motor would probably be more economical,running at half power,than that Gardner would be running flat out.
But only 600 horses would’nt have beat a 12V71 two stroke let alone a 12V92.
You don’t need 600 horses for 44 ton gross in this country,500 is plenty.600 and over is for the heavy haulage motors.
Just because the motor is rated at 600 horses max does’nt mean that the driver needs to use all that power.Assuming that it remains at the same capacity as the lower power versions and in this case is around similar capacity as that 240 Gardner that figure probably actually relates to a higher specific torque output (torque per litre) which,if you factor in the right numbers,relates to a better B.M.E.P figure and in this case probably means that 600 horse motor has a B.M.E.P figure of around double,or more,as that of the Gardner.Which in the real world is why that 600 horse engine would probably be more economical/efficient if it’s just driven using a lot less than it’s full rated horsepower but using a lot more than the Gardner could provide.
That’s the reason why Gardner could’nt compete in a world of much higher powered engines when the guvnors here finally realised that having more power can provide more productivety and can actually mean better fuel consumption not worse running at relatively higher weights.The relevant comparison in this case would be between a Gardner 240 and that motor both running at 38 or 44 tonnes and both running at the same average speeds. 
Carryfast:
Dave the Renegade:
Carryfast:
Chris Webb:
Bewick:
Carryfast:
bowser:
there you go carryfast , i remember the article in one of the mags and they were no good by all accounts . i have a picture somewhere of one of those motors parked up looking sorry for itself in a yard somewhere …The four stroke 60 series was at the start of it’s development around that time so it’s not surprising that it probably would’nt have been as competitive with the established and more developed 4 stroke engines from all the other manufacturers at that time.But it seems to have been developed since then.But I’d be surprised if there were any two stroke Detroit powered Fodens.
Hiya “Carryfast” 'Ere what you doing contaminating this “superior” thread with garbage about DDs? **** off and infect some other richly “deserving” thread(theres a few on the P/drivers site) that could benefit from your DDs garbage!! Bewick.
Looks alrayt to me Dennis,were they that bad?
There’s more chance that someone would have been daft enough to put that zb great boat anchor Gardner 240 motor in a Big J than the fact that he’ll ever believe that 600 horse motor would probably be more economical,running at half power,than that Gardner would be running flat out.
But only 600 horses would’nt have beat a 12V71 two stroke let alone a 12V92.
You don’t need 600 horses for 44 ton gross in this country,500 is plenty.600 and over is for the heavy haulage motors.
Just because the motor is rated at 600 horses max does’nt mean that the driver needs to use all that power.Assuming that it remains at the same capacity as the lower power versions and in this case is around similar capacity as that 240 Gardner that figure probably actually relates to a higher specific torque output (torque per litre) which,if you factor in the right numbers,relates to a better B.M.E.P figure and in this case probably means that 600 horse motor has a B.M.E.P figure of around double,or more,as that of the Gardner.Which in the real world is why that 600 horse engine would probably be more economical/efficient if it’s just driven using a lot less than it’s full rated horsepower but using a lot more than the Gardner could provide.
That’s the reason why Gardner could’nt compete in a world of much higher powered engines when the guvnors here finally realised that having more power can provide more productivety and can actually mean better fuel consumption not worse running at relatively higher weights.The relevant comparison in this case would be between a Gardner 240 and that motor both running at 38 or 44 tonnes and both running at the same average speeds.
Most of what you are saying Carryfast is theory.You are referring to engines which are fitted to lorries doing different jobs in varying conditions and driven by different drivers.You can’t make an accurate comparison,because lorries with the same specification never perform exactly the same.
As for comparing a 240 Gardner and a modern 600 Detroit Diesel is ridiculous,it’s a different day and age.
Dave the Renegade:
Carryfast:
Dave the Renegade:
Carryfast:
Chris Webb:
Bewick:
Carryfast:
bowser:
there you go carryfast , i remember the article in one of the mags and they were no good by all accounts . i have a picture somewhere of one of those motors parked up looking sorry for itself in a yard somewhere …The four stroke 60 series was at the start of it’s development around that time so it’s not surprising that it probably would’nt have been as competitive with the established and more developed 4 stroke engines from all the other manufacturers at that time.But it seems to have been developed since then.But I’d be surprised if there were any two stroke Detroit powered Fodens.
Hiya “Carryfast” 'Ere what you doing contaminating this “superior” thread with garbage about DDs? **** off and infect some other richly “deserving” thread(theres a few on the P/drivers site) that could benefit from your DDs garbage!! Bewick.
Looks alrayt to me Dennis,were they that bad?
There’s more chance that someone would have been daft enough to put that zb great boat anchor Gardner 240 motor in a Big J than the fact that he’ll ever believe that 600 horse motor would probably be more economical,running at half power,than that Gardner would be running flat out.
But only 600 horses would’nt have beat a 12V71 two stroke let alone a 12V92.
You don’t need 600 horses for 44 ton gross in this country,500 is plenty.600 and over is for the heavy haulage motors.
Just because the motor is rated at 600 horses max does’nt mean that the driver needs to use all that power.Assuming that it remains at the same capacity as the lower power versions and in this case is around similar capacity as that 240 Gardner that figure probably actually relates to a higher specific torque output (torque per litre) which,if you factor in the right numbers,relates to a better B.M.E.P figure and in this case probably means that 600 horse motor has a B.M.E.P figure of around double,or more,as that of the Gardner.Which in the real world is why that 600 horse engine would probably be more economical/efficient if it’s just driven using a lot less than it’s full rated horsepower but using a lot more than the Gardner could provide.
