Carryfast:
As for Bewick’s example it would have been interesting to see what his balance sheet might have looked like if he’d have gone for Scania 110/1 from the start,
Probably skint trying to keep up the payments as a fresh upstart, I wonder what the waiting time was for a nice new shiny 110 in 1968…
Punchy Dan:
ramone:
I think but not 100% positive that Leyland made the Gardner engine an option in the Scammell Constructor T45
at 1 point. Im not sure how Dennis can be such an expert on Gardners having operated a couple and was the bill payer . A question that doesnt seem to be answered yet is why on earth would a Gardner be described as a boat anchor when the waiting time for a new 1 in the70s was ridiculously long. Just how many of these hauliers knew what they were doing im surprised how they got byThey did Hall Aggregates had some B reg constructors.
Halls certainly had Gardner powered Constuctor 8s operating in Kent.
There were a few in our area as well cav, Butterley Aggregates had some as did RMC.
Pete.
UMA had a bunch of them around my way, they may have been ex RMC though. Definitely 6LXC engines in them, a much nicer engine note than the alternatives.
Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
Tarmac ran some too
Carryfast:
ramone:
I think but not 100% positive that Leyland made the Gardner engine an option in the Scammell Constructor T45
at 1 point. Im not sure how Dennis can be such an expert on Gardners having operated a couple and was the bill payer . A question that doesnt seem to be answered yet is why on earth would a Gardner be described as a boat anchor when the waiting time for a new 1 in the70s was ridiculously long. Just how many of these hauliers knew what they were doing im surprised how they got byFirstly yes it might have been possible to find a few Gardners used in T45 tippers but no chance across the max weight tractor unit etc range.That being the choice of TL12 or turbo Rolls/■■■■■■■ with the TL12 on its way out.
As for Bewick’s example it would have been interesting to see what his balance sheet might have looked like if he’d have gone for Scania 110/1 from the start,then replaced by big cam ■■■■■■■ SA.
Instead of the contradiction of the mish mash of obsolete NA ■■■■■■■ and Gardners and the choice of NA Gardner SA 401 then wholesale move to Scania etc.When the reasons for buying Scania were even greater earlier and the Big Cam ■■■■■■■ could have easily sorted out the Scania with its combination of fuel efficiency and output later.
I just don’t get it.
As for me if only I’d have been a bit older my plan of new start owner driver with a used 280 Rolls Big J then use the money it made me to buy an 8v92 TM 4400
( or more likely E 290 followed by E 320 SA
In which case it’s anyone’s guess why Bewick wouldn’t have wanted a share of some of those very rare,‘premium’ by that standard,57 8 LXB Big J’s at least.
I asked Dennis a few years back if he had ever operated AECs and he was brutally honest in his reply which was they were too expensive , he operated what suited him and if you read back on the Bewick thread it`s there to bee seen. H had alternative cheaper makes and then when he got going bought his first premium unit … An Atki with a 150 Gardner which served him very well. He was still buying SAs at the same time as Scanias ,its not about posing driving up and down the M1 all day its about making money and choosing the right vehicle for the job. I for 1 wish you had have bought a Big J with a Roller in it
ramone:
Carryfast:
As for Bewick’s example it would have been interesting to see what his balance sheet might have looked like if he’d have gone for Scania 110/1 from the start,then replaced by big cam ■■■■■■■ SA.As for me if only I’d have been a bit older my plan of new start owner driver with a used 280 Rolls Big J then use the money it made me to buy an 8v92 TM 4400
I asked Dennis a few years back if he had ever operated AECs and he was brutally honest in his reply which was they were too expensive , he operated what suited him and if you read back on the Bewick thread it`s there to bee seen. H had alternative cheaper makes and then when he got going bought his first premium unit … An Atki with a 150 Gardner which served him very well. He was still buying SAs at the same time as Scanias ,its not about posing driving up and down the M1 all day its about making money and choosing the right vehicle for the job. I for 1 wish you had have bought a Big J with a Roller in it
To be fair a Big J was never a posers wagon more like one of the cheapest guvnor’s wagon options so that’s not an issue.In this case it’s just the choice between the turbo Rolls/■■■■■■■ v 180 or 240 Gardner engine options in it during most of the 1970’s.While ironically that issue of the used truck ads in the late 1970’s being full of obsolete old NA ■■■■■■■ and 180 Gardner interspersed with a few 240’s maybe actually confirms my view.In that the Brit manufacturers didn’t switch to more modern engine options soon enough thereby creating the situation of a massive shortage of turbo Rolls/■■■■■■■ engined options in the new and especially used market and equally ironically just adding to the rush towards imports.
On that note what was the option for anyone in the mid-late 1970’s used market who was specifically only looking for a turbo Rolls/■■■■■■■ option Big J ? for example.In that looking at the ads they just weren’t there.With the ads of the day seeming to be all about those who’d gone for the typically obsolete NA options trying to offload as many of the things as possible as quick as possible. Thereby creating a self fulfilling circle of a stronger used market for imports and with it better residual values for new buyers.
As for Bewick’s example the question as to what advantage did he see in Scanias later that wasn’t also there earlier,remains.In that going for obsolete NA ■■■■■■■ or Gardner engined vehicles from the mid 1970’s at least,let alone 1980,seems the antithesis of that.
Although having said that I can understand the choice between 240 Gardner over NA ■■■■■■■ and possibly maybe even turbo small cam ■■■■■■■ in the Big J.Of which Bewick’s choice seemed to then be NA ■■■■■■■ Atki AND 180 Gardner Big J v 240 Gardner Big J . When the 240 Big J probably would have been the best of all worlds situation of better residual value and better fuel consumption and more power than the 220 NA ■■■■■■■ Atki,at least.
