Are Gardner Diesel Engines really that good?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
I thought John Deere sold a previous version of their engines to Lugger.

I was told by an Alaska Diesel/Lugger rep at Seattle Marine Expo that they had to discontinue the Lugger line because they could not source diesel engines that met the current Tier emissions standards.

Alaska Diesel changed their name to Northern Lights to reflect the change in product line. They carry Yanmar for propulsion.
 
syjos said:
I thought John Deere sold a previous version of their engines to Lugger.

I was told by an Alaska Diesel/Lugger rep at Seattle Marine Expo that they had to discontinue the Lugger line because they could not source diesel engines that met the current Tier emissions standards.

Alaska Diesel changed their name to Northern Lights to reflect the change in product line. They carry Yanmar for propulsion.
Click to expand...

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?
 
insequent said:
the 20 could be when an engine is running at optimum efficiency of rpm and load. In real life scenarios it probably comes back toward 18. Eg modest load factors along a prop curve. or even lower for slobbering mechanical engines which might best be left nameless at this point!
Click to expand...

lol
 
Read the full list of post and not any reference to any actual Gardner detail other than quoted fuel specs. Here is a YouTube site that cascades many Garnder engine videos. Perhaps a moment to review one or more that hit one's fancy may provide comfort or satisfaction to the quality of the engines.
Here in Ketchikan there are several commercial trollers who have Gardners and are high in praise of their operations in all aspects, fuel burn being the most satisfactory and low maintenance the close second.
I am aware of one professional source for total engine rebuid. It is a single man shop in Sook, B.C. West of Victoria on Vancouver isl. I have no direct knowledge outside of conversations with two souls both owners of Gardners, who reference this source. He apparently has source for parts, and a repurtation for quality workmanship.
Parts are availabe from England pretty much the only true source as the Canadian sources are or have become scarce.

I leave you folks with this site:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=gardner+diesel+engine

Regards,
Al-Ketchikan
 
A second post. How could you not love this sound and demostration of a Gardner!! And on one cylinder!!!


Al-Ketchikan
 
Wow, smooth as silk. Lovely sound. I heard somewhere that Gardner before making the engine block put the block in a paddock for a couple of years to let it season.
 
My Scania Tier II engine burns 195-205 g/kwh, and at typical cruise is sub 200.


But a good point was made that those figures are presumably on the engine's full-load curve, not the prop curve. But it's still a pretty darn good starting point, and comparable to the Gardner.
 
menzies said:
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?
Click to expand...

It was my understanding that Lugger was doing marine conversions for quite a while before JD realized that they were missing a significant market. At the time the 4 and 6 cylinder versions were available in lower HP and non turbo. Clearly, JD produced a quality product with replaceable liners and a tremendous reputation. Lugger brought it to the marine market and essentially filled a void for a smaller commercial grade engine.

JD realized this was a market they could go after and did their own marine conversion. IMO, the difference between the 2 would be more realized at the upper end of the HP curve. At the range that most recreational displacement hull boats operate, i doubt there's any difference. For most they are operating around 60% of capacity for that RPM and less than 50% of overall engine HP.

Ted
 
Last edited:
Al said:
A second post. How could you not love this sound and demostration of a Gardner!! And on one cylinder!!!


Al-Ketchikan
Click to expand...

Masterful mechanical design!
 
Until today I had never heard of them. The video is nice but can anyone post a few pictures of a "boat size" Gardner. That one in the video looks HUGE.

pete
 
O C Diver said:
It was my understanding that Lugger was doing marine conversions for quite a while before JD realized that they were missing a significant market...Ted
Click to expand...

Yup. We looked at re-powering with a Lugger and this is from part of the discussion I had with them:


"...Lugger models begin life as John Deere Industrial engines, then we marinize the engines to suit our requirements which are somewhat different from the standard John Deere Marine engines, also available to you and standard on all current KK models. Since we have been marinizing the Deere engine for 25 years longer than Deere, we think we know something about what is required for our customers, so we continue to use their engine, done our way"...
 
