Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38
|
02-02-2006, 21:37
Post: #11
|
|||
|
|||
Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38
The mpg on my 91 PT-40 has ranged from a low of high 4 mpg to low 6 mpg. I
don't think that 2 fill ups will give you an accurate evaluation. There are too many variables. How you drive, what you are carry on board, what you are towing and how was your patience on letting all of the foam disperse when you fill up. When I took the time I have nursed in 20+ gallons into the tank once the nozzle clicked off. I have put 25K on the coach over the last 2.5 years and having kept track feel that if I drive like my wife prefers ( around 60 mph...remember if you get in a hurry in a RV you need to reconsider your priorities) we get from the high 5's to low 6's. We would only see 8 mpg down hill with a tail wind coasting in neutral. You didn't buy it for the mpg. If that were your consideration buy a fiberglass coach and get the extra 1-2 mpg. You are still ahead of the game in the Bird when you consider that the fiberglass coach will depreciate into a net nothing (scrap) value and the Vintage bird will retain its base value. You bought to enjoy and travel...sooooo enjoy and travel and don't sweat the mpg. You gotta pay to play in any endeavor. john redden 91 PT40 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|||
02-02-2006, 23:43
Post: #12
|
|||
|
|||
Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38
Hi Andy,
On a good day, I get around 5 mpg in my '86 38' PT, fully loaded, and pulling a 24' enclosed trailer with a sand car, quads, and gear (about a 6000lb trailer and load). Unloaded, I don't ever remember getting any better that 6mpg. Although it probably doesn't matter much, I run my generator about 1/3rd of the time when driving (to run the A/C's), and about 3-4hrs a day to cook, and charge the batts because 90% of our travels and destinations involve no hookups. I think the 8V92 traditionally gets around 4-6 MPG, the 6V92 6-8 MPG, and the 3208 CAT in the range of 6-10 (give or take a little, and depending on terrain, speed, and load) I try to soften the shock at the pump by filling often...pumping 50 gallons a couple different times vs. getting 200 gallons at once. Silly as it sounds, I don't feel so bad getting fuel this way! Remember, these vehicles weigh twice as much and are 10 times safer than the plastic palaces and sticks-and-staples on the road right now. I'll sacrifice a little MPG over safety any day. Good luck...big decision! Kevin McKeown Yorba Linda, CA 1986 38' PT [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|||
02-03-2006, 06:20
Post: #13
|
|||
|
|||
Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38
Thanks for the GREAT link on diesel motors, Tom. I have 30 years
experience with marine diesel applications. The article you posted may be the most comprehensive and concise piece on diesels I have ever read. I am in complete agreement with it's assesments and summarys. Thanks again. -James 78FC33SB LasVegas NV --- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, Tom Warner wrote: > > Everyone might find this interesting even though it is comparing > diesel marine versions of these engines. > http://www.frybrid.com/forum/showthread.php?t=399 > > Tom Warner > 1982 FC35 > Vernon center,NY |
|||
02-03-2006, 07:03
Post: #14
|
|||
|
|||
Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38
Now you've done it.
MH ----- Original Message ----- From: orbitalsolutions To: WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 12:20 PM Subject: [WanderlodgeForum] Re: Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38 Thanks for the GREAT link on diesel motors, Tom. I have 30 years experience with marine diesel applications. The article you posted may be the most comprehensive and concise piece on diesels I have ever read. I am in complete agreement with it's assesments and summarys. Thanks again. -James 78FC33SB LasVegas NV --- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, Tom Warner wrote: > > Everyone might find this interesting even though it is comparing > diesel marine versions of these engines. > http://www.frybrid.com/forum/showthread.php?t=399 > > Tom Warner > 1982 FC35 > Vernon center,NY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS a.. Visit your group "WanderlodgeForum" on the web. b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: WanderlodgeForum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|||
02-03-2006, 10:31
Post: #15
|
|||
|
|||
Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38
My 82 FC with 225 hp turbo 3208 consistently gets 8mpg. I am amazed
that is better than the PT's. I would have expected the opposite, since the under-powered FC's require a foot to the floor pretty much all the time. Learn something new here every day. Scott Forman 82 FC35RB Memphis --- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, krminyl@... wrote: > > Hi Andy, > > On a good day, I get around 5 mpg in my '86 38' PT, fully loaded, and > pulling a 24' enclosed trailer with a sand car, quads, and gear (about a 6000lb > trailer and load). Unloaded, I don't ever remember getting any better that > 6mpg. Although it probably doesn't matter much, I run my generator about 1/3rd > of the time when driving (to run the A/C's), and about 3-4hrs a day to cook, > and charge the batts because 90% of our travels and destinations involve no > hookups. I think the 8V92 traditionally gets around 4-6 MPG, the 6V92 6-8 MPG, > and the 3208 CAT in the range of 6-10 (give or take a little, and depending > on terrain, speed, and load) > > I try to soften the shock at the pump by filling often...pumping 50 gallons > a couple different times vs. getting 200 gallons at once. Silly as it > sounds, I don't feel so bad getting fuel this way! Remember, these vehicles weigh > twice as much and are 10 times safer than the plastic palaces and > sticks-and-staples on the road right now. I'll sacrifice a little MPG over safety any > day. > > > Good luck...big decision! > > Kevin McKeown > Yorba Linda, CA > 1986 38' PT > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > |
|||
02-03-2006, 10:33
Post: #16
|
|||
|
|||
Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38
--- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, krminyl@... wrote:
> > Hi Andy, > > On a good day, I get around 5 mpg in my '86 38' PT, fully loaded, and > pulling a 24' enclosed trailer with a sand car, quads, and gear (about a 6000lb > trailer and load). Unloaded, I don't ever remember getting any better that > 6mpg. Although it probably doesn't matter much, I run my generator about 1/3rd > of the time when driving (to run the A/C's), and about 3-4hrs a day to cook, > and charge the batts because 90% of our travels and destinations involve no > hookups. I think the 8V92 traditionally gets around 4-6 MPG, the 6V92 6-8 MPG, > and the 3208 CAT in the range of 6-10 (give or take a little, and depending > on terrain, speed, and load) > > I try to soften the shock at the pump by filling often...pumping 50 gallons > a couple different times vs. getting 200 gallons at once. Silly as it > sounds, I don't feel so bad getting fuel this way! Remember, these vehicles weigh > twice as much and are 10 times safer than the plastic palaces and > sticks-and-staples on the road right now. I'll sacrifice a little MPG over safety any > day. > > > Good luck...big decision! > > Kevin McKeown > Yorba Linda, CA > 1986 38' PT > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > |
|||
02-03-2006, 12:23
Post: #17
|
|||
|
|||
Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38
I'm almost afraid to ask, but what did I do?
-James 78FC33SB LasVegas NV --- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Hohnstein" <MHOHNSTEIN@...> wrote: > > Now you've done it. > MH > ----- Original Message ----- > From: orbitalsolutions > To: WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 12:20 PM > Subject: [WanderlodgeForum] Re: Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38 > > > Thanks for the GREAT link on diesel motors, Tom. I have 30 years > experience with marine diesel applications. The article you posted > may be the most comprehensive and concise piece on diesels I have > ever read. I am in complete agreement with it's assesments and > summarys. > > Thanks again. > > -James > 78FC33SB > LasVegas NV |
|||
02-03-2006, 14:55
Post: #18
|
|||
|
|||
Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38
--Ron: How bout the Cat turbo on the SP??? I have yet to get 8mpg
while my ole 77FC got 8mpg and more all day!! Course I never drive the SP too slow either!! I would say the answer is 6-8mpg no matter what engine one has. Regards, Hank Hannigan & Naty Still in Kangland..going to big CMCA MH ralley 13-19 March in Mt. Gambier, South Australia....Any Takers?? 90SP36 ( Stored in Vegas) - In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, "ronmarabito2002" > > The FC Cat Turbo 3208 is more economical. > > R.E. (Ron) Marabito, Dallas, TX 92WB40 > > > --- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, "Andy Coleman" > > > > > Hello Tom, > > > > You mentioned fuel economy differences between the PT36 and PT38. > > > > I might soon be in the market for a 70's to 80's Wanderlodge. > > However, the motor choices are confusing! The FC35 with a Cat Turbo > > 3208, the PT36 with a Detroit 6V92, and a PT38 with an Detroit 8V92 > > are all similar sized coaches. Performance (225 HP to 475 HP) is > > obviously very different. > > > > With the high price of fuel these days, do any of these motors stand > > out in fuel economy? If they are all similar, I guess the more > > powerful 8V92 is the way to go! > > > > Anybody know? > > > > I'm so happy that I found this group! > > > > Andy Coleman > > > > > > > > --- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, Tom Warner wrote: > > > > > > Ron there might be other considerations but then maybe you considered > > > them and/or had information that I did not see. For instance, > > > unless I absolutely knew what the maintenance history of both coaches > > > were and the price that will be finally paid for each including taxes > > > and registration fees if there are some ( realizing they had a max > > > budget of $50-75K) that would leave somewhere in the range of > > > $60,000 not including taxes. > > > > > > I would go with the coach that fit in that budget IF I knew : > > > > > > 1. The tires were all servicable and had a DOT date of less then 5 > > > years and had some assurance that they had not been abused by running > > > over/or under inflated or run over curbs. . > > > > > > 2. You had service records for the coach to ensure it was regularly > > > maintained and not sit for long periods of time. > > > > > > 3. You consider the fuel mileage. The PT36 with a 6V92 will get > > > better mileage then the PT38 with a 8V92. Either one I would have > > > inspected by a reputable mechanice to make sure there are no problems > > > with the engines. > > > > > > 4. And lastly use the Vintage birds checklist and go over every > > > single item in the coach. That checklist could very well help you get > > > a lower price then the owner is willing to go to knowing that there > > > are no problems. If everything checks out however you will feel > > > better about the price you do have to pay. > > > > > > Good