If you guys enjoyed the video, please SMASH THAT LIKE BUTTON. It helps the channel out a huge amount and helps RUclips put the video in front of more people. Thanks for watching 😬
My dad still talks about around this area people would pull A caterpillar engine out when they were due for an in frame overhaul or the injection pump failed and replace it with Cummins or Detroit due to the astronomical cost of repairs. Cummins could be rebuilt for $100.00 per cylinder. Many old cat engines met the scrap heap early on down south
When Paccar introduced their own motor, they told Cat that they would still install Cat motors, but Cat had to do all the engineering/design work for installing the motors at Cats expense. That along with losing market share to the new Paccar motor helped drive the nail in the coffin. I sold my 03 Peterbilt with a perfectly good 6NZ Cat when I ordered a 14 Pete with the ISX500 Cummins. All other drive train components the same, and went from a 379 to 389 which is the exact same body style. The difference is a mile per gallon less (5.4 verses 6.5). Add on having to pay for dpf, poorer performance, and very expensive repairs for sensors, dosers, gate valves, and God knows what else, plus adding for down time, and you you understand our frustration. Now they are trying to push "eco tires" that cost more, wear quicker, and don't increase fuel mileage one bit. Who the hell comes up with this crap? Government people with no brains. That's who.
On the farm we have 40 or so 3406e model cats pumping water, some have been converted to run on natural gas because the is a pipeline close by. All of our road trucks have 3406e or 3406b model cats and life is good.
How does the NG Cat engine fire? Does it still use a bit of Diesel injection to fire the NG charge? That is typically the way Diesel engines run NG. This may also allow to run on pure Diesel if NG is not available.
I worked at the Caterpillar plant in Pendergrass Georgia that was chosen to assemble the variable valve actuators for the ACERT engines. It was suppose to be the future of the plant, it wasn't. With the ACERT's failure and the 2008 recession, the plant closed in 2009.
A slight correction: ACERT came out in 2004 for model year 2005. It actually worked quite well, with many engines running a 1,000,000 plus miles without overhaul. It was EPA 2007 for the 2008 model year that saw the problems begin. Only about 22,000 SDP and an equal number of LEE were produced before they pulled the plug.
I run with a 2007 C15 ACERT on a 2008 389, and it has 1.2 mill without an overhaul, but, I had the dam DPF crap deleted in 2011. All I did is to change the six pack @ 1 mill, and just last year did a PDI single turbo conversion, and keep changing oil @10K or ASAP.
You did mention once in the video that truck engines was only a small part of Caterpillar's manufacturing business. I did a lot of training business with Cat in Peoria in the late 80's to mid 90's. It was pretty obvious that truck engines was not their main business. They manufacture earth moving equipment number one.
Caterpillar is working to introduce diesel engines that use ducted fuel injection to keep their off-road engines compliant with the convergence of emissions standards.
About emissions, I was thinking today, wouldn’t poor road conditions and bad infrastructure that creates traffic chokes, more detrimental to to actual output of diesel and gas vehicles? Shouldn’t we be demanding better roads and infrastructure if the government has been squeezing everything out of us to get “better emissions”
Yes, but fixing our infrastructure will involve tax increases in order to fund the amount of repairs needed. Most people don't want to pay more taxes. But it takes a fraction of that cost to force auto manufacturers to spend millions of their dollars to meet stricter emissions standards.
@@CaptainRudy4021 shit I don’t want to pay more taxes either, I say it needs to be more efficient with all the money they already take, since they want “trucks and cars to be more efficient” they should be more efficient themselves
@@CaptainRudy4021 all BS, if the corrupt government applied all auto and truck related taxes directly to road infrastructure, we would have awesome roads. Fact is they use more then half of transportation related taxes for non road uses. They steal from transportation to prop up their pet projects like light rail and other welfare programs. Our gas and registration taxes need to be spent on the roads we drive on, not light rail that less then 5% of the people use. If you want to ride a train to work, pay a ticket price in full, that pays for the train service.
I had a pre-ACERT engine, and my buddy had one of the ACERT garbage ones. My engine... I miss that big beast. Sure, it got crap mileage, but I could top Mt. Eagle at 55, fully loaded out.
Interesting story. Thanks! It's too bad that a similar fate befell International Harvester. Their gas, 340 cubic inch V-8 was an excellent motor in pickup trucks and moving trucks. Not a lot of horsepower, but lots of low end torque, excellent reliability, and surprisingly good gas mileage.
@@barrettmills856 Yep, I meant the 345, not Chrysler's 340. Back in the early 1980's, I owned an 18,000 lb GVW IH enclosed moving truck (a used Uhaul), with the 345 V-8. Fully ladened, running ~50 to 55 mph on flat ground, it got almost 10 MPG., phenomenal for something that heavy and non aerodynamic.
@Dartgame 340 Interesting. That suggests perhaps the particular plugs it used were poorly made, or there was a very localized pre-ignition issue centered at the spark plug.
It wasn't a 340 but a v345 and as far as mileage I had one and about the best it would do is 8mpg but all the power you needed for that size of a truck
@@prestonbogart2492 You're right - 345. But for mileage, I bought a well used '69, IH, Uhaul moving van, 18,000 lb GVW. I got around 8 MPG highway (50 to 55 MPH, as I wanted to make sure it survived the trip) over a 2000+ mile trip cross country, even with it absolutely packed to near its weight limit, PLUS pulling a car trailer with a car. I was astonished at how good the mileage was. The only other vehicle which similarly astonished me was a '69 Mercury station wagon with a 2 barrel 390 V-8. With over 100k miles and essentially zero maintenance by the owner, it got 19 MPH highway - damn good for a friggin' land yacht.
As a retired OTR driver for 40+ years, I can tell you that your account of why Cat stopped selling road engines is spot on dead nuts accurate. From 1994 until 2014, I was driving for the country's largest private fleet and we were testing Cummins, Detroit, Volvo and Cat engines side by side. The first 3 engine manufacturers went with the EGR setup. Exhaust Gas Emission Recycle valves, better known as EGR valves, meet emission standards by putting exhaust components back through the engine. This is regarded as a contentious issue because putting "dirt" back into an engine will invariably shorten engine life and although it statistically resulted in engines meeting emissions standards, it also DECREASED fuel efficiency. I seriously don't understand how an engine can burn more fuel but pollute less. It seems like the government the wants us to believe a lot of things that don't make sense. In any event, Cummins, Detroit and Volvo opted for the EGR method. Cat had a huge canister in the exhaust system that we were told worked like a heavy duty catalytic converter. We were also told that the Cat engines DID meet emission standards, but the EPA mandated that Cat HAD to follow suit and use the "dirty" method. I can't comment on the warranty issue that Cat was allegedly having, but in terms of division profit percentage, that 10% figure alone would justify the truck engine discontinuation. Regardless of the actual causes, I was impressed by the fact that Caterpillar in effect "flipped the bird" to the EPA. Let businessmen, engineers and technicians do what they do best: make a good product at a fair price and profit from that. Conversely, the government is inefficient, wasteful, overbearing and technically ignorant. As such, it would be much better for us all if the government would get the EFF out of everyone's way and allow America to ROAR again!
