Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38
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]
> >
>
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Messages In This Thread
Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38 - buddyballs79 - 02-02-2006, 10:00
Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38 - ronmarabito2002 - 02-02-2006, 11:03
Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38 - Scott Peatross - 02-02-2006, 11:27
Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38 - Tom Warner - 02-02-2006, 11:27
Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38 - Andy Coleman - 02-02-2006, 13:18
Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38 - ronmarabito2002 - 02-02-2006, 14:17
Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38 - ronmarabito2002 - 02-02-2006, 14:20
Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38 - mbulriss - 02-02-2006, 14:38
Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38 - Tom Warner - 02-02-2006, 14:48
Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38 - Jeff Miller - 02-02-2006, 16:47
Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38 - jvredden@... - 02-02-2006, 21:37
Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38 - krminyl@... - 02-02-2006, 23:43
Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38 - orbitalsolutions - 02-03-2006, 06:20
Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38 - Mike Hohnstein - 02-03-2006, 07:03
Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38 - Scott Forman - 02-03-2006, 10:31
Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38 - Scott Forman - 02-03-2006, 10:33
Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38 - orbitalsolutions - 02-03-2006, 12:23
Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38 - Henry Jay Hannigan - 02-03-2006, 14:55
Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38 - Mike Hohnstein - 02-04-2006, 03:41
Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38 - Jim Owens - 02-04-2006 05:04
Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38 - Jim Owens - 02-04-2006, 05:12
Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38 - Henry Jay Hannigan - 02-04-2006, 09:24



User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)