luck in which ever one you buy. > > > > > > Tom Warner > > > 1982 FC35 > > > Vernon Center,NY > > > > > > > > > At 06:03 PM 2/2/2006, you wrote: > > > >I've run coaches with both. I would not consider the 6V92 again. On > > > >a small coach, it might be fine, but between the two coaches, > there is > > > >not a lot of weight difference, thus go with the 8V92 for > performance. > > > >You won't be sorry, unless other considerations are more important. > > > > > > > >R.E. (Ron) Marabito, Dallas, TX 92WB40 > > > >Forum Moderator > > > > > > > > > > > >--- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, "buddyballs79" > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hello and thanks in advance for the replies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We're looking at two coaches right now, one is an 89 PT 36 with > > the 6V > > > > > 330 Detroit and the other is an 87 PT38 with the 8V 475hp Detroit. > > > > > Both are the silver editions. The PT 36 has 135k and the PT > 38 has > > > > > 100k. Since they are both a considerable distance away we were > > > > > wondering if anybody has had any experience with these coaches. > > How is > > > > > the performance of the 36 with the 6V Detroit vs the 38 with > the 8V? > > > > > Any pros or cons for one or the other? It will be our first > diesel > > > > > motorhome and we love the look of the older Bluebirds. Our > > budget is > > > > > $50k to $75k max. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks again for the help. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >---------- > > > >YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > > > > > > > * Visit your group > > > > "<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WanderlodgeForum>WanderlodgeForum" > > on the web. > > > > * > > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > > > * > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * > > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the > > > > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > > > > > > > > > > >---------- > > > > > > |
|||
02-04-2006, 03:41
Post: #19
|
|||
|
|||
Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38
Oh...never mind.
MH ----- Original Message ----- From: orbitalsolutions To: WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 6:23 PM Subject: [WanderlodgeForum] Re: Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38 I'm almost afraid to ask, but what did I do? -James 78FC33SB LasVegas NV --- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Hohnstein" <MHOHNSTEIN@...> wrote: > > Now you've done it. > MH > ----- Original Message ----- > From: orbitalsolutions > To: WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 12:20 PM > Subject: [WanderlodgeForum] Re: Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38 > > > Thanks for the GREAT link on diesel motors, Tom. I have 30 years > experience with marine diesel applications. The article you posted > may be the most comprehensive and concise piece on diesels I have > ever read. I am in complete agreement with it's assesments and > summarys. > > Thanks again. > > -James > 78FC33SB > LasVegas NV SPONSORED LINKS Recreational vehicles Wanderlodge Automotive maintenance Recreational vehicle dealer Used recreational vehicles Automotive radiators ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS a.. Visit your group "WanderlodgeForum" on the web. b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: WanderlodgeForum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|||
02-04-2006, 05:04
Post: #20
|
|||
|
|||
Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38
Scott,
The larger two-stoke diesels generate more power, more quickly at the cost of greater fuel usage than the smaller four-stokes. It's all moot to me, I'm stuck with a gas guzzling Ford 534 :o Jim Owens 77 FC33SB (Gas) Lake of the Ozarks, MO --- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Forman" <sforman@...> wrote: > > My 82 FC with 225 hp turbo 3208 consistently gets 8mpg. I am amazed > that is better than the PT's. I would have expected the opposite, > since the under-powered FC's require a foot to the floor pretty much > all the time. Learn something new here every day. > > Scott Forman > 82 FC35RB > Memphis > > --- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, krminyl@ wrote: > > > > Hi Andy, > > > > On a good day, I get around 5 mpg in my '86 38' PT, fully loaded, > and > > pulling a 24' enclosed trailer with a sand car, quads, and gear > (about a 6000lb > > trailer and load). Unloaded, I don't ever remember getting any > better that > > 6mpg. Although it probably doesn't matter much, I run my generator > about 1/3rd > > of the time when driving (to run the A/C's), and about 3-4hrs a day > to cook, > > and charge the batts because 90% of our travels and destinations > involve no > > hookups. I think the 8V92 traditionally gets around 4-6 MPG, the > 6V92 6-8 MPG, > > and the 3208 CAT in the range of 6-10 (give or take a little, and > depending > > on terrain, speed, and load) > > > > I try to soften the shock at the pump by filling often...pumping 50 > gallons > > a couple different times vs. getting 200 gallons at once. Silly as > it > > sounds, I don't feel so bad getting fuel this way! Remember, > these vehicles weigh > > twice as much and are 10 times safer than the plastic palaces and > > sticks-and-staples on the road right now. I'll sacrifice a little > MPG over safety any > > day. > > > > > > Good luck...big decision! > > > > Kevin McKeown > > Yorba Linda, CA > > 1986 38' PT > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > |
|||
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)