gingerfold:
Whilst googling to find out which of the Gardner clan was the Whitworth Scholar (not Hugh, one of his forebears) I dropped on a PhD thesis written about Gardners by a Maurice J. Halton in 2010, University of Bolton. It is in the public domain and might be worth a read, bearing in mind it is written from an academic viewpoint. It concentrates in the main on the period 1955 -86 of the company. it might keep CF out of Bewick’s hair for a day or two. 
Oh no you mean findings like 1956 was Gardner’s record year.Or ‘‘Hugh Gardner exhibited obdurate inflexibility,entrepreneurial deficiency and technical incompetence.For example he emphatically refused to allow Gardner engines to incorporate turbocharger technology even though this was certainly by the mid 1950’s a well established and proven method of boosting engine power’’.
To be fair to Hugh I’d say mid 50’s was a bit optimistic and there’s a big difference between the real aim of increasing BMEP as opposed to the simplistic blanket idea of increasing ‘engine power’.But what would we know not being PhD qualified. 
Bearing in mind that ‘if’ Gardner was going to make the wholesale move to turbocharging it would have needed a totally different engine design with the necessary redundancy built in to handle the type of increased pressures in question.Something like the Rolls Eagle and the 855 ■■■■■■■ for example.
[zb]
anorak:
gingerfold:
…It might keep CF out of Bewick’s hair for a day or two.
Does Bewick have hair?
I will be interested to read that myself. Just for fun, I reckon the Gardner’s superior SFC results (c/w their turbo competitors) may be traced to a relatively low T1 on its Ts diagram:
mechteacher.com/diesel-cycle/
Then again, I haven’t had to study thermo for about a quarter of a century, so I’m probably talking out of my Leatherhead orifice myself.
This is more like it.It’s all about filling the cylinders properly by BDC before compression.While the Gardner was just a one trick pony of good thermal efficiency within its limited scope of volumetric efficiency.Hence good fuel efficiency at the expense of poor BMEP.
youtube.com/watch?v=FeO-oZVILRk
0.46 -
ramone:
Hard hats at the ready
He’s just one of life’s irritants which are sent to try us “ramone” and he sure does ■■■■■■■ try us !! he’s like a ■■■■■■■ terrier dog that always has to have the last yap eh! But it never comes close enough to get a boot up the jacksie 
Cheers Dennis.
Bewick:
ramone:
Hard hats at the ready
He’s just one of life’s irritants which are sent to try us “ramone” and he sure does [zb] try us !! he’s like a [zb] terrier dog that always has to have the last yap eh! But it never comes close enough to get a boot up the jacksie Cheers Dennis.
To be fair it all started when SoM’s management,not me,obviously rightly didn’t agree with you in the day about NA ■■■■■■■ Atki or 180 Gardner Big J v 8 LXB Big J and you couldn’t believe it.
My argument is just why didn’t they put a Rolls 280 in the thing.Bearing in mind that I don’t buy Anorak’s fuel efficiency comparisons. 
Carryfast:
gingerfold:
Whilst googling to find out which of the Gardner clan was the Whitworth Scholar (not Hugh, one of his forebears) I dropped on a PhD thesis written about Gardners by a Maurice J. Halton in 2010, University of Bolton. It is in the public domain and might be worth a read, bearing in mind it is written from an academic viewpoint. It concentrates in the main on the period 1955 -86 of the company. it might keep CF out of Bewick’s hair for a day or two.
Oh no you mean findings like 1956 was Gardner’s record year.Or ‘‘Hugh Gardner exhibited obdurate inflexibility,entrepreneurial deficiency and technical incompetence.For example he emphatically refused to allow Gardner engines to incorporate turbocharger technology even though this was certainly by the mid 1950’s a well established and proven method of boosting engine power’’.
To be fair to Hugh I’d say mid 50’s was a bit optimistic and there’s a big difference between the real aim of increasing BMEP as opposed to the simplistic blanket idea of increasing ‘engine power’.But what would we know not being PhD qualified.
Bearing in mind that ‘if’ Gardner was going to make the wholesale move to turbocharging it would have needed a totally different engine design with the necessary redundancy built in to handle the type of increased pressures in question.Something like the Rolls Eagle and the 855 ■■■■■■■ for example.
