Geoff Weeks

1 hour ago, cruiseliner64 said:

My apoloiges,I spelt Gardner the way it is said instead of the the correct spelling....They have to have been one of the best engines  ever made.Reliaible economical and long life span as well as being a great drivers engine.Maybe a large understressed engine is the way to go......

Paul

No problem, Paul, I am likely the least qualified  person to point out misspellings of other, but having been around them so much, I remember how to spell their name.

2 minutes ago, Brocky said:

Geoff

Go on and say that no one was able to get reliability out of a V configured engine in a variable speed truck application..  In stationary and marine applications where they were under a constant load and operating speed the V configuration held up.

Nope, I will not say that, but I will say I don't like V engines. Mack had good luck with theirs, and Detroit produced many, all in variable speed applications.

I have been inside and all over the LXB, great engines and fuel usage that no other could match until electronics came out and may be not then.

I still have a LXB piston and a head side cover with the Gardner script on it, I was always planning on making a belt buckle out of it.

In the dead of Chicago winters we would take the intake hose off and start a little fire in the intake with lacquer thinner to heat the air, then hit the start button, rush of air would snuff out the flame and draw the fumes in, started real smooth, until the -20F air hit then it ran a bit rough for a few seconds.

45 minutes ago, BOBWhite said:

Not fair to compare it with those engines,

 

I was comparing similar displacement and style (diesel). No they aren't in the same "league", but that was the point.

Medium diesels, until recently, have under preformed, be it the 3208, 8.2, IHC's  550, or Cummins triple nickle. (The Cummins was the best of them) and lets not leave out the toilet bowl, ah I mean toro flow. Notice something? they' re all V engines, most V8's.

The 3208 has the largest displacement of the ones mentioned, and still was mediocre at best.

Not saying it wasn't cheap, in fact I said it in my 1st post, "Ford wanted a cheap diesel".

But comparing engines, displacement and output are the normal things compared, and the 3208 was anemic at best.

The 8.2 is a closer match and was a smaller displacement but gave better fuel consumption.

Sorry if this seam "nit-picky" but it is Gardner, not Gardener, And yes, the mains are bolted up from the bottom and then a stud is run all the way across the block through the main cap, to hold the bottom end tight.

No internal oil passages with the exception of of the drillings between the main and rod journals in the crank. The crank is lubed with an oil pipe running down the center of the crankcase.

The engine can be broken into three sections: Crankcase, block and head, you can pull it apart with the block and head as a unit, or with the block and crankcase as a unit.

The injection pump was special to Gardner, the pumping elements were made either by Simms, or CAV, and you could lock off individual cyl while it was running, or "pop"test the injector without doing anything but pulling the manual handle on the pump. 

When idling in the cold of a Chicago winter, we would lock off 3 cyl and idle on the other three.    

9 hours ago, BOBWhite said:

I think the 3208 got such a bad reputation not for being bad engine, but for what they were put into. Before the 5.9 and 6.7 Cummins that was really your only option if you wanted something compact. Lots and lots of Ag equipment got 3208s, they were beaten up then parked usually due to the machine falling apart around the engine. 

For the same (aprox) displacement you could have a Cummins L-10 or a Cat 3306  and have a far better engine.

Both of those would pull a loaded semi at 80K.

Longer and taller but better suited.

If you look at comparing to a 5.9 or 6.7, you are comparing to a much smaller engine, in the case of the 5.9 almost 1/2 the displacement.

The 3208 was 10.4L

7 hours ago, BOBWhite said:

Did you ever drive something with a Gardener engine? I've alway thought those engines were really neat, wish I could get my hands on one just to look at it 

I worked on a fleet of 6LXB's. I drove a bus from Columbus, OH to Chicago with one.  They are a work of art. Their main drawback is they are large for low power output. Low rev'ing but sips fuel.

Great engines in the correct application.

I checked my supply of SKF, didn't have one that Stemco crossed to, otherwise it would have been yours for the shipping.  I doubt I'll be doing many wheel seals anymore. I had some stock of the ones I used on my equipment.

1 hour ago, Joseph Cummings said:

Van Norman Purr-fect-O 944-S and 977-S have entered the chat, S stands for "Sucker Outer" made for in-chassis cylinder boring. "Purr because you are boring a Cat)

 

Some of these installs have to have access holes/plugs in the cab to get headbolt out, That would preclude any in chassie boring.

