Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [classicrv] Cat 3208

Expand Messages
  • Bill Miller
    OH OK I thought you were saying that the URL was giving accurate facts about the engine in question. I am not always right either. And BTW I only wanted to let
    Message 1 of 36 , Jan 29, 2013
      OH OK I thought you were saying that the URL was giving accurate facts about the engine in question.
      I am not always right either. And BTW I only wanted to let you know that some of the information was ,um, just a little off.
      :) :)

      mainiac bill




      ________________________________
      From: JerryK <regal5575@...>
      To: "classicrv@yahoogroups.com" <classicrv@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 7:56 PM
      Subject: Re: [classicrv] Cat 3208


       
      Bill;  I never said they were "facts".  I just presented it as "info" and another point of view.
      JerryK

      ________________________________
      From: Bill Miller mainiac1946@...>
      To: "classicrv@yahoogroups.com" classicrv@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 6:20 PM
      Subject: Re: [classicrv] Cat 3208


       
      Jerry; Not ALL of those "facts" are accurate. There were three different versions of the 3208.
      But there was a  165HP, a 210 HP and a 250 HP.  The 210 and 250 were the same engine, but the 250 was set at the factory with the Injector pump fully open.
      The other two HP that the guy is talking about were from the big block 3406 I believe.I may not have the number correct but I think that was it.
      The 165 HP was a DOG. The 210 HP was a good engine and with a little care the injectors could be adjusted for more HP without much change in operation.
      The 250 HP was the engine of choice for  10 wheel dump trucks for a long time.

      mainiac bill

      ________________________________
      From: JerryK regal5575@...>
      To: "classicrv@yahoogroups.comclassicrv@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 3:12 PM
      Subject: Re: [classicrv] Cat 3208

       
      Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but what are the facts to back it up.
      Here's some info I found
       http://www.ehow.com/list_7291145_cat-3208-engine-specifications.html
      JerryK

      ________________________________
      From: Wncol2004 wncol2004@...>
      To: "classicrv@yahoogroups.comclassicrv@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 1:45 PM
      Subject: Re: [classicrv] Cat 3208

       
      I found a posting that really bad mouthed the cat 3208.
      Here is their post from the ford enthusiasts forum.

      The Cat 3208 is an absolute turd that could be outrun by a sleeping sloth. They are also throw away motors. It is cheaper to replace the motor with a reman than it is to repair them. Did I mention they are gutless?

      And that was the most polite post about the cat 3208.
      I would say...AVOID IT LIKE THE PLAGUE.

      --
      Warren
      1995 Ford F-350 Centurion 7.3 power stroke diesel dually (Sam).
      1953 Airstream Cruiser Travel trailer (The Runaway Sue)
      Western KY
      Sent from my iPad 2.

      On Jan 28, 2013, at 11:06 AM, lighthousemo at Wildwood lighthousemo@...> wrote:

      > What about this motor- how does it compare with other diesels?
      > I know a little about ford and chevy a lot about cummins but nothing about
      > Cats
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Thomas Phetteplace
      Don t forget IHC had their own 175 HP 5.9 360 T/D too Occasionally they turn up at Salvage yards I m not sure of HP ratings (maybe more than 175 is available)
      Message 36 of 36 , Feb 9, 2013
        Don't forget IHC had their own 175 HP 5.9 360 T/D too
        Occasionally they turn up at Salvage yards I'm not sure of HP ratings (maybe more than 175 is available)
        Try Weller Truck Parts in Grand Rapids Mich. if Weller can't source it NO one can. Can't go wrong with IH power.

        On Feb 9, 2013, at 10:45 PM, "John" <pmcs73@...> wrote:

        > HI! THE MID 80'S BLUE BIRD HAD THE 3208 IN THEIR MOTOR HOMES AND SCHOOL BUSES.
        >
        > I READ YESTERDAY THAT FORE TRAVEL HAD USED SOME 8.2 DETROIT DIESELS IN EARLY 90'S AFTER 3208 WOULD NOT PASS FEDERAL SMOG COMPLIANCE.
        >
        > I STOPPED IN AT OUR MONACO DEALER TO CHECK ON NEW IHC/THOR MOTOR HOME AS IT HAS FRONT DIESEL ENGINE. I HAD THOUGHT THAT IT MAY BE THE 7.3 TURBO BUT IHC HAD BUILT A 250HP FOR THIS SERIES. IF YOU GET THE OPPORTUNITY PUNCH IN BLUE BIRD TO SEE YEARS THE USED 3208.
        >
        > THANKS FOR THE INFORMATION.
        >
        > --- In classicrv@yahoogroups.com, Thomas Phetteplace wrote:
        > >
        > > I've seen quite a few front mount GM 6.2 V8 MH 's
        > >
        > > On Feb 9, 2013, at 12:21 PM, Wncol2004 wrote:
        > >
        > > > Agreed, front mount Diesel engines were and are noisy. I know my 7.3 in my ford F350 ain't a quite beast. But, class C motorhomes were front mount engines of which most were gas. You might find a few rare Diesel engines in there.
        > > > The larger class A motorhomes, the front mount engines were gas. Don't think I have ever heard of or seen a front mount diesel class A motorhome. But they might be out there.
        > > >
        > > > --
        > > > Warren
        > > > 1995 Ford F-350 Centurion 7.3 power stroke diesel dually (Sam).
        > > > 1953 Airstream Cruiser Travel trailer (The Runaway Sue)
        > > > Western KY
        > > > Sent from my iPad 2.
        > > >
        > > > On Feb 9, 2013, at 8:05 AM, "Ted Kroll" tedkroll@...> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > > Warren, Wouldn't a front mounted diesel
        > > > > just be too noisy?
        > > > > Ted
        > > > > ----- Original Message -----
        > > > > From: "Warren" wncol2004@...>
        > > > > To: classicrv@yahoogroups.com>
        > > > > Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 11:38 AM
        > > > > Subject: Re: [classicrv] Re: Cat 3208
        > > > >
        > > > > > Typically in the diesel pusher
        > > > > > motorhomes, they do not use the Ford
        > > > > > 7.3
        > > > > > liter V8 engine. They get better
        > > > > > torque and power from an ole in line 6
        > > > > > like a larger version of what you find
        > > > > > in a dodge pickup with the Cummings
        > > > > > diesel.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Now, a Class C or front mounted engine
        > > > > > class A, again, they typically did
        > > > > > not use diesel engines for some
        > > > > > strange reason.
        > > > > > I guess there probably were a few but
        > > > > > they were not common at all. The
        > > > > > newer front engine motorhomes tend to
        > > > > > have a Ford V10 gas engine. That is
        > > > > > what my dad has now. Ford Chassis with
        > > > > > the gas V10. He says it gets about
        > > > > > 10 mpg but pulls like a diesel. Which
        > > > > > isn't bad at all for a motorhome.
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:21 AM, John
        > > > > > Cargile pmcs73@...> wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > >> **
        > > > > >>
        > > > > >>
        > > > > >> AHA.
        > > > > >>
        > > > > >> SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAVE A VERY GOOD
        > > > > >> HANDLE ON THIS ENGINE. I DID NOT
        > > > > >> KNOW IT
        > > > > >> COULD PULL UP TO 60,000. VERY
        > > > > >> POWERFULL TO DO THAT. I HAVE NEVER
        > > > > >> HEARD
        > > > > >> ANYONE TO BAD MOUTH THAT ENGINE,
        > > > > >> CERTAINLY NOT ME.
        > > > > >>
        > > > > >> AS STATED YESTERDAY IHC IS PROBABLY
        > > > > >> USING THAT SAME ENGINE IN FORWARD
        > > > > >> ENGINE CHASSIS. IN FACT I WILL STOP
        > > > > >> BY LOCAL MONACO TO MAKE CERTAIN I AM
        > > > > >> NOT BLOWING TOO MUCH SMOKE.
        > > > > >>
        > > > > >>
        > > > > >> John Cargile
        > > > > >> (PMCS) Premium Motor Carrier Services
        > > > > >>
        > > > > >>
        > > > > >> ________________________________
        > > > > >> From: Warren wncol2004@...>
