Are Gardner Diesel Engines really that good?

[rubenova]

Does anyone have any third party numbers on the fuel consumption. I've done several extensive searches and never found anything but factory brochure quotes. A dyno chart, boat test, or even a truck test would do.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Welcome aboard. Can't help you but Gardner engines sure are pretty.

 

[nemier]

This is accurate.

Lugger (NL) chose not to try and meet the new standards so stopped making Lugger brand engines. Lugger Bob was a mainstay on many forums (including Nordhavn Dreamers) prior to the decision and he confirmed their exit.

NL are mainly generators now, plus the Yanmars.

Because I have 2002 twin Luggers I really would like to understand why boats with singles - fishing vessels that ply the grand banks and recreational boats such as Nordhavns, swore by them.

What made the Luggers different from the JD, to an extent that these boats went Lugger rather than JD, or others?

Hello Mr. Menzies.
I have a single Lugger in our Nordhavn 62, so I have researched the topic a little bit. Mr. Bob Senter ("Lugger Bob" is a personal friend of mine). What makes a LUGGER so special is that they developed an engine which has the best-of-the-best concepts, all rolled into one propulsion package. For instance, they would take a Commercial Duty engine -one which is already familiar in industry, and adapt them into marine service, better than anyone else.

A typical lugger is a small package (around 20-30 HP per liter) which can withstand 40,000 hours with absolutely no issues whatsoever. Most people think DEERE when they think Lugger, but Lugger always chose the best commercial block available at the time. Our Lugger has a KOMATSU block, others have TOYOTA blocks, and many generators have SHIBAURA blocks. John Deere agriculture blocks are ofcourse iconic, so they were quite rightly used too.

Lugger engines were developed specifically for the Alaskan fishing fleet which many were designed as a single engine vessels - and therefore "reliability" was the foremost consideration. Of course they were expensive, so in the early years, the recreational market was not really considered. As recreational trawlers started crossing oceans with numbskulls onboard (like me) the Lugger found favour.

Ous is keel cooled, so never sees seawater, and the expansion tank is cupro-nickel so no anodes are required. It has proprietory filters which are superior (and more expensive) than no-name aftermarket brands. Fuel pumps, the best the industry had at the time, and so on with lubrication and breather aspects. I have a small carpet at the side of ours and I can often be seen 'praying' a debt of gratitude towards it. Our LUGGER will outlive me. no issues.

In recent years, as you have already said, Lugger chose not to chase the TIER engine exhaust game, and focused on where they CAN make a buck.

I personally have a love/hate relationship with marine diesel engines (being a sailor at heart), but I have spent the last 10 years studying every brand on the market. I learned a lot from BOAT DIESEL, and everyone on this Forum should be a member. So much great information there. There really is no 'bad' commercial grade marine diesel these days - as long as it's maintained of course, but I do find the Luggers very special.

If I was to do it all again though,,,, I would choose a YANMAR. Yup. Yanmar's are available in every country in the world, and come in every duty rating imaginable, and they do it with Japanese longevity. A Detroit Diesel specialist I know, who runs a MAN service business, confirmed my opinion. I asked him, You and your wife are crossing oceans, money no object, which engine would you choose, Gardiner, CAT, Cummins, Deere, Lugger, DD, MAN, Volvo, etc etc, ? He said Yanmar, confirming what I have learned over the past 10 years. Go find an independent marine mechanic and ask him his personal opinion. Those things just go and go. But in the meantime, I love LUGGER and will continue to wave the Lugger flag. Our boat has been one and a half times around the world, has over 10,000 hours on it, and the each cylinder compression tests as good as new. I can feel my body going into praying mode as I type this. Not one issue from the old girl, not one. (uhm,,, she does shed a little belt dust, but I'm learning to deal with that). I'm rambling now, but Yes, the LUGGER deserves the cult status that you sometimes hear about.

 

[Irish Rambler]

I'm not a dock talker I was a user for many years of the 6LXB (8 Gardner powered trucks) they rev wot at 1950 and have massive torque, overhaul periods are about 7/800,000 miles if serviced correctly.
You can still get ( hand made engineered) parts easily from the UK shipped anywhere in the World. Superb marine engine. Smoke a bit when cold but that soon clears when you get it in gear.
Along came Volvo etc and they were revving out at 3,000 rpm to get the same power and torque, what made them popular was that the cabs on the trucks were far more advanced with sleepers etc and drivers preferred the comfort.
As an example my brother has a 1947 4 LXB marine engine, yes that's correct which has had one set of rings and big ends.
Just listen to it and its pure music to any marine/truck engineer.
Just one point I would make is to increase the water pump capacity as the early ones ran too cool at 7 and 8 pistons. If you need the updated pump PM me and I'll get you the details.

