How does one know when a diesel engine on a big rig needs rebuilding GMAN? I know on a gasoline engine vehicle it's usually when the motor develops an appetite for oil.

I am not a mechanic, but I would consider rebuilding an engine if I started using a lot of oil and losing compression. When an engine starts using oil it seems that it isn't long before it needs a rebuild. If I was suspicious about the engine I would take to a garage that I trusted and have them check it out. You can have them put it on a computer and perhaps do a Dyno and find out what is going on with the engine. It could be something simple. I would not rebuild an engine until it actually needed it. I did have a CAT mechanic tell me that if he owned one of my trucks that he would go ahead and rebuild it due to the high miles. Of course, he could get parts at a discount and do the labor himself. That was about a year or so ago.

I dont know what kind of a ,,overhaul'' that is but i would run away from it as far as i could.

Complete overhaul of any engine runs right around 16K at either Detroit and a bit more on a CAT. Parts alone run over 10K and the rest is the labor. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO OVERHAUL A TRUCK WITH GENUINE PARTS AT THE SHOP WHICH WILL GIVE YOU 2 YEAR WARRANTY NATIONWIDE FOR THAT PRICE unless they use cheap aftermarket parts and do shady service, give me a break.

As a matter of fact, if any shop quoted me that price i would run away from it and not actually believe it and even worse, think about doing my work there.

I'll take my mechanics word over yours thank you. He worked for Caterpillar for 25 years and could probably rebuild it in his sleep. His work on my truck so far has been top notch and reasonably priced. If something breaks I try to limp back home if possible so he'll fix it. I have spoke with other people who feel the same about his work ethic and the job he does. He's more than qualified, and is not "shady service."

Matter of fact, Buffalo Peterbilt tried to tell me I need plungers and barrels when I had them look at a fuel leak on the fuel pump, which I think they wanted 1000.00 to do. Well, that was BS, I limped it home to my mechanic and all it needed was o-rings.

An honest mechanic and an honest plumber are hard to find. I actually have both. :thumbsup:

That is the truth. Some of these garages will rape you if they think that they can get away with it.

Dejanh, a good friend of mine had his Cummins rebuilt about a year ago for just under $10,000. The cost of a rebuild can vary considerable according to what needs to be done. Some of them include a new head and other things which may or may not be needed. Some also recommend replacing all injectors when they rebuild. Parts run around $400 per injector. I would replace a turbo when doing a rebuild, but it may not be necessary. On my truck that would save $1,500 for a turbo. When a dealer does a rebuild they will usually replace everything including injectors, turbo and anything else they can think of. While it may be a good idea, it may not be necessary. The people who rebuilt my friend's Cummins didn't replace the injectors. The mechanic told him that it wasn't necessary. That saved him at least $2,400 just for parts. If you replace the radiator, oil charge cooler, etc., you can run up a pretty big bill. I had a mechanic tell me that he could rebuild my engine with about 30 hours labor. This is a certified CAT mechanic. It should not cost $16,000 to rebuild most engines. CAT told me that they would charge from $9-18,000 to rebuild my engine. If I let them do it I am sure we would be around the top figure. One of my trucks did have a CAT shop rebuild and the bill came to just over $18,000.

The only advantage to having any mechanical work done at a certified national shop is warranty. The problem comes in when it comes time to cash in on that warranty. It is difficult to get them to stand behind a warranty. That being the case, I would opt for saving the money and take my chances. If the mechanic has been certified by the engine manufacturer his work should be as good as any dealer and with a much smaller labor charge. Shops charge based upon a labor rate and time out of a book. A non dealer mechanic will often charge for what time he has in the job. That in itself could save hundreds and perhaps thousands of dollars.

It really depends on the level of rebuild as well, if you're going to do the turbo, head, injectors, front drive, etc...

A "basic" engine rebuild should be around 12k-15k. My Volvo was 13k with genuine Volvo parts, rebuilt by a Volvo dealership. This included the oil cooler, but not turbo, head, or injectors.

