So there you have it , the 240 Gardner did exist in Big Js but in very small numbers , the thread as concluded that Gardners were slow but economical 
and CF as yet again proved without any doubt whatsoever what he knows about the transport industry and i suppose everyone else have confirmed what they know about CF 
ramone:
So there you have it , the 240 Gardner did exist in Big Js but in very small numbers , the thread as concluded that Gardners were slow but economical
Read that article again carefully —it doesn’t refer to a 240 Big J, it’s suggesting that the Guy could be uprated from 34 to 38 tons if the 240 powered Atkinson and Foden twin steers (and Rolls 265 four wheel Seddon) are anything to go by.
I think Dennis would say close but no cigar 
Bernard
albion1938:
ramone:
So there you have it , the 240 Gardner did exist in Big Js but in very small numbers , the thread as concluded that Gardners were slow but economicalRead that article again carefully —it doesn’t refer to a 240 Big J, it’s suggesting that the Guy could be uprated from 34 to 38 tons if the 240 powered Atkinson and Foden twin steers (and Rolls 265 four wheel Seddon) are anything to go by.
I think Dennis would say close but no cigar
Bernard
Thats not how i read it Bernard. The way i read it was that the standard 4x2 chassis cab was rated at
34 tons,but if they uprated it to 38 tons then they would offer the 240 engine. They were already
offering the 240 in the twin steer big J that was plated at 38 tons.
albion1938:
ramone:
So there you have it , the 240 Gardner did exist in Big Js but in very small numbers , the thread as concluded that Gardners were slow but economicalRead that article again carefully —it doesn’t refer to a 240 Big J, it’s suggesting that the Guy could be uprated from 34 to 38 tons if the 240 powered Atkinson and Foden twin steers (and Rolls 265 four wheel Seddon) are anything to go by.
I think Dennis would say close but no cigar
Bernard
albion1938 you have misunderstood my comments , they were aimed at the title of the thread and a certain poster it was a tongue in cheek summing up
ramone:
albion1938:
ramone:
So there you have it , the 240 Gardner did exist in Big Js but in very small numbers , the thread as concluded that Gardners were slow but economicalRead that article again carefully —it doesn’t refer to a 240 Big J, it’s suggesting that the Guy could be uprated from 34 to 38 tons if the 240 powered Atkinson and Foden twin steers (and Rolls 265 four wheel Seddon) are anything to go by.
I think Dennis would say close but no cigar
Bernardalbion1938 you have misunderstood my comments , they were aimed at the title of the thread and a certain poster
Get it right.
The way I read it is a certain poster who swears by Gardners,but preferred the 220 ■■■■■■■ engined Atki to a 240 Gardner Big J.In addition to having a secret penchant for Scanias in the day,says that no one else wanted or bought a 240 Gardner Big J either and they therefore never existed. 
Then another who says that anyone who preferred the turbo Rolls option in their Big J ( or obviously T45 etc ) was a w…ker.Although who knows maybe that’s why there are no turbo Rolls Big J’s for sale in the used truck ads of the day but nor are there any turbo ■■■■■■■ versions either.Although he also seems to prefer the OHC/CIH C15,rather than the pushrod N14,so what would I know or those who bought Rolls engined T45’s etc.
Then there’s me who says that compared to and if it absolutely had to be,any of the NA options in a typical cheap guvnors wagon of the day then the Gardner 240 Big J was arguably the best possible option.Having seen the light in that regard after wrongly calling that particular Gardner a boat anchor in that application.While obviously a w…ker for ideally preferring the idea of the turbo Rolls in the Big J or anything else for that matter.I’m sure I can live with all that.
Lawrence Dunbar:
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 orWell 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.
I only ever ran a couple of 150lx’s Larry, they were both very reliable motors though. Cheers Dennis.
Carryfast you still don’t take into account the fact that journey times were not so important during the period in which Gardner made its name and acquired legendary status.
You also need to figure in that this was also the start of the motorway and bypass era, so journey times were reduced significantly by virtue of the better roads, even at the sedate pace that a Gardner provided.
The timed delivery was unheard of, things were much more relaxed and nobody was belting around like their arse was on fire trying to save a few minutes out of their day.