One thing that hurts modern engines is they need to comply with NOx limits (oxides of nitrogen) and they do that by later injection timing and other strategies. Downside of this is it necessarily increases BSFC. That is part of the reason that modern engines (including common rail) don't really shine in efficiency. They are pretty good, but not better than say a similar engine with mechanical injection that is 20yr old.

Modern engines are capable of the long life and good efficiency that Gardners are known for. They just have to be tuned for optimal efficiency and run at that happy place. Continuous duty rated engines get pretty close.

But none of them make the sweet sound of a Gardner running at 800rpm. And love that sweet sound at tick-over. Got to be something like 300rpm.

I run a 450C Cummins and at hull speed it is 950-1050rpm and about 1.9gph. I was fortunate to have mfr dyno data for that engine and even way below its potential output, the BSFC was still pretty dang good at that point in the map. I don't have Gardner dyno data, but anything below 200g/kW hr is about as good as you can get on smaller engines. I don't remember the numbers for my engine, but it was not much over 200. At its best point in the map it was somewhere close to 200, but that was not an efficient hp level for the boat, like 1600rpm and plowing. Does not really plane out til 1700, still semi-plowing, and planed out nice at 1900 and up. But due to hydrodynamic friction, the engine might be efficient, but the whole boat package is not. 20kts at 11gph is pretty good compared to other boats, but still dang expensive to run there.

Gardner is not the only way to efficiently turn liquid fuel into hp. The small high rpm diesels are generally pretty crappy at BSFC. But larger slower turning modern engines, run loaded similar to a Gardner, are pretty dang good.
 
T210DRVR said:
Thanks! I have a great deal of experience with Cummins 855’s in OTR trucking. I would happily have one of them. My first truck was a 290 HP 855 and it ran forever. The 400 HP variant was also a solid engine but you had to be a bit careful with them. We expected 25,000 to 30,000 hrs (measured in miles) between in frame overhaul.
Click to expand...

Simi 60 said:
They are an outstanding engine but easy parts availability and finding someone who actually knows them when required would be my concern especially in remote regions.

When our vessel was repowered a Gardner was looked into or at least compared but an 855 Cummins was chosen and for that I am glad
Parts for that are, in comparison, easy and cheap.

Saying that, if our vessel was Gardner powered I don't think I would be unhappy.
Click to expand...


We have twin Cummins N855M, continuous duty rated 195hp @ 1800rpm. The 5000 hour oil tests just came back with a “new engine” evaluation. No need for Gardners … :)
 
Here is a blog about a top end rebuild of a Gardner on the Columbia III, former missionary boat, and probably familiar to most of those cruising the Pacific Northwest.

An amazing statement on the Gardner service too.

Fall 2019, The "Gardner Report".
 
In the commercial fishing troll fleet that I fished in for 28 years the Gardner was king. Reasons - reliability, simplicity, long life, low fuel consumption, quiet, low vibration, lots of mechanics around that could work on these engines, and yes pretty. No one liked the price of parts though.

Engines are designed for different types of vessels and there usage in those vessels. I think the original question was on the person looking at a potential purchase with the vessel having a Gardner engine. If the vessel checked out, and the drive train checked out, I would be delighted to own it with the Gardner. Even though it is getting harder to find mechanics familiar with them.
 
Pete Meisinger said:
Until today I had never heard of them. The video is nice but can anyone post a few pictures of a "boat size" Gardner.

pete
Click to expand...

OK Pete,

here's a couple of pics of my 'boat size' Gardner - 6lxb rated 127 HP @1500 RPM.

I'm told this engine left the factory in November 1978.
 

Attachments

  • DSC05565.jpg
    DSC05565.jpg
    123.4 KB · Views: 238
  • DSC04491.jpg
    DSC04491.jpg
    100.1 KB · Views: 185
  • DSC05541.jpg
    DSC05541.jpg
    89.3 KB · Views: 186
Last edited:
eagle419

What a beauty - my smile of the day!
 
Not sure what people see in that engine...performance yes, beauty???
 
