Lawrence Dunbar:
Well said Dennis, Im a Gardner Man through & through, I never had the pleasure of having the 8 LXB, But the 150s I had were tops in every respect, Now if C/F WANTS TO COMMENT ON THIS .He is most welcome, But I hope he keeps stum , The [zb] is driving me to the drink , Regards Larry.
If it was 1958 then it would be the 150 Gardner rather than the AEC 690 which went into my wagon.But if it’s 1974 then it’s the Rolls 280 and not the 8 let alone 6 LXB ( let alone again the even bigger boat anchor of an NA ■■■■■■■ ) which I’d have put into the Big J.While if it’s the early 1980’s then it’s the ■■■■■■■ E290/320 that’s going into the SA 401 and deffo not the even more,by that time,obsolete boat anchor,NA Gardner.
Which just leaves the question how do I convince Scania to start selling it’s V8’s as a loose engine option in North America preferably for use with the 18 speed Fuller.Which my bet is would be a game changer in the Glider market there.
cav551:
Add Volvo electronics to a Fuller gearbox in exchange…? The only similarity between the I-shift and the Fuller is that they are both multi-speed transmissions for heavy vehicles.
The I-shift is not an automated synchromesh gearbox, it doesn’t have synchonisers, nor is it like the Fuller a twin countershaft (layshaft) design. The I-shift electronic control gear matches engine speed to gearwheel speed. The very latest I-shift is a dual clutch design allowing constant torque output. There are also five alternative software programs available, tailored to the type of operation in which the vehicle will be engaged.
Beat me to it, my understanding is that this is based on Volvo’s SR gearboxes.
The advantage is that the electronic control never misses a gear whoever is behind the wheel and by removing all of the syncro hubs the gearbox is also lighter.
Yes I was thinking about it being a great, great grandson of the old SR61 too. The last Volvo box I worked on was an SR1400 from an FL10 IIRC.
Bewick:
But “CF” is a lost cause as he won’t accept any sensible reasoned argument/explanation even from Lads that have been there ,done it, and got the T shirt. As I have said previously “CF” is the only [zb] man in The Regiment that is marching in time ! Cheers Dennis.
You probably won’t like this latest theory then.
I’ve been pondering the Paul Gee photos topic and come to the conclusion that the import invasion and with it the move from obsolete old NA guvnors wagons to more advanced turbocharged imports has actually been understated by the ‘accepted wisdom’ of the Gardner fan club among others.While I’ve possibly over estimated the luddite backward buying policies of a large proportion of the UK domestic haulage market by at least the mid 1970’s and possibly even before.Which then just confirms that the domestic manufacturers played a bigger part in their own downfall than I’d first thought by not meeting that challenge head on in good time by removing all the NA engine types from the options list including obviously putting Gardner out of its misery by that time at the latest.The result as I said should have then been turbo Rolls/■■■■■■■ take it or leave it,let alone putting the boat anchor of the 8 LXB in the Big J.Let alone later NA Gardners in the SA 401.
While as we know in this case even supposedly fanatical Gardner loyalty in reality often mean’t going for the even worse option of NA ■■■■■■■ in the Atki as opposed to 8 LXB in the Big J and then ordering Gardner boat anchors in the 401 instead of ■■■■■■■ E 290/320 before predictably ditching the things and effectively admitting that they actually preferred turbocharged Scanias etc after all.Just like many of their domestic counterparts had done since the early 1970’s.
Edit to add it’s ironic that we had operators speccing the NA Gardner even in the early 1980’s in T45 tippers let alone max weight SA 401 tractors while others were running F88 tippers/bulkers around a decade earlier.
cav551:
Add Volvo electronics to a Fuller gearbox in exchange…? The only similarity between the I-shift and the Fuller is that they are both multi-speed transmissions for heavy vehicles.
The I-shift is not an automated synchromesh gearbox, it doesn’t have synchonisers, nor is it like the Fuller a twin countershaft (layshaft) design. The I-shift electronic control gear matches engine speed to gearwheel speed. The very latest I-shift is a dual clutch design allowing constant torque output. There are also five alternative software programs available, tailored to the type of operation in which the vehicle will be engaged.
Beat me to it, my understanding is that this is based on Volvo’s SR gearboxes.
The advantage is that the electronic control never misses a gear whoever is behind the wheel and by removing all of the syncro hubs the gearbox is also lighter.
Yes I was thinking about it being a great, great grandson of the old SR61 too. The last Volvo box I worked on was an SR1400 from an FL10 IIRC.
So there we have it a helical synchro designed gear train with the synchros having been stripped out.
I think anyone could be forgiven for putting 2 + 2 together and coming up with 5 in that regard.
While also possibly explaining how the I shift got round the reputed ‘noise’ issues which supposedly put the Fuller out of the frame in Euroland.Which leaves the question couldn’t that also leave the possibility of a manual non synchro option for the Euro market for anyone who’d prefer it ?.
