Caterpillar Engines

[eddie_stobart_fan]

Carryfast:

newmercman:

Carryfast:
But seriously what a mess for the company caused by an issue which isn’t really their fault.It’s time the yanks got some backbone and told their government to get off their back because no one there has actually voted for the raving loony green party only the almost as bad Obama lot by a whisker and in which state law should overrule federal law anyway so that’s all the republican ones exempt from all the bs green smog regs to start with.

They seem to be in a type of worst of all worlds situation anyway in which you oder a new wagon then it has to be fitted with all the smog bs then it all inevitably goes pear shaped.But when it has and resulted in a load of costs you can then junk it all and put the thing back to how it should have left the factory anyway free of all the smog bs.Then CAT gets hit with a class action for all the trouble,expense and inconvenience that the customers have all been put through.

Or have I got my facts all wrong .

You are on the right track Carryfast, but with one exception, it is against Federal Law to tamper with the emission control system on any vehicle, so even switching a standard exhaust muffler for a free flow muffler is illegal. Nobody is checking at the moment, but it is still a risk.

That this is necessary is ridiculous, but at the end of the day Caterpillar has nobody but itself to blame for the crap they released to the market, instead of telling the EPA that they were asking for the impossible, they cobbled together a piece of junk and expected the end users to soak up all the breakdowns, that is just wrong

I think they could do a lot worse than to start by thinking about that idea of converting the old two stroke Detroit uniflow design to spark ignition and electric blowers running on LPG than zb’ing about trying to keep the EPA happy by blocking up the exhaust stacks of CAT diesels considering the advances in spark ignition engine management and free flow catalytic converters in recent years.

Well said Carryfast.

[nz_jamie]

Have any of you guys in the UK come across Cat 3306 engines fitted with Jake Brakes,most probably in Fodens?

We had quite a few here in NZ,but apparently they were quite rare. I have a mate in Australia who had never heard of them there.

[zb_anorak]

Just had a read through this thread, having not noticed it before (I was on holiday (not prison ) in mid 2012)- very interesting stuff.

What a shame Caterpillar cocked up ACERT- the idea of doing away with EGR was sound, IMO. I daresay that, if they had not also cocked up the DPF, they would have had the resources to fix ACERT, without buggering their customers about too much.

Contrary to many of the posts here, I would not hold the environmental lobby responsible for the deluge of unnecessary technicalities that have been forced upon the vehicle industry in the past decade. The extra wastage of resources- material and human- would disgust anyone with a a care for the world. The real culprit is the vehicle manufacturing industry itself- it is in the interests of the people who control it (banks, probably) to drum up as much business as possible, and having legislation which forces every maker to make and sell more stuff is a dream to them.

I believe that there is a “code of conduct” within the industry, which obliges companies not to rock the boat. Most firms are in public ownership, so organisations in control of shares may own shares in all of the big automotive suppliers. They all do the same thing, and all are happy. If ACERT had worked, it would have given Caterpillar an advantage over the others, who had all gone down the EGR route, holding hands as the haulage industry paid for it all. Caterpillar, therefore, had to fail, for the benefit of the industry. How about that for a conspiracy theory? It was a bit of a coincidence that Cat’s DPF system was such a disaster, while the others seemed to get away with it, after all.

The environmental lobby does not have the engineering brains to see through the scam, and governments just try to keep the peace. Electric vehicles next, whether we need them or not. The green lobby and the politicians are already singing in harmony. If these new machines take twice as much energy to work, and require twice as much labour to produce, no problem- the more hands on the pump, the more wealth is pumped.

[muckaway]

NZ JAMIE:
Have any of you guys in the UK come across Cat 3306 engines fitted with Jake Brakes,most probably in Fodens?

We had quite a few here in NZ,but apparently they were quite rare. I have a mate in Australia who had never heard of them there.