Portable boring is nice when there is room to work, and be sure it is set-up accurately, unfortunately, that is a rarity

2 hours ago, tjc transport said:

the real "throw away" engine was the 8.2 detroit fuel pincher V8, those turds were almost useless. a 3208 would run circles around them.

To a point, they also suffered from being put where they were asked to do more then they should. I built a few, and while I wouldn't say they were great engines, by any stretch, At least in NA form, moving a load that was suited to that HP, nothing else came close to the fuel economy.

They were an awkward engine to set up, requiring a lot of special tools.

They were a favorite in Ford F700's for some reason.

3208 isn't a"throw a way' engine, it isn't lined, which means an overhaul is out of chassie. Pistons ride directly in the block, like a car engine. You can over-bore them.

The D950  Kubota, I'm working on still has dry liners. Cat made that engine as cheap as possible for Ford, IIRC, and it was.

I've seen  Cat 3208's listed in the parts or other lit for all kinds of trucks, but very few have I ever layed eyes on.

I think the 3208 could be had in IHC's 9670! Although why is in open question.

It wouldn't surprise me it was offered in the R, it would that someone would want on with that engine.

I went and took my "liner protrusion" gauge I have for checking liner height on Cummins rebuilds, to check the two remaining pistons, one is a few tho proud and the other a few tho under the deck? Hum  could this have something to do with it? Another fractured piston pin!

The replacement pin fitted piston he used have a thinner wall pin then the OEM IZUNI pistons he took out. Weighed them on a scale, 75g vs 100 g.

I can't remember ever seeing two (or even one) fractured piston pins on an engine, let alone one that would still run!

Knocked the old bushing out of the rod with the fractured pin and installed a new bushing, Easiest way to check and see if it is good, Bushing was a snug fit and was honed to size for the OEM pin.

I saw that he also put a big divot in the upper rod bearing shell, looks like he hammered the rod out with a long screwdriver on the shell! So a new set for that rod as well.

So all in all it is looking like:

one set of rod bearing shells

one liner

one used rod

That is it for purchased parts.

re-fit the IZUNI pistons and pins, put the best set of rings on them, and put together, double check the head gasket I have to make sure it doesn't protrude inside the liner, and double check piston to head clearance.

You know you're dealing with a rebuilder who is really proud of his work, when he grinds the OEM stamping of the engine number off and this is the only ID on the engine!

I don't need a better picture, but thanks.

On mine he had flipped the aircleaner around and bolted it with one bolt to the bellhousing where the timing hole cover was. I can see it bolts in front of and below the I/P where there are two hole that just happen to match the bracket for the air cleaner, imagine that?

It seams like anyone and everyone with a small shop was producing these back then. Now the big players bought out the little guys and there are only a few producers still in the game.

Thanks for the picture, BTW, Mine had been messed with and the air cleaner and overflow bottle were moved and poorly mounted. I can easily see how they are supposed to go on.

That is what the little on the internet suggests, but I have no experinace converting "Mack" model number to others.

Wacker LT-4?

No, wait the cabinet is different.

Sorry, I'm no help.

3 minutes ago, jimbo40 said:

Thanks for the manual, its just such a trip that there was no noise, or snap, or bang indicating a failure.

That's the way mine went. I had been driving for 200 miles, came to a stop at the top of a ramp, and no low range!

A cabover it is easier to get the back box off with the trans in the truck.  A conventional it is going to working under the cab.

Ok, you have confirmed that the range syncro is the problem, either the piston/fork is not moving, but more likely the syncro itself has come apart not allowing it to move forward or back

Take the lines off the range section at the back and make sure air is comeing through when you shift the range flipper on the stick

Put it back together and see if it will pull in high range.

In short: if it will go into deep reduction and come out (even to "neutral") then the peanut valve and deep reduction piston is moving.

If it will pull in high range but not low range, (goes to Neutral in low) and you've check the air at the range ports, then it has to be the syncro, if you aren't getting air to the respective hi and lo range ports, then it is likely the slave on the side of the trans isn't shifting position when the main box goes through neutral.

I had one go like that, pulled fine until I went to shift to low range, and got nothing, I could pull in high.  Since on a 15 or 8LL the splitter either locks the LL to the output or the low range gear to the aux shaft output.

Hard to explain in word, but the manual I linked to has good diagrams.