I fail to see why you give a crap what anybody else has. if I prefer a cat engine, how does that affect you?

Cheaper is not always better.

You get what you pay for, I've only had 4 trucks in 33 years, all Cats, all went over 1 million miles all never in framed, 2 are still going today.

Why fix something that isn't broke.

That is just awsome!!

I agree. I don't think you can beat their dependability. :thumbsup:

It doesnt matter how good your mechanic is, parts run over 10K for a real overhaul even if he does it for free.

Where did you get that at?

I can give a rats ass what you have, its not costing me anything.


It doesn't, I DON'T CARE.

Where did you get the notion that i DO care? I just said that I dont see the point of owning something that costs more.

But Maniac, there are people with Detroits saying the same, as well as Cummings. Now if that was a trend then i would understand, but since it isnt i still fail to see the point.

If CAT was so darn good they would never leave the business. Mercedes-Benz will always be around even tough it much more expensive to own it, market is still there, emissions or not. Good things last forever, CAt seems to have fallen out with that concept for some reason, least of it being the emissions....

and your wrong......... like I said I'll take his word over yours. Damn dude, listen not talk.

You need to do some checking around if you have been quoted $10,000 for only parts. That is way too high. As I stated earler parts to do an inframe on my CAT were going to cost me around $5,000. Detroit and Cummins should be less.

I am not only talking about upper part of the engine. Quotes that Detroit gave me were for a complete rebuilt of my series 60 which included injectors and a turbo, oil pump,etc..

Detroit Diesel Series 60 Engine Rebuild Kit
Here is KIT that costs $2288, half of what both of you have stated.

I can half ass rebuilt mine for 7000, thats no problem, but with aftermarket parts. Genuine parts are not the ones pictured above as the same parts in Detroit cost almost 8K. That is only half the rebuilt. CAT parts are right there with it also. I have also checked with friend of mine for his Red Top Cummings and it comes out almost identical to my DD60. Difference in parts is what the price of mine and yours is all about.

http://detroitdieselstepup.com/stepupcompetitive.asp

I got that idea when you said that you are glad they are out of business, thus implying that you dont want anyone to be able to buy one

I'm not talking about injectors, turbos and oil pumps. That's where we're getting some confusion I think. Unless they need changed at the time of a rebuild why change them out? Your spending money you don't have to.

Happy New Year guys.

Don't you even read what you write they LEFT the buisness on their own accord, they don't want to deal with it any more, they are tired of hearing people like you saying what a BAD product it is, and how expensive it is.

They would rather NOT make the $$$ than get the bad press, kind of like a mechanic who won't do a cheap repair because you don't want to spend the money to do it right, ever had that happen? I've seen it many times.

They have a solid niche in the dirt buisness, they DO NOT need our buisness.

Do a google search on the topic it is all in black and white, Cat engineers believe you can't make the emissions any better without hurting the reliabililty of the engine.

Cummins and Detroit know this also, but apparently don't care about reliability, why should they, mostly big fleets buy them, and trade them off if they become too costly to keep, something that is harder for one truck operators to do.

Why not look into the reliability of the so called new clean burn engines, you might be surprised.

I've never said they were a bad engine, its just that they cost more compared to others which run just as good. CAT is a good engine, no doubt about it.

I've seen that happen YES.
I doubt tough that they dont want to make money. I do not think that everything what has been said about why they are leaving is correct.

They need any business that they can get their hands on. They have been hit pretty bad with this recession and no one can tell me that they don't need more business.

Thats where innovation comes in. They have been riding a tide for a long time and when it comes time for them to make new technologies they just quit. You don't just quit, you get better.
If all engine manufacturers followed Cats ever so righteous example, you wouldn't have any trucks on the road and this country would come to a stand still. They refuse to adapt to these very challenging times and the world in which environment actually matters.