That’s the reason why Gardner could’nt compete in a world of much higher powered engines when the guvnors here finally realised that having more power can provide more productivety and can actually mean better fuel consumption not worse running at relatively higher weights.The relevant comparison in this case would be between a Gardner 240 and that motor both running at 38 or 44 tonnes and both running at the same average speeds.
Most of what you are saying Carryfast is theory.You are referring to engines which are fitted to lorries doing different jobs in varying conditions and driven by different drivers.You can’t make an accurate comparison,because lorries with the same specification never perform exactly the same.
As for comparing a 240 Gardner and a modern 600 Detroit Diesel is ridiculous,it’s a different day and age.
It’s not theory Dave it’s fact.Most,if not all,of the modern advances in truck diesel technology are based on that fact.What I’m referring to is using high power engines versus low power engines hauling comparable weights,over comparable routes,at comparable speeds,driven in a comparable way.The reason why any high power truck engine,not just that motor, being compared to a 240 Gardner is ridiculous,is because getting more torque,from a similar sized engine,usually always proves that it’s the motor with more power which is more efficient and that’s why there’s not many people running max weight trucks with less than 300 horses these days and that lesson was learnt in the Gardner’s day and age which is why they started making more powerful motors but were around ten years out of date considering that the DAF 2800 was using an engine with around 300 horses + in the 1970’s.
In that context there’s no reason why that 600 motor would’nt be more economical,if it was fitted in a tractor unit,hauling 38-44 tonnes gross,at the same average speeds,on the same type of work,as a modern 400-500 horse motor or that 240 Gardner would be.
Carryfast:
Dave the Renegade:
Carryfast:
Dave the Renegade:
Carryfast:
Chris Webb:
Bewick:
Carryfast:
bowser:
there you go carryfast , i remember the article in one of the mags and they were no good by all accounts . i have a picture somewhere of one of those motors parked up looking sorry for itself in a yard somewhere …The four stroke 60 series was at the start of it’s development around that time so it’s not surprising that it probably would’nt have been as competitive with the established and more developed 4 stroke engines from all the other manufacturers at that time.But it seems to have been developed since then.But I’d be surprised if there were any two stroke Detroit powered Fodens.
Hiya “Carryfast” 'Ere what you doing contaminating this “superior” thread with garbage about DDs? **** off and infect some other richly “deserving” thread(theres a few on the P/drivers site) that could benefit from your DDs garbage!! Bewick.
Looks alrayt to me Dennis,were they that bad?
There’s more chance that someone would have been daft enough to put that zb great boat anchor Gardner 240 motor in a Big J than the fact that he’ll ever believe that 600 horse motor would probably be more economical,running at half power,than that Gardner would be running flat out.
But only 600 horses would’nt have beat a 12V71 two stroke let alone a 12V92.
You don’t need 600 horses for 44 ton gross in this country,500 is plenty.600 and over is for the heavy haulage motors.
Just because the motor is rated at 600 horses max does’nt mean that the driver needs to use all that power.Assuming that it remains at the same capacity as the lower power versions and in this case is around similar capacity as that 240 Gardner that figure probably actually relates to a higher specific torque output (torque per litre) which,if you factor in the right numbers,relates to a better B.M.E.P figure and in this case probably means that 600 horse motor has a B.M.E.P figure of around double,or more,as that of the Gardner.Which in the real world is why that 600 horse engine would probably be more economical/efficient if it’s just driven using a lot less than it’s full rated horsepower but using a lot more than the Gardner could provide.
That’s the reason why Gardner could’nt compete in a world of much higher powered engines when the guvnors here finally realised that having more power can provide more productivety and can actually mean better fuel consumption not worse running at relatively higher weights.The relevant comparison in this case would be between a Gardner 240 and that motor both running at 38 or 44 tonnes and both running at the same average speeds.
Most of what you are saying Carryfast is theory.You are referring to engines which are fitted to lorries doing different jobs in varying conditions and driven by different drivers.You can’t make an accurate comparison,because lorries with the same specification never perform exactly the same.
As for comparing a 240 Gardner and a modern 600 Detroit Diesel is ridiculous,it’s a different day and age.It’s not theory Dave it’s fact.Most,if not all,of the modern advances in truck diesel technology are based on that fact.What I’m referring to is using high power engines versus low power engines hauling comparable weights,over comparable routes,at comparable speeds,driven in a comparable way.The reason why any high power truck engine,not just that motor, being compared to a 240 Gardner is ridiculous,is because getting more torque,from a similar sized engine,usually always proves that it’s the motor with more power which is more efficient and that’s why there’s not many people running max weight trucks with less than 300 horses these days and that lesson was learnt in the Gardner’s day and age which is why they started making more powerful motors but were around ten years out of date considering that the DAF 2800 was using an engine with around 300 horses + in the 1970’s.
In that context there’s no reason why that 600 motor would’nt be more economical,if it was fitted in a tractor unit,hauling 38-44 tonnes gross,at the same average speeds,on the same type of work,as a modern 400-500 horse motor or that 240 Gardner would be.
I am not an engineer,which you obviously are, or have a good knowledge of engineering technology.The fact remains that you are comparing an engine ie the 240 Gardner which was used in 32 ton gross weight artics on mainly A roads and fairly empty motorways with no speed limiters,too high powered modern engines fitted to 44 ton gross artics fitted with limiters,driving at variable speeds on congested roads where the high power often is of no advantage.
I can see where you are coming from regarding the higher power being more economical,but often that power is of no use because of the overloaded roads in the UK.
Cheers Dave…