GUY Big J 8LXB Tractor Unit

[bewick]

Carryfast:

Bewick:
I had three criteria for buying Gardner chassis, 1) Reliability, 2) Economy, 3) Good second hand sale value. I didn’t know of ,never mind understand, half the bollox that CF spouts about existed as I was only a hard working haulier possessing limited intelligence, but I new enough to be able to choose the ideal motors for my firm. Cheers Bewick.

In which case surely you’d have ‘preferred’ the 8 LXB engined Big J to the NA ■■■■■■■ engined Atki ?.Bearing in mind that you’ve said that you wouldn’t have wanted the 8 LXB Big J regardless. While also having got rid of a delayed order Gardner rather than keep it.

I’d guess that an 8 LXB engined Big J would also have had a much better residual value than a Gardner 180 Big J or for that matter NA ■■■■■■■ Atki.

While we know that you also thought that turbocharged Swedes could also provide all that instead of Gardner.So why not the turbo Rolls or ■■■■■■■ in the Brits ?.[/quote
You “CF” are like a ■■■■■■■ scab that you can’t help picking at ! Now one more time you Richard Head, I probably couldn’t have ordered a Big J 8 LXB if I’d wanted to at the time ! and further more the 8LXB A Series that turned up very late was not just a case of “no problems” I had access to unlimited funding even though I had bought ■■■■■■■ engine Atkinsons as I was unable to wait for the ERF ! Obviously as you have never operated as a haulier of any size you don’t have a ■■■■■■■ clue of how tight financing can be at times, I know you ■■■■■■■ well don’t Pal ! And for what it’s worth you can stick your Turbo RR and ■■■■■■■ engines where the Monkey stuck its nuts! Once I started to buy Scania and to a lesser degree Volvo it was NO CONTEST and my purchases of British motors tailed away unfortunately ! So the bollox you are quoting from text books bears no resemblance to what actually happened at “the sharp end” I was there and you ■■■■■■■ well weren’t so rev up and ■■■■ off you “cupid stunt” Cheers Bewick.

[cav551]

There is a good analogy between international competitive rowing and much of the argument that continues over Gardner. There is a saying in this sport that a good “Big 'un” will always beat a good “Little 'un”, referring to the size of the oarsmen. Now you can argue about Turbocharging if desired, but one of the reasons Pinsent and Redgrave were so successful was that their lung capacity and hence their ability to absorb oxygen, was significantly greater than their competitors’, it had a bit to do with both of them being very big men. So again another saying this time from the Yanks: " there is no substitute for cubic inches". Which means that 12 or 14 litres is always going to to go better than 10 and a half with ambient air pressure.

[zb_anorak]

Carryfast:
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 -

Engineers talking about the efficiency of different engines will base their discussions around the points on the Pv and Ts diagrams, as I attempted to convey in my previous post. The above statement sounds more like it has come from the pub bore.

Out of curiosity, I watched the video you linked. She said, “In naturally aspirated engines, volumetric efficiency can never be 100%.” I turned it off immediately after that, with thoughts of resonant induction systems in my head.

[carryfast]

Bewick:

Carryfast:

Bewick:
I had three criteria for buying Gardner chassis, 1) Reliability, 2) Economy, 3) Good second hand sale value. I didn’t know of ,never mind understand, half the bollox that CF spouts about existed as I was only a hard working haulier possessing limited intelligence, but I new enough to be able to choose the ideal motors for my firm. Cheers Bewick.

In which case surely you’d have ‘preferred’ the 8 LXB engined Big J to the NA ■■■■■■■ engined Atki ?.Bearing in mind that you’ve said that you wouldn’t have wanted the 8 LXB Big J regardless. While also having got rid of a delayed order Gardner rather than keep it.

I’d guess that an 8 LXB engined Big J would also have had a much better residual value than a Gardner 180 Big J or for that matter NA ■■■■■■■ Atki.