Ironically all the European truck diesels now copy Gardner and rev out at 1950 rpm

 

[FF]

"Ironically all the European truck diesels now copy Gardner and rev out at 1950 rpm"


The use of turbos and electric injection allows all the new engines to be torque monsters ,they highway cruise at 1100 rpm!

 

[Irish Rambler]

Yup, same as the Gardners.

 

[slowgoesit]

Old thread, I realize, but we purchased our 1982 Beebe Passagemaker 50 in January of 2021, just over two years ago. She has a:

• Gardner 8LXB engine, purchased new in 1979, boat launched 1982
• displacement 13.93 litres
• uses straight 30w oil
• 152hp at 1300 rpm
• 173hp at 1500
• Hundested 36" CPP
• Weight of boat with full fuel is right on 87,000 lbs
• Typical cruise between 1150 to 1200 rpm, 7.0 to 7.5kts.
• Fuel burn (including hydronic heat and generator, slightly < 3gph, measured over the last 600 hours.
• I can't speak to availability of parts, as the few we've needed (hydraulic coupling, filters, etc, were readily and economically available pretty much anywhere.

Last year, 3 month trip to Glacier Bay Alaska and back, just over 2,900 hours, total fuel use, (main engine + Espar hydronic heat + generator) was a tad over 1,300 gallons. Didn't refuel until after we returned.

Fun fact: The original bronze gear driven fresh water (antifreeze) pump has two zerk fittings, requiring lubing with Shell Alvania grease . . . . every 2,500 hours. I just lubed it, so I'm good for another 3 to 4 years. I made a note in the maintenance log to relube it at 6,600 engine hours!

I'd never heard of a Gardner before we purchased our boat, but both my wife and I absolutely love it now!

 

[mvweebles]

Mobius posted this "tour' of their Gardner. Nicely done - porn for the inner gearhead geek in all of us.

https://youtu.be/o2NMUWv8tKg

Peter

 

[long-cours.62]

I remember a

Old thread, I realize, but we purchased our 1982 Beebe Passagemaker 50 in January of 2021, just over two years ago. She has a:

• Gardner 8LXB engine, purchased new in 1979, boat launched 1982
• displacement 13.93 litres
• uses straight 30w oil
• 152hp at 1300 rpm
• 173hp at 1500
• Hundested 36" CPP
• Weight of boat with full fuel is right on 87,000 lbs
• Typical cruise between 1150 to 1200 rpm, 7.0 to 7.5kts.
• Fuel burn (including hydronic heat and generator, slightly < 3gph, measured over the last 600 hours.
• I can't speak to availability of parts, as the few we've needed (hydraulic coupling, filters, etc, were readily and economically available pretty much anywhere.

Last year, 3 month trip to Glacier Bay Alaska and back, just over 2,900 hours, total fuel use, (main engine + Espar hydronic heat + generator) was a tad over 1,300 gallons. Didn't refuel until after we returned.

Fun fact: The original bronze gear driven fresh water (antifreeze) pump has two zerk fittings, requiring lubing with Shell Alvania grease . . . . every 2,500 hours. I just lubed it, so I'm good for another 3 to 4 years. I made a note in the maintenance log to relube it at 6,600 engine hours!

I'd never heard of a Gardner before we purchased our boat, but both my wife and I absolutely love it now!

far lover rpm on the Gardner 8 cylinder fited on th e motor sailor "Tangier" around 800rpm for 8.5 kts. And something around 150/160hp

 

[michaelnyc]

OMG..that sound of a finally tuned GARDNER just brought back old memories (with the smells) Back in the late 70s drove a Old Bristol Double Decker bus from London to Katmandu and back for a company called TOP DECK TRAVEL.. the whole fleet of busses were 1950-60 Bristols with GARDNER motors. The Gardner Diesel would never die. We drove one from southern Iran to Paris on 5 cylinders,shook the fillings out of out teeth but we made it. I would switch my Perkins for a Gardner without hesitation !!!