Yes, one Foden I drove had one but I’m buggered if I can recall if it was the Alpha (actually wasn’t that designated a C12?). I’m sure it was the 4000 series I had before the Alpha. Had the three stage JB on whereas the Alphas were only two.

[newmercman]

The ACERT idea did work and was far more reliable than EGR, it was the DPF that killed of the CAT. My Pete with the C15 ACERT went 1.3million miles before it was rebuilt and it only got done then because the head gasket went and it made sense to do the whole lot while the top end was off. One of its sister trucks is still going now with 1.8million miles and it’s all original and it goes from Winnipeg to Vancouver every week as it has since the day it came home in 2005.

From a driver’s point of view it is a fantastic engine, they pull like a train and the Jakes on the big bore C15 are almost as good as a full blown retarder, my old one is still on its original brake linings and I spent four years running over the mountains to California and British Columbia in it.

They do like a drink though and they are very expensive to fix when they go wrong compared to a Detroit or a ■■■■■■■■ but if they’re looked after properly they go wrong less often, so it balances out. I would never have one in a normal highway truck, even running A trains at 63.5tons as I do, but if was running heavy in the mountains all the time or on heavy haul, I would have a yellow engine and nothing else, but it would be a pre ACERT C16 @ 600hp.

[zb_anorak]

I see now. I assumed that, with the abuse being hurled at the ACERT engine, that ACERT was the source of the problems. Am I also to assume that Cat made a bigger hash of DPF, than ■■■■■■■ or Detroit, hence its exit from the US truck sector?

I get the impression that the whole industry has cocked up, given the problems that Caterpillar, ■■■■■■■ and now Volkswagen have had. These are all major players. It seems that emissions regulations have been allowed to go too far, in that it is difficult for the firms to comply. It would not have been in the industry’s interest to allow such risky conditions to prevail. Is it some natural economic occurrence- the need for a shake-up in a stagnant market? Is there some underlying current carrying a desire give the Chinese a leg-up?

[newmercman]

We discussed that on another thread, it’s built in obsolescence.

And yes it was the DPF that caused CAT all the problems. ACERT was a far better method of EGR, which is basically what it is, than traditional EGR.

CAT is still making legal engines for plant, it just doesn’t do highway stuff anymore. A pretty good decision by them really, when you think about how the North American market has gone over to vertical integration in the last few years.

[carryfast]

If I’ve got it right I think CAT’s are pushrod motors like the N14 ?.Which can only mean that it’s a lot less aggro to strip and rebuild than an OHC Detroit or ISX etc.

On that note as I’ve said I think that both CAT and ■■■■■■■ are missing an obvious advantage in converting their old tech non compliant diesels like the N14 etc to alternative fuelling in that it would provide the best of both worlds in terms of emissions and simplicity/durability.Although that would obviously be counter productive in the case of ■■■■■■■■ investment in the ISX.But I could see a niche for anyone who’d like to try to manufacture a spark ignition licence built version of the N14 or old school CAT.Maybe using the old Gardner or Rolls Eagle name.

In fact I think I might make a few phone calls with the bank manager and across the Atlantic myself in that regard.

[zb_anorak]

newmercman:
We discussed that on another thread, it’s built in obsolescence.

And yes it was the DPF that caused CAT all the problems. ACERT was a far better method of EGR, which is basically what it is, than traditional EGR.

CAT is still making legal engines for plant, it just doesn’t do highway stuff anymore. A pretty good decision by them really, when you think about how the North American market has gone over to vertical integration in the last few years.

Yes, I agree about the built in obsolescence point 100%. I was remarking on the unusual number of large balls-ups made by well-established manufacturers. The plot has not gone to errr… plot, so it seems. On the other thread, I speculated that the legal fraternity might have had some influence in the making of the rules, and been a bit lax with regard to the ability of the manufacturers to comply. Now I am wondering if it is some natural economic effect, or the banks having a bit of fun.

[shirtbox2003]

Do these people who set the emission limits know anything about engineering,i doubt it,and due to the tight limits required then engineers have no choice but to find ways to fiddle or jiggle the results.

[bewick]

Carryfast:
If I’ve got it right I think CAT’s are pushrod motors like the N14 ?.Which can only mean that it’s a lot less aggro to strip and rebuild than an OHC Detroit or ISX etc.

On that note as I’ve said I think that both CAT and ■■■■■■■ are missing an obvious advantage in converting their old tech non compliant diesels like the N14 etc to alternative fuelling in that it would provide the best of both worlds in terms of emissions and simplicity/durability.Although that would obviously be counter productive in the case of ■■■■■■■■ investment in the ISX.But I could see a niche for anyone who’d like to try to manufacture a spark ignition licence built version of the N14 or old school CAT.Maybe using the old Gardner or Rolls Eagle name.

In fact I think I might make a few phone calls with the bank manager and across the Atlantic myself in that regard.

Up until now Caterpillar have mostly escaped the attentions of the Great man from Leatherhead, but no longer ! I just bet the Senior CAT management in Peoria are, right now, ■■■■■■■■ themselves as The Great man now turns his attention to them Cheers Bewick.

[newmercman]

The C range if CATs are OHC.

[carryfast]

newmercman:
The C range if CATs are OHC.

Thanks for clarifying that.I’d guess that it would be the 3406 which would be the relevant comparison with the N14 in that case.

[carryfast]

Bewick:

Carryfast:
If I’ve got it right I think CAT’s are pushrod motors like the N14 ?.Which can only mean that it’s a lot less aggro to strip and rebuild than an OHC Detroit or ISX etc.

On that note as I’ve said I think that both CAT and ■■■■■■■ are missing an obvious advantage in converting their old tech non compliant diesels like the N14 etc to alternative fuelling in that it would provide the best of both worlds in terms of emissions and simplicity/durability.Although that would obviously be counter productive in the case of ■■■■■■■■ investment in the ISX.But I could see a niche for anyone who’d like to try to manufacture a spark ignition licence built version of the N14 or old school CAT.Maybe using the old Gardner or Rolls Eagle name.

In fact I think I might make a few phone calls with the bank manager and across the Atlantic myself in that regard.

Up until now Caterpillar have mostly escaped the attentions of the Great man from Leatherhead, but no longer ! I just bet the Senior CAT management in Peoria are, right now, ■■■■■■■■ themselves as The Great man now turns his attention to them Cheers Bewick.

Picture the scene in the board room.There’s some geezer saying what if we make an LPG fuelled 3406.Why the zb didn’t we think of that.

[newmercman]

Nothing wrong with pushrod engines, they don’t like high rpms, but that is no problem in a diesel or even gas fuelled lorry engine.

Pushrod car engines ain’t bad either, my old Charger with its HEMI went like excrement off a digging implement.

[carryfast]

newmercman:
Nothing wrong with pushrod engines, they don’t like high rpms, but that is no problem in a diesel or even gas fuelled lorry engine.

Pushrod car engines ain’t bad either, my old Charger with its HEMI went like excrement off a digging implement.

Even the idea that push rod motors can’t rev is a myth.Let alone the usual disaster of being lumbered with an OHC head off job especially if it’s a V engine.

youtube.com/watch?v=Y32xxXyRrbc

caranddriver.com/columns/the … ts-its-due

cat.com/en_GB/news/engine-pr … ngine.html

[newmercman]

Slightly tangential, but Geoff’s on the job now, so it was only a matter of time.

I can’t help but think that we’ve gone backwards as far as lorry engines go, they may be all singing and dancing, full of computers and fancy alloys, but they don’t actually do much better than the older simple mechanical engines.

This week I’ve been running with just one trailer and at average kinds of weight, mid 30tons. I did just over 2000 miles between Tuesday and Friday, about the same distance and terrain as a run to Southern Germany and back.