        > > > > >> To: "classicrv@yahoogroups.com"
        > > > > >> classicrv@yahoogroups.com>
        > > > > >> Sent: Friday, February 8, 2013 7:58
        > > > > >> AM
        > > > > >>
        > > > > >> Subject: Re: [classicrv] Re: Cat 3208
        > > > > >>
        > > > > >> Lol. I do keep an eye on my truck.
        > > > > >> :)
        > > > > >>
        > > > > >> As you mentioned...The 92 Ford 7.3
        > > > > >> liter was a naturally aspirated
        > > > > >> engine,
        > > > > >> No turbo. Once they added the turbo
        > > > > >> in mid 94. The torque went way up.
        > > > > >> Not
        > > > > >> only that but for a minimal
        > > > > >> expenditure, one can more than double
        > > > > >> the
        > > > > >> torque and horses on a 7.3
        > > > > >> powerstroke. I believe they can
        > > > > >> achieve
        > > > > >> something ridiculous like 500 foot
        > > > > >> lbs of torque and about equal horses
        > > > > >> for
        > > > > >> a cost of about 2000 or so.
        > > > > >>
        > > > > >> But for a standard trans, that much
        > > > > >> torque would burn out the clutch. But
        > > > > >> for me, I'm leaving mine factory
        > > > > >> standard. Plenty of torque for what I
        > > > > >> need
        > > > > >> it to do.
        > > > > >> The 7.3 powerstroke engine was
        > > > > >> actually designed to run a truck with
        > > > > >> a
        > > > > >> 60,000 lb GVWR. They had to tune it
        > > > > >> down to put it in the F350. that is
        > > > > >> why it is so easy to tune it back up
        > > > > >> to higher power and torque. And also
        > > > > >> why they are in such demand around
        > > > > >> here.
        > > > > >>
        > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Bill
        > > > > >> Miller mainiac1946@...> wrote:
        > > > > >>
        > > > > >> > **
        > > > > >>
        > > > > >> >
        > > > > >> >
        > > > > >> > Careful there Warren; You might
        > > > > >> > park that truck someplace and come
        > > > > >> > back
        > > > > >> to
        > > > > >> > find it missing an engine. LOL! :)
        > > > > >> >
        > > > > >> > I once had a 7.3 L in a '92 Ford
        > > > > >> > F450 /W a 5 speed. It had very
        > > > > >> > little
        > > > > >> > torque and I got rid of it. If I
        > > > > >> > had waited one year and gotten the
        > > > > >> > 7.3
        > > > > >> > Power stroke I might still have it
        > > > > >> > , and still be in the trucking
        > > > > >> > business. I moved from the 92
        > > > > >> > F-450 to a BRAND NEW 1985 F-8000
        > > > > >> > with a
        > > > > >> > 165 HP 3208 Cat and 6 speed,
        > > > > >> > pulling a 48ft. flatbed trailer and
        > > > > >> > I
        > > > > >> couldn't
        > > > > >> > get that thing over 55 MPH downhill
        > > > > >> > with a tailwind.
        > > > > >> > Worst POS I ever owned.It was a
        > > > > >> > left over 1985 truck that I bought
        > > > > >> > in
        > > > > >> > 1995. That kind of soured me on the
        > > > > >> > Cat 3208; I should have known there
        > > > > >> was
        > > > > >> > a reason for it not selling for
        > > > > >> > ten years. :(
        > > > > >> >
        > > > > >> > mainiac bill
        > > > > >> >
        > > > > >> >
        > > > > >> > ________________________________
        > > > > >> > From: Warren wncol2004@...>
        > > > > >> > To:
        > > > > >> > "classicrv@...@yahoogroups.com>
        > > > > >> > Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2013
        > > > > >> > 9:49 AM
        > > > > >> >
        > > > > >> > Subject: Re: [classicrv] Re: Cat
        > > > > >> > 3208
        > > > > >> >
        > > > > >> > The newer 6.0 diesel ford uses is
        > > > > >> > crap. This is from a friend of
        > > > > >> > mine
        > > > > >> that
        > > > > >> > has one. Don't wast your $ on the 6
        > > > > >> > liter. To many issues and
        > > > > >> > problems.