 

[long-cours.62]

The advantage of the Gardner by manoeivring the lever on injection pump we could cut the injection on a choosen cylinder .
The doc for the Tangier's Gardner the first page was not a boat but a ...locomotive !

 

[Insequent]

The advantage of the Gardner by manoeivring the lever on injection pump we could cut the injection on a choosen cylinder .
The doc for the Tangier's Gardner the first page was not a boat but a ...locomotive !

That would have been a Gardner 8L3B. They are 3 litres per cylinder and were designed to be used as shunting locos. Weigh 3 tons, idle at 300rpm.

Slowgoesit has the 8LXB as he noted. More practical for little boats like most on TF have

 

[Lostsailor13]

Possibly

If they good enough for David Cowper then I might have to guess,they really are that good for many reasons

 

[mvweebles]

At the risk of sounding blasphemous, what problem does Gardner solve? I really enjoyed the Mobius video, but I have to say, I was surprised at the number of tubes, connections, hoses and manual adjustments. One of the things I love about the older Luggers is there are very few external connection points for coolant and oil.

I know it's popular to pray at the alter of Gardner and proclaim a higher power. And for the sake of discussion, let's say they are a 30k hour engine. How many of us have worn out an engine where this is important?

Just curious.

Peter

 

[rslifkin]

At the risk of sounding blasphemous, what problem does Gardner solve? I really enjoyed the Mobius video, but I have to say, I was surprised at the number of tubes, connections, hoses and manual adjustments. One of the things I love about the older Luggers is there are very few external connection points for coolant and oil.

I know it's popular to pray at the alter of Gardner and proclaim a higher power. And for the sake of discussion, let's say they are a 30k hour engine. How many of us have worn out an engine where this is important?

Just curious.

Peter

They're simple, durable and quite efficient. IIRC the efficiency is on par with the better modern diesels. That said, they're far from the only good engine choice for most applications (and they're heavy and limited in power, so not suitable for every boat).

 

[slowgoesit]

far lower rpm on the Gardner 8 cylinder fitted on the motor sailor "Tangier" around 800rpm for 8.5 kts. And something around 150/160hp

We have to maintain at least 1050 rpm in order for the CPP hydraulic pump to have enough pressure to control the prop. 1050 rpm with EGT of about 420 degrees F gives us about 6.0 kts. To go slower, we reduce the pitch on the prop, but keep the rpm the same. I don't think it really gives us any less fuel burn though. I don't have figures yet on 6.0kt fuel burn, but we will going down the coast!
Equating hp to rpm for us doesn't mean much as propeller pitch changes the equation. We select an rpm, then pitch the prop to the EGT (pyrometer) temp we like.

 

[Dawdler]

Interesting reading about the Gardner. No personal experience here, but if memory serves, when Tony Fleming was at American Marine (Grand Banks) he had a 42 MY built for his personal use and he installed a Gardner.

 

[Insequent]

At the risk of sounding blasphemous, what problem does Gardner solve? I really enjoyed the Mobius video, but I have to say, I was surprised at the number of tubes, connections, hoses and manual adjustments. One of the things I love about the older Luggers is there are very few external connection points for coolant and oil.

I know it's popular to pray at the alter of Gardner and proclaim a higher power. And for the sake of discussion, let's say they are a 30k hour engine. How many of us have worn out an engine where this is important?

Just curious.

Peter

With Gardner's you get good fuel economy, their BSFC is only matched by some of the best modern engines. But the modern engines are full of electronics. Gardners are mechanical everything, and can be hand cranked if you want to. The lack of electronics is, for some folks, the problem they solve. Provided you are not constrained by emission regs. eg a re-power (OK) versus a new build (not OK) in many countries

Parts availability isn't an issue. People who have the skill set to overhaul them, and possibly do anything more than simple maintenance can be tricky to find. Mobius perhaps drew attention to this.

 

[mvweebles]

They're simple, durable and quite efficient. .

Are you sure? At 1000 RPM, I can imagine they are long-lived. But I have to say, I did not see a 'simple' engne in the Mobius video. Not sure what I was expecting, but I sort of felt like I needed an old-school Oilerman. Efficiency? I have no direct knowledge, but I thought I recall reading that the fuel economy (efficiency) was good but not great.

