Well being as there are two other “Foden engine” threads (awaiting abuse from ERF and Atkinson fans), what about Caterpillar? I love 'em, having driven late '80s examples right through to a 2008 C13 fitted in my 972H; If Paccar hadn’t axed Foden, I reckon this motor in an XF would be a winner.
I found the Cat engines I’ve driven to be more economical than the ■■■■■■■ (L10 v C10) but there seemed to be more Fodens with a ■■■■■■■ than a Cat motor in them.
The cat was always popular with tipper firms. Maybe they liked it due to plant connections. Spares compatability and knowledge from fitters.
I always found the l10 and m11 ■■■■■■■ more economical than the cats.
Although a lot of the ■■■■■■■ ones had been set up by a guy who worked at ■■■■■■■ in purfleet and he could realy get them to run sweet.
Cats always pulled well though.
I think you always had to overspec a Cat engine, then drive it sensibly. My Aplha was a 345 C12, a bit of overkill at 26t mgw but I could get mpg out of it. I had a 340 C10 before with crash box and I could get 8.5 with that if I didn’t go above 50-52.
My current ride is CAT powered, it’s a C15 twin turbo and it would pull a house down, it went to 1.1million miles without any trouble, but then it had a head gasket fail, it still got me home, but the decision was made to do a full rebuild as they had it in bits. Since then it has been less than trouble free, the basic mechanicals are fine, but it has a lot of electronic mumbo jumbo in the top end for emissions. (CAT never used EGR, they had a system called ACERT that basically retarded the timing and kept some of the exhaust gas in the combustion chamber, rather than blowing it out and reintroducing it) All this crap is causing constant problems. So far it caused a rocker to break, which fell down, got wedged between cam lobe and head and made a real mess of things 
My own experiences of CATs (over 600,000miles) are that they are an immensely strong engine, but run very rough, they like a drop of diesel and when they do go wrong, they’re expensive to repair, I love driving them, but would not own one 
Evening all, well, Im probably well past my sell by date, and of course my memories are of a few, (classic, or vintage)? years ago.
CAT 10.45litre …loads of potential, light weight, thirsty, never felt smooth running, smokey, individual engines could have idiosyncratic problems, (and Levertons et al, could never really resolve them)! Best thing… junk it, and put in a second hand Rolls Royce, (Perkins)! Yes its heavier, but it was a proper engine, more torque, less fuel.(and I seem to remember that Fodens found more operators prefered this spec in the 8wheelers.
But then if you ask me about the 450hp V8s, that I imported in a variety of Petes and KWs… Well Gentlemen, that engine was something else, and with a double overdrive Fuller behind it,…boy, oh boy,keep you elbows in! Cheerio for now.
Those 3408 V8s were indeed a tool, not as nice a sound as a Scania, or evn the FIAT V8, but just as powerful
My company has just built a glider kit Peterbilt with a big CAT, the engine started out as a C15 ACERT, this had all the emission junk on it, but was also different to the pre emission C15 in that the ACERT models had the C16 crankshaft, increasing the cubic capacity from 14,8ltr to 15.2ltr. The engine was also one of the first ACERTs and was a hand built pre production model. In its current form it has had a new custom ECM (ECU) with all of the emission settings removed, it has a different camshaft and the twin turbo set up has been junked in favour of a big single turbo. it hasn’t been on a dyno, but they reckon power output is north of 700hp 
newmercman:
Those 3408 V8s were indeed a tool, not as nice a sound as a Scania, or evn the FIAT V8, but just as powerfulMy company has just built a glider kit Peterbilt with a big CAT, the engine started out as a C15 ACERT, this had all the emission junk on it, but was also different to the pre emission C15 in that the ACERT models had the C16 crankshaft, increasing the cubic capacity from 14,8ltr to 15.2ltr. The engine was also one of the first ACERTs and was a hand built pre production model. In its current form it has had a new custom ECM (ECU) with all of the emission settings removed, it has a different camshaft and the twin turbo set up has been junked in favour of a big single turbo. it hasn’t been on a dyno, but they reckon power output is north of 700hp
That sounds interesting.Does that mean there’s a way round all the modern day techno emissions bs just by retro fitting a new chassis with any type of power unit of choice after market 
.
Yep
The truck is titled as a current model year. The engine only needs to meet the emission’s regulations of the year it was originally built, so you could order a brand new Peterbilt 389, Western Star or Freightliner Century/Coronado (they’re the only glider kits available) and stick any engine you want under the hood, most popular choice is the Detroit 60 Series, followed by the N14 ■■■■■■■ and CAT C15 6NZ
there is a company in Tennessee that build Freightliner glider kits, nianiamh has one and it’s a proper tool (so is he 
) here’s the link for anyone who wants a look http://www.fitzgeraldgliderkits.com
Schneider National, a huge (over 10,000 trucks) company are having 6,000 Freightliner Century glider kits, all fitted with pre emission DD Series 60 engines 
The only drawback is that they can’t go into California after the end of next year…Unless they fit a DPF to them, but even then it’s a better option than the alphabet soup of EGR, SCR and BS the new trucks have
It seems I may have been conservative in my 700hp estimate as this video shows an engine built the same way as the one in our glider kit
We imported and ran a nice 1994 Peterbilt 377 with a Caterpillar 14 litre 3406E and a ten speed Fuller 'box in 2003. What a fantastic machine. According to the guy I bought it from in South Carolina,the original 435bhp engine had been ‘reflashed’ to a higher output. He didn’t know what it had been reset at,but it felt like 600bhp to drive up hill with a heavy load. It used to run rings around any other truck I ever ran with. It was a bit heavier on diesel than our FH12s but there wasn’t a huge difference at the end of the day. It was also very fast,as 100mph was no problem to it. Parts were cheap and readily available from the US in 48 hours. It was my first experience of Caterpillar in a truck and a good one to boot. The engine was unburstable in my opinion and had stump pulling torque. 50 tonnes plus up steep hills was fun. The whole chassis used to twist with sheer torque reaction when pulling hard uphill. A brilliant engine the Caterpillar,very well built and tough.
I have heard the later ones with the emission systems on them were disappointing,but the same applies to all other engines as far I can see. Those with the foresight and the wherewithall to removing EGRs,DEFs and DPFs seem to have found a way to good productive engines one again as seen in NMM’s posts above
I always thought that when Foden(Paccar) started fitting Cat engines in the 8 wheeler tipper chassis that it was a good idea.The reason,they explained at the time was as the 8 wheeler tipper mainly operated within the construction industry and, by definition, meant operating amongst Plant Hire and Quarrying equipment,which in a lot of cases were Cat powered then the fitters involved would be more at home working on a Cat engine than say a Gardner or ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ IMO, went one step too far by trying to introduce the CAT engine into the general haulage industry which from what I saw at the time was an unmitigated disaster.IMO the Cat engine had been designed for an entirely different application than for automotive use,maybe using the CAT engines in the 8 wheeler tippers was just about as far as was practically possible at the time.Bewick.
Bewick:
I always thought that when Foden(Paccar) started fitting Cat engines in the 8 wheeler tipper chassis that it was a good idea.The reason,they explained at the time was as the 8 wheeler tipper mainly operated within the construction industry and, by definition, meant operating amongst Plant Hire and Quarrying equipment,which in a lot of cases were Cat powered then the fitters involved would be more at home working on a Cat engine than say a Gardner or ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ IMO, went one step too far by trying to introduce the CAT engine into the general haulage industry which from what I saw at the time was an unmitigated disaster.IMO the Cat engine had been designed for an entirely different application than for automotive use,maybe using the CAT engines in the 8 wheeler tippers was just about as far as was practically possible at the time.Bewick.
The problem was that the British market has mostly been an unmitigated disaster because all the accepted laws,of what constitutes a good wagon everywhere else,just didn’t usually apply here.
The question is what was it that made the British automotive haulage environment so different to other parts of the world in the colonies where big power CAT,■■■■■■■■■■■ Detroit motors were all (rightly) just taken for granted and used without a second thought and all of which seemed to have built themselves that deserved premier league reputation over the years (at least until now with all the bs smog regulations in just the same way as they shot their own car industry in the foot during the 1970’s).
My own controversial view being that,unlike in those markets,we’ve always been lumbered with a mostly over conservative penny pinching customer base which didn’t apply in the colonies.
Your own view seems to reinforce that idea in the sense that among the US management and in the colonies putting all the available CAT power options in the Foden for example would have been seen as progress whereas here it would have been seen as an even bigger unmitigated disaster than putting the lesser powered versions in it and if anything that was the CAT Foden’s problem in not being able to take the CAT power options forward with all the big power versions instead of staying with the lesser powered ones based on the over conservatism of the British domestic market.All of which seems to be a similar issue to the one which I’ve frequently raised concerning the Bedford TM’s acceptance in the domestic market.Except this time there’s no excuse by saying that Fodens had no credibility in the market at the highest weight levels.
Like the Detroits CAT diesels had already proved themselves more than capable of being versatile enough to operate in every environment from road transport to marine and everything in between long before they were ever fitted in the TM or in the Foden.The problem was/is all about the specific foibles which only seem to have applied amongst the British customer base unlike in the colonies. 
Riverstick:
I have heard the later ones with the emission systems on them were disappointing,but the same applies to all other engines as far I can see. Those with the foresight and the wherewithall to removing EGRs,DEFs and DPFs seem to have found a way to good productive engines one again as seen in NMM’s posts above
^ This.
I think that,together with working on alternative fuel motors,is going to be the key to the future of the survival of US diesel engine manufacturing at least until until they can get some more sensible people into government over there.
Caterpillar the name says it all.
Right CF,you “fountain of knowledge” please tell me this,how could you shoe horn this lump into a Foden ? I tried to squeeze it into a Borderer but it was a “no goer” so we sent it back to America !!! Cheers Bewick.
Bewick:
Right CF,you “fountain of knowledge” please tell me this,how could you shoe horn this lump into a Foden ? I tried to squeeze it into a Borderer but it was a “no goer” so we sent it back to America !!! Cheers Bewick.
Blimey I thought you were going to say that you’ve actually got a photo of that fitted in a Big J but I reckon you might have had some transmission problems with it later on if you’d have made it fit unless you were going to be running the first diesel electric truck pulling 1/2 mile long roadtrains in competition with the Deltics on the railway. 
But seriously they could turn out just as good road going motors as ones for dozers,tug boats,or gen sets etc etc and the proof is,unlike Gardners,they’re still in the game it’s just that they need another Kennedy or LBJ as president instead of Obama to allow them the opportunity of leaving out all the emissions bs which even if every truck in America was fitted with one couldn’t be as bad as a small operator’s fleet of Gardners starting up on a cold morning anyway.
Thought that post on Cat engines would get you out from under your gooseberry bush CF !!! I bet you are like a dog with a “bladder full of ■■■■ and a street full of lamp posts” with so many engine threads to respond to ( barring abuse on the Gardner one,of course!) ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ only need a RR one and you’ve got the “full house”,Matron will never get you out of the association room to-night and back into your cell,sorry,ward !!Cheers Bewick.
cat,s in finland did not go well,destroied sisu,s reputation for years,hej benkku
bma.finland:
cat,s in finland did not go well,destroied sisu,s reputation for years,hej benkku
Thats what I’ve been saying bma.The CAT engine was a waste of time in automotive form,it was a superb Plant and Generator and probably a Marine engine but not for roadgoing applications ! hej benkku! Bewick.
Bewick:
bma.finland:
cat,s in finland did not go well,destroied sisu,s reputation for years,hej benkkuThats what I’ve been saying bma.The CAT engine was a waste of time in automotive form,it was a superb Plant and Generator and probably a Marine engine but not for roadgoing applications ! hej benkku! Bewick.
Never driven a bad Cat engined wagon Dennis, but then as has been pointed out, we use Cat plant so the fitters (in theory) share knowledge.