The lorry driver was also a different breed, more spit than polish, they had mostly worked their way up through the ranks driving older lorries and to them a new Atki/ERF or even a Big J with a 180 Gardner was a huge improvement.
Yes they went on past their time, just like the older stuff before and the turbo era completely changed the transport industry, but ask the old boys like Bewick, Harry, Larry and the rest and they will all tell you things were much better all round when Gardner ruled the road. Dennis is a perfect example, he waxes lyrical about Gardner, even though he ended up running the Scania 143 450 which I consider to be the best lorry ever made, it’s horses for courses and while the rest of accept that you need a shire horse, you want to be on a racehorse.
Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
newmercman:
Carryfast you still don’t take into account the fact that journey times were not so important during the period in which Gardner made its name and acquired legendary status.You also need to figure in that this was also the start of the motorway and bypass era, so journey times were reduced significantly by virtue of the better roads, even at the sedate pace that a Gardner provided.
The timed delivery was unheard of, things were much more relaxed and nobody was belting around like their arse was on fire trying to save a few minutes out of their day.
The lorry driver was also a different breed, more spit than polish, they had mostly worked their way up through the ranks driving older lorries and to them a new Atki/ERF or even a Big J with a 180 Gardner was a huge improvement.
Yes they went on past their time, just like the older stuff before and the turbo era completely changed the transport industry, but ask the old boys like Bewick, Harry, Larry and the rest and they will all tell you things were much better all round when Gardner ruled the road. Dennis is a perfect example, he waxes lyrical about Gardner, even though he ended up running the Scania 143 450 which I consider to be the best lorry ever made, it’s horses for courses and while the rest of accept that you need a shire horse, you want to be on a racehorse.
That’s fair enough nmm but firstly if you’d read my comments closely I was really replying to VALKYRIE’s comments regarding Gardner outputs on the basis that from the engineering point of view BMEP is king with SFC being second but in general poor BMEP means poor SFC anyway.
While ironically digging a lot deeper I obviously started to understand the attraction of the Gardner in a pre turbocharged world.Which in this case seemed to drag on a bit longer than it should have done and in which the 8 LXB Gardner like the 6 LX before it was actually second to none v its NA competition.Which in the case of the Big J made the choice between NA Rolls/■■■■■■■ v 8 LXB an absolute no brainer.
While I wasn’t praising the turbo Rolls because of any wish to see trucks running at silly speeds but just on the basis that more specific torque generally means better,so long as the motor is strong enough to handle it.Which in this case translated as the Rolls putting out around the the 8 LXB’s ‘peak’ power output at around just 1,500 rpm at the minimum point of its SFC curve together with the packaging advantages of 6 cylinder v straight 8.Also bearing in mind that even the industry press road testing regime rightly put a big emphasis on journey times v fuel consumption as part of that certainly at the time in question.
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … el-engines
Which then just left the question of the choice between turbo Rolls v turbo small cam ■■■■■■■ with seemingly no need to go for the 14 litre capacity of the ■■■■■■■ in this market sector.With there seeming to be no point in trying to make the comparison between those options and the Big J NA options anyway because the type of buyer looking to make the choice between NA Rolls/■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ Gardner rightly or wrongly wasn’t going to be even considering the turbo options as suggested and confirmed later in the used vehicle ads of the day.In which case,with the exception of the turbo Rolls I’d guess that SoM’s etc buying policy was spot on in the case of the 240 engined Big J and the only question being why didn’t Bewick go for the same option instead of 220 ■■■■■■■ Atki and 180 Gardner Big J at least ?. 
“CF” my son you continually demonstrate, by your incoherent rambling posts, that you haven’t got a ■■■■■■■ clue of how a hard working haulier back in the day had to plan, as well as “duck and dive”, to obtain the best value possible from every £ of capital invested, both borrowed and accumulated. Fortunately I do mate 'cause I had to do the hard way ! So please do me a ■■■■■■■ great favour and leave me out of the Bollox you seem intent on boring us all with. You haven’t got a ■■■■■■■ clue mate so why keep on underlining the fact with your “preaching” when you, I believe, have never operated so much as a ■■■■■■■ wheel barrow on your own account ! 
Bewick.