Volvo’s use of helical gears was not in order to get around any reputed noise issue with Fuller 'boxes, they had chosen that design. The Fuller was noisy because it used spur gears, very noisy in fact when those gears were rotating quickly. Volvo and others would have taken noise into consideration but also the helical gear’s greater strength and hence ability to transmit torque. The Fuller is in many ways a cruder design, it was certainly an easier beast to strip and reassemble; the job could be done with a bottle of Tippex, a large copper hammer, a pair of snap ring pliers and a couple of lumps of timber.
With the I-shift having taken over the sort of fan base which the Fuller formerly enjoyed I think Volvo would be hard pushed to see a reason to market a manual constant mesh 'box. I suppose we could try putting an I-shift in the Guy behind the 8LXB, but then we could probably achieve similar results with a Voith Diwa.
cav551:
Volvo’s use of helical gears was not in order to get around any reputed noise issue with Fuller 'boxes, they had chosen that design. The Fuller was noisy because it used spur gears, very noisy in fact when those gears were rotating quickly. Volvo and others would have taken noise into consideration but also the helical gear’s greater strength and hence ability to transmit torque. The Fuller is in many ways a cruder design, it was certainly an easier beast to strip and reassemble; the job could be done with a bottle of Tippex, a large copper hammer, a pair of snap ring pliers and a couple of lumps of timber.
With the I-shift having taken over the sort of fan base which the Fuller formerly enjoyed I think Volvo would be hard pushed to see a reason to market a manual constant mesh 'box. I suppose we could try putting an I-shift in the Guy behind the 8LXB, but then we could probably achieve similar results with a Voith Diwa.
I’ve heard just the odd few,probably excessively worn,badly whining Fullers over the years under load but in general the supposed inherent ‘noise’ issues of straight cut v helical is way over stated.With as you say the maintenance advantages of not having to set up the critical meshing of helical gear sets easily outweighs any supposed noise disadvantages.
As for the idea of helical supposedly being stronger than straight cut I’ve always known it as straight cut being unarguably superior in the transmission of torque loadings in that regard.As explained here.
On that note it’s probably safe to say that the manual Fuller is a case of it ain’t broke so don’t fix it and if a driver can’t drive it,which I’d guess is the real issue,then should that driver ideally be let loose with a 44 tonner anyway.So yes maybe the I shift has a ‘fan base’ on the grounds of it’s good for steering wheel attendants but no one should kid themselves that it has anything to do with a proper manual Fuller being supposedly too noisy or weak.
The reason the Fuller works is because it shares the torque between two layshafts. There was and maybe still, is a triple countershaft Fuller box and IIRC a Mack and possibly a Spicer box using the same principle. I also have a vague feeling that Fuller made a synchromesh version of the Roadranger possibly using an aluminium case, I think ERF fitted it around about S prefix, again IIRC it was not a success. However I may be wrong about its existence.
Perhaps the mods may want to cut and paste this g’box theme to fresh thread since it is not GUY related?
Here you are Dennis, a Gardner 8LXB. A friend of a friend of mine once met a chap in a pub who knew a mechanic who swore that this particular engine was fitted into a SoM Guy Big J. 0
A couple of fine shots of the legendary 8LXB which I was privileged to operate quite a number, 100% reliable and economical, but sadly all good things come to an end but they were head and shoulders above the opposition in their heyday ! Cheers Bewick.
Well said Dennis, Im a Gardner Man through & through, I never had the pleasure of having the 8 LXB, But the 150s I had were tops in every respect, Now if C/F WANTS TO COMMENT ON THIS .He is most welcome, But I hope he keeps stum , The [zb] is driving me to the drink , Regards Larry.
I’ll second that. A 150 with a DB on the back of it was a grand machine. Old Fred Chappell had lots of them and they served him well. I once took an Atky. 8 wheel tipper, 150/DB, fully loaded UP Sutton Bank in Nth Yorkshire 1 : 4 gradient. (very naughty). Stopped at the bottom, put it in #1, and let it do it’s stuff, the revs barely dropped.
cav551:
The reason the Fuller works is because it shares the torque between two layshafts. There was and maybe still, is a triple countershaft Fuller box and IIRC a Mack and possibly a Spicer box using the same principle. I also have a vague feeling that Fuller made a synchromesh version of the Roadranger possibly using an aluminium case, I think ERF fitted it around about S prefix, again IIRC it was not a success. However I may be wrong about its existence.
Perhaps the mods may want to cut and paste this g’box theme to fresh thread since it is not GUY related?