Gardners

Hi all, good to see the thread finally return to the motors in question. Waimana is a 40 ton 55 footer with a 6L3B gardner, 70 yrs on. The garner sold me the boat, the kitchen, oops galley sold my wife. I can’t tell you all the fancy numbers, they are the manual on the boat, but it’s rated at 150 hp, max design rpm 1150, and 18 litres. I thought or roughly figured we do 8-10 litrs per hr on any trip including idle time. Recently running off the port tank which receives the return fuel, I put in 40 litres, used 5 for the gen and 35 for 7 hrs run time. = gobsmacked, mind reading quantities off the glass has to be a bit approximate no matter how careful you are.
I have a Carrillo rod in a classic bike, the gardners look better! It is a simple motor, hardly need a mechanic, though I used one to adjust the manual gearbox, also a gardner, ...his advice : run it at less than 900rpm and you'll never see any thing thrown out of bed! For what it’s worth the L 3 is a lower horse older design and the lx models were later design and smaller capacity with higher horsepower and even later they added turbos. It was also used in buses, taxis and trucks. The L3 in loco shunters as well.
Lots of history the reading of which sold me on the motor apart from easy mechanicals and cheap to run. 900 rpm = pknots give or take current and any more is pushing sh.. up hill anyway. Different if you want to plane, but they used int war on PT boats I think at up to 14 knots.
Hope this adds to the thread, cheers, Brian
 
Quote:
"Lots of history (about Gardners) ............Different if you want to plane, but they used int war on PT boats I think at up to 14 knots."



PT boats were powered by Packard 3M to 5M 2500 V12 liquid cooled, gas powered 1200 to 1800 HP engines, derived from the Packard 3A 2500 V12 aircraft engines.

Diesel engines were never considered.

Three Packard engines produced speeds of 40 to 50 knots depending on the amount of weapons the crew added to the OEM weapon configuration.

There was a Navy design contest for boat builders to produce a prototype. Minimum speed required was 35 or 40 knots. They needed the speed to make a surprise attack at night and more speed to make their getaway.

The history of PT boats and their crew are a fascinating subject for boaters since the Navy at first, recruited rich yachting types to command the small boats and a bunch of nonconformist, resourceful men for crew.
 
Last edited:
Pete Meisinger said:
Until today I had never heard of them. The video is nice but can anyone post a few pictures of a "boat size" Gardner. That one in the video looks HUGE.

pete
Click to expand...

Hi Pete, here are two videos of placing a Gardner 6 cyl. in a 42 foot Grand Banks. Trust you will find them interesting. Al-Ketchkan


 
Gardners

My mistake, I referred to english boats which were not the PT you mention.
Don’t quote me but they were perhaps delivery vessels by whatever name for torpedos and without packhard horsepower probably got caned a lot more often than your PT’s!
Cheers, Brian
 
If anyone finds a surveyor that will perform a pre-purchase survey on a Gardner, please let me know.

I have sold numerous trawlers with Gardner engines and have only heard glowing reports from the owners. Have had every one perform outstandingly well on sea trial. However, in the last few years, I have been unable to locate an engine surveyor in the US who is knowledgable enough to perform a survey or one from whom insurance companies will accept the survey. Finding a mechanic for repairs is also difficult, but step 1 is harder.

Judy
 
It will take a special mechanic with specific Garner experience. I had called mechanics in the industry and no one I called knew of anyone who could survey or repair. This is the first I've gotten a referral to Whiticar. I do have a mechanic who can work on them but he is working more of a consultant these days than a mechanic, but he was willing to survey a Gardner for me if insurance would accept a survey from him and no one would.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jointcustody
Help! Sea Trial Findings- hard decision to make
Replies
15
Views
2K
ksanders
ksanders
C
Single wt oil in Northern Lights Generator?
Replies
6
Views
633
Comodave
Comodave
M
1980 36' Steel Trawler $39,000 Everett, Washington
Replies
2
Views
767
Mac2
Mac2
Seabiscuit4
Robert beebe passage maker 56 for sale
Replies
2
Views
3K
Seabiscuit4
Seabiscuit4
D
Holding tanks
Replies
19
Views
1K
syjos
syjos

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom