Talk:L. Gardner and Sons

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Greater Manchester Low‑importance

	Greater Manchester portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wot? Still some pictures left? Shame on you!!![edit]

Never mind the time of year, get stuck in and delete the bloody lot. What's wrong with you? Some parts of this article almost make sense. Call yourself a deleter? Weiterbewegung (talk) 11:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What poorly researched and badly written dross[edit]

In case you hadn't noticed, this article 'has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability.Weiterbewegung (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I think the article is well referenced, well written and a positive credit to the encyclopaedia. Have a cup of tea! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is start-class. Someone with specialist Gardner knowledge needs to expand it. The LW and LX machines made extensive use of aluminium, particularly the crank case, which was a separate piece from the steel cylinder blocks. The engines were light for their size. What killed off these sorts of engines was the initial cost, cost and availability of spares. (I can vouch for this as I owned a marine 6LX for many years.) Commercial fishing boat operators liked the reliability and economy, but repair costs were unreasonable. Parts suppliers generally did not hold local stock, and there could be a waiting time of months for parts to be sourced and to arrive. The engines disappeared from trucks in the 1960s and the marine turnover was too small to sustain production and a parts network.220.245.40.163 (talk) 03:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gardner engines most certainly did not "disappear from trucks in the 1960s". I remember seeing loads of trucks with the Gardener badge on the front in the 70s and 80s. They were also still being fitted in a high proportion of busses way past the 1970s.JustinSmith (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]