I haven’t read it CF, but I will do, all 110 pages of it. I briefly skimmed through a few pages of it and on the face of it it does seem to be a very thorough piece of research. You’re quite right it does contain some very critical comments about the autocratic management of the company and its very poor industrial relations policies of the 1970s. I do recall a telephone conversation with someone several years ago who was doing a post grad thesis about Gardner’s so I assume it is the same man. It even refers to my Gardner book as being written in a “whimsical” style, which I quite like. As I say I only had a very brief look at the thesis but I do think that it’s worth a closer study. After all it got the author his PhD.
I had a few dealings with Gardners when I was regularly rebuilding 6LXB/LXC engines on a regular basis and they did have some ‘different’ attitudes to other makers. This was in the early 80’s, as I said elsewhere I took a loaded Foden to them for testing as it was a poor performer (the Fuller box didn’t help matters) and the test pilot said it went as well as he would expect it to and if the company (Tilcon) wanted a better performer then they shouldn’t have ordered a Gardner.
They did loan me a protractor once to set the camshaft timing, this was after one engine chucked a rod through the side splitting the block, crankcase and even the camshaft chain sprocket. We had a used cam sprocket and I had to get the mean average of each pair of cams (Gardner cams were all seperate to the shaft) and adjust the timing accordingly. Each time I thought it was OK I phoned the factory and they advised me to tweak it a little more and phone them again, that took me a day and a half before all was fine with them. The new crankcase had a slightly modified flange for the oil return from the fuel pump to the timing case so I assumed it needed a modified pipe. I went to the factory and was sent to the ‘Technical Officer’ who hadn’t a clue about this modification and told me to “Put a piece of wood in the extra hole to block it off”. I then asked the workshop foreman, a Chinaman, who when he stopped laughing supplied me with the proper fitment!! 
On rebuilding and fitting the engine the new block had a water leak from one of the large screwed coreplugs near the manifolds, Gardner said they had a special tool for tightening these plugs and if I took the lorry there they would seal it. So off I went with a load for Tilcons plant at Weaste and called at the factory, there I was told that the foreman was away on holiday and had the key to the tool cupboard with him so they used a hammer and chisel to tighten the plug! That engine did run well though, and outlasted most of the others in the fleet.
Pete.
My previous post might give the impression that I am knocking the Gardner engine, I’m not. I still say that engineering wise it was far better in design and construction than any other engine I encountered. Any one part of a Gardner engine could be polished and would look good on a mantlepiece, the connecting rods and pistons were a fabulous piece of workmanship compared to the rough items that Rolls and ■■■■■■■ engines had and most other internal parts were beautifully made. Only two compression rings on the pistons, and they dropped down the bore under their own weight as they were that precisely manufactured. No running in needed with those boys! Not an easy engine to rebuild though but I enjoyed working on them, and I certainly had enough practice at Tilcon!! 
Pete.
Bloody boat anchors ,cut and run Pete drop a ■■■■■■■ in job done .
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
…Just for fun, I reckon the Gardner’s superior SFC results (c/w their turbo competitors) may be traced to a relatively low T1 on its Ts diagram:
mechteacher.com/diesel-cycle/
Then again, I haven’t had to study thermo for about a quarter of a century, so I’m probably talking out of my Leatherhead orifice myself.
This is more like it.It’s all about filling the cylinders properly by BDC before compression.While the Gardner was just a one trick pony of good thermal efficiency within its limited scope of volumetric efficiency.Hence good fuel efficiency at the expense of poor BMEP.
youtube.com/watch?v=FeO-oZVILRk
0.46 -
Gardner’s operators were happy enough with the good fuel efficiency. BMEP calculations were irrelevant to them (as much as speculation about cylinder-filling FFS), although they would have appreciated the improved durability that the lower internal loads may have offered.
Carryfast:
I don’t buy Anorak’s fuel efficiency comparisons.
Make your mind up. Or, going against your own grain, link the specifications of Gardner’s competitors. You will find that the facts back up my arguments.
[zb]
anorak:
Gardner’s operators were happy enough with the good fuel efficiency. BMEP calculations were irrelevant to them (as much as speculation about cylinder-filling FFS), although they would have appreciated the improved durability that the lower internal loads may have offered.
Carryfast:
I don’t buy Anorak’s fuel efficiency comparisons.
Make your mind up. Or, going against your own grain, link the specifications of Gardner’s competitors. You will find that the facts back up my arguments.