I've been part of the "OMG - it's a Gardner!" choruse for a while. But what exactly does it do better than my old Perkins or the old Ford Lehmans? The subject line of this thread is "Are Gardners really that good?" What exactly do they do better than a Perkins or Lehman? Sounds like parts' availability is on-par with Volvo, I simply did not see the simplicity component. I definitely buy the longevity factor but question it's usefulness in a world where few put more than 200-hours per year on their engines.

Not trying to be overly provacative, but trying to dig deeper than "OMG - it's a Gardner!!!"

Peter

 

[rslifkin]

Are you sure? At 1000 RPM, I can imagine they are long-lived. But I have to say, I did not see a 'simple' engne in the Mobius video. Not sure what I was expecting, but I sort of felt like I needed an old-school Oilerman. Efficiency? I have no direct knowledge, but I thought I recall reading that the fuel economy (efficiency) was good but not great.

I've been part of the "OMG - it's a Gardner!" choruse for a while. But what exactly does it do better than my old Perkins or the old Ford Lehmans? The subject line of this thread is "Are Gardners really that good?" What exactly do they do better than a Perkins or Lehman? Sounds like parts' availability is on-par with Volvo, I simply did not see the simplicity component. I definitely buy the longevity factor but question it's usefulness in a world where few put more than 200-hours per year on their engines.

Not trying to be overly provacative, but trying to dig deeper than "OMG - it's a Gardner!!!"

Peter

The exposed parts are a good/bad thing. More potential leak points, but also more things that can be tested or fixed without having to tear as far into the engine.

As far as better than something else, other than a small efficiency benefit, it probably isn't better in many applications. And in some applications it would be worse. Like my boat. Gardners won't fit, weigh far too much and don't make enough power. So even if they're efficient and long lived compared to another choice, they just won't work in some applications.

 

[O C Diver]

I suppose if I lived in England, it might be rewarding to own Gardner for my boat. But if I was prepared to invest that kind of money and lived in the USA, I could be just as happy buying and having rebuilt a Cummins 6B 135 HP (non turbo, mechanically injected) or the equivalent 4 or 6 cylinder John Deere. Really don't think you're going to see a significant life expectancy or economy difference, and would prefer not to fly a mechanic in from England, should there be a problem.

Ted

 

[tiltrider1]

Gardener’s and most Luger’s(marinized John Deer’s) are totally mechanical. They are both very good on fuel and both are extremely reliable. I would need to know the exact mission requirements before I could pick a preference. I think I would lean towards the Luger because of simpler maintenance. However, depending on the boat, the Gardener is a work of art.

 

[sean9c]

I don't understand how a Gardener can be any more fuel efficient than any other mechanically injected diesel. Can someone explain?
I read Mobius experience as a cautionary tale. I think it less likely that you'd have that problem with a Cummins or JD and if you did the resolution would have been quicker.

 

[78puget-trawler]

When I was still working in boatyards many years ago now, in Seattle, the well known author Ernest K. Gann bought his classic wood boat the Sea Puss into us a couple of times for odd and ends of work.
I installed a davit on it to help get the dog off and on the boat.

I remember she had a Gardner in it and guys were oohing and awing over it.

EKG is gone now and last I saw the boat was for sale for cheap and in need of much work. Too bad, she was a classic beauty.

 

[rslifkin]

I don't understand how a Gardener can be any more fuel efficient than any other mechanically injected diesel. Can someone explain?
I read Mobius experience as a cautionary tale. I think it less likely that you'd have that problem with a Cummins or JD and if you did the resolution would have been quicker.

Big, slow turning diesels can be a little more efficient. But the Gardner design was also optimized for efficiency at the expense of physical size and power/weight ratio. There are definitely sacrifices to be made if you want that amount of power in a smaller, lighter package.

 

[Caballero II]

Great thread. I wouldn't want to give up my strictly mechanical Lehman 120 or any other good make for a new common-rail or electronic diesel if I were to contract a new build. My take is here in California, a new engine would have to be on some part of the tier system. What I end up wondering about is, what if I wanted to build a trawler with a mechanical only diesel? Where would I find/get one? Are there options to do so other than a needle-in-haystack search for a used engine available on some electronic marketplace for used equipment?

 

[Mako]

I wouldn't want to give up my strictly mechanical Lehman 120 or any other good make for a new common-rail or electronic diesel if I were to contract a new build. My take is here in California, a new engine would have to be on some part of the tier system. What I end up wondering about is, what if I wanted to build a trawler with a mechanical only diesel? Where would I find/get one?