        > > > > >> > The Durability is no longer there
        > > > > >> > like in the 7.3
        > > > > >> > Short history of the 6 liter as per
        > > > > >> > this friend of mine.
        > > > > >> > Ford just put em out and had a
        > > > > >> > bunch sold. then they all quit
        > > > > >> > running.
        > > > > >> > Ford tried and tried to fix the
        > > > > >> > problem but no go.
        > > > > >> > So, they sent several Fords with
        > > > > >> > the 6 liter to International (maker
        > > > > >> > of
        > > > > >> the
        > > > > >> > 6 liter) to find out what was
        > > > > >> > wrong.
        > > > > >> > They tried and tried to no avail.
        > > > > >> > Then then removed ford's
        > > > > >> > electronics
        > > > > >> and
        > > > > >> > installed international electronics
        > > > > >> > and it fired right up. Problem was
        > > > > >> with
        > > > > >> > Ford sensors and electronics, not
        > > > > >> > with the engine it self.
        > > > > >> >
        > > > > >> > Not sure exactly why they stopped
        > > > > >> > using the 7.3 I guess it was to
        > > > > >> > noisy
        > > > > >> > and didn't conform to the new
        > > > > >> > emissions regulations and it was
        > > > > >> > easier to
        > > > > >> > use a new engine than redesign the
        > > > > >> > old one.
        > > > > >> > But, I sure love the 7.3 and they
        > > > > >> > are in high demand around here.
        > > > > >> > Farm
        > > > > >> > country. Which drives the value up.
        > > > > >> > Farmers keep eyeing my truck till I
        > > > > >> > tell em it ain't 4 wheel drive.
        > > > > >> > lol.
        > > > > >> >
        > > > > >> > --
        > > > > >> > Warren
        > > > > >> > 1995 Ford F-350 XLT 7.3 PowerStroke
        > > > > >> > Centurion conversion dually crew
        > > > > >> > cab
        > > > > >> > pickup (Sam)
        > > > > >> > 1953 Airstream Cruiser Travel
        > > > > >> > trailer (The Runaway Sue)
        > > > > >> > Western KY
        > > > > >> >
        > > > > >> > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:07 PM,
        > > > > >> > John Cargile pmcs73@...>
        > > > > >> > wrote:
        > > > > >> >
        > > > > >> > > **
        > > > > >> >
        > > > > >> > >
        > > > > >> > >
        > > > > >> > > WARREN;
        > > > > >> > >
        > > > > >> > > I WAS TOLD RECENTLY THAT THE 7.3
        > > > > >> > > TURBO IS FAVORED OVER THE 6.0
        > > > > >> > > FORD
        > > > > >> > > STARTED WITH FOR A FEW YEARS.
        > > > > >> > >
        > > > > >> > > I BELIEVE THEY NOW MAKE A
        > > > > >> > > LARGER/BETTER ENGINE THAN THE 6.0
        > > > > >> > > (TOO RICH
        > > > > >> FOR
        > > > > >> > > MY BLOOD)
        > > > > >> > >
        > > > > >> > > I USED MY OLD BEATER FORD TO TOW
        > > > > >> > > A DOLLY WITH A TONKATOY OVER THE
        > > > > >> > ROUGHEST
        > > > > >> > > BACK ROAD TODAY. MAX SPEED AROUND
        > > > > >> > > 5MPH. IT WAS SO ROUGH THE FRONT
        > > > > >> > > WHEEL
        > > > > >> > > STRAPS CAME OFF AT LEAST 10 TIMES
        > > > > >> > > IN THE 2 MILES. THANK HEAVENS FOR
        > > > > >> > > THE
        > > > > >> > > FRONT AXLE CHAINS. THIS PICK UP
        > > > > >> > > ENDED UP IN MY WATER DRAINAGE
        > > > > >> > > CANAL
        > > > > >> > AROUND
        > > > > >> > > 8:00PM WHEN GUESS WHAT? THE
        > > > > >> > > STRAPS CAME OFF BECAUSE OWNER OF
        > > > > >> > > TRUCK
        > > > > >> TRIED
        > > > > >> > TO
        > > > > >> > > SET EVERY THING IN PITCH DARK AND
        > > > > >> > > DID NOT CONNECT UP THE SAFETY
        > > > > >> > > CHAINS
        > > > > >> > OVER
        > > > > >> > > THE FRONT AXLE. THE TONKA HAS
        > > > > >> > > EXTRA WIDE TIRES SO THE STRAPS
        > > > > >> > > WERE NOT
        > > > > >> > GOING
        > > > > >> > > FAR ENOUGH DOWN THE SIDE WALLS.
        > > > > >> > > JUST LIKE TOO SMALL SNOW CHAINS
        > > > > >> > > THAT
        > > > > >> > B


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.