Basic pollution regulations are fine, but the government has absolutely NO business telling private companies HOW to achieve those targets. Let companies innovate their own new technologies to meet emissions.
For more information I'd suggest adept ape because he's basically the caterpillar youtube expert and knows damn near all there is to know about their truck engines. A few inconsistencies I noticed is that the Acert system was actually introduced in 2004 and featured the IVA and VVA systems plus twin turbos for the big trucks which I'm led to believe weren't that big of a deal. Now in 2007 is where that changed because in order to meet those updated standards they did have to throw on a dpf which included their Infamous ARD head device as well as a CGI system which is essentially a better version of standard egr
The ignition spark plug in the exhaust "ARD" was their folly, that's the system that made them have countless warranty repairs. Because anybody knows you can't expect something like a spark gap to work to ignite extra diesel in the exhaust, when the exhaust coming out of the engine is already black soot laden, as most C13 and C15s always ran rich.
In the SW like So. Cal. we started seeing Mexican parts used starting about early 80's. I remember cylinder sleeves for overhauls with pretty iffy fits both into the block and pistons into the sleeves. Figured due to cost difference it was just a matter of time before OEM new engines would have foreign made parts or even foreign made complete engines or trucks. If I was still in the field, I'd seriously think I'd be considering a Volvo.
The small Co . I work for has been forced by California to scrap 2 perfectly good completely reliable trucks and replace them with these smog monstrosities (1 freightliner, 1 mack) that constantly breakdown. I'm losing so much wages waiting for the truck to come back from the dealer (avg 2+ wks) I'm thinking of calling it quits after 35 years. Between POS smog equip & elogs I can equal money at the local gas station. $18 hr to start.
35 Yr. diesel mechanic here and EX commyfornia resident... we were forced to do the same.. the 'old reliables' were trashed for new twinkle bunny computerized sh!t piles.. never a day without needing to analyze the data ports of the new crap.
There is also the issue of poor fuel mileage compared to the other offerings, especially from Volvo with years of experience with these emission standards, Especially once diesel hit 4+ dollars per gallon.
The company I worked for had one of the first CAT trucks, they got their marketing day and everything for selling the truck to that company, and it turned out to have huge issues. CAT replaced the engine and a second truck was bought 2 years later and it was going a lot better but 2017 was when I left and I don’t know how they are doing today other than I’ve seen those trucks on the road here and there.
The new 3.0 duramax has post DPF EGR, and I think that's an awesome idea. They could likely meet emissions for years to come with a hybrid system on the current emissions engines, and simply optimize the current emissions systems rather than adding new ones, like adding a post DPF EGR system, and using an extra injector for the regen cycle.
Ironically off road applications are going to the same air quality standards as on highway. One has to question how long CAT will be anything other than A brand. They are going down the same rabbit hole Deere has. Slapping their stickers on A competitors product.
The thing is If cat brought back the C15 with the full emissions. It would absolutely sell like a wild fire. And all the Cummins, Detroit ,mx13 and A26 Volvo engine equipped trucks would drop in value ridiculous amount. But I doubt Volvo group. Daimler. Would put cat back into their trucks.
None of the engine manufacturers today can build a reliable on road engine that meets current emissions. The brain trust we call our government sets laws with unobtainable goals. Not a single Diesel engine in the market has an emissions system that works properly and doesn’t damage itself in its everyday use. The systems are horrible, the tech is absolutely terrible. They purposely set these these laws in motion to kill the internal combustion engine. Their goal is to put these companies out of business so they can implement fairy dust and unicorn piss powered trucks (or electric) like our electrical power grid can handle that.😬
@Dartgame 340 considering down here in west Texas, probably the emissions delete capital of the world, we have inspectors paid by the government that go to rig sites and measure emissions on every diesel engine there, might be less of an IF and more of a when.
I could be wrong in some aspects about what I’m typing here but….I do believe the partnership between Navistar/International and CAT didn’t just create an on road truck that kinda met emissions standards. I think CAT either sold rights or just allowed Navistar/International to take existing CAT motors and then adapt them to meet emissions standards by adding components such as EGR, DPF, DOC and SCR with a urea system. I’ve seen these motors before in International ProStars and LoneStars. If you carefully examine the motors (Cummins is an exception) you can see the architecture of the motors are that of the older CAT motors that were of the ACERT generation only the motors aren’t CAT yellow in color anymore. Instead Navistar branded these CAT motor knockoffs as MAXXFORCE engines with the latest emissions components that Navistar offered on other of their engines. But the basis of those larger engines was the pedigree of CAT. I think Navistar used what was the CAT C-15 and C-13 engines for the base of their larger MAXXFORCE engines.
Maxxforce 15 had Cat bottom end. Maxforce 13 was Man engine with Navistar emissions. C13 was Cat engine with Navistar Head and electrical. N13 is “fixed” Maxxforce 13 with proper emissions A26 is the New Man Engine.
Side note: Navistar nearly ruined Ford as well once they had to build an emissions rated engine. It seems as if they met emissions but cut corners in other areas which reduced reliability. Seems like Navistar was the wrong partner
The minimum force disaster. Most likely the worst Diesel engine ever brought to market. Paccar gaining of capturing that title. Navistar never recovered from that one .
Yes here in my. country Ghana and Africa, we only know about CAT and nothing else. Especially, the 3406 b which has no control board (brain board) and does not give us any electrical problems.
Why is there a new vid on this every couple weeks? Basically, it takes a lot of time and money to design and build a new engine. The gov promised cat a period of time say 8 years where emissions regulations would be the same, but they kept going back and changing their mind. Every politician wants to be more virtuous than the last, so it went from 8 years to 4 and down to 2 year intervals. Making it not financially viable for them to keep redesigning only for it to be redesigned once production started. Long story short, gov ruins everything with red tape and will burn down your house for a crumb of good publicity.
OTR = OVER the road, not ON the road. Just trying to help. (Been doing this since the 1970s.) Great video. I was a CAT man for many years and only grudgingly shifted over to Cummins once I had no real choice. (I hated ACERT and kept hoping for an EGR system. There was a rumor floating around that CAT had plans to make a retrofit kit to save owner-operators from all the pain and expense of swapping platforms. Of course that was all BS.) Your comment about paying the government for approval was dead-nuts accurate, by the way.
I was told that on road engines were about 10% of their sales. With most of their sales being off road engines they didn't feel it was worth it to meet new emission standards.
Second hand info but CAT didn't seem to be interested in the light duty truck market which I believe basically funded Cummins emission and power technology on a smaller scale without needing to deal with large expensive engines first. Look at Cummins, over 1000 lb/ft of torque from 6.7 litre engines
A few years back I had a temporary job driving for a company that only bought new trucks to expand their fleet. The old trucks were rebuilt rather than replaced. Sometimes I got to drive very old trucks. Even though they were maintained on a high level. I can't believe a truck with millions of miles on it would be better than when it was new. However they drove exactly the way I remember. Much better than any of the new trucks. Many had cat engines in them but all of the old ones ran much better regardless of who made the engine. It's not just the engines though even the old dashboards and controls were more logical. The old trucks were simply better. Of course none of the old ones have those damn auto shift transmissions. For those of you who don't know what that is. It's an attempt to make an automatic transmission out what would be a manual by replacing the controls with a computer that shifts it very poorly.
Eh , idk Kevin, my Mdrive on my Mack truck works amazing, no problems shifting, it's like it can read my mind, also got a Volvo with ishift and X15 manual. I'll be honest with you, I'll choose the new automatic over manual and day.
Cat engines were never dominant in the class 8 otr market.. that crown was split between Cummings Detroit diesel and Volvo..most of Cat sales went to owner operators and very small trucking fleets.
My last truck , a Kenworth , was powered with a C-15 450 hp. , never ran out of power with the 18 speed . But my favourite was a 3460 425 hp , it was in a Western Star . Did a lot of T& P with that truck , pulling black top in the mountains of B.C. It pulled really hard from 1100 revs .
Many decades ago in the last century I was a simi truck mech. I remember hearing that John Deere was trying to get into the truck engine market. I heard from a driver he was at a truckstop when another driver proudly showed him his JD truck engine. Supposedly this engine had a lot of horses. More horses than the average truck engine. But, I never heard anything about it after that so I guess it did not fly. !
Yeah I wish CAT would come back. I’ve been playing a lot ATS lately and I’ve using Zee’s engine sound mode. His C16 sound so much better and made me do some research about CAT and why they got out of the business for commercial big rigs trucks and quit around 2008 to 2010.
CAT did actually adopt an Exhaust Particulate Filter and EGR in 2007. The problem was that they sucked. The R-Heads which is used to raise exhaust temperature to burn off the soot in the EPF keeps failing. Part of this is because they only had 3 years to get their EPF shit right, whereas the competition had been doing EPF for 7~8 years at that point. They also did EGR in 2007 and their EGR system is actually quite good -- it draws "clean" air from after the EPF rather than dirty air from the exhaust manifold. But, they kept the variable intake valve duration system which means their engine is more complicated than the competition. Ultimately, the 2008 recession and the lack of profitability on the commercial truck engine line lead to the executives cutting their losses and pulling the plug on this part of of CAT's portfolio. Because the decision was made to exit the market about a year and half into the 2007 emissions compliant engine line's life cycle, the R-head system was never fixed because additional engineering investment in a dead-end product no longer made sense. -- It's a sad story of environmental extremism killing our own industry.
So how are they still supplying I6 engines for the Ram 2500's and up? How are they able to meet EPA reqs for the small truck market, but not the Semi-tractor markets? Im just curious how they do it.
What I learned from this video by quoting and paraphrasing your narrative: 1. Rewinding the clock back to 1990 (32 years ago), emission standards were put in place on Diesel engines requiring 1994 models meet those standards. 2. When new emissions standard went in place in 2002, Cat rejected them and instead paid a fine to not change. 3. It wasn't until 2007 (17 years later) that things got much tougher. (Wow, somehow others responded in time, but Cat didn't see this coming) 4. Cat decided to use a very different emissions system (ACERT) than everyone else. 5. Cat made a huge investment in ACERT betting it was superior to EGR for emissions and ultimately it wasn't. 6. All systems had to be certified by the EPA to meet the emission standard. (This is not simply a matter of writing a check. It must meet the standard.) 7. Cat had tons of warranty issues with ACERT-equipped engines. 8. They lost market share, mostly to Cummins. (no doubt because who wants to have your engine in the shop rather than using it?) 9. Those two things made it barely profitable to build on-the-road truck engines. 10. 2010 standards would be even tougher (and apparently they hadn't yet met the 2007 standard). 11. In 2008 they announced they would leave the market in 2010 and team up with Navistar. You then clarify they didn't simply switch to ECR because it didn't make financial sense. It might fix emissions but not market share loss and warranty costs for ACERT engines. Everything about this says Cat went out of business because of bad choices and delays while their competitors stepped up. Had Cummins followed this path, making the same decisions and suffering the same effects of warranty costs, reliability issues, and market loss, they would have been out of business instead. Conclusion? Emissions standards resulted in Cat's exit from the on-road-engine market. If that were true, why are their competitors still in the market?
You can also thank the emissions regulations as well as the mileage regulations for all the improvements in automotive fuel and ignition controls I find it amusing how many people in the US complain about their own government regulations without realizing the rest of the industrial world has regulations too. Complaining about meeting a difficult standard when other companies are somehow managing is really just blame shifting. CAT truck engines are small potatoes for CAT - they put their money in one technology, and then walked away when it didn't pan out. Some of us remember the problems with cars in the early 1970's when early smog regs came in. Engines have been forced to improve.
Yeah, this is where I'm at as well. All the other players in the market managed to make this work. Cat bet big and missed. It happens. In a way it's academic though. It seems like the movement over time with Caterpillar has been to cut cost and concentrate on their really heavy industry machines.
@@phuturephunk Absolutely - 20 years ago they were branching out in the marine market as well, but then they partnered with MAK for the larger engines and seem to be pulling away from many of the smaller lines. Heavy equipment is truly their bread and butter, so it makes sense to focus on what they do best. All over the world, engine makers are struggling to find the answers to increasing demands to get cleaner running engines.
Improvements?? I have a 2002 Dodge Cummins that is tuned to the same horsepower and torque as a new Ram Cummins my 2002 gets 28 MPG on the highway, my buddies brand new Ram Cummins gets 13 and 14 on a good day. You burn twice the fuel so you have to produce and transport twice as much fuel to do the same thing not to mention you have to mine for metals and manufacture all of the emissions equipment and replace it when it does go bad. The engines also don't last as long which means more mining and production of parts. Now after all of that pollution caused by all of that production tell me which is cleaner 🤔?
As someone that was part of these decisions and involved in the consent decree, NCPs, and inability to get NCPs, I can say that the story is a good 40% accurate and 20% completely wrong but matches what the trade journalists were paid to say from corporate communications and the lobbyists. The reality of the decisions has been left out, including the negotiations with the trucking companies. Are we allowed to ask how and why JF took his own life over the C15 engine's relaunch? Why did that happen?
My dad has a 2000 Western Star with CAT engine. It has 3.4 million kilometres (2,000,000 miles) . All he replaced was a turbo and injectors. Best engines ever build.
I only got to drive a truck with a "Dozer Motor" a coupla times before I 'hung it up' in 2007. You could drop those things down below 1000 rpm and pull right back out of it without downshifting(FL is mostly flat). The two trucks I owned-1 at a time-in my early days were Cummins powered: a good ol' 290('bumped' up to ~330) in my 79 COE FL, and a Formula 350 in my 87 long-nose FL. The last trucks I drove had 12.7 Detroits.
I think more thought needed to go into 'assigning the blame'. A lot of the new rules were mandated by a bi-partisan Congress due to the ability to massively improve diesel emissions over a period of years, while progressively lowering emissions through technology. This is a good thing for anyone with lungs! I learned about this because in my job I had to specify back-up diesel generators and there are standards and exceptions to standards depending on the use of the equipment. I think this is a worthwhile subject to talk about, but in this case it was oversimplified. For those who think the emissions rules are somehow 'bad', visit Beijing or Mexico City during an inversion. Lungs do not appreciate nitrous oxides and they can't get rid of soot.
Knew the answer before you asked the question, having to make product changes every 3 or 4 years, is expensive and confusing, look at the changes you listed on the Evolution of the Duramax engine (good video BTW) now what parts fits what, in what year?
This story reminds me of the last three (of four) car companies announcing the closure of manufacturing operations in Australia in the space of a year. The parent companies are dissatisfied with red tape and low sales so they end a chapter in history.
I'm undecided.... I'm not sure if I'd prefer the H1 kwaka 500 or the H2 kwaka 750... both lovely 2 stroke triple engines that wail and scream, and obliterate the competition (and the rest of the suburb) in a cloud of blue smoke. Bring em back I say!
You are forgetting a major factor. Remember "back in the day" when truck engines had split power ratings? All the engine companies set their engines to produce more power and therefore more pollution when they were using cruise control. They were all very open about it as well. The thinking was pollution was more harmful in cities where there were more trucks, but you wouldn't use cruise. after the fact, the EPA made this a retroactive problem. Part of the settlement was that the 2007 and 2010 standards were moved up beyond where they were originally planned to be implemented. another part of it was a monetary fine. That fine was based on the company's ability to pay instead of levels of pollution. Cat as a company was fined much more since they had their 90% of the company paying for the fine picked up by the 10% of the company. That's gotta hurt.
There used to be smog trails being pulled from the tops of the high-rises in Calgary Alberta Canada every single day. I haven’t seen smog in downtown Calgary for over 15 years do you think that there’s some sort of conspiracy on where the smog trails went? I drive a Volvo D13 with DPF and a quiet Jake. In 400,000 miles I haven’t seen a drop of soot exit my exhaust stack. Compete or die.
@@fatpatlives1998 yup t4 isn't 1 emission stand. it is several. Off-road t4 is broken up by power. that is why all the small tractor companies are pushing 24.5 hp engines where they used to put a 28hp engine or whatever. under 25hp is pretty loose with emissions. This is also why the next step up that has SCR doesn't have DEF. you have to get bigger before they need to add DEF. Could CAT get back into the On-Road market? yes. Do they want to? no.
I’ve been working on diesel engines and related components since 1989. Anything from military vehicles to locomotives. To be fair, I have never worked on construction/agricultural equipment. I started working for KW around 2002, and I remember all of those years. Short story, you are correct, mostly. Caterpillar had a “good idea” of sorts when the government announced new EPA regulations for OTR commercial vehicles. While everyone else was outfitting their engines with EGR ( exhaust gas reduction) systems, Caterpillar went a slightly different way. You see, EGR redirects a portion of exhaust gas back into intake air, which, introduced soot and carbon into the intake. Caterpillars idea was called CGI (clean gas induction). They filtered their exhaust gasses through the DPF BEFORE redirecting a portion of it back through the intake. The major problem with their CGI system, it eventually produced a yellow powder at the precooler, which when inevitably water was introduced through condensation, would form an acid that ended up being worse than the carbon and soot every other manufacturers engines were being force fed. Caterpillar HAD the better idea, it just never panned out and they NEVER met emissions standards. I hated losing Cat engines, I enjoyed working on them. And I can’t tell you how many problems Cummins has had with their EGR systems, and continue to have. Carbon packing of the pistons being one of the worst. Cummins had their fair share of warranty expenses too. They just weathered it better because ultimately the Cat guys had no better choice after Caterpillar dropped the ball. And to be fair, Cummins has come along ways. Their engines have gotten way better. And the product support I see on a daily basis as far as warranty goes, is top notch. As far as Paccar engines go, well, they have gotten better as well, and their product support is definitely on par if not better than Cummins is. Let’s just say they’ve still got a long way to go though. Love them or hate them, Cummins and Paccar ARE your 2 best choices on the road today.
Companies are really pushing for in house brands. Kenworth/Peterbilt are pushing hard to increase the percent of trucks with PACCAR engines. Having said that, Cummins buying Meritor and their joint venture with Eaton Fuller is making a weird love triangle with PACCAR. Meritor makes the PACCAR 40K axles and the Eaton Cummins Endurant transmission (branded as PACCAR TX-12) are in most fleet trucks I see.
I wish they would come back into the field. My current Kenworth has a C13 with 1.3 million miles on it. My last one was a C15 with about the same miles. Yes, each one was rebuilt but what great engines. Real work horses.
I don't get to work on Cat a whole bunch these days, Just move the engine to another truck kind of thing. They made a huge mistake not fighting for it. The downfall is spreading, Those mandates are spreading to industrial to. Companies like Cummins have been stepping up and have great support. Cummins made it easy and affordable to swap out a Cat in almost any application. There is a lot of equipment out there getting rebuilt with the red iron. That's not to say I don't enjoy building around a new twin or compound turbo cat. They are nice.
In your opinion who makes the most reliable modern class 8 engine? Cummins or Detroit? I've read Cats are too expensive to rebuild and that's why swapping Cummins killed Cat.
@@nostradamus7648 when you talk reliability, there are a few factors. All of the engine platforms are really roust mechanically, and it comes down to the maintenance, usage and the driver for how well they hold up and how often they need rebuilt. The problems you run into affecting the down time of the unit are the emissions systems. Each one has their own way of doing things and each are equally as bad as the next. Cummins for example, if you have a pto, or your driver insists on idling his truck a lot, The egr system will soot up your oil and wipe out your bearings. Taking a million mile engine down at 300k. The DD's have a very expensive "one Box" that will shut the truck down for any little thing, internal failures of the box are common and it takes months to get a new one. Personally I think the Cummins are better for keeping running and working. Cats are a pain to diagnose, and DD's Take more special attention, but are monsters.
@@nostradamus7648 I need to add a little more context as well that will help shed light on why cat is failing and on the way out. We are a small fleet, 160 trucks, 3 mechanics in the main shop and a few more scattered in other towns. Daimler provides us with the software we need to make repairs on the trucks. Cummins provides us with the software we need to work on the trucks. Cat does not. We are not a big enough fleet and they expect us to send it to the dealer. So F-you cat.