Bewick:
“CF” my son you continually demonstrate, by your incoherent rambling posts, that you haven’t got a [zb] clue of how a hard working haulier back in the day had to plan, as well as “duck and dive”, to obtain the best value possible from every £ of capital invested, both borrowed and accumulated. Fortunately I do mate 'cause I had to do the hard way !
Blimey leave it out I’m agreeing with you that the 8 LXB wasn’t the boat anchor I’d first thought when just comparing NA apples with NA apples.While SoM at least also obviously weren’t in the business of not obtaining the best value from every pound which is why they obviously went for the 8 LXB Big J.Unless it’s you who’s now saying that the 240 Gardner option in the Big J was poor value and a waste of money.Oh wait you thought the Atki and ERF were a ‘premium’ trucks while the Big J wasn’t and wasn’t worthy of the 8 LXB but obviously SoM didn’t agree with you and then you chose to just disbelieve what they’d done and that’s what’s really ■■■■■■ you off.
newmercman:
Carryfast you still don’t take into account the fact that journey times were not so important during the period in which Gardner made its name and acquired legendary status.You also need to figure in that this was also the start of the motorway and bypass era, so journey times were reduced significantly by virtue of the better roads, even at the sedate pace that a Gardner provided.
The timed delivery was unheard of, things were much more relaxed and nobody was belting around like their arse was on fire trying to save a few minutes out of their day.
The lorry driver was also a different breed, more spit than polish, they had mostly worked their way up through the ranks driving older lorries and to them a new Atki/ERF or even a Big J with a 180 Gardner was a huge improvement.
Yes they went on past their time, just like the older stuff before and the turbo era completely changed the transport industry, but ask the old boys like Bewick, Harry, Larry and the rest and they will all tell you things were much better all round when Gardner ruled the road. Dennis is a perfect example, he waxes lyrical about Gardner, even though he ended up running the Scania 143 450 which I consider to be the best lorry ever made, it’s horses for courses and while the rest of accept that you need a shire horse, you want to be on a racehorse.
Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
Nail on head Mark in my opinion concerning the job and also agree with the comment about the 143’s, the job and the motors have gone downhill since then, Cheer’s Pete
pete smith:
newmercman:
Carryfast you still don’t take into account the fact that journey times were not so important during the period in which Gardner made its name and acquired legendary status.You also need to figure in that this was also the start of the motorway and bypass era, so journey times were reduced significantly by virtue of the better roads, even at the sedate pace that a Gardner provided.
The timed delivery was unheard of, things were much more relaxed and nobody was belting around like their arse was on fire trying to save a few minutes out of their day.
The lorry driver was also a different breed, more spit than polish, they had mostly worked their way up through the ranks driving older lorries and to them a new Atki/ERF or even a Big J with a 180 Gardner was a huge improvement.
Yes they went on past their time, just like the older stuff before and the turbo era completely changed the transport industry, but ask the old boys like Bewick, Harry, Larry and the rest and they will all tell you things were much better all round when Gardner ruled the road. Dennis is a perfect example, he waxes lyrical about Gardner, even though he ended up running the Scania 143 450 which I consider to be the best lorry ever made, it’s horses for courses and while the rest of accept that you need a shire horse, you want to be on a racehorse.
Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
Nail on head Mark in my opinion concerning the job and also agree with the comment about the 143’s, the job and the motors have gone downhill since then, Cheer’s Pete
We know that the motorway era was well in place and up and running by the early 1970’s.We’ve also got clear evidence that the Rolls 280 was by that point a reliable solution in the day to those new challenges in being able to do at 1,500 rpm what the best case NA option 8 LXB needed around 1,800 rpm to provide and provide 8 mpg + potential fuel efficiency doing it.On that note don’t see how the idea of a Rolls 280 Big J wouldn’t have been more in keeping with the idea that the Scania 143 was arguably the best lorry ever made,as opposed to any of the NA options including Gardner 8 LXB.
Carryfast:
We know that the motorway era was well in place and up and running by the early 1970’s.We’ve also got clear evidence that the Rolls 280 was by that point a reliable solution in the day to those new challenges in being able to do at 1,500 rpm what the best case NA option 8 LXB needed around 1,800 rpm to provide and provide 8 mpg + potential fuel efficiency doing it.On that note don’t see how the idea of a Rolls 280 Big J wouldn’t have been more in keeping with the idea that the Scania 143 was arguably the best lorry ever made,as opposed to any of the NA options including Gardner 8 LXB.