So ironically for the topic even my choice might have been 240 Gardner over NA ■■■■■■■ and definitely 180 Gardner Big J at least.So after all that I think I’m starting to get the idea of the 240 Gardner engined Big J and,with the exception of the turbo Rolls option,not quite the boat anchor it might first have seemed at face value.
In which case,like the turbo Rolls,which would have been my first choice of Big J,why were the things so rare and,like the contradiction beween NA ■■■■■■■ and Gardner and Scania,why did Bewick and obviously many others,seem to prefer the 180 Gardner Big J over the 240. I don’t get it in that the 240 Gardner,or preferably turbo Rolls,Big J was probably the best guvnor’s wagon on the road in the day.
Well said Ramone, all I would say is that if someone has been there “and done it” a ■■■■ like “CF” will never understand what we are on about as quite clearly he has done ■■■■ all in his working life worth talking about. Anyway its a wonder he hasn’t got a sore arse all the verbal ■■■■■ he spouts out of it ! 
Cheers Dennis.
Bewick:
Well said Ramone, all I would say is that if someone has been there “and done it” a [zb] like “CF” will never understand what we are on about as quite clearly he has done [zb] all in his working life worth talking about. Anyway its a wonder he hasn’t got a sore arse all the verbal [zb] he spouts out of it !
To be fair the idea of preferring a 220 ■■■■■■■ Atki to a 240 Gardner engined Big J.Or putting a Gardner in a SA 401 instead of a ■■■■■■■ E 290 then preferring and replacing them all with Scanias anyway is enough to defy the logic of anyone.
TruckNetUK,Old Times Lorries,Guy Big J Gardner 8LXB Tractive Units.VALKYRIE,Monday,26th June,2017.
There are a number of points that I want to make.And thanks for your kind words by the way.
1.The first is this to TruckNetUK member 5Valve: Quote:-
5Valve » Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:27 pm
Dennis, do you realise this topic has been running seven years! I tried to jog some memories of one or two people who were
responsible for producing engine spec. sheets, at Patricroft, but to no avail, so the 8LXB / Guy saga continues. It is highly
unlikely that we did actually get involved in supplying an 8LXB but it was possible that Guy had it down as an option at some
period.Unquote.
With respect,I’m under the impression that A. you haven’t been on TruckNetUK for quite a while,and therefore B.you haven’t
been keeping up to date with this Guy Big J Gardner 8LXB Tractive Units Thread and C.that you have not read my Guy Big J
Gardner 8LXB Tractive Units Post of Tuesday,13th June,2017. Here it is 
:-
viewtopic.php?f=35&t=54395&start=3660
Page 123.
Fourth Post down.
VALKYRIE Quote from my post:-
Total number of Gardner 8LXB 240-250 8-Cylinder Diesel Engines bought by Guy Motors is 57!
NOTE: Guy Motors built at least 29 production Guy Big J4T Gardner 8LXB Tractive Units. Did Guy Motors build more than 29
and/or re-engined ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ and Gardner 6LXB engined Guy Big J tractive units with those remaining 28 Gardner 8LXB
engines? 
Unquote.
2.On reflection,it could well be that Smith of Maddiston (I’ve spelt it right this time ) operated 40 Guy Big J Gardner
8LXB tractive units after all:Most were new,as I’ve already documented,while the rest were re-engined with Gardner 8LXB
engines.
The re-engined Guy Big J tractive units were probably orginally powered by Gardner 6LXB 180 and/or ■■■■■■■ V6-170 & V6-200 V6
and/or ■■■■■■■ NHE 180 diesel engines.
The remaining 17 Gardner 8LXB 240-250 Straight Eight Diesel Engines were used to re-engine other Guy Big J tractive units
operated by other road haulage companies.
Don’t forget that the 6-BHP-Per-Ton Rule came in to force in 1972,and all of the above engines,with the exception of the
■■■■■■■ V6-200 were on the wrong side of that rule…and those ■■■■■■■ V6 engines were not that successful anyway.
3.Quote: Gingerfold » Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:39 am
I would make an educated guess that most of the Gardner engines supplied to Leyland were fitted into bus chassis, with London
Transport being a buyer back then.Unquote.
British Leyland Marques And Models That Were Fitted With Gardner Diesel Engines In The 1975-1993 Period.
NOTE:There were of course other engine options in these models.But this is a list of Gardner-engined motor vechicles.
BRISTOL.
1962-1982.RE.Rear horizontal-engined Single Decker Motorcoach & Bus.Gardner 6HLX 150-157,Gardner 6HLXB-180-188.
1968-1981.VRT.Rear-vertical-engined Double Decker Bus & Motorcoach.Gardner 6LX 150-157,Gardner 6LXB-180-188,Gardner 6LXC-193
-201
DAIMLER.
1960-1980.*Fleetline.Rear vertical-engined Double Decker & Single Decker Bus.Gardner 6LX 150-157,Gardner 6LXB-180-188.
NOTE:Sold as the ‘Leyland’ Fleetline from 1974-1980.
*London Transport bought a large fleet of this model in the 1970s,DMS The Londoner,although to be fair,some had Leyland engines.
GUY.
1964-1979.Guy Big J Heavy Lorry-Motor Truck Range:-
Big J4 4x2 Lorry,Gardner 6LX-150-157.
Big J6 6x2 & 6x4 Lorry models,Gardner 6LX-150-157,Gardner 6LXB-180-188.
Big J8 8x2 & 8x4 Lorry models,Gardner 6LXB-180-188.
1969-1978.Victory J & Victory J Trambus.Front vertical-engined Single Decker &
Double Decker Bus & Motorcoach models.Gardner 6LX 150-157,Gardner 6LXB-180-188.
1978-1986.Victory II & Victory II Trambus.Front vertical-engined Single Decker
Bus & Motorcoach models.Gardner 6LX 150-157,Gardner 6LXB-180-188.