While we know that you also thought that turbocharged Swedes could also provide all that instead of Gardner.So why not the turbo Rolls or ■■■■■■■ in the Brits ?.
[/quote
You “CF” are like a [zb]
scab that you can’t help picking at ! Now one more time you Richard Head, I probably couldn’t have ordered a Big J 8 LXB if I’d wanted to at the time ! and further more the 8LXB A Series that turned up very late was not just a case of “no problems” I had access to unlimited funding even though I had bought ■■■■■■■ engine Atkinsons as I was unable to wait for the ERF ! Obviously as you have never operated as a haulier of any size you don’t have a [zb] clue of how tight financing can be at times, I know you [zb] well don’t Pal ! And for what it’s worth you can stick your Turbo RR and ■■■■■■■ engines where the Monkey stuck its nuts! Once I started to buy Scania and to a lesser degree Volvo it was NO CONTEST and my purchases of British motors tailed away unfortunately ! So the bollox you are quoting from text books bears no resemblance to what actually happened at “the sharp end” I was there and you [zb] well weren’t so rev up and [zb] off you “cupid stunt” Cheers Bewick.

Let’s get this right you’re playing the loyal Gardner customer card but then you’re saying that you got rid of a delayed Gardner order rather than get rid of a ■■■■■■■ Atki instead.While assuming you had the cash to order the thing what changed and if the Gardner was so bleedin good that’s the one you obviously would have kept.Bearing in mind that you ‘actually’ said you wouldn’t have wanted an 8 LXB Big J regardless,not that you wanted one but couldn’t have one.While the CM report doesn’t exactly say it’s an option but Gardner can’t actually supply one.Nor do Leyland or customers like SoM seem to have had any aggro in getting hold of the things assuming anyone was daft enough to put an 8 LXB in a Big J instead of a Rolls 280.

Then to add insult to injury not only did you later lumber SA with yet another backward NA Gardner order you then had the bleedin nerve to say that you actually preferred Scania after all.In addition to obviously that smaller Scania motor was better than putting an E320 or even an E 290 in the SA. You’re avin a larf and if I’d have been running SA I’d have told you to zb off and buy more Scanias because we ain’t going to put an obsolete outdated boat anchor in any more of our products,thereby damaging our reputation even more,among operators who actually know the difference between a proper motor and what was a hair dryer by comparison in the form of the 111/2/3 on the one hand or,by your own admission,what was an obsolete boat anchor in the form of the 8 LXB/C on the other,by comparison.

[carryfast]

cav551:
There is a good analogy between international competitive rowing and much of the argument that continues over Gardner. There is a saying in this sport that a good “Big 'un” will always beat a good “Little 'un”, referring to the size of the oarsmen. Now you can argue about Turbocharging if desired, but one of the reasons Pinsent and Redgrave were so successful was that their lung capacity and hence their ability to absorb oxygen, was significantly greater than their competitors’, it had a bit to do with both of them being very big men. So again another saying this time from the Yanks: " there is no substitute for cubic inches". Which means that 12 or 14 litres is always going to to go better than 10 and a half with ambient air pressure.

To be fair we’re discussing the 8 LXB Big J not the 6 LXB version in which case its the Gardner with the better BMEP than the ■■■■■■■ which wins. Which all changed obviously when ■■■■■■■ bolted a turbocharger to the 14 litre on the basis that a good forced induction ‘big un’ will beat just about anything except another forced induction ‘big un’ or ‘bigger un’.

[zb_anorak]

Bewick:
You “CF” … are quoting from text books … Cheers Bewick.

He’s not. He’s quoting from hobby books, or snippets he’s heard other noisy people say. I am quoting from textbooks, or snippets that I can remember from decades ago.

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:
Engineers talking about the efficiency of different engines will base their discussions around the points on the Pv and Ts diagrams, as I attempted to convey in my previous post. The above statement sounds more like it has come from the pub bore.

Out of curiosity, I watched the video you linked. She said, “In naturally aspirated engines, volumetric efficiency can never be 100%.” I turned it off immediately after that, with thoughts of resonant induction systems in my head.

Great so we know that the Gardner had great thermal efficiency.Which isn’t much use when your competitors,obviously working on the idea that BMEP is king,are getting more power,for less engine speed,from less engine capacity,to the point of around 210 g/KWh SFC at 260 hp at 1,600 rpm v your less than 250 hp peak power at 1,850 rpm.

As for the video list any NA diesels with 100 % + volumetric efficiency using tuned ram induction systems.As opposed to forced induction.

[dipster]

[zb]
anorak:

Bewick:
You “CF” … are quoting from text books … Cheers Bewick.

He’s not. He’s quoting from hobby books, or snippets he’s heard other noisy people say. I am quoting from textbooks, or snippets that I can remember from decades ago.

