Are Cat engines overrated and going downhill?

[Midnight Flyer]

I've always been under the impression that Cat engines were the best thing going as far as longevity, pulling power, etc. But it seems like over the past few years some drivers have reported the quality of the yellow engines is beginning to take a nosedive and the newer ones are spending more time in the shop. Also seeing more Cummins engines in some of the premium rigs (Kenworth W900L, Peterbilt 389). Are the Cats overrated or are more drivers realizing the fuel savings of a Cummins versus a Cat? 8)

[Rev.Vassago]

I heard a rumor that Cat is getting out of building Class 8 engines by 2010 (when the new EPA regs go into effect)

[Mackman]

I heard a rumor that Cat is getting out of building Class 8 engines by 2010 (when the new EPA regs go into effect)

There is so much hear say it is un-real.

A buddy of mine is a diesel tech for cat and he said he heard cats was going to be building there own class 8 truck by 2010. He said they were going to buy out a truck maker. But who knows???

[Uturn2001]

I know CAT really shot themselves in the foot when they came out with that C-12 engine. It was an under powered POS that was prone to spending a lot of time in the shop. Cat had really hyped it up as a great regional type engine that was suppose to pull better, last longer and get better MPG than similar offering from Cummins and Detroit but it really fell flat in its face. I know several medium sized trucking companies that bought into it and quickly wished they hadn't and went back to Cummins and/or Detroits.

A far as how good the C-15 is I could not tell you. I have had reports though that CAT had the biggest MPG drop out of all the engines when they had to meet the latest EPA requirements.

[Mackman]

I know CAT really shot themselves in the foot when they came out with that C-12 engine. It was an under powered POS that was prone to spending a lot of time in the shop. Cat had really hyped it up as a great regional type engine that was suppose to pull better, last longer and get better MPG than similar offering from Cummins and Detroit but it really fell flat in its face. I know several medium sized trucking companies that bought into it and quickly wished they hadn't and went back to Cummins and/or Detroits.

A far as how good the C-15 is I could not tell you. I have had reports though that CAT had the biggest MPG drop out of all the engines when they had to meet the latest EPA requirements.

My oldman had a 2001 Pete tri axle dump with a c-12 430hp. motor. It pulled 73,000lbs on everload and it did a fine job. The only problem he had was a turbo blew at only like 140,000miles. Other then that it was a really good motor. Now he has a 2006 Pete with a c-15 475hp. That thing has more then a enough power to get the job done. Has 65,000miles on it and never been back in the shop yet.

[marylandkw]

A buddy of mine is a diesel tech for cat and he said he heard cats was going to be building there own class 8 truck by 2010. He said they were going to buy out a truck maker. But who knows???

I heard this also from a buddy who works at Alban Cat.....but who knows?

[JeffTheTerrible]

A far as how good the C-15 is I could not tell you. I have had reports though that CAT had the biggest MPG drop out of all the engines when they had to meet the latest EPA requirements.

I ran a 2004 model C-15 in a 9900i at my last job before I was called up... the motor itself seemed to work just fine, although the timing did need constant adjustment for a while.. Gregory Poole Cat replaced whatever was defective (I never found out exactly what was causing it), and it didn't have any problems since.
I do know one of our private contractors was having turbo problems with a C-12 (I think it was 420 or 430) which he was running in a quad axle dump (it was an... 02, I think.. Western Star).
But I ran for a bull hauler for a short while, running a truck with a 3406B model Cat, and I think that one was the most reliable of them all.

I've heard the same rumour about Cat developing their own Class 7 - 8 line of trucks, but I'll take it with a grain of salt. I've heard the same thing regarding Ford, and that they were supposed to introduce a line of Class 7 and 8 trucks for the 2008 model year... suffice to say, that rumour has yet to come to fruition.

On a side note, I'd rather run a truck powered by a hamster with an exercise wheel than a damn Cummins. You want to talk about overrated, let's talk about the ISX.

[Double L]

I have a friend who drives for Star Transport out of Morton (Peoria), Illinois. For those who don't know they are a major CAT hauler which is also based in Peoria, Illinois and 99% of their loads are for CAT and CAT does own like 50% of Star anyway. Anyway my friend told me that CAT was gonna stop making Class 8 engines in 2010 and that Class 8 engines make up 1% of their operation and he also said CAT maybe making their own Class 8 truck. Also I heard that the Paccar engines are nothing but a CAT. That is what I know so far!

[Rev.Vassago]

I do find it interesting that many of the truck manufacturers are coming out with their own engines. It makes me wonder why they feel there is going to be a demand for them in the future......

[Double L]

If I was to drive a manufacture's truck with THEIR engine it would be a Mack. They been making their own engines since day one and I rode in alot of Macks ranging from the R series, Superliner, CH, and Vision. Honestly they were great engines and very good work horses and dependable. I've heard the ASET engines 03-06 Mack model's were not good then again the other manufacture engines after 03 have been junk due to the emissions it seems like.