1978-1986.Victory II Series II.Front vertical-engined Double Decker Bus model.Gardner 6LX 150-157,Gardner 6LXB-180-188.
NOTE:These export Guy models were sold under the ‘Leyland’ name from around 1972.
The Guy Motors factory was unfortunately closed in August 1982 and production transferred to Leyland’s Farington factory
at Leyland.
NOTE:-
1954-1962.Guy Arab MkIV.Front-engined heavy-weight Double Decker & Single Decker Bus.
1962-1972.Guy Arab MKV. Front-engined heavy-weight Double Decker & Single Decker Bus.
1950-1959.Guy Arab UF.Underfloor-engined heavy-weight Single Decker Bus & Motorcoach.
1953-1959.Guy Arab LUF.Underfloor-engined medium-weight Single Decker Bus & Motorcoach.
1956-1975.Guy Warrior & Guy Warrior Trambus.Front-engined medium-weight Single Decker Bus & Motorcoach models.
1956-1961.Guy Warrior LUF.underfloor-engined medium-weight Single Decker Bus & Motorcoach.
1956-1969. Guy Victory UF,Guy Victory UF Trambus & Victory UF Airide.Underfloor-engined heavy-weight Single Decker Motorcoach
& Bus models.
These models are not part of this list.But since Guy was such an uphill struggle to research,I’ve made this note because I do
not want to lose this information!! 
LEYLAND.
1980-1988.Leyland Constructor-8.Rigid 8X2 & 8X4 Eight-Wheeler Lorry models.Gardner 6LXCT-220-230.
1985-1990.Leyland Lynx MK1.Rear horizontal-engined semi-integral Single Decker Bus.Gardner 6HLXCT-220-230.
1990-1991.Leyland Lynx Mk2.Rear horizontal-engined semi-integral Single Decker Bus.Gardner 6HLXCT-220-230.
1971-1979.Leyland National Mk1.Rear horizontal-engined integral Single Decker Bus.
Leyland 510 Engine from new,but many National Mk1’s have been re-engined with Gardner 6HLXB-180-188,Gardner 6HLXC-193-201 and
Gardner 6HLXCT-220-230 Engines,also Volvo,DAF,Leyland 680 & ■■■■■■■ engines.
It should also be stated that several motorcoach and bus operators,including Eastern Scottish,Crosville and Eastern Counties
had experimented with Gardner diesel engines in the Leyland National Mk1,prior to it being phased out.
1975-1982.Leyland B21.Semi-integral version of the Leyland National Mk1.Gardner 6HLXB-180-188 engines fitted to some of these
for Ulsterbus and Citybus in 1980.
1979-1985.Leyland National Mk2.Rear horizontal-engined integral Single Decker Bus.Gardner 6HLXB-180-188,Gardner 6HLXC-193-
201,Gardner 6HLXCT-220-230 engine options 1983 to 1985.
1980-1993.Leyland Olympian.Rear vertical-engined Double Decker Bus & Motorcoach models.Gardner 6HLXB-180-188,Gardner 6HLXC-
193-201,Gardner 6HLXCT-220-230,*Gardner 5LXC-170-185 (trial engine),**Gardner LG1200-210-275.
*Leyland Olympian ON5LXCT/1R /Alexander R-Type H45/32F,Gardner 5LXCT-170-185-Diesel-Engined,Double Decker Omnibus-Bus,
B349 LSO.1985. Walter Alexander Northern Bluebird NLO49.
Preserved by the Scottish Vintage Bus Museum,M90 Commerce Park,Lathalmond,Dunfermline,Fife,Scotland,KY12 OSJ:-
Photograph:- google.co.uk/search?q=LEYLAND
+OLYMPIAN,B349+LSO&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIjMqa49nUAhWkDsAKHflhA-
cQ_AUICCgD&biw=1365&bih=897#imgrc=HlFaEsNH93JxdM:&spf=1498420473441
**A few Gardner LG1200 diesel-engined Leyland Olympian’s were exported to Citybus in Hong Kong,but were eventually re-engined
with ■■■■■■■ L10 engines.
NOTE:A re-engineered Olympian,powered by a Volvo TD102 Diesel Engine - ■■■■■■■ L10 optional for a while - was produced
and sold as the Volvo Olympian from 1993 to 1997.
1981-1992.Leyland Tiger.Underfloor-engined heavy-weight Single Decker Motorcoach & Bus models.Gardner 6HLXB-180-188,
Gardner 6HLXC-193-201,Gardner 6HLXCT-220-230.1984-1988.
1978-1984.Leyland Titan.Rear Vertical-engined intergral Double Decker Bus.Gardner 6LXB-180-188,Gardner 6LXC-193-201,
Gardner 6LXCT-220-230.
The main customer for this Leyland Titan model was London Transport.
4.The Legendary Gardner Diesel Engine.
The above list shows just how popular Gardner diesel engines were in the British and overseas bus and motorcoach
operating industries.Gardner engines were held in high esteem in the road haulage,bus and motorcoach operating,marine,
railway and industrial engine industries.
As in the road haulage industry,many motorcoach and bus operators were staunch Gardner buyers and fans who bought and
operated Gardner-engined motorcoaches and buses for decades - a great number started buying Gardner engines in the
1930s.
To cut a long story short,the Leyland National Mk1,the standard single decker bus of the NBC, was only available with the
Leyland 510 ‘Headless Wonder’ Engine,and many operators were furious with Leyland and the National Bus Company that there was
no Gardner engine option. 
They were even more furious when the 510 engine was found to be suspect and faulty!!
The Bristol VRT became the standard double decker bus of the ghastly and austere National Bus Company,and the Gardner 6LX,6LXB and 6LXC were the standard engines,although some VRT’s were fitted with the Leyland 501 ‘Headless Wonder’,but most
if not all of these,were re-engined with Gardner engines.
