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

Re: [classicrv] Re: Cat 3208

Expand Messages
  • Warren
    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
    Message 1 of 36 , Feb 8, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      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.comclassicrv@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
      > > BARLY
      > > > PASS THE TOP TREAD
      > > >
      > > > ROAD NOT MAINTAINED AND ROCKS TOO PLENTYFULL AND HIGH SO ROAD COULD
      > ONLY
      > > > BE GRADED WITH A D-10 CAT
      > > >
      > > > THANKS FOR YOUR INFORMATION AND SORRY TO CARRY ON TOO FAR
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > John Cargile
      > > > (PMCS) Premium Motor Carrier Services
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ________________________________
      > > > From: Warren wncol2004@...>
      > > > To: "classicrv@yahoogroups.comclassicrv@yahoogroups.com>
      > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 9:14 AM
      > > >
      > > > Subject: Re: [classicrv] Re: Cat 3208
      > > >
      > > > My 7.3 is a 1995 model with factory turbo and a 5 speed manual trans. I
      > > > believe the first year of the power stroke was middle 1994.
      > > > It has 175k miles on it. Not even broke in good.
      > > > When I got it it needed a new fuel pump but I believe the PO had
      > > neglected
      > > > the fuel filter (covered in mud) and that may have caused the fuel pump
      > > to
      > > > blow it seals. to much pressure to push past the clogged fuel filter.
      > > > It also needed a few other things but, mostly it was fully functional.
      > > > Drives like a dream and runs good. VERY happy with it. Gets 14 mpg city
      > > and
      > > > highway (70 mph). the ole suburban gasser it replaced got 10 city and
      > > > highway (70 mph) and had no where near the torque.
      > > >
      > > > One thing I noticed right off with my ford is...it accelerates faster
      > in
      > > > overdrive from 60 to 70 mph than it does from 0 to 10 in first gear.
      > The
      > > > suburban as with all gas engines, was the opposite.
      > > >
      > > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:46 AM, John pmcs73@...> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > > **
      > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > YOU ARE CORRECT ON ALL MATTERS.
      > > > >
      > > > > I HAVE HAD 2 7.3 TURBO'S AND THEY PERFORM VERY GOOD. MINE IS AN OLD
      > > 1994
      > > > > WITH 294,000 MILES STILL GOING STRONG. HAD TO REBUILD THE AUTO TRANS
      > IN
      > > > > JANUARY AFTER TORQUE CONVERETER SEAL BLEW OUT.
      > > > >
      > > > > I USE MINE TO TOW 2 AXLE CAR CARRIER THAT USED MOSTLY TO HAUL LOGS.
      > > SOME
      > > > > TIMES HAVE TO GO LO LOW RANGE UP MY FINAL HILL TO MY PLACE HERE IN
      > > NEVADA
      > > > > CITY PROBALY TOWING UP TO 8,000 LB GROSS INCLUDING THE TRAILER
      > > > >
      > > > > MY FIRST 7.3 WAS 2000 FORD F250 QUAD 4 WHEEL DRIVE THAT I USED TO
      > TOW A
      > > > > 28' FIFTH WHEEL.
      > > > >
      > > > > SOLD 5th WHEEL AND BOUGHT THE OLDER FORETRAVEL SO HAD NO NEED FOR
      > SUCH
      > > A
      > > > > FINE FIRE ENGINE RED PICKUP.
      > > > >
      > > > > THANKS FOR YOUR COMMENTS THAT THE 3208T CAN BE AN ADEQUATE POWER
      > SOURCE
      > > > > FOR MOTOR HOME.
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > --- In classicrv@yahoogroups.com, Wncol2004 wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Ahh. All I know for certain, is, I love my 7.3. :). But it is my
      > > first
      > > > > diesel. Just passing on what info I could find on the cat.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > --
      > > > > > 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 4:44 PM, Bill Miller wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > > OH c'mon Warren;
      > > > > > > I have run Ford Power-Stroke (International) , Cummins
      > > Power-Stroke,
      > > > > Cummins bif block, and Cat Diesels. The 3208 can be a great engine or
      > > it
      > > > > can be a DOG. There were several different versions.
      > > > > > > If you, whomever, are looking at a Cat 3208, be sure it is the
      > one
      > > > > that goes from 210- 250 HP.and that it will meet the exhaust
      > emissions
      > > > > testing wherever you are going to be traveling.
      > > > > > > There aren't many states left where a 3208 will meet emission
      > > > > standards. They tend to SMOKE a lot.
      > > > > > > The 3208 210 HP is the better of the several versions, but there
      > > is a
      > > > > reason that CAT stopped production on them.
      > > > > > > I think the next later version is a 3216, and that was replaced
      > by
      > > a
      > > > > 3226. The 3226 is a GOOD engine .
      > > > > > > Also, i do not think anyone would be happy with any 3208 in a RV.
      > > > They
      > > > > are quite noisy.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > mainiac bill
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > ________________________________
      > > > > > > 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]
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > > --
      > > > 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
      > > >
      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > >
      > > > ------------------------------------
      > > >
      > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > > ------------------------------------
      > >
      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      > --
      > 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
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >



      --
      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


      [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
      • 0 Attachment
        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.