Are Cat engines overrated and going downhill?
#11
05-10-2008, 12:58 PM
Originally Posted by 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.
Regarding the new Mack trucks, can you say "Volvo engines"?????
__________________
If you can't shift it smoothly, you shouldn't be driving it.
#12
05-10-2008, 01:07 PM
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.
#13
05-10-2008, 01:09 PM
Originally Posted by 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.
__________________
If you can't shift it smoothly, you shouldn't be driving it.
#14
05-10-2008, 01:48 PM
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.
#15
05-10-2008, 03:42 PM
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.
#16
05-11-2008, 04:37 AM
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.
|