From the 1930s the Bristol chassis,Gardner engine combination was a great favourite in the British motorcoach and bus operating industry.There were other combinations such as Daimler,Gardner; Dennis,Gardner; Guy,Gardner; MCW,Gardner ;Seddon,Gardner; and to a lesser extent Atkinson,Gardner; Foden,Gardner; Tilling-Stevens-TSM,Gardner; Gloster-Gardner,Gardner; GNR,Gardner; Neoplan,Gardner and so on.
Although other engines were available in most of these marques,the Gardner engine was the standard engine in most models.
Yes.The Gardner Diesel Engine was as revered in this industry as it was in the road transport industry - even ‘We make it
all ourselves AEC’ fitted Gardner engines in some bus and lorry chasssis…and this later applied,of course, to the Leyland marque as shown in my above list!
Gardner engines were economical in regard to fuel consumption - but that didn’t matter as much to many operators in the motorcoach,bus and lorry operating industries,so they bought AEC,Leyland,Rolls-Royce,Scania,Volvo,■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ Two Strokes,etc,instead…because they wanted faster and more powerful lorries,buses and motorcoaches.
I’ve said a few times in the Gardner Engines thread that many Gardner engine models were underpowered,and they objectively
were!!
Gardner’s Top Power Automotive Diesel Engines 1931-1994:-
Gardner 6LW - 102 BHP. Grossly underpowered. To be fair,the standard AEC and Leyland diesel engines of the 1930s-1940s were
underpowered too …but the AEC A165 Ricardo Indirect Injection 130 BHP Oil-Diesel Engine was promising! 1931.
NOTE:Even the uncompetitive and obsolete Sentinel S4,S6,S8 -Range Steam Lorries were more powerful - 120 BHP!
Gardner 6LWK - 112 BHP. Grossly underpowered. 1950.
Gardner 6LW20 - 120 BHP. Still underpowered. 1968.
Gardner 8LW - 140 BHP. An improvement but still underpowered. 1946.
Gardner 8LWK - 150 BHP.A marginal improvement but still underpowered .AEC and Leyland 150 BHP engines were also underpowered.
1950.
Gardner 6LX - 150 BHP.Overpraised ,underpowered and left behind ,introduced in 1958.By 1960 AEC,Leyland,Rolls-Royce,etc were making 190-200 BHP -at least- engines.
Gardner 6LXB - 180 BHP. Still underpowered ,and was still trying to play catch-up with the more powerful AEC,Leyland,Rolls-Royce,■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Gardner 8LXB-240-250 BHP.A relatively powerful Gardner automotive diesel engine at long last! 1970.
Gardner 8LXC-255-265 BHP.Another relatively powerful Gardner automotive diesel engine …Gardner was getting there - but
Gardner was getting left behind again,because Volvo,■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ were making 280-400 BHP + engines in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s.1978.
Gardner 8LXCT-290-300 BHP.A magnificent and relatively powerful Gardner automotive diesel engine again,introduced in 1981.
Gardner 6LYT-300-350 BHP,with 400 BHP + potential.Gardner finally made an automotive diesel engine powerful enough to match
the likes of ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
But alas! Many of these 6LYT engines suffered from quality control problems.1984.Unfortunately this did the Gardner marque
some serious damage to it’s reputation and Gardner never fully recovered. 
Furthermore,because of Gardner’s slowness in bringing out the Gardner 6LYT and the less powerful 6LXDT,it lost a lot of customers to the likes of Rolls-Royce-Perkins,■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
But,for all my criticism of Gardner diesel engines,in their heyday quality-wise,Gardner was the Rolls-Royce of Diesel
Engines.
Gardner is also known as The Showmans Friend: Many showmen have operated Gardner-engined fairground lorries - and ex-
buses & motorcoaches converted to load carriers-caravans - and have employed Gardner-powered electricity generating sets
to power their fairground rides,round stalls,sideshows,etc.
5.There has also been criticism of AEC engines,Foden two stroke engines,Foden motor vehicles and Rolls-Royce diesel
engines on this thread.
But I can correctly answer that all of these generally gave good service to many operators,who were satisfied with
these engines and vehicles and placed repeat orders for these power units and vehicles.
VALKYRIE.
VALKYRIE:
TruckNetUK,Old Times Lorries,Guy Big J Gardner 8LXB Tractive Units.VALKYRIE,Monday,26th June,2017.There are a number of points that I want to make.And thanks for your kind words by the way.
1.The first is this to TruckNetUK member 5Valve: Quote:-
5Valve » Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:27 pm
Dennis, do you realise this topic has been running seven years! I tried to jog some memories of one or two people who were
responsible for producing engine spec. sheets, at Patricroft, but to no avail, so the 8LXB / Guy saga continues. It is highly
unlikely that we did actually get involved in supplying an 8LXB but it was possible that Guy had it down as an option at some
period.Unquote.
With respect,I’m under the impression that A. you haven’t been on TruckNetUK for quite a while,and therefore B.you haven’t
been keeping up to date with this Guy Big J Gardner 8LXB Tractive Units Thread and C.that you have not read my Guy Big J
Gardner 8LXB Tractive Units Post of Tuesday,13th June,2017. Here it isviewtopic.php?f=35&t=54395&start=3660
Page 123.
Fourth Post down.VALKYRIE Quote from my post:-
Total number of Gardner 8LXB 240-250 8-Cylinder Diesel Engines bought by Guy Motors is 57!
NOTE: Guy Motors built at least 29 production Guy Big J4T Gardner 8LXB Tractive Units. Did Guy Motors build more than 29
and/or re-engined ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ and Gardner 6LXB engined Guy Big J tractive units with those remaining 28 Gardner 8LXB
engines?
Unquote.