Brand new construction with a mechanical engine, for the US market. Here are some choices:
1) Have the builder install a tiny Tier 3 engine, then after the boat is delivered, pull it out and repower with an old iron horse;
2) Home build you boat in your backyard and install whatever you want for an engine, sourced from the the US of course since you cannot import;
3) Build your new boat overseas with a mechanical engine, and never bring it to the US;
4) Just admit defeat and install a Tier 3 and live with it.

 

[long-cours.62]

Of course

Are you sure? At 1000 RPM, I can imagine they are long-lived. But I have to say, I did not see a 'simple' engne in the Mobius video. Not sure what I was expecting, but I sort of felt like I needed an old-school Oilerman. Efficiency? I have no direct knowledge, but I thought I recall reading that the fuel economy (efficiency) was good but not great.


where few put more than 200-hours per year on their engines.

Not trying to be overly provacative, but trying to dig deeper than "OMG a Gardner!!!"

Peter

I will prefer a Perkins for example we had 8 Perkins 6 cylinder .
simple reliable, AND 700 kgs for 200hp not near 4000kgs like the Gardner.
But the Garner on 110t motor sailor need only(around) 27 lt per hour at 8.5 kts not bad at all.
Perkins and /or Ford Lehlman I saw few on small professional fishing boat at 25000 hours ! Not bad !

 

[Irish Rambler]

In those early days Gardner's were built originally as truck engines, before motorways and the high revving low torque diesels from Sweden with 8 and16 speed gearboxes.
British trucks pulling 32 tons were very basic and weight wasn't a problem, they needed an engine with very high torque curve at low revs as truck gearboxes then had only 5 forward gears.
Because they are low revving they obviously used less fuel and provided they had correct maintenance could last for up to a million (English) miles.
Others saw the benefits and many were installed in generators and work boats, in both cases low noise was a benefit and in a boat low revs gave less vibration.
Many were used by special marine forces around the Greek islands during WW2, chosen for their simplicity and reliability. One old Indian boat was re-engined with a 6LXB and sailed around the Indian Isthmus to attack a German boat in Goa.
There was a film about this called 'The Calcutta Light Horse'.
I just love the unmistakeable sound of a Gardner starting and its enough to bring joy to any engineer.
Because of their low compression they will smoke a little on start up until they reach working temperature, if you wish, this start up smoke can be reduced by adding paraffin to the diesel at a ratio of 80% diesel 20% paraffin.
You don't need to fly engineers anywhere to fix them if the are maintained in perfect condition as injectors and pumps can be fixed by any professional diesel engineers.
The 8LXB sometimes had the last 2 pots running warmer, this can easily be cured by fitting a larger capacity water pump and making sure its cooling system is filled with anti-freeze (even in hot climates) because anti-freeze contains lubricants for the water pump and anti rust chemicals which will keep the water galleries around the engine clean and efficient.
Ironically, all modern truck engines have now abandoned the 2,800-3,000 high revving diesels and finally understood and copied Gardner's low revving (1900 rpm max) high torque principles.

 

[Simi 60]

3 different vessels.

A friend with a 65 ft timber Milkraft hull with single level powered by an 8lxb Gardner runs low rpm and burns around 14 lph for 7.5 knots

Our sister from another father 55ft timber McLaren powered by a 6lxb Gardner runs near full noise for 7.5 knots and burns near 15 lph

Us a 60ft timber Milkraft with a nta855m Cummins - 1850 max, runs at a fast idle
of 1150 and burns around 14lph - I always work on 15lph to allow for occasional Genset use and at times pushing the levers to 1200rpm

Parts and ease of access to knowledgeable tech if needed is where it's at for us.

I can be 1000 miles up Satan's Colon and likely have parts for ours in a few days and find someone to put spanners on it as just about every minesite, sawmill , excavator business, trucking company, big Genset company on the planet has run 855 cummins as part of their gear.

I do know one of the Gardner owners mentioned had an over 12 mths wait trying to source a heat exchanger in civilisation - I can have one in under a week.
And needed a rebuild and had to get guys up from another part of the state to do it. $$$$$$

Don't get me wrong, I'd love a Gardner, but not necessarily if I was going off semi remote to use it.