I have a 2014 D13 engined Volvo and it’s full to the eyeballs of technology. My fuel returns, 8.05mpg door to door.

Comparing that to my old 143 which had similar power, it’s nothing special, I could get 8mpg out of that Scania all day long and that was technology developed in the 70s really, the intercooled V8 was released to market in 1983 so the boffins would’ve been messing around for a few years prior to the launch.

So that’s more than 30yrs of development and what exactly have us chaps buying lorries gained?

From my point of view, absolutely nothing, well apart from the new ones cost twice as much, when they go wrong they have to go to a main stealer, sorry dealer, to have the smallest job done, you even have to use them for servicing if you want a hassle free warranty claim.

Tyre technology and aerodynamics have changed significantly over that period and all of that contributes to improved fuel economy, so where has that saving disappeared to? The new lorries should be getting 9mpg due to the savings on those two things alone. Then there’s the improvements from oils to add to the mix, yet we see no improvement in the amount of fuel we use.

I’m sure that if any of the 80s engines were built with today’s fancy alloys and almost zero tolerances, running on low viscosity oils, they would be better on fuel than anything on the market today. If we added EDC then they would be even better.

To drive theses new engines is very underwhelming, partly due to the flat torque curves I know, but they don’t feel like they have the power they claim, going back to my old V8 Scania again, when you put your foot down in that, you knew all about it, but do it in my new Volvo and nothing much happens, it builds speed for sure, but that old Scania would leave it for dead. I would compare my current lorry to a 113-360 rather than a 143, even though it has similar HP to the latter and a lot more torque, all because of the emission crap that has strangled it to the point it is breathless.

[gingerfold]

I find it impossible to understand all this emmissions debate, and I’m sure that I’m not alone in that respect. It’s not just vehicle engines but atmospheric pollution in general. I grew up in industrial Lancashire in the mid-1950s and the Clean Air Act of that decade made huge strides in reducing poluution. Back then virtually every household had coal fires and in Bolton, even though the cotton industry was in terminal decline, there was probably still 50 or 60 mill chimneys belching black smoke from coal fired boilers. The two loacal power stations, coal fired of course, were a sight to behold when generating on full load. Don’t forget steam railways also. So the Clean Air Act started to sound the death knell for coal. Then we had smokey diesel engines and leaded petrol, so all in all goodness knows what toxic and noxious chemicals we breathed in. So we cleaned up diesel engines and banned lead based additives in petrol, and rightly so. Coal fired power stations had to have de-sulpherising systems fitted along with other emissions cleaning equipment. Look at the chimney stack of a coal fired power station today (If you can find one still allowed to operate) and you will see very little visible pollution coming out. Yet it is generating 4 times the electricity of the old power stations that used to be around Bolton. And can anyone explain to me how if a power station burns say 20,000 tonnes of coal a day (such as Fiddlers Ferry) it emits nearly the same amount of Carbon Dioxide because I do not understand the maths behind that. My own feeling is that the big strides in reducing pollution were made 3 decades ago and the current agenda is all about politics and money making. Future generations will look back at this time in history with bewilderement because we are all being conned massively by these global warming charlatans. (I refer you to Piers Corbyn’s Weather Action Website).

[shirtbox2003]

Back to Caterpillar,i see they still make road trucks with the CT13 series engine with overhead cam, are these o.k.? : :

[newmercman]

shirtbox2003:
Back to Caterpillar,i see they still make road trucks with the CT13 series engine with overhead cam, are these o.k.? : :

I’ve no experience of them, I’ve also not seen one on a hook or at the side of the road with the hood open, so they can’t be that bad. They are thin in the ground though and mostly used as a tipper, I’ve seen one tractor unit on heavy haul and it had a big load on it, I assumed that it would have a 15litre engine as it was grossing around 100ton if the axle configuration was anything to go by, a 13litre is a bit puny for those kinds of weights.