2.On reflection,it could well be that Smith of Maddiston (I’ve spelt it right this time
8LXB tractive units after all:Most were new,as I’ve already documented,while the rest were re-engined with Gardner 8LXB
engines.The re-engined Guy Big J tractive units were probably orginally powered by Gardner 6LXB 180 and/or ■■■■■■■ V6-170 & V6-200 V6
and/or ■■■■■■■ NHE 180 diesel engines.
The remaining 17 Gardner 8LXB 240-250 Straight Eight Diesel Engines were used to re-engine other Guy Big J tractive units
operated by other road haulage companies.Don’t forget that the 6-BHP-Per-Ton Rule came in to force in 1972,and all of the above engines,with the exception of the
■■■■■■■ V6-200 were on the wrong side of that rule…and those ■■■■■■■ V6 engines were not that successful anyway.
3.Quote: Gingerfold » Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:39 am
I would make an educated guess that most of the Gardner engines supplied to Leyland were fitted into bus chassis, with London
Transport being a buyer back then.Unquote.
British Leyland Marques And Models That Were Fitted With Gardner Diesel Engines In The 1975-1993 Period.
NOTE:There were of course other engine options in these models.But this is a list of Gardner-engined motor vechicles.
BRISTOL.
1962-1982.RE.Rear horizontal-engined Single Decker Motorcoach & Bus.Gardner 6HLX 150-157,Gardner 6HLXB-180-188.
1968-1981.VRT.Rear-vertical-engined Double Decker Bus & Motorcoach.Gardner 6LX 150-157,Gardner 6LXB-180-188,Gardner 6LXC-193
-201
DAIMLER.
1960-1980.*Fleetline.Rear vertical-engined Double Decker & Single Decker Bus.Gardner 6LX 150-157,Gardner 6LXB-180-188.
NOTE:Sold as the ‘Leyland’ Fleetline from 1974-1980.
*London Transport bought a large fleet of this model in the 1970s,DMS The Londoner,although to be fair,some had Leyland engines.
GUY.
1964-1979.Guy Big J Heavy Lorry-Motor Truck Range:-
Big J4 4x2 Lorry,Gardner 6LX-150-157.
Big J6 6x2 & 6x4 Lorry models,Gardner 6LX-150-157,Gardner 6LXB-180-188.
Big J8 8x2 & 8x4 Lorry models,Gardner 6LXB-180-188.
Big J4T 4x2 Tractive Unit Articulated Lorry models,Gardner 6LXB 180-188,Gardner 8LXB-240-250.
1969-1978.Victory J & Victory J Trambus.Front vertical-engined Single Decker &
Double Decker Bus & Motorcoach models.Gardner 6LX 150-157,Gardner 6LXB-180-188.1978-1986.Victory II & Victory II Trambus.Front vertical-engined Single Decker
Bus & Motorcoach models.Gardner 6LX 150-157,Gardner 6LXB-180-188.1978-1986.Victory II Series II.Front vertical-engined Double Decker Bus model.Gardner 6LX 150-157,Gardner 6LXB-180-188.
NOTE:These export Guy models were sold under the ‘Leyland’ name from around 1972.
The Guy Motors factory was unfortunately closed in August 1982 and production transferred to Leyland’s Farington factory
at Leyland.
NOTE:-
1954-1962.Guy Arab MkIV.Front-engined heavy-weight Double Decker & Single Decker Bus.
1962-1972.Guy Arab MKV. Front-engined heavy-weight Double Decker & Single Decker Bus.
1950-1959.Guy Arab UF.Underfloor-engined heavy-weight Single Decker Bus & Motorcoach.
1953-1959.Guy Arab LUF.Underfloor-engined medium-weight Single Decker Bus & Motorcoach.
1956-1975.Guy Warrior & Guy Warrior Trambus.Front-engined medium-weight Single Decker Bus & Motorcoach models.
1956-1961.Guy Warrior LUF.underfloor-engined medium-weight Single Decker Bus & Motorcoach.
1956-1969. Guy Victory UF,Guy Victory UF Trambus & Victory UF Airide.Underfloor-engined heavy-weight Single Decker Motorcoach
& Bus models.
These models are not part of this list.But since Guy was such an uphill struggle to research,I’ve made this note because I do
not want to lose this information!!
LEYLAND.
1980-1988.Leyland Constructor-8.Rigid 8X2 & 8X4 Eight-Wheeler Lorry models.Gardner 6LXCT-220-230.
1985-1990.Leyland Lynx MK1.Rear horizontal-engined semi-integral Single Decker Bus.Gardner 6HLXCT-220-230.
1990-1991.Leyland Lynx Mk2.Rear horizontal-engined semi-integral Single Decker Bus.Gardner 6HLXCT-220-230.
1971-1979.Leyland National Mk1.Rear horizontal-engined integral Single Decker Bus.
Leyland 510 Engine from new,but many National Mk1’s have been re-engined with Gardner 6HLXB-180-188,Gardner 6HLXC-193-201 and
Gardner 6HLXCT-220-230 Engines,also Volvo,DAF,Leyland 680 & ■■■■■■■ engines.
It should also be stated that several motorcoach and bus operators,including Eastern Scottish,Crosville and Eastern Counties
had experimented with Gardner diesel engines in the Leyland National Mk1,prior to it being phased out.1975-1982.Leyland B21.Semi-integral version of the Leyland National Mk1.Gardner 6HLXB-180-188 engines fitted to some of these
for Ulsterbus and Citybus in 1980.1979-1985.Leyland National Mk2.Rear horizontal-engined integral Single Decker Bus.Gardner 6HLXB-180-188,Gardner 6HLXC-193-
201,Gardner 6HLXCT-220-230 engine options 1983 to 1985.
1980-1993.Leyland Olympian.Rear vertical-engined Double Decker Bus & Motorcoach models.Gardner 6HLXB-180-188,Gardner 6HLXC-
193-201,Gardner 6HLXCT-220-230,*Gardner 5LXC-170-185 (trial engine),**Gardner LG1200-210-275.