Your ‘vague’ feeling is correct cav551. That synchromesh version of the Roadranger is easily identified by the letter ‘S’ in the description code. They were fitted to many ERFs once the EU decibel police had outlawed the constant-mesh 'boxes (including the Twin-splitter, by the way). Personally, I found the S box to be a very poor and disappointing substitute for the superb constant-mesh boxes they replaced. Robert
cav551:
The reason the Fuller works is because it shares the torque between two layshafts. There was and maybe still, is a triple countershaft Fuller box and IIRC a Mack and possibly a Spicer box using the same principle. I also have a vague feeling that Fuller made a synchromesh version of the Roadranger possibly using an aluminium case, I think ERF fitted it around about S prefix, again IIRC it was not a success. However I may be wrong about its existence.
Perhaps the mods may want to cut and paste this g’box theme to fresh thread since it is not GUY related?
Your ‘vague’ feeling is correct cav551. That synchromesh version of the Roadranger is easily identified by the letter ‘S’ in the description code. They were fitted to many ERFs once the EU decibel police had outlawed the constant-mesh 'boxes (including the Twin-splitter, by the way). Personally, I found the S box to be a very poor and disappointing substitute for the superb constant-mesh boxes they replaced. Robert
So there we have it “a helical synchro designed gear train with the synchros having been stripped out”.
I didn’t actually say that what I said was “and by removing all of the syncro hubs the gearbox is also lighter”
I think anyone could be forgiven for putting 2 + 2 together and coming up with 5 in that regard. - because of course what do the likes of Volvo know with their multi-million krona research and development budget. Next time I’m looking to purchase a 44tonne tractor unit I’ll be after one designed and built by the Carryfast manufacturing corporation of Leatherhead
I also agree with cav551 regarding the ability of a helical cut gear to transmit more torque because there is more than one tooth transmitting the torque at anyone time thereby reducing the loading.
Helical gears were developed by Andre Citroen, hence the Citroen logo of two inverted 'V’s on their vehicles. Just a bit of useless info to take this thread even more off topic!
Bewick:
Has anyone ever built one,sold one when new,repaired one,DRIVEN one,or at least seen one or possibly got a photo (side view) showing the 8 potter sticking out the rear of the cab .
Spud1960:
So there we have it “a helical synchro designed gear train with the synchros having been stripped out”.
I didn’t actually say that what I said was “and by removing all of the syncro hubs the gearbox is also lighter”
I think anyone could be forgiven for putting 2 + 2 together and coming up with 5 in that regard. - because of course what do the likes of Volvo know with their multi-million krona research and development budget. Next time I’m looking to purchase a 44tonne tractor unit I’ll be after one designed and built by the Carryfast manufacturing corporation of Leatherhead
I also agree with cav551 regarding the ability of a helical cut gear to transmit more torque because there is more than one tooth transmitting the torque at anyone time thereby reducing the loading.
It’ll never get to market because A frame fuel tankers are not allowed in GB and it is going to need one piped up to feed the Petrol conversion KT series ■■■■■■■ and 18 speed Fuller if it is going to do Feltham to wherever it was at a cruising speed of 175 mph.
Bewick:
Has anyone ever built one,sold one when new,repaired one,DRIVEN one,or at least seen one or possibly got a photo (side view) showing the 8 potter sticking out the rear of the cab .
Here let us all start again and get back on track
And I second your post Gaz ! We are still looking for that elusive “side on” shot of an 8LXB engined Guy Big J and the thread should not be blown off course by un-connected and trivial bollox especially that from the “Leatherhead Sage” aka “CF” ! Cheers Bewick.
Bewick:
Has anyone ever built one,sold one when new,repaired one,DRIVEN one,or at least seen one or possibly got a photo (side view) showing the 8 potter sticking out the rear of the cab .
Here let us all start again and get back on track
And I second your post Gaz ! We are still looking for that elusive “side on” shot of an 8LXB engined Guy Big J and the thread should not be blown off course by un-connected and trivial bollox especially that from the “Leatherhead Sage” aka “CF” ! Cheers Bewick.
If you’d check out the posts you’d see that it was ramone who started the side discussion about gearboxes etc and it’s me who’s gone to all the trouble of putting your topic back on track by diverting that onto the right line.
As for your Big J photo.The problem being that by that time many operators would obviously be rightly more likely to prefer an F88 or a Scania 110 than just creating an even bigger boat anchor engined outdated guvnors wagon in the form of an 8 LXB engined Big J in the day.In which case there’s probably more chance of winning the lottery than finding the required photo of one of the ( very ) few ever ordered and produced.On that note remind us again of how many of the things you ordered.Or at least requested and got turned down because of Gardner’s supposed idea of rationing its products like the pub with no beer v how many turbocharged Scandinavian imports.
) which I’d have put into the Big J.While if it’s the early 1980’s then it’s the ■■■■■■■ E290/320 that’s going into the SA 401 and deffo not the even more,by that time,obsolete boat anchor,NA Gardner. 
