Gardner now competitive
Page 17
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
I READ with considerable interest Mike Rutherford's article in CM July 24 about Barkers of Essex.
However, I was somewhat horrified to see that George Barker had abandoned Gardner engines in favour of Cummins on the grounds that Gardner had priced themselves out of the market. This I believe is an historical rather than a current situation. It is true that some chassis manufacturers were showing very high differential prices for the Gardner-engined version of their chassis, largely due to the historically poor availability of Gardner engines. I am happy to say that availability is now improved, and even happier to say that over the last 12 months all UK manufacturers have changed their policies and their pricing now relates much more directly to the cost of the engine itself. In addition, we have conscious efforts to ensure that our pricing for engines is in line with the competition.
I fully appreciate that in your article you are simply quoting the words of Mr Barker. My purpose in writing is simply to put the record straight and explain that times have now changed. The Gardner engine now is, by and large; price competitive with its major UK manufactured competition, but still retains its substanital lead in fuel economy. I look forward with great interest to the first road test of our eight-cylinder turbocharged engine, just released at 300bhp. This is probably the first time that Gardner have had an engine directly comparable on power, and the specific fuel figures when compared against the competition show quite clearly that we are well ahead of every other engine manufacturer. In fact, early indications are that the worst points on our fuel curve are better than the best on anybody elses.
T. E. B. CUMMINS L. Gardner & Sons Ltd Manchester