*Leyland Olympian ON5LXCT/1R /Alexander R-Type H45/32F,Gardner 5LXCT-170-185-Diesel-Engined,Double Decker Omnibus-Bus,
B349 LSO.1985. Walter Alexander Northern Bluebird NLO49.Preserved by the Scottish Vintage Bus Museum,M90 Commerce Park,Lathalmond,Dunfermline,Fife,Scotland,KY12 OSJ:-
Photograph:- google.co.uk/search?q=LEYLAND
+OLYMPIAN,B349+LSO&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIjMqa49nUAhWkDsAKHflhA-
cQ_AUICCgD&biw=1365&bih=897#imgrc=HlFaEsNH93JxdM:&spf=1498420473441
**A few Gardner LG1200 diesel-engined Leyland Olympian’s were exported to Citybus in Hong Kong,but were eventually re-engined
with ■■■■■■■ L10 engines.NOTE:A re-engineered Olympian,powered by a Volvo TD102 Diesel Engine - ■■■■■■■ L10 optional for a while - was produced
and sold as the Volvo Olympian from 1993 to 1997.1981-1992.Leyland Tiger.Underfloor-engined heavy-weight Single Decker Motorcoach & Bus models.Gardner 6HLXB-180-188,
Gardner 6HLXC-193-201,Gardner 6HLXCT-220-230.1984-1988.1978-1984.Leyland Titan.Rear Vertical-engined intergral Double Decker Bus.Gardner 6LXB-180-188,Gardner 6LXC-193-201,
Gardner 6LXCT-220-230.The main customer for this Leyland Titan model was London Transport.
4.The Legendary Gardner Diesel Engine.
The above list shows just how popular Gardner diesel engines were in the British and overseas bus and motorcoach
operating industries.Gardner engines were held in high esteem in the road haulage,bus and motorcoach operating,marine,
railway and industrial engine industries.As in the road haulage industry,many motorcoach and bus operators were staunch Gardner buyers and fans who bought and
operated Gardner-engined motorcoaches and buses for decades - a great number started buying Gardner engines in the
1930s.To cut a long story short,the Leyland National Mk1,the standard single decker bus of the NBC, was only available with the
Leyland 510 ‘Headless Wonder’ Engine,and many operators were furious with Leyland and the National Bus Company that there was
no Gardner engine option.
The Bristol VRT became the standard double decker bus of the ghastly and austere National Bus Company,and the Gardner 6LX,6LXB and 6LXC were the standard engines,although some VRT’s were fitted with the Leyland 501 ‘Headless Wonder’,but most
if not all of these,were re-engined with Gardner engines.From the 1930s the Bristol chassis,Gardner engine combination was a great favourite in the British motorcoach and bus operating industry.There were other combinations such as Daimler,Gardner; Dennis,Gardner; Guy,Gardner; MCW,Gardner ;Seddon,Gardner; and to a lesser extent Atkinson,Gardner; Foden,Gardner; Tilling-Stevens-TSM,Gardner; Gloster-Gardner,Gardner; GNR,Gardner; Neoplan,Gardner and so on.
Although other engines were available in most of these marques,the Gardner engine was the standard engine in most models.
Yes.The Gardner Diesel Engine was as revered in this industry as it was in the road transport industry - even ‘We make it
all ourselves AEC’ fitted Gardner engines in some bus and lorry chasssis…and this later applied,of course, to the Leyland marque as shown in my above list!Gardner engines were economical in regard to fuel consumption - but that didn’t matter as much to many operators in the motorcoach,bus and lorry operating industries,so they bought AEC,Leyland,Rolls-Royce,Scania,Volvo,■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ Two Strokes,etc,instead…because they wanted faster and more powerful lorries,buses and motorcoaches.
I’ve said a few times in the Gardner Engines thread that many Gardner engine models were underpowered,and they objectively
were!!Gardner’s Top Power Automotive Diesel Engines 1931-1994:-
Gardner 6LW - 102 BHP. Grossly underpowered.
underpowered tooNOTE:Even the uncompetitive and obsolete Sentinel S4,S6,S8 -Range Steam Lorries were more powerful - 120 BHP!
Gardner 6LWK - 112 BHP. Grossly underpowered.
Gardner 6LW20 - 120 BHP. Still underpowered.
Gardner 8LW - 140 BHP. An improvement but still underpowered.
Gardner 8LWK - 150 BHP.A marginal improvement but still underpowered
1950.Gardner 6LX - 150 BHP.Overpraised
Gardner 6LXB - 180 BHP. Still underpowered
Gardner 8LXB-240-250 BHP.A relatively powerful Gardner automotive diesel engine at long last!
Gardner 8LXC-255-265 BHP.Another relatively powerful Gardner automotive diesel engine
Gardner was getting left behind again,because Volvo,■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ were making 280-400 BHP + engines in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s.1978.Gardner 8LXCT-290-300 BHP.A magnificent and relatively powerful Gardner automotive diesel engine again,introduced in 1981.
Gardner 6LYT-300-350 BHP,with 400 BHP + potential.Gardner finally made an automotive diesel engine powerful enough to match
the likes of ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
But alas! Many of these 6LYT engines suffered from quality control problems.1984.Unfortunately this did the Gardner marque
some serious damage to it’s reputation and Gardner never fully recovered.Furthermore,because of Gardner’s slowness in bringing out the Gardner 6LYT and the less powerful 6LXDT,it lost a lot of customers to the likes of Rolls-Royce-Perkins,■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
But,for all my criticism of Gardner diesel engines,in their heyday quality-wise,Gardner was the Rolls-Royce of Diesel
Engines.Gardner is also known as The Showmans Friend: Many showmen have operated Gardner-engined fairground lorries - and ex-
buses & motorcoaches converted to load carriers-caravans - and have employed Gardner-powered electricity generating sets
to power their fairground rides,round stalls,sideshows,etc.5.There has also been criticism of AEC engines,Foden two stroke engines,Foden motor vehicles and Rolls-Royce diesel
engines on this thread.But I can correctly answer that all of these generally gave good service to many operators,who were satisfied with
these engines and vehicles and placed repeat orders for these power units and vehicles.VALKYRIE.