Most of the truck operators that i know bought these used trucks and are working with em just fine. Not everyone can be like you and me and go out and purchase a brand new one. You make it sound that these trucks are dead meat after the fleets trade them in.
Cummings and Detroit have a reputation that i don't have to even speak about. Cummings RED TOP is the best engine EVER built on this planet and i have experience to show for it. By you pretty much putting them in the category of the ,,bottom feeders'' i think, it damages your reputation as you are not correct, and you know it. All of my money has been made with these engines and i am doing pretty darn good.

It is still early to try and dis credit everything these guys are doing. These technologies are young and will get better. First cars and airplanes were also bad but have gotten better with time. CAT will come back in this business but only when Detroit or these others invent something better that CAT can live with. In nature its called parasitism.

At least i have something to look at and compared it to.

Thats where i differ with alot of people at. While am rebuilding my engine i might as well do the other things which are also worn out, like oil pump or injectors. There is a reason why your truck needs an overhaul. Just like that new head gasket you're gonna put on even though it didnt go out on you, why not the water pump too as it has a life span as well. If you're gonna do an overhaul then do it right so you know all of your parts are new. It will save you ,,mucho dinero'' on the long run.

If that engine has 1M miles on, oil pump has it too and will go out.
Complete overhaul with all new parts is over 16K but what is a $16K investment when you know you're riding good for the next half a mill..?

I never did understand that.

I am glad the weak link is out of the equation as it will increase the market share for those who are willing to invest time and money to do the right thing for our business and stay at it. Instead of people blasting Detroit and all others for their ,,failed'' technologies, they should give them props, as these people are at least putting an effort in innovation and building the new best thing which CAT refused to do.

I cannot make you or anyone else buy something you dont want to. More power to ya if you think youre making the right choice. I made mine long time ago.


Good Luck.

That's hilarious CAT trying to justify their exit as them taking the high road. They simply failed. Their 08 DPF engines were the worst in the industry, fleets had dozens of them parked against the fence. Their market share plummeted from over 40% to around 12% in less than 4 years. That's not due to EPA mandates, that's simply pure failure in the business.

Back in 03 they were the only engine maker to be kicking and screaming about the new emissions, even though they had ~5 years to figure it out. They even sued the EPA. Everyone laughed. Then they didn't meet the deadline and we're putting out "illegal" engines with high fines. Everyone laughed again.

Their marketing was absolutely terrible. Right from 03. "We'll meet 2010 without EGR". 2008 comes around and what do they put in? EGR! Everyone had another laugh at their expense. Any half decent marketing expert would say to never make forward looking projections like that. Kind of like what Navistar is doing now.

ACERT's are well known to be terrible on fuel. Entire fleets were handing them in, going with Cummins.

There was also a truck show a few months before they announced they were pulling out. Their slogan? "We're in it for the long haul". A few months later they announced they were pulling out at the end of 2009. Then shortly after that they moved it up a year. Their market share was shrinking faster than home values. I pointed this out well before they announced the pullout. At this point Volvo was selling more motors.

They were simply stubborn. Made too many forward looking statements, and didn't want to change their platform. Stuck to it too much. Then their platform dive bombed after 08. They had the most problems with DPF. Instead of proper marketing and engineering, they simply pulled the plug.

So to blame the EPA is a joke, because everyone has to meet those emissions. Yes the new engines are less reliable, but the other makers are constantly working on solutions. Cummins put the EGR valve on the cold side, and went with a more refined turbo. Volvo did the same thing. Detroit came out with a completely new engine that is designed from the ground up to meet 2010, and has turbocompounding and the simplest turbo in the industry(unlike their series 60 EGR turbo).

And if they say that Cummins and Detroit put out unreliable engines, and they'd never go with their style engines, what does that say about ACERT when their market share was a quarter of what it once was? Even before they announced the pullout.

THEY FAILED!

We Americans blame everyone but ourselves for our own failures.
CaTS example goes hand in hand with that of a GM and Chrysler where they lost market share to Japanese because they built better cars and had better technologies.
If we wont built that new better engine, someone else will.
Europeans have much stricter environmental laws and they are doing fine. We are refusing to change and that's why we will be left behind.

