User Tag List

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #11  
Old 11-25-2006, 02:28 PM
Bobby's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ca.
Posts: 169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

The way those spec sheets work is you start with a base truck with no upgrades, with it's price and weight.

As you ad upgrades like the bigger engine... it ads cost and weight to the base or generic truck. That's the figures your seeing, Cost and weight over a stock engine.

edit: The zero's represent a standard part included with the base truck, with no increase in weight or price.

My C-15 was 719 lbs over for an 01 model...pre Acert. My sheet doesn't show the cost, but they have gone way up it looks like.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-25-2006, 03:32 PM
marylandkw's Avatar
Senior Board Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 731
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby
The way those spec sheets work is you start with a base truck with no upgrades, with it's price and weight.
That makes sense. That's the good thing about these boards, You can learn something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GMAN
That engine price is hard to believe. It can easily cost more than that for an in-frame. If that is all they cost, then it would be better to just throw the old engine away and buy a new one to drop in when you need a new engine.
Kinda like those new free radiators Solo379 and I are looking for :lol: :lol:
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-25-2006, 03:54 PM
Bobby's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ca.
Posts: 169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

It will also show a savings in weigh. Aluminum wheels on my sheet (24.5's) showed a minus 46lbs front and minus 184lbs rear over the standard steel wheels for example.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-25-2006, 04:41 PM
Ian Williams's Avatar
Senior Board Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Northern NV
Posts: 707
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by marylandkw
Hopefully I don't get flammed for this one but here goes....

Bigger Motors get BETTER fuel economy.

That C-13 will be working it's exhaust pipe off to make those numbers.

The C-15 set that low will barely be working.

Now I drive conservatively with a C-15 rated at 550hp with 4.11 rears and an 18speed and get 7mpg all day and night.

I don't know how much a C-13 costs now a days but the spec sheet in front of me for my new truck (should have it in a week or two) says the C-15 weighs 941 pounds and the line item cost is $12,874
At my work about 3 months ago they turned up the power on our tractors and we actually get better fuel mileage. Here in Reno most of our line runs are going over mountains 80 & 395 or pulling heavy sets of triples.

Now coming home from Sacramento I just get passed by most other rather than all.
__________________
Check Out my Truck Pics:
http://s179.photobucket.com/albums/w303/RedStapler73/
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-26-2006, 12:15 PM
RostyC's Avatar
Senior Board Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

I was getting exited there for a moment, I was gonna order one for my lawn tractor :lol: :lol: :lol:
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-28-2006, 03:03 AM
60363's Avatar
Rookie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cambridge, ON Canada
Posts: 40
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

According to Cat's web site these 2 engines weigh:

Cat C13 Cat C15
2270 lbs. 2890 lbs.

Some posts here referred to much smaller numbers.
__________________
Life is not a sprint, it's a marathon.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-28-2006, 03:21 AM
solo379's Avatar
Senior Board Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,831
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 60363
According to Cat's web site these 2 engines weigh:

Cat C13 Cat C15
2270 lbs. 2890 lbs.

Some posts here referred to much smaller numbers.
Once again, neighbor , it was just the difference, between "base" and "optinal"! :wink:
__________________
Pessimist,- is just well informed optimist!
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-28-2006, 05:14 AM
allan5oh's Avatar
Senior Board Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: jackassville (winnipeg, mb)
Posts: 3,280
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default Re: Cat C13 vs Cat C15: why pay more?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 60363
Cat C13, Multi-torque

80,000 lb GVW
430-hp, 1550/1750 lb-ft
1325 rpm @ 65 mph

Cat C15, Multi-Torque

80,000 lb GVW
435-hp, 1550/1750 lb-ft
1325 rpm @ 65 mph
What's missing is the RPM of the HP and TQ peaks. Also, the c13 might have the same tq and hp, but they may be more "peaky". The c15 will have what drag racers call "more power under the curve".
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-29-2006, 02:09 AM
60363's Avatar
Rookie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cambridge, ON Canada
Posts: 40
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

allan5oh

Peak torque for both C13 and C15 in these configurations is the same: 1,200 rpm.

BUT: C13 with 430 hp and 1550/1750 lb-ft of torque shows TORQUE RISE as 44%/63%; its maximum HP is 445; while C15 with 435 hp shows TORQUE RISE as 43%/61% and its maximum HP is 450.

Cat C13 with 470 hp 1,650 lb-ft of torque has 40% TORQUE RISE.
Cat C15 with 475 hp 1,650 lb-ft of torque has 39% TORQUE RISE.

As you can see there's no big difference still.

But:

Cat C15 500 hp 1850 lb-ft of torque has ... 56% TORQUE RISE.
__________________
Life is not a sprint, it's a marathon.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-01-2006, 06:55 PM
NascarFan's Avatar
Board Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

A buddy of mine used to own a truck with the C13 @ 430HP and said he constantlly got around 5.5 to 6mpg now he has the same truck just with a C15 @ 435HP and gets 6 to 7mpg.
Reply With Quote
Reply





Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 11:31 PM.


User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.