Another marathon post VALKYRIE,a lot of time and investigation went into this one,very thorough and well presented.
David
VALKYRIE:
I’ve said a few times in the Gardner Engines thread that many Gardner engine models were underpowered,and they objectively
were!!Gardner’s Top Power Automotive Diesel Engines 1931-1994:-
Gardner 6LW - 102 BHP. Grossly underpowered.
underpowered tooNOTE:Even the uncompetitive and obsolete Sentinel S4,S6,S8 -Range Steam Lorries were more powerful - 120 BHP!
Gardner 6LWK - 112 BHP. Grossly underpowered.
Gardner 6LW20 - 120 BHP. Still underpowered.
Gardner 8LW - 140 BHP. An improvement but still underpowered.
Gardner 8LWK - 150 BHP.A marginal improvement but still underpowered
1950.Gardner 6LX - 150 BHP.Overpraised
Gardner 6LXB - 180 BHP. Still underpowered
Gardner 8LXB-240-250 BHP.A relatively powerful Gardner automotive diesel engine at long last!
Gardner 8LXC-255-265 BHP.Another relatively powerful Gardner automotive diesel engine
Gardner was getting left behind again,because Volvo,■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ were making 280-400 BHP + engines in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s.1978.Gardner 8LXCT-290-300 BHP.A magnificent and relatively powerful Gardner automotive diesel engine again,introduced in 1981.
Gardner 6LYT-300-350 BHP,with 400 BHP + potential.Gardner finally made an automotive diesel engine powerful enough to match
the likes of ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
But alas! Many of these 6LYT engines suffered from quality control problems.1984.Unfortunately this did the Gardner marque
some serious damage to it’s reputation and Gardner never fully recovered.Furthermore,because of Gardner’s slowness in bringing out the Gardner 6LYT and the less powerful 6LXDT,it lost a lot of customers to the likes of Rolls-Royce-Perkins,■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
But,for all my criticism of Gardner diesel engines,in their heyday quality-wise,Gardner was the Rolls-Royce of Diesel
Engines.Gardner is also known as The Showmans Friend: Many showmen have operated Gardner-engined fairground lorries - and ex-
buses & motorcoaches converted to load carriers-caravans - and have employed Gardner-powered electricity generating sets
to power their fairground rides,round stalls,sideshows,etc.5.There has also been criticism of AEC engines,Foden two stroke engines,Foden motor vehicles and Rolls-Royce diesel
engines on this thread.But I can correctly answer that all of these generally gave good service to many operators,who were satisfied with
these engines and vehicles and placed repeat orders for these power units and vehicles.VALKYRIE.
In general it would be fair to say that Gardners were often a one trick pony of providing good SFC at the expense of BMEP.That then only lining up in certain limited circumstances when the Gardner’s advantage in SFC wasn’t sufficiently outweighed by the competition’s advantage in BMEP.IE AEC 690 v 150 Gardner being one of those examples and ■■■■■■■ 220 v 240 Gardner being another ?.
In which case ironically for the topic the 240 option in the Big J v the other NA options was as good as that comparison ever got for the Gardner choice and when ironically it seemed to be the most over looked option by the customer in them going for just about every other NA option but the best case Gardner one in the thing in one form or another.On that note the reasoning behind SoM’s idea in being a big customer for new 240 Gardner Big J’s and retrofitting others,seems sound to me.
In that the 240 was arguably anything but a boat anchor,in that specific comparison,and the topic has therefore been an eye opener to me.At least in that regard in almost making me a Gardner fan.
Well my opinion of the good old Gardner engines for what its worth, I drove Gardner powered motors from 1957 onwards, Now to be honest they were a bit slow, But very, very reliable as far as Im concerend, I had Fodens with the 150 6LX in along with the Foden 12 speed box, They were tops on fuel ecconomey, Wicth In my book is paramount when running ones own motors, I could price a job , Taking the fuel usage, the drivers wages, & all the other sundries concerned, & we made a decent living running our small family firm, The days when owning & driving wagons was a pleasure, Today, Well IMOO,Al lthis red tape crap plus H&S Rules Its killing a good industry , Regards Larry.
Well Larry as we have both said from our own well documented and proven experience “there was nowt wrong with the good old Gardner during the years we both operated them” And as far as I am concerned during those years neither RR, ■■■■■■■■ AEC or Leyland or that Foden two stroke thingy! could touch the Gardner for reliability or economy FACT. I accept they were never as lively as the aforementioned engines but there was no need as actual “all out speed” was never the main requirement ! The main benefit of the Gardner was without doubt it’s reliability, economy and second hand value. We were the end users of the motors and being at “the sharp end” carries a lot more weight than the “on paper, hypothetical” theories promoted elsewhere on the thread. Cheers Dennis.
Bewick:
Well Larry as we have both said from our own well documented and proven experience “there was nowt wrong with the good old Gardner during the years we both operated them” And as far as I am concerned during those years neither RR, ■■■■■■■■ AEC or Leyland or
Well Dennis, Its nice to hear from a fellow haulage man who shares my comments on the good old 150 6lx, Gardner Engined Motors, In their Heyday they were the best money could buy, Im off to bed now, Toasting the night away with a large Glenmorangie, I got this for £26.00.At Morrisons, Regards Larry.