Country that put the man on moon and built the F-22, the best fighter JET in the world cannot build an engine which pollutes less?






Yeah...right?

I disagree to some extent that it wasn't the fault of the EPA. They did put the mandates on these manufacturers. However, it was CAT who failed to comply even though other manufacturers were able to successfully meet the requirements. I have heard some negatives about the ascert engines. I don't think that I would want one of those myself. I do like the older CAT's. That is the reason that I will likely keep the ones that I currently own and rebuild as necessary. CAT apparently made some strategic mistakes in their engineering and probably miscalculated the result of the court decision to force EPA to back off their requirement. I still question how forcing manufacturers to make an engine that is supposed to have fewer pollutants but use more fuel is efficient. We put fewer pollutants into the atmosphere but use more of the fuel that causes the pollutants? I am still not sure of their science. I think it might be equivalent to the global warming science. In any case, CAT seems to be out of the class 8 road engine business, at least in the U.S. Now, we will have billions of dollars that will go elsewhere to buy engines in other countries rather than providing jobs in the U.S.

I think part of the problem with these auto manufacturers is their arrogance. They assumed that Americans would buy their cars no matter what. They came out with more fuel efficient vehicles in the late 70's and early 80's that looked like boxes. They were poorly built and ugly. It provided an excellent opportunity for Japanese auto manufacturers to take advantage of the market with their sleeker, more efficient vehicles.

Chrysler has been one of the most innovative auto manufacturer in the world. During the late 50's and early to mid 60's they came out with a number of innovations. They lost their focus somewhere along the way. GM has been so heavy laden with bureaucracy that they were more like our government than a business. The 50's, 60's and early to mid 70's were a time of great innovation in this country. We were focused on being the best.

I think with proper leadership and a strong will we can once again become the leader in industry and innovation.

I will attempt to explain this the best I can. The primary gas coming out of our diesel engines after combustion is carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is directly related to how much fuel you burn. It is the only gas or emission that does this.

Nitrogen oxides (NOx, which is NO or NO2 etc..) are an air quality pollutant. NOx contributes heavily to smog. On gas engines NOx can be very easily regulated with a quality catalytic converter. This can reduce NOx production down to nothing due to "stoich" air fuel ratios. Unfortunately diesels cannot use this due to extremely lean ratios. NOx is formed during high combustion pressure/temperatures. Diesels have much higher temperature and pressures than gasoline engines. Therefore our diesel engines produce a LOT more NOx than gasoline engines, and are harder to reduce. The most effective way to reduce NOx is to reduce peak flame temperature. This hurts MPG.

Particulate matter as we all know is the black crap coming out of our stacks. The problem is PM and NOx are directly related, increase the flame temperature and PM reduces, but NOx goes up. The engineers have had to really tweak this. DPF's help with particulate matter greatly.

Those are essentially the three major components of diesel exhaust(there are others such as water and carbon monoxide). What the EPA has mandated is a reduction in NOx and PM. Unfortunately this has hurt our fuel mileage greatly, resulting in an increase of carbon dioxide.

SCR (selective catalytic reduction) that uses a urea-based solution is the other way of reducing NOx. Using this scheme, we can actually increase our flame temperatures, reducing PM and increasing fuel mileage. This results in higher NOx, but we simply take care of the NOx "after" the engine. I am a huge fan of this, and this technology has a lot more potential.

So what is it? Do you want reduced MPG, more carbon dioxide, but cleaner air? Or do we want better MPG, less carbon dioxide, but dirtier air? SCR is an attempt to bridge both problems. I think by 2015 we may be back to where we were in the 2000's MPG wise with much cleaner engines. Until then I'll be driving my trusty 99 Volvo as long as I can.