[Kranky]

If I was to drive a manufacture's truck with THEIR engine it would be a Mack. They been making their own engines since day one and I rode in alot of Macks ranging from the R series, Superliner, CH, and Vision. Honestly they were great engines and very good work horses and dependable. I've heard the ASET engines 03-06 Mack model's were not good then again the other manufacture engines after 03 have been junk due to the emissions it seems like.

The engines in the trucks you mentioned were true Mack engines.

Regarding the new Mack trucks,
can you say "Volvo engines"?????

[Double L]

SS you got that right! I remember when Volvo first bought Mack I was worried that Volvo would put Mack out of business. I think alot of people was! I heard good things about Volvo engines so I don't think the Volvo/Mack deal is a bad thing but I have noticed that fleets that ran Mack in their otr fleets are buying Volvos. But either way Volvo and Mack still make great trucks.

[Kranky]

I know CAT really shot themselves in the foot when they came out with that C-12 engine. It was an under powered POS that was prone to spending a lot of time in the shop.

Oh, I don't agree, Jim. The Cat C 12s in the fleet where I work have held up very well.

Cat had really hyped it up as a great regional type engine that was suppose to pull better, last longer and get better MPG than similar offering from Cummins and Detroit but it really fell flat in its face.

The ones we have really kick ass from a power standpoint.

I know several medium sized trucking companies that bought into it and quickly wished they hadn't and went back to Cummins and/or Detroits.

Everyone has their favorites.

A far as how good the C-15 is I could not tell you. I have had reports though that CAT had the biggest MPG drop out of all the engines when they had to meet the latest EPA requirements.

Can't really vouch for the MPG, but we have 3 C15s also and they have plenty of power and haven't given us any problems.

[Drew10]

Well, Ill try to give you my experience with Cats. Given my elementry knowledge beyond the basics of Diesel engines. Quick history, Ive driven 4 trucks for Werner all Classic XL's. 1st and 2nd were Detriot Series 60's, 3 and 4 Cats C15s. Current Classic is an 07 with an 07 engine. During the inital break in period of the current truck it was consuming alot of oil, I guess I would add about 4-5 gallons of oil between oil changes. The engine seems to be broke in and isnt consuming that much anymore. Dont have an actual "feel" for the oil consumption yet.
The C15s seem to pull hills pretty much on par with the Series 60. However, this truck, the 07, seems to pull hills better than my last Classic with a C15 (it was an 05).
When I first got this truck it was fall-winter of last year. Fuel milage was at best, in mid to high 5s. But generally was in the low 5s to high 4s. Now that it is broken in and the temps are warmer it is typically in the high 6s. One trip I took I about a month or so ago, I left from Greencastle Pa, TA. Filled the truck before I left. Drove to Richmond Va delivered (about 11,000lbs) and returned to Greencastle (empty) and refilled the truck. Mileage 7.4 mpg. Granted I was light going down and empty coming back. I wasnt trying to be conservative with the fuel ecomomy. But, I thought that mpg with a Cat C15 in a Classic was pretty good.

[thebaldeagle655]

Company I work for runs mostly Cummins but does have some trucks with Cat in them. They are usually given to the newer drivers who as soon as they figure out they won't be able to get good enough fuel economy to meet our 5 mpg mileage bonus, the driver wants out of the Cat equipped truck. When running with one of our Cat equipped trucks, leaving Denver going West up I-70 over Eisenhower Pass and Vail Pass, I will always tell the driver of the Cat equipped truck that I will meet him on the other side. Mine, with the Cummins will run on up the mountain and never get below about 38 mph, the Cat equipped trucks get down to 25 mph on several of the steeper inclines. I made the mistake of following one over the mountain 1 time and 1 time ONLY!

I also understand that repairs are more expensive on the Cat engines.

[GMAN]

I always heard about poor fuel mileage with CAT's. After running them for several years, I think it is more a matter of personal driving habits than anything else. I just checked the fuel mileage on my CAT powered KW and got 6.71 mpg. My International with a CAT has consistently gotten over 6 mpg. In fact, the last time I checked it I got 6.39 and that is with over 900,000 miles on the engine. I have never replace any of the bearings in the engine. These engines have proven to be the most reliable that I have owned. Fuel mileage is as good or better than I have gotten on the Detroit's I have owned. Since I have never owned a Cummins, I can't offer any first hand experience with them. Parts and repairs can be costly on any of them. I would say that CAT parts tend to be higher than the other counterparts. I have a friend who recently rebuilt his N14 for just under $10,000. My CAT was rebuilt a few years ago for $18,000. He only had about 700,000 on his engine before the rebuild. I would need to compare what was replaced on each engine before I could tell you about the exact cost differences. However, it normally costs more to overhaul CAT engines. They just seem to need to be rebuilt less often than the others.