I have been happily amused by all this. Years of practical experience (from operators) culminating with a few bob in pockets versus…well what exactly?

It would be very interesting to see the CV of CF, who does seem to duck questions he does not wish to answer. Perhaps then we could all take his proclamations more seriously. Or have I missed it?

Go on CF, answer some of the questions you have avoided and let us all know a touch more about your experience in the real world.

But do, please, continue to keep me entertained.

[newmercman]

So Carryfast, you’ve still not read Dale Carnegie’s “How to win friends and influence people”

Now let me enlighten you a little, as you know I am a current operator of heavy trucks and have been for many years, my experiences may not have included running Gardner powered lorries, but I have had a couple of ■■■■■■■ engines amongst all the foreign stuff from Daf, IVECO, Mercedes Benz, Renault, Scania and Volvo.

Now my all time favorite lorry is the Scania 143, my reasoning behind this is that it was the most reliable lorry I have owned so far, it wasn’t the most powerful lorry in my fleet, it never had the biggest cab, but it never missed a beat, apart from the drama I had getting it through the annual test, thanks to the parking brake only working on the rear axle and a design weight of 52tonnes making it next to impossible to achieve the required values, I never so much as changed a headlight bulb on that lorry in the time I had it. When I sold it I actually had two blokes from the Emerald Isle arguing as to who was going to give me the biggest cheque.

Now fast forward to a couple of months ago, I ordered my glider kit, hopefully it will treat me as well as the Scania did. As you know I’ve got the CAT C15 6NZ in the new one, an engine superseded in 2003 by the ACERT range, why did I do this and pay a premium for the privilege? Because it’s got a reputation as one of the most reliable engines ever made, it’s as simple as that, it was my number one reason for buying the truck in the first place.

Do you see a comparison here? It’s a similar situation to ordering a Gardner engine at a premium over a new to the market turbo charged engine, the Gardner was proven to be extremely reliable, it could hold its own on fuel use and it attracted a premium when sold on.

The 3yr old, low mileage, well specced Volvo I’ve just sold took almost two months to sell, contrast this to the 11yr old Peterbilt my uncle just sold with 2.3million kms on the clock that sold for only slightly less and was snapped up within a day of going on sale.

That is the reason operators specced a Gardner instead of a ■■■■■■■ or Rolls, they knew exactly what to expect from it, both in service and when the time came to move it on.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[cav551]

The naturally aspirated MAN D 2566 MF is an interesting engine with its tuned induction and combustion chamber design. Sadly our dear friend Saviem would have been able to tell us a lot more about it.

[windrush]

cav551:
The naturally aspirated MAN D 2566 MF is an interesting engine with its tuned induction and combustion chamber design. Sadly our dear friend Saviem would have been able to tell us a lot more about it.

I don’t know which model it was but local haulier Don Fox had a new MAN eight legger with the NA engine when we were surfacing the new M40 around 1989/90. Like a lot of folk he was possibly wary of the ‘new’ generation of turbocharged engines so stuck with what he was happy with. He put a driver on it, Mick Robinson, it did him well and I ran with it many times with my Foden/Rolls 265Li and we did exactly the same work.

In 1983 I collected new the first (and only!) Foden with a ■■■■■■■ L10 fitted that we had at our quarry, our TM was there when I arrived with it and coincidently there was a ■■■■■■■ engineer there dealing with yet another 14 litre sucking air into the fuel system. He asked our TM where our furthest quarry was, Gore near Kington, and told him to send it there as it was a “small engine pretending to be a large one and would be unreliable”. This proved to be the case, though it did return a few years and several rebuilds later and an OD bought and ran it. Personally I would much rather have a vehicle without a turbocharger but they are few and far between nowadays.

Pete.

[zb_anorak]

Carryfast:
Great so we know that the Gardner had great thermal efficiency.Which isn’t much use when your competitors,obviously working on the idea that BMEP is king,

Why “work” on that idea? Why “obviously”? “Great efficiency… not much use”- try saying that to any group of engineers, regardless of their speciality.

Carryfast:
…are getting more power, for less engine speed,from less engine capacity

If it takes about 200bhp to drag a 32 ton lump up an empty 1970 motorway at 60mph, with a bit in reserve for the odd hill, more power is unnecessary. The only other parameter of interest is the running cost of the machine, which is a direct calculation from the efficiency, or SFC. The engine speed and capacity are irrelevant, just points of conjecture.