If Gardner’s operators were all about the Gardner’s fuel efficiency at the expense of low BMEP they obviously wouldn’t have then run off to the nearest Volvo or Scania etc dealer and there would have been loads of NA Gardner engined Marathons and max weight T45’s to follow the Big J.Nor would there have been the massive arguments going on among the Gardner board concerning the move away from NA engines to turbocharging.
As for the fuel efficiency issue as I said how are you going to compare a turbocharged engine running at around 210 g/KWh at 260 hp and still well under 220 g/KWh at 280 hp ( Rolls ) with one that can’t even manage to provide the 260 or 280 hp at peak power ( 8 LXB ) ?.Or for that matter if your theory is correct how was it that the Gardner 6 LXCT provided better SFC than either the 8 LXB or C ?.
While the question of the durability superiority of NA v turbo is obviously fine until someone makes an engine which can happily stay together at forced induction type pressures.( Volvo/DAF/Scania/Rolls/■■■■■■■ etc etc ). 
Can any Gardner chap tell me please,what dose the letters mean, ie…Gardner 6 lxb…lxc
Even 150 lw and so on,I know there are quiet a few, something over the years that’s puzzled me!! Thanks.
trunker08:
Can any Gardner chap tell me please,what dose the letters mean, ie…Gardner 6 lxb…lxc
Even 150 lw and so on,I know there are quiet a few, something over the years that’s puzzled me!! Thanks.
That’s a very good question and I don’t believe that there is a definitive answer. If the complete range of Gardner engines from the 1890s is considered then there is a discernible pattern of new engine type prefix lettering following an alphabetical progression, although some letter designations seem to be very abstract and even main types had random suffix letters added for different versions and fuel types (gas, paraffin, petroleum spirit, and heavy oil). By the time the first Gardner direct injection Diesel engine was introduced in 1929 they had reached L in the alphabet, so it was an L2 design. What 2 stands for is anybodies guess because the cylinder capacity is 1.4 litres. A 4L2 is a four cylinder and at that time an L2 could have any number of cylinders between one and six. It was designed as a marine engine but a 4L2 was adapted to go into a Lancia single deck bus operated by Trevor Barton. Seeing the potential of automotive application, a higher revving and lighter in weight engine (using aluminium alloy for the crankcase) was introduced by Gardner’s. Based on the L2 with identical cylinder dimensions but a strengthened bottom end for higher revs it was called the LW range, and again it could eventually be ordered with from one to eight cylinders (except seven). All the Gardner direct injection diesel engines irrespective of application had the letter L prefix. That is the L2, LW, LK, L3, and LX. The 6LX, introduced in 1958 was only the second Gardner engine type to be designed as a one size unit, i.e, 6 cylinders. The first composite engine being the small and ultra lightweight 4LK, which was also used in midget submarines in WW2. There were a handful of 6LKs made. After the 150 bhp 6LX, then came the 180 bhp 6LXB, the 201 bhp 6LXC, the 240 bhp 8LXB, the turbo-charged LXCT versions, the 6LXDT, and finally the 6LYT. The last line of engines from the 6LX onwards followed a logical lettering sequence for improved and developed versions of the LX. The 6LXDT and 6LYT were new designs. The 6LXDT retained some LX features but was of larger swept volume and the 6LYT was a completely new clean sheet design.
Well done, Gingerfold, that’s a pretty concise and accurate answer. Now stand by for your mate’s ramblings about “specific” this and “optimum” that.
And in answer to one previous comment, the prerequisites of the majority of hauliers of those days was, “Is it reliable?” and “Does it give good fuel consumption?”. Gardners won on both counts, which is why they couldn’t turn them out fast enough.
Gingerfold, many thanks for reply,ans a few questions there mate!!!
When I started as a mate in the 60’s I was told off you don’t know…ASK! somebody will have a ans?
Just a pity I left it so long!
Retired Old ■■■■:
Well done, Gingerfold, that’s a pretty concise and accurate answer. Now stand by for your mate’s ramblings about “specific” this and “optimum” that.
And in answer to one previous comment, the prerequisites of the majority of hauliers of those days was, “Is it reliable?” and “Does it give good fuel consumption?”. Gardners won on both counts, which is why they couldn’t turn them out fast enough.
Hiya,
Ah’ but ROF I’ll bet you’d prefer to punch summat about with a
Roller or a ■■■■■■■ inboard, I know what I would prefer.
thanks harry, long retired.