Dates were off, ACERT came out in 04 when other manufacturers went EGR. DPF was 07, SCR was 2010(which Navistar made the mistake of skipping and going massive EGR)
As a diehard IHC partisan, I gotta admit: Never do business with an outfit that thinks it can cost-cut its way to profitability. That's what screwed the old IHC into the ground back in the 1980s
Rather informative video. Again, thank you. However, I would add to your video the specifics of the Caterpillar twin turbo systems, and how the EPA pushed Caterpillar to market them before they were ready. And, ultimately causing their engines to be unreliable due to lack of proper testing phase. On top of that, I would mention how the EPA fined Caterpillar for "infractions" that Caterpillar, Cummins, and Detroit Diesel were all guilty of, while also NOT fining Cummins or Detroit diesel for those infractions. This entire thing has been a plan for many years (whether anyone wants to believe it or not). And, if you are on any specific talks about EPA standards.... Please do not forget that, 1) the EPA has that new Kamalas Harris partnership for ALL class 8 trucks to be electric by 2027 - 2030, and 2) that current EPA regulations are deliberately strangling diesel engines for OTR. Fuel prices are also adding to this headache. Between fuel prices, EPA regulations and designs causing added failures on engines, and a host of other things I am unaware of.. The "system" is trying to make it too expensive to run fossil fuels as a way of boosting electric markets. However, when you get into electric markets, you have wonder about battery technology (which biden just used the emergency powers to boost resources for making them). You have battery weight to consider, life per charge of batteries to consider, and the fact that most likely, lithium ion will be the battery type. Have you seen what happens when you crack open a lithium nuke, I mean battery? They explode. The battery power necessary to run a class 8 truck for more than 10 hours at a time, turns those rigs into ticking bombs should a battery crack open. To comply with the epa/harris mandates of 2027 - 2031, you have to build X amount of vehicles (over a million), and on top of that, you have to build charging stations. It is, as of right now, impossible to meet this deadline. On top of this, making trucks in their current state of design electric, is criminal and unsafe. Doing so takes away one of the best safety devices on a class 8 rig : Jake brakes. There is no way an electric motor is going to allow for the same level of safety as a Jake. We are going to start seeing increased accidents from brake fade. However, I have spewwed enough commentary across more range than your video was intended to show. This is just my thoughts and such. Like I said, thank you for the video. Gave me more information than I previously had at a couple of points.
I feel like if they modernized some of the smaller stuff like the powerstrokes and duramaxes of the world to an OHC setup, and made everyone run clean tunes with DOCs and SCR only, remover the DPF and EGR, we could probably get to a great spot alongside small battery hybridization. Give them like a 20 mile battery only range, maybe drive the steer axle in trucks with an AWD system through the hybrid system, and that formula could produce some very capable and efficient trucks. Full electrification is still more than 10 years away, and if we made them hybrids we could save a lot of fuel and make more torque with the same engines we already have on big trucks.
@@albundy8052 I agree ! Kinda like the "drug" testing , and who defines what a controlled substance should be . I feel bad for the CDL holders having no privacy. I myself have to give a warm sample on demand just to grade the re-man parts an ship back to vendor . I have a personal life off the clock just like the CDL's . I'm due back tomorrow from med leave because I handle so many CAT , MX , ISX & Detroit parts my arms / wrists need a break . From NOX sensors to complete engines someone has to handle them . We are breaking sales records in parts & service . Our evaluations are no longer based on talent , but a lab screening . So tired of brake shoes an steer gear cores ... We are due for another onsite surprise random , yay . Half the crew is dirty and is talented , the other half's talent is passing a drug screen , and their work ethics suck .
As a current Cat tech for the past 22 years. It was explained to "us" that Cat killed the ORTE program from emissions related. Couldn't keep their "cat" engine power and prowess while meeting emissions standards. The ORTE program was a small part of the company overall.
My 07 Pete has a c-13 accert. Terrible engine. Headgaskets blew from the turbo's 50 psi boost. Finally the boss took all that garbage off and put one big turbo and is way more reliable now. I love the power and it pulls from idle to 2100 rpm.
If you've got the dough id get a new gas truck like the ford 7.3. These new gas engines get the same mpg as the old diesels with the reliability and power. But if you just have to get a diesel (trust me I understand) cummins or 7.3 power stroke is the obvious answer, unless you're a GM fanboy.
At least they were already big time with heavy equipment so they could leave without much loss, many couldn't. But i found it funny and interesting how CAT reacted to the EPAs constant new bull crap standards because they weren't too worried about pulling out of the market, like they didn't have to play nice like the others.
Wouldn't that be a short vid since what is there to say "hi this is the 4bt cummins its the same thing as the typical 5.9 6bt it just has 2 less cylinders"
It was all about PACCAR deciding to build their own engines. The on-highway engine market at that time was extremely price sensitive and Cat was building 400 engines per day for PACCAR and making very little profit. It wasn't so much about emmisions but losing a big chunk of their daily build at Mossville. ACERT did have some problems, too.
ACERT also had problems with Diesel that wasn't exceptionally clean. There were many places in the world, like Eastern Eaurope and South America that didn't have the infrastructure to deliver fuel that was clean enough. The sulfur content had to be very low, or it would eat the injectors. Also, ACERT couldn't run on biodiesel. The esters in the biodiesel would eat the injector seals right out of them, and cause the injectors to gum up and clog. And forget running on Kerosene or modified olive oil. Not even. Some of the fuel system warranty issues were with the system made by the truck manufacturer. In short, ACERT was damned finicky.
The EPA is unelected but Congress can place limits on them, but seldom does. As long as the EPA thinks CO2 is a poison the future of transportion looks to be much more costly. At below 200 ppm atmospheric CO2 most plants will struggle, few plants can survive with less than 150 ppm. At 800 ppm the crops of agriculture and the trees of forestry would be much happier than what the EPA would like. Some deserts have visibly greened because CO2 at 412 ppm enables many plants to consume less water.
Two of my customers (Warren CAT, Foley CAT) have no problems making huge profits off rebuilds and parts. In a partnership, we actually tested one of their CAT/NAV trucks. It lasted 6 months before having serious issues. The problem with CAT is it's corporate direction and ego driver "We are bigger" approach. They really don't care a lot on quality anymore, but the end customers like Holt CAT are the ones paying the price. CAT needs a corporate change or they will end up much like UPS is.
In New Zealand we were able to get the CT630 with a NXS C15 ACERT and 18 speed road ranger, we once had a whole yard full of them. They were pretty good trucks and we only really saw them for servicing. unfortunately the CT610 was an absolute dog with its maxxforce 13 engine.
I am a 48 year long haul driver, and I always loved Cat engines for a whole lot of reasons. In my last job I was forced into a Peterbilt with a Cummins engine. I always hated Cummins and now even hate them more. The main thing that bugs me about Cummins is that they have their engine fans set to come on even on cool morning after start up. Of course if you know the fan is on you can compensate your shifting a bit faster, but sometimes that fan comes on and catches you off guard, and you blow a shift. Very annoying for a perfectionist like myself who always likes silky smooth shifts. The shifting speed of a Cat is always consistent. RIP Cat !
Now was Cat not compliant because the exhaust was too polluted or that they didn't use systems off the approved list? Perfect example vehicle fails visual inspection but passes sniffer test.
C15 6NZ, the last real CAT RIP managed to get a Century with a C15 6NZ in 2008, said then I would never buy anything with add blue or egr. I parked it in a paddock with 1,300,000 on the clock in 2020 and neither of us has worked since.
Cat engines were the best in the business, I worked for a company that made engine parts for Cat engines plus we re-man piston for them. We would get pistons in with over million miles and check them on tolerance and maybe 1 in 1000 might be worn but most we just re-bushed the pin bore and shipped them out, Cat said their re-man program made more money then selling brand new pistons. Now all of heavy duty truck engines get mono-welded pistons which are suppose to be the best way to go now.