Carryfast:
…to the point of around 210 g/KWh SFC at 260 hp at 1,600 rpm v your less than 250 hp peak power at 1,850 rpm…

Which engine had 210g/kWh and 260bhp at 1,600rpm in 1970?

[zb_anorak]

cav551:
The naturally aspirated MAN D 2566 MF is an interesting engine with its tuned induction and combustion chamber design. Sadly our dear friend Saviem would have been able to tell us a lot more about it.

That engine makes a more valid comparison with the Gardner than those crude American lumps. I would like to see volumetric efficiency and SFC curves for it. I bet they exist somewhere.

Tuning of even turbo engines was not unusual in the 1970s- look at the exhaust manifold on a Scania DS14- it is as far from a “log” design as you might get. The later, turbocharged, MAN engine had tuned inlet tracts, IIRC. Of course, I must now mention the exhaust manifold on the 8LXB.

[carryfast]

newmercman:
So Carryfast, you’ve still not read Dale Carnegie’s “How to win friends and influence people”

Now let me enlighten you a little, as you know I am a current operator of heavy trucks and have been for many years, my experiences may not have included running Gardner powered lorries, but I have had a couple of ■■■■■■■ engines amongst all the foreign stuff from Daf, IVECO, Mercedes Benz, Renault, Scania and Volvo.

Now my all time favorite lorry is the Scania 143, my reasoning behind this is that it was the most reliable lorry I have owned so far, it wasn’t the most powerful lorry in my fleet, it never had the biggest cab, but it never missed a beat, apart from the drama I had getting it through the annual test, thanks to the parking brake only working on the rear axle and a design weight of 52tonnes making it next to impossible to achieve the required values, I never so much as changed a headlight bulb on that lorry in the time I had it. When I sold it I actually had two blokes from the Emerald Isle arguing as to who was going to give me the biggest cheque.

Now fast forward to a couple of months ago, I ordered my glider kit, hopefully it will treat me as well as the Scania did. As you know I’ve got the CAT C15 6NZ in the new one, an engine superseded in 2003 by the ACERT range, why did I do this and pay a premium for the privilege? Because it’s got a reputation as one of the most reliable engines ever made, it’s as simple as that, it was my number one reason for buying the truck in the first place.

Do you see a comparison here? It’s a similar situation to ordering a Gardner engine at a premium over a new to the market turbo charged engine, the Gardner was proven to be extremely reliable, it could hold its own on fuel use and it attracted a premium when sold on.

The 3yr old, low mileage, well specced Volvo I’ve just sold took almost two months to sell, contrast this to the 11yr old Peterbilt my uncle just sold with 2.3million kms on the clock that sold for only slightly less and was snapped up within a day of going on sale.

That is the reason operators specced a Gardner instead of a ■■■■■■■ or Rolls, they knew exactly what to expect from it, both in service and when the time came to move it on.

Firstly I’m not suggesting that the Scania V8 wasn’t/isn’t a formidable piece of kit.But having said that how does that possibly make the case for putting a 240 Gardner in a Big J instead of Rolls 280,bearing in mind the Rolls wasn’t known for falling apart after 10 miles of use.Let alone the contradiction of Bewick’s choices in which NA ■■■■■■■ went together with turbocharged imports, having clearly said he wouldn’t have wanted a 240 Gardner engined Big J regardless.Let alone then ordering NA Gardner in an SA 401 instead of E290/320 then ditching the whole Gardner ethos on the grounds that Scania is better.When an SA 401 with an E320 + in it wasn’t exactly a no hoper v a 6 cylinder,or even V8 Scania,for example

As for glider kit choices putting an N14 in it if possible,v post pushrod CAT,seems like a no brainer choice to me given its bullet proof reputation and the win win of easier to fix in the unlikely event that it does need any major work ? and I’d certainly pay a premium for that choice.

The common link being that at no point do you seem to say that you were ever interested in running anything with a Gardner in it ?.Which must say something regarding the myth of Gardner engines and what was actually unarguably a boat anchor by the mid 1970’s,it just took some a bit longer to see it.Unlike the situation in 1955.