1800 was probably near max revs on a Gardner, I am sure but I am willing to accept correction that 60mph was about 1500 rpm with the 240 & fuller Roadranger box.
I also think the Scania was was one of the best vehicles in the 80’s but I would put the 113 with the 360 engine as the top truck in its day.
Bewick:
0
Probably better than a 220 ■■■■■■■ Atki or a Gardner 240,let alone 180,Big J at least.
Carryfast:
Bewick:
0
But were they available when the 220 ■■■■■■■ and 180 Gardners were in their pomp , I think its a great big no but the Detroit v8 2 stroke full singing and dancing was ,I wonder why they didn’t sell over here
ramone:
Carryfast:
Bewick:
0
But were they available when the 220 ■■■■■■■ and 180 Gardners were in their pomp , I think its a great big no but the Detroit v8 2 stroke full singing and dancing was ,I wonder why they didn’t sell over here
IIRC “Ramone” the only Scanias available during the period you refer to were the 80 , 110 and the V8 141. The 360 112 certainly was not available until the mid 80’s IIRC. The Leatherhead Leper hasn’t got a comment worth listening to so if we don’t respond to his verbal garbage he may ■■■■ off onto Bully’s Truck Stop and stop there ! Cheers Dennis.
ramone:
Carryfast:
Bewick:
0
But were they available when the 220 ■■■■■■■ and 180 Gardners were in their pomp , I think its a great big no
Firstly in this case the issue is the choice between 240 Gardner,let alone 180 v Rolls 280 in the Big J.
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … nia-lbs110
As for the 110.Check out the reg of the of BRS example in the pic looks like 1973/4 to me.As I said everything that was relevant about the 113 and 143 in its day was also relevant in the case of the 110 ( or Rolls 280 ) in its day.Everything else was just backward supply options to meet backward buying habits.Especially when those habits were being applied to the Scania’s Brit competition on a double standards basis thereby wrecking the Brits’ reputation when they needed to be building it.In which case,as in the case of the Swedes,the choice in the Big J among others,should have been turbo 6 cylinder Rolls or ■■■■■■■ take it or leave it.
Sorry to ■■■■ your logic up “CF” but at the date of the CM article on Scanias I was a lowly O/D making my way in the industry with a 16ton gvw Ford D1000 22 ft flat ! So your piffle about this motor or that was way above my pay grade at that time as I was too busy grafting hard making my way in the industry ! An experience which going by the Bollox you continually spout you will never have experienced ! I know I am capable of talking out of of my arse at times but the difference is I can be forgiven because I operated at the sharp end for many years whereas you my Son have always travelled on someone else’s back i.e. read “employer” and will very definitely have been a right ■■■■■■■ pain the arse as an employee ! So I will defer to your superior knowledge of the market place in 1969 as I was too busy earning a living ! Incidentally how old were you in 1969 ? Bewick.
Bewick:
Sorry to [zb] your logic up “CF” but at the date of the CM article on Scanias I was a lowly O/D making my way in the industry with a 16ton gvw Ford D1000 22 ft flat ! So your piffle about this motor or that was way above my pay grade at that time as I was too busy grafting hard making my way in the industry ! An experience which going by the Bollox you continually spout you will never have experienced ! I know I am capable of talking out of of my arse at times but the difference is I can be forgiven because I operated at the sharp end for many years whereas you my Son have always travelled on someone else’s back i.e. read “employer” and will very definitely have been a right [zb] pain the arse as an employee ! So I will defer to your superior knowledge of the market place in 1969 as I was too busy earning a living ! Incidentally how old were you in 1969 ? Bewick.
Well said Dennis my man, I and your good self had a go as owner drivers, Worked our ■■■■■■■■ off to make a go of it, Like a lot more drivers some made it some didnt but thats the way it was in those good old days , If you had the right gear & the right customers who relied on a good service thats what we gave them OK We threw caution to the wind all the time , Well I did regardless & It paid off in the long run, I must have been one of the lucky ones I never got caught, This C/F Geezer lives in a world of his own IMO, Anyone who would refer to the good old Gardner engine as a boat anchor, Well It says it all a prize know nothing, 
, Regards Larry.