I know the situation is not ideal with the EPA, but I'm old enough to remember big rigs pouring black smoke out the pipes as if they were burning dirty coal. A million trucks doing that to our air certainly wasn't ideal either. Tech waits for nobody. 2 decades on trucks are still rolling, still making money. If not, they wouldn't do it.
EXACTLY! Nostalgia and rose colored glasses make us forget that. That black smoke looked nice. But it caused a lot of problems and wasn’t good to breathe. I work at a Ford dealership. If a 2008 or later truck comes inside the shop, I can allow the engine to run for a while without anyone noticing. But if I bring an older diesel or a truck with the emissions deleted inside the shop, I have to shut it off IMMEDIATELY, or the guys next to me will start cursing at me for trying to choke them out. I notice that a post 2008 diesel is likely to have a clean tailpipe. It isn’t even the characteristic black and soot coated as with older diesels. Yes, the EPA is a pain . But so is being choked by exhaust and black smoke, especially if caught behind or beside a pre emissions diesel in a traffic jam.
Ironically though, the older mechanically/hydraulically injected Diesel engines where far easier to convert to run on vegetable oil. But scary smog so make it a computer.
And yes, other companies have adapted and are making money. As a side effect, engines are evidently even more powerful. In times past, I’d hate to get behind a truck even going up a modest grade because they’d almost slow to a crawl if hauling a load. Now they can maintain speed on modest grades.
The real reason trucks are still rolling is. There are more older engines still on the road (swamped into newer trucks) and lots of trucks have had their emissions deleted. Also, I hear that trucks over 800HP don't have to meat emissions
@@453tye65e65e65e65 Some delete emissions. But most don’t. Reliability has increased. I admit that The weak point in the trucks we work on is still the Exhaust Temp sensor . That’s the component that can disable the truck . But they are a relatively inexpensive part and easy to replace. But in my experience since 2003, the trucks that give the most problems are those owned by urban cowboys who never Haul anything and drive their trucks around town on short trips. Those who use their f250-550’s as TRUCKS don’t have near the problems as the urban cowboy
The funniest thing about that failed partnership, is that Navistar turned around and sold the designs of their Maxxforce 15 to MAN in Europe....who tweaked it, installed scr on it, and has been making them as the big bore option there ever since their euro6 range came out... Seems like the c15 and the n15 were good engines, but had subpar quality parts, especially since considering that the Man D3876 is a direct evolution of those 2 engines and as far as I know are pretty reliable both in Europe and Australia
4:38 Really? That's what you get out of that? Regulations that improve air quality for everyone is somehow evil? Isn't it Cats fault that they simply didn't engineer an engine that met the emission standards? I know it's challenging but the others managed with EGR-tec and DPG-tec...
@@OCtheG Maybe so, but NOX is really harmful to lungs but also to vegetation and for rain acidity. Efficiency isn't the only metric that determines the overall quality of an engine. Don't mean to call you out but I would love a source on your statement. I'm really interested in engine design and efficiency.
I think there has to be a compromise. We're all for clean air, who isn't? But at some point the scale tips and the miniscule improvements get outweighed by reduced reliability and greatly increased expense. We normal people understand this but the EPA hasn't figured that out. Or more likely, they simply don't care. A pristine environment at whatever the cost.
@@AmandaHugenkiss2915 Us normal people are uneducated morons, why do we feel we have a better idea of what the EPA should do and not do? The small amount I've studied about environmental science at uni made me realise that this stuff is way too complicated for everyday people to meddle in. Basically: "leave it to the professionals"
@@MrNeutross Generally the correct engineering solution employs the fewest parts possible to accomplish task, every step in complexity increases cost and likelihood of failure. Absolutely ignoring environmental ramifications, it’s the difference between a machine considering multiple tasks from the jump and one purely designed to do work and not break. Easy off the shelf example, while catalytic converters are wonderful for the environment Backpressure is detrimental to engine longevity and performance. You get more out of the hardware without them. Peak power is how fast the rotating assembly can spin, and every piece of exhaust and intake restriction reduces that potential and runs up long term maintenance
The trucks in your footage were Australian built cat trucks, right hand drive out of Melbourne, international cabs but had 13 and 15Lt cat acert engines. Australia was few years behind on usa emissions laws. The cab design dident work with Australian dimension laws for multi trailers on long distance work and it was a slow selling truck.
How many of the CAT trucks were even built? I know of 1 example the recycling yard I buy mulch and top soil from bought one brand new to move drop off dumpsters. I saw it on the road this past week its still pretty. But iv never seen another one.
The University of Wisconsin is working on a fuel injector system that injects air with the fuel. Diesel fuels do not atomize well. And if that can be fixed. Mechanical injection systems and electronic injection systems both may burn much cleaner. Maybe Catapillar will use that system, and get back into the highway market. Of course the Achates system that Cummins has gotten approved for the 2024 emissions rules. Is a nice rebirth for the 2 stroke Diesel.
If you guys enjoyed the video, please SMASH THAT LIKE BUTTON. It helps the channel out a huge amount and helps RUclips put the video in front of more people. Thanks for watching 😬
DEF
Of course the EPA doesn't care about emissions, they care about money. Same as every other alphabet soup agency.
Because Cummins makes a better engine….
I’m just playing Any C engine is a good engine just stay away from Paccar and Detroit.
@@shadowopsairman1583 . ,
CAT motor was one of the best diesels ever made.
in the 1960's, when smoking was also considered 'cool' and asbestos was deemed 'safe as houses'.
After the cummins nta 855 european big cam I agree.🇺🇲🏴
7.3 power stroke
LOL
Still is the best 3406 c all the way
Government always knows how to ruin a good thing. The old mechanical 3406 is still one of the best commercial engines to ever exist in my opinion.
That’s a fact the ol 425 was bulletproof
@@deborahchesser7375, damn right it was! Ain’t nothing like a caterpillar engine.
heck our 1693 is still running strong after 50 years.
@@robwhite3241, sweet. We had an old GMC school bus at a previous job with the 3176 and that was never in the shop besides for routine maintenance.
My dad still talks about around this area people would pull A caterpillar engine out when they were due for an in frame overhaul or the injection pump failed and replace it with Cummins or Detroit due to the astronomical cost of repairs. Cummins could be rebuilt for $100.00 per cylinder. Many old cat engines met the scrap heap early on down south
When Paccar introduced their own motor, they told Cat that they would still install Cat motors, but Cat had to do all the engineering/design work for installing the motors at Cats expense. That along with losing market share to the new Paccar motor helped drive the nail in the coffin. I sold my 03 Peterbilt with a perfectly good 6NZ Cat when I ordered a 14 Pete with the ISX500 Cummins. All other drive train components the same, and went from a 379 to 389 which is the exact same body style. The difference is a mile per gallon less (5.4 verses 6.5). Add on having to pay for dpf, poorer performance, and very expensive repairs for sensors, dosers, gate valves, and God knows what else, plus adding for down time, and you you understand our frustration. Now they are trying to push "eco tires" that cost more, wear quicker, and don't increase fuel mileage one bit. Who the hell comes up with this crap? Government people with no brains. That's who.
The eco tires sound like a joke. Im sure reducing the rolling resistance on something by 2% that weighs 80,000lbs will make a BIGG difference lol
Elections have consequences. The people of America get what they voted for.
@@morpheus_9 .2 miles per gallon now is about 4000 bucks a year.
@@morpheus_9 If you were paying EU Diesel prices..every penny would count
Yes, it is all on the government, infiltrated by anti-capitalist ecofascists these past 55 years...
On the farm we have 40 or so 3406e model cats pumping water, some have been converted to run on natural gas because the is a pipeline close by. All of our road trucks have 3406e or 3406b model cats and life is good.
Jarrod Davis ~ Sounds like you have a very large farm. You just can't kill a CAT!
With that many if you weren’t close to A natural gas pipeline you would need A diesel pipeline. CATs are thirsty beast.
How does the NG Cat engine fire? Does it still use a bit of Diesel injection to fire the NG charge? That is typically the way Diesel engines run NG. This may also allow to run on pure Diesel if NG is not available.
@@douglasengle2704It is spark ignited. The head is different to allow for sparkplugs, a CID unit is used.
We need for "CAT" to make engines again for over the road trucks.Dont kill a good thing thats been proven it works.
It didn't work too well when installed in a NABI Transit Bus
I worked at the Caterpillar plant in Pendergrass Georgia that was chosen to assemble the variable valve actuators for the ACERT engines. It was suppose to be the future of the plant, it wasn't. With the ACERT's failure and the 2008 recession, the plant closed in 2009.
A slight correction: ACERT came out in 2004 for model year 2005. It actually worked quite well, with many engines running a 1,000,000 plus miles without overhaul. It was EPA 2007 for the 2008 model year that saw the problems begin. Only about 22,000 SDP and an equal number of LEE were produced before they pulled the plug.
I run with a 2007 C15 ACERT on a 2008 389, and it has 1.2 mill without an overhaul, but, I had the dam DPF crap deleted in 2011. All I did is to change the six pack @ 1 mill, and just last year did a PDI single turbo conversion, and keep changing oil @10K or ASAP.
You did mention once in the video that truck engines was only a small part of Caterpillar's manufacturing business. I did a lot of training business with Cat in Peoria in the late 80's to mid 90's. It was pretty obvious that truck engines was not their main business. They manufacture earth moving equipment number one.
Cat dominates thr off road and industrial market on highway was just a small fraction.
Caterpillar is working to introduce diesel engines that use ducted fuel injection to keep their off-road engines compliant with the convergence of emissions standards.
About emissions, I was thinking today, wouldn’t poor road conditions and bad infrastructure that creates traffic chokes, more detrimental to to actual output of diesel and gas vehicles? Shouldn’t we be demanding better roads and infrastructure if the government has been squeezing everything out of us to get “better emissions”
Yes, but fixing our infrastructure will involve tax increases in order to fund the amount of repairs needed. Most people don't want to pay more taxes. But it takes a fraction of that cost to force auto manufacturers to spend millions of their dollars to meet stricter emissions standards.
@@CaptainRudy4021 only so long the government will be able to kick the can down the road before infrastructure maintenance becomes a glaring issue.
No we should just go back to rail and sidings and eliminate most truck traffic.
@@CaptainRudy4021 shit I don’t want to pay more taxes either, I say it needs to be more efficient with all the money they already take, since they want “trucks and cars to be more efficient” they should be more efficient themselves
@@CaptainRudy4021 all BS, if the corrupt government applied all auto and truck related taxes directly to road infrastructure, we would have awesome roads. Fact is they use more then half of transportation related taxes for non road uses. They steal from transportation to prop up their pet projects like light rail and other welfare programs.
Our gas and registration taxes need to be spent on the roads we drive on, not light rail that less then 5% of the people use. If you want to ride a train to work, pay a ticket price in full, that pays for the train service.
I had a pre-ACERT engine, and my buddy had one of the ACERT garbage ones. My engine... I miss that big beast. Sure, it got crap mileage, but I could top Mt. Eagle at 55, fully loaded out.
Interesting story. Thanks! It's too bad that a similar fate befell International Harvester. Their gas, 340 cubic inch V-8 was an excellent motor in pickup trucks and moving trucks. Not a lot of horsepower, but lots of low end torque, excellent reliability, and surprisingly good gas mileage.
You mean 304 and 345
@@barrettmills856 Yep, I meant the 345, not Chrysler's 340. Back in the early 1980's, I owned an 18,000 lb GVW IH enclosed moving truck (a used Uhaul), with the 345 V-8. Fully ladened, running ~50 to 55 mph on flat ground, it got almost 10 MPG., phenomenal for something that heavy and non aerodynamic.
@Dartgame 340 Interesting. That suggests perhaps the particular plugs it used were poorly made, or there was a very localized pre-ignition issue centered at the spark plug.
It wasn't a 340 but a v345 and as far as mileage I had one and about the best it would do is 8mpg but all the power you needed for that size of a truck
@@prestonbogart2492 You're right - 345. But for mileage, I bought a well used '69, IH, Uhaul moving van, 18,000 lb GVW. I got around 8 MPG highway (50 to 55 MPH, as I wanted to make sure it survived the trip) over a 2000+ mile trip cross country, even with it absolutely packed to near its weight limit, PLUS pulling a car trailer with a car. I was astonished at how good the mileage was. The only other vehicle which similarly astonished me was a '69 Mercury station wagon with a 2 barrel 390 V-8. With over 100k miles and essentially zero maintenance by the owner, it got 19 MPH highway - damn good for a friggin' land yacht.
I remember the CAT 3306 ATTAC we had in the VANHOOL A500/2 from 1998. Those were a series of city busses. But those were powerful workhorses.
I had a 3126 CAT in my lobster boat. Was a great motor for a 35 foot F/V
As a retired OTR driver for 40+ years, I can tell you that your account of why Cat stopped selling road engines is spot on dead nuts accurate. From 1994 until 2014, I was driving for the country's largest private fleet and we were testing Cummins, Detroit, Volvo and Cat engines side by side. The first 3 engine manufacturers went with the EGR setup. Exhaust Gas Emission Recycle valves, better known as EGR valves, meet emission standards by putting exhaust components back through the engine. This is regarded as a contentious issue because putting "dirt" back into an engine will invariably shorten engine life and although it statistically resulted in engines meeting emissions standards, it also DECREASED fuel efficiency. I seriously don't understand how an engine can burn more fuel but pollute less. It seems like the government the wants us to believe a lot of things that don't make sense. In any event, Cummins, Detroit and Volvo opted for the EGR method. Cat had a huge canister in the exhaust system that we were told worked like a heavy duty catalytic converter. We were also told that the Cat engines DID meet emission standards, but the EPA mandated that Cat HAD to follow suit and use the "dirty" method. I can't comment on the warranty issue that Cat was allegedly having, but in terms of division profit percentage, that 10% figure alone would justify the truck engine discontinuation. Regardless of the actual causes, I was impressed by the fact that Caterpillar in effect "flipped the bird" to the EPA. Let businessmen, engineers and technicians do what they do best: make a good product at a fair price and profit from that. Conversely, the government is inefficient, wasteful, overbearing and technically ignorant. As such, it would be much better for us all if the government would get the EFF out of everyone's way and allow America to ROAR again!