[carryfast]

cav551:
The naturally aspirated MAN D 2566 MF is an interesting engine with its tuned induction and combustion chamber design. Sadly our dear friend Saviem would have been able to tell us a lot more about it.

Seems to still only manage 55 lb/ft per litre but at least slightly better than the 8 LXB in that regard.

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:

Carryfast:
Great so we know that the Gardner had great thermal efficiency.Which isn’t much use when your competitors,obviously working on the idea that BMEP is king,

Why “work” on that idea? Why “obviously”? “Great efficiency… not much use”- try saying that to any group of engineers, regardless of their speciality.

Carryfast:
…are getting more power, for less engine speed,from less engine capacity

If it takes about 200bhp to drag a 32 ton lump up an empty 1970 motorway at 60mph, with a bit in reserve for the odd hill, more power is unnecessary. The only other parameter of interest is the running cost of the machine, which is a direct calculation from the efficiency, or SFC. The engine speed and capacity are irrelevant, just points of conjecture.

Carryfast:
…to the point of around 210 g/KWh SFC at 260 hp at 1,600 rpm v your less than 250 hp peak power at 1,850 rpm…

Which engine had 210g/kWh and 260bhp at 1,600rpm in 1970?

If you’re right the default choice would obviously now be 44 tonners specced with around 270 hp produced at 1,850 or more rpm with the emphasis all being on peak power output not peak torque and torque spread. Still obviously too much power requirement for an NA Gardner though.While it depends on your definition of ‘the odd hill’.

I think it’s clear that we’re discussing a point in time after the introduction of the Rolls Mk111 compared with the 8 LXB with both being available options in the Big J at that point ?.

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:
That engine makes a more valid comparison with the Gardner than those crude American lumps. I would like to see volumetric efficiency and SFC curves for it. I bet they exist somewhere.

I’d guess that someone with super human maths ability might be able to get a rough figure of what the volumetric efficiency at least couldn’t have been from the specific torque figure alone ( 55 lb/ft per litre ).

As for ‘crude American lumps’ if up to 132 lb/ft per litre potential capability without grenading is ‘crude’ who needs NA Gardner ‘sophistication’.

[bewick]

Dipster:

[zb]
anorak:

Bewick:
You “CF” … are quoting from text books … Cheers Bewick.

He’s not. He’s quoting from hobby books, or snippets he’s heard other noisy people say. I am quoting from textbooks, or snippets that I can remember from decades ago.

I have been happily amused by all this. Years of practical experience (from operators) culminating with a few bob in pockets versus…well what exactly?

It would be very interesting to see the CV of CF, who does seem to duck questions he does not wish to answer. Perhaps then we could all take his proclamations more seriously. Or have I missed it?

Go on CF, answer some of the questions you have avoided and let us all know a touch more about your experience in the real world.

But do, please, continue to keep me entertained.

I’m sorry for maybe insulting the more learned of our Members by suggesting that “CF” was quoting from text books ! When quite rightly he was only referring to knowledge he has read in the Truck Comics and Brochures he has begged from Manufactures, Oh! and “CF”'s CV ? Simples— Pan Crack followed by JSA ! Cheers Bewick.

[newmercman]

You do make me laugh Carryfast, no matter what, you will not accept that there is another way other than your obviously no brainer way.

I’ve just put a custom built truck on the road with my dream specs and according to you, I dropped the wrong engine in it. And yet you have never written a cheque to buy or repair a lorry, so your practical experience of such things could be written on the back of a postage stamp with a 2" brush and yet you know best.

It’s a wonder I manage to stay in business without your expert advice.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[ramone]

newmercman:
You do make me laugh Carryfast, no matter what, you will not accept that there is another way other than your obviously no brainer way.

I’ve just put a custom built truck on the road with my dream specs and according to you, I dropped the wrong engine in it. And yet you have never written a cheque to buy or repair a lorry, so your practical experience of such things could be written on the back of a postage stamp with a 2" brush and yet you know best.

It’s a wonder I manage to stay in business without your expert advice.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Ha ha he wouldn`t
What is the reasoning around the poor resale of Volvos over in the States? Are they not a popular vehicle or is it mirroring over here 50 years ago. How are they received with drivers , I would have thought the comfort alone would swing it. I was watching Ice road truckers 1 night and I heard Alex I think calling a Volvo 1 of those new fancy machines