Bewick:
Well Larry as we have both said from our own well documented and proven experience “there was nowt wrong with the good old Gardner during the years we both operated them” And as far as I am concerned during those years neither RR, ■■■■■■■■ AEC or Leyland or
That would carry a lot more weight if you’d have said that you’d have preferred the 240 engined Big J to ■■■■■■■ 220 Atki and replaced the Atkis on those lines.While turbo Rolls and Big Cam ■■■■■■■ at least weren’t known for their unreliability and fuel inefficiency to which your answer was NA Gardner SA 401 followed by wholesale move to relatively big power Scanias etc.Having also bought Scanias like the 111 before that point.
On that note the used vehicle ads in the day suggest that,maybe with the exception of the 240 Gardner,sellers were falling over themselves trying to offload their obsolete NA ■■■■■■■ and Gardner engined heaps for whatever they could get for them with the big money being in the turbo charged imports like Scanias because there just weren’t enough if any turbo Rolls and/or ■■■■■■■ examples there to choose from.Oh wait.
The fact is Gardner’s ‘heyday’ was realistically just those specific examples when it’s superiority in SFC outweighed the competition’s superiority,if any,in BMEP which directly translates as efficiency and productivety.Notwithstanding the potential and the availability of the turbocharged options,the 8 LXB Gardner engined Big J being the logical choice v the other NA options and ironically being one of the most important Gardner applications of all time,the 150 arguably being another,but which in this case many Gardner users themselves obviously overlooked.
While going by your yardstick all the industry press road tests would obviously have regarded BMEP and power output figures and with them journey times,as being irrelevant with it being only fuel consumption which mattered.In which case Gardner would still be here today,having long ago taken out all of its competitors,making 8 LXC engines to go in 44 tonners.
Carryfast:
In general it would be fair to say that Gardners were often a one trick pony of providing good SFC at the expense of BMEP.That then only lining up in certain limited circumstances when the Gardner’s advantage in SFC wasn’t sufficiently outweighed by the competition’s advantage in BMEP.IE AEC 690 v 150 Gardner being one of those examples and ■■■■■■■ 220 v 240 Gardner being another ?.In which case ironically for the topic the 240 option in the Big J v the other NA options was as good as that comparison ever got for the Gardner choice and when ironically it seemed to be the most over looked option by the customer in them going for just about every other NA option but the best case Gardner one in the thing in one form or another.On that note the reasoning behind SoM’s idea in being a big customer for new 240 Gardner Big J’s and retrofitting others,seems sound to me.
In that the 240 was arguably anything but a boat anchor,in that specific comparison,and the topic has therefore been an eye opener to me.At least in that regard in almost making me a Gardner fan.
Edit to add figures suggest that the 6 LX produced around 53 lb/ft per litre,which was actually slightly better than the 8 LXB at 50 lb/ft per litre v around 45 lb/ft per litre for AEC 690 and ■■■■■■■ 220 and 250.
Carryfast:
Bewick:
Well Larry as we have both said from our own well documented and proven experience “there was nowt wrong with the good old Gardner during the years we both operated them” And as far as I am concerned during those years neither RR, ■■■■■■■■ AEC or Leyland orThat would carry a lot more weight if you’d have said that you’d have preferred the 240 engined Big J to ■■■■■■■ 220 Atki and replaced the Atkis on those lines.While turbo Rolls and Big Cam ■■■■■■■ at least weren’t known for their unreliability and fuel inefficiency to which your answer was NA Gardner SA 401 followed by wholesale move to relatively big power Scanias etc.Having also bought Scanias like the 111 before that point.
On that note the used vehicle ads in the day suggest that,maybe with the exception of the 240 Gardner,sellers were falling over themselves trying to offload their obsolete NA ■■■■■■■ and Gardner engined heaps for whatever they could get for them with the big money being in the turbo charged imports like Scanias because there just weren’t enough if any turbo Rolls and/or ■■■■■■■ examples there to choose from.Oh wait.
The fact is Gardner’s ‘heyday’ was realistically just those specific examples when it’s superiority in SFC outweighed the competition’s superiority,if any,in BMEP which directly translates as efficiency and productivety.Notwithstanding the potential and the availability of the turbocharged options,the 8 LXB Gardner engined Big J being the logical choice v the other NA options and ironically being one of the most important Gardner applications of all time,the 150 arguably being another,but which in this case many Gardner users themselves obviously overlooked.
While going by your yardstick all the industry press road tests would obviously have regarded BMEP and power output figures and with them journey times,as being irrelevant with it being only fuel consumption which mattered.In which case Gardner would still be here today,having long ago taken out all of its competitors,making 8 LXC engines to go in 44 tonners.
Please can someone translate the above in to Mandarin Chinese so I can understand it?, Thank you in advance
No need to explain it Pete, it means SFA in the real world.
Carryfast, bless him, is proving the difference between dreams and reality. All this talk of turbo RR engines as if they were the holy grail proves that, they were cheap and available and that’s why they sold, but even so, not in any numbers. Yes they did develop the Eagle range into the Perkins TX, but that sold in even smaller numbers and I believe there was a load of behind the scenes political interference as the Government were trying to flog off the parent company to try to recoup some of the vast sums they ploughed into it.
I think the TX only went into ERF, Foden and Leyland chassis as it was the only alternative to ■■■■■■■ in the loose engine market and all three companies were on their last legs at that point anyway, ■■■■■■■ had no plans to produce a Euro3 compliant engine either, so ling term supply contracts were a thing of the past.
Quite what any of this has to do with a consignment of 8 pot engines going down the M6 to Wolverhampton from Patricroft is beyond me, but it seems to have got the Leatherhead Loony all fired up, he’s probably on YouTube now listening to a 265 with a rapidly emptying box of Kleenex on the bedside table.
Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
Small bit in Commercial motor magazine dated 25th September 1970. It confirms that they were offering the
8LXB engine in the twin steer units. Picture of 265 rolls at motor show this piece covered.
