Q In considering vehicle replacement we
Page 69
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
are proposing fitting Gardner engines to 16-ton plated four-wheel rigids and 24ton g. v. w. prime movers coupled to singleaxle semi -trailers. While we are confident that 5L 14's for the 16-ton and 6LWs for the prime mover would do the job we consider that sooner or later the Ministry of Transport will enforce a b.h.p. per ton policy with figures of 5, 6 or even 7 being mentioned If so it would then seem better from a long term buying policy to have the 6LW in the 16-ton rigid and the 6LX in the prime mover. This would lower the pay load on the 16-ton rigid to under 9 tons and the artic pro rata while, at the same time, increasing the cost We are anxious to buy right and be able to meet all the Construction and Use Regulations coming into force between 1968 and 1972. Your comments would be appreciated.
AWe support the trend towards higher
powered vehicles and would recommend that the Gardner 6LW was the minimum desirable in a 16-ton gross rigid and the 6LX in the 24-ton gross artic. Using the Gardner 5LW and 6LW respectively would give just about the generally agreed minimum of 6 b.h.p. per ton but you would have a relatively slow vehicle if you were going to get a reasonable lively performance.
There is no indication that a figure for power-to-weight ratio above 6 b.h.p. per ton will be made a legal requirement in the near future. But general opinion is coming round to the view that something approaching 10 per ton will be the eventual pattern.
While we agree that the use of higherpowered engines would reduce your payload it would not seem to do so to the extent you suggest. According to our records the 6LW is about 4 cwt. heavier than the 5LW and the 6LX about 4.5 cwt. more than the 6LW. So the 16 tons gross chassis would weigh in the region of 5 tons even with the 6LW engine so allowing a payload of about 11 tons.