One thing the EPA and CARB has talked about, is limiting how much carbon dioxide our engines can make, in other words minimum thermal efficiency levels. This would be very welcome, and would be the first time we would be helped by new laws. The problem is NOx, PM, and CO2 output are all a balancing act, and you simply cannot reduce all three at the same time, it is not possible at the current time. But new technology could make it possible. Imagine an extremely clean engine that got 8 mpg? It's possible, just not right now.

Thanks for the information, Allan. I will hang on to what I have as well. I can wait until they work the bugs out of these new engines and get the fuel mileage up.

So far i got a bit over 500,000 miles and averaging just a bit over 7mpg for all miles, running with a dry box Midwest to North East. Is it "terrible" in your opinion? I could do a bit better if i have to.....

You're the exception and you know it! There are some that seem to do OK with the ACERT, but overall they get far worse than most comparable engines. That is taking into account differences in aerodynamics.

I am one person who is happy CAT is not making truck engines anymore, I have one of the 08 engines in one of my trucks and it is the worst engine I have ever had, there has been nothing but problems with the DPF, it is always in the shop, CAT told me when I speced out the truck that the engines are doing great and the fuel economy was going to be fantastic, what a bunch of liars, if I had known then how bad these engines were going to be I would have never bought one. It almost seems like they put no thought into this engine. I would just love to put a stick of dynamite in this truck, or take it back to CAT and tell them to shove it up their ass

Anyway, I have had good luck with older CAT engines in the past but they were never as fuel efficient as the Detroits, which I always found were less expensive to fix than the CATs. My friends who have new trucks with Cummins and Detroits and Mercedes are all really happy with them and the fuel economy

I did pretty good with 3406E, same duty, 6.8 average, for close to a million miles... Once again lucky?
May be it's just that CAT need a different approach from a drivers?

Buddy of mine has ACERT engine and he is pretty happy as well. His engine has two turbos and puts out the same HP as my DD60 with double the headache. His turbo runs close to 1900 a pop, mine is 1200..

A friend of mine has one of the CAT ascert engines in a 379 Pete. He is getting over 6 mpg. I spoke with an owner operator who bought one of the new Volvo's with a Cummins. He could not get more than 4.5 mpg. Some of the new engines are not doing as well on fuel mileage. Some are doing pretty well, regardless of brand.

Thats true. He is getting about what am getting but he is a slow driver and doesnt idle. Transmission has alot to do with it also. More speeds better MPG. I have a 10 speed and thats screwing me pretty bad even tough am getting 6.2-.5 running very heavy.

I would say that you got lucky with the ACERT yes. They're simply not as thermally efficient as other engines. No amount of proper driving can make up for that.

I'm old enough, to know, that not everything is created equal, but how would you explain that difference between Acerts?

Just like every other engines, there are different tolerances as well as small incremental changes cat has made. For example many had problems with the fuel filter base, changing this on certain year ACERTS helped MPG. That's just a small example.

Hey Gman you really ought to change your hood from blue to yellow!

I'm a die hard CAT man too. The 3406 mechanical fuel injected is the best on highway engine in history. Then the government got involved and ruined the state of the art.
Blowing your exhaust into your intake makes absolutely no sense. Try sticking a hose up your azz and the other end down your throat and see how well you perform!

You guys pay too much for CAT parts. I get mine from my KW dealer if I can. It's cheaper than the CAT house. The CAT engine tools are expensive too. $1500 sounds about right for a turbo from CAT. Get the exact same one from Borg Warner (Schwitzer) for half that.

Why shop at Macy's when you can go to Walmart?!

Anyway all I can say is my 3406C never left me on the side of the road in 15 years. I have passed countless new trucks pulling steep grades as they drop by the wayside. The fact that a 15-20 year old engine will outperform a new one says volumes. CAT is still king.

They still make 3406Bs for export generator use. Just change some fuel pump parts and you have a top notch truck motor.

The only thing I am worried about is the government outlawing my engine. Not sure I want to invest $25K in a new zero emission engine that's bound to give more trouble than it's worth.

I have a c-15 Acert that I am pretty happy with

ssshhhh, dont tell anybody