As with the stolen election, the government doesn't give a shit about people... It is all about control
Basic pollution regulations are fine, but the government has absolutely NO business telling private companies HOW to achieve those targets. Let companies innovate their own new technologies to meet emissions.
Government is inefficient, wasteful, overbearing, and technically ignorant.
That is one of the truest most accurate things I've ever heard.
Yeah, just ignore the serious health issues of machine operation.
As a nation we got what we voted for.
For more information I'd suggest adept ape because he's basically the caterpillar youtube expert and knows damn near all there is to know about their truck engines. A few inconsistencies I noticed is that the Acert system was actually introduced in 2004 and featured the IVA and VVA systems plus twin turbos for the big trucks which I'm led to believe weren't that big of a deal.
Now in 2007 is where that changed because in order to meet those updated standards they did have to throw on a dpf which included their Infamous ARD head device as well as a CGI system which is essentially a better version of standard egr
Josh at Adept Ape has got great channel.and A positive attitude . Always look forward to his videos.
The ignition spark plug in the exhaust "ARD" was their folly, that's the system that made them have countless warranty repairs. Because anybody knows you can't expect something like a spark gap to work to ignite extra diesel in the exhaust, when the exhaust coming out of the engine is already black soot laden, as most C13 and C15s always ran rich.
To add to that, KT3406E is pretty knowledgeable about Cat engines in his own right too.
2008 was also the year Cat and Cummins decided to start using parts produced outside the US.
In the SW like So. Cal. we started seeing Mexican parts used starting about early 80's. I remember cylinder sleeves for overhauls with pretty iffy fits both into the block and pistons into the sleeves. Figured due to cost difference it was just a matter of time before OEM new engines would have foreign made parts or even foreign made complete engines or trucks. If I was still in the field, I'd seriously think I'd be considering a Volvo.
The small Co . I work for has been forced by California to scrap 2 perfectly good completely reliable trucks and replace them with these smog monstrosities (1 freightliner, 1 mack) that constantly breakdown. I'm losing so much wages waiting for the truck to come back from the dealer (avg 2+ wks) I'm thinking of calling it quits after 35 years. Between POS smog equip & elogs I can equal money at the local gas station. $18 hr to start.
Then you might get robbed by a criminal. We need truck drivers right now.
35 Yr. diesel mechanic here and EX commyfornia resident... we were forced to do the same.. the 'old reliables' were trashed for new twinkle bunny
computerized sh!t piles.. never a day without needing to analyze the data ports of the new crap.
There is also the issue of poor fuel mileage compared to the other offerings, especially from Volvo with years of experience with these emission standards, Especially once diesel hit 4+ dollars per gallon.
In india it's 5.76 per gallon
@@mdshahbuddin3858 still cheap, the netherlands 7,88 per gallon
@@MultiArrie UK too - eye watering prices
4+dollars a gallon!🤣😂🤣-European would kill for that price!
Cheap diesel is not coming back
The company I worked for had one of the first CAT trucks, they got their marketing day and everything for selling the truck to that company, and it turned out to have huge issues. CAT replaced the engine and a second truck was bought 2 years later and it was going a lot better but 2017 was when I left and I don’t know how they are doing today other than I’ve seen those trucks on the road here and there.
The new 3.0 duramax has post DPF EGR, and I think that's an awesome idea. They could likely meet emissions for years to come with a hybrid system on the current emissions engines, and simply optimize the current emissions systems rather than adding new ones, like adding a post DPF EGR system, and using an extra injector for the regen cycle.
That is what the EPA 07 CAT engine did. It was called CGI
Ironically off road applications are going to the same air quality standards as on highway. One has to question how long CAT will be anything other than A brand. They are going down the same rabbit hole Deere has. Slapping their stickers on A competitors product.
I think Deere still has the 4.5 and 6.8l powertech
The thing is If cat brought back the C15 with the full emissions. It would absolutely sell like a wild fire. And all the Cummins, Detroit ,mx13 and A26 Volvo engine equipped trucks would drop in value ridiculous amount. But I doubt Volvo group. Daimler. Would put cat back into their trucks.
Cat equipment you are buying the name mainly over the machine its all branding now
None of the engine manufacturers today can build a reliable on road engine that meets current emissions. The brain trust we call our government sets laws with unobtainable goals. Not a single Diesel engine in the market has an emissions system that works properly and doesn’t damage itself in its everyday use. The systems are horrible, the tech is absolutely terrible.
They purposely set these these laws in motion to kill the internal combustion engine. Their goal is to put these companies out of business so they can implement fairy dust and unicorn piss powered trucks (or electric) like our electrical power grid can handle that.😬
@@guyforlogos that’s why there’s emissions engines with million plus miles with no rebuild 🙄
At my work, we will stick with CAT C15 6NZ's (last of the good truck engines) and trucks with emissions deleted.
They'll end up completely shut down for running equipment with the emissions removed.
@Dartgame 340 considering down here in west Texas, probably the emissions delete capital of the world, we have inspectors paid by the government that go to rig sites and measure emissions on every diesel engine there, might be less of an IF and more of a when.
No shut down the EPA they are a uesless
I could be wrong in some aspects about what I’m typing here but….I do believe the partnership between Navistar/International and CAT didn’t just create an on road truck that kinda met emissions standards. I think CAT either sold rights or just allowed Navistar/International to take existing CAT motors and then adapt them to meet emissions standards by adding components such as EGR, DPF, DOC and SCR with a urea system. I’ve seen these motors before in International ProStars and LoneStars. If you carefully examine the motors (Cummins is an exception) you can see the architecture of the motors are that of the older CAT motors that were of the ACERT generation only the motors aren’t CAT yellow in color anymore. Instead Navistar branded these CAT motor knockoffs as MAXXFORCE engines with the latest emissions components that Navistar offered on other of their engines. But the basis of those larger engines was the pedigree of CAT. I think Navistar used what was the CAT C-15 and C-13 engines for the base of their larger MAXXFORCE engines.
Maxxforce 15 had Cat bottom end.
Maxforce 13 was Man engine with Navistar emissions.
C13 was Cat engine with Navistar Head and electrical.
N13 is “fixed” Maxxforce 13 with proper emissions
A26 is the New Man Engine.
And I think the Maxxforce 15 is underrated engine with less problems then the 13
Side note: Navistar nearly ruined Ford as well once they had to build an emissions rated engine. It seems as if they met emissions but cut corners in other areas which reduced reliability. Seems like Navistar was the wrong partner
The minimum force disaster. Most likely the worst Diesel engine ever brought to market. Paccar gaining of capturing that title. Navistar never recovered from that one .
@@markclark5770 with paccar I’ve seen some million mile paccars but hardly any are over 800k without a rebuild or new engine.
The old 3406 A model cat was one of the best engine's ever built.. hands down .....
Contemporary electronically-governed version is known as C15.
Yes here in my. country Ghana and Africa, we only know about CAT and nothing else. Especially, the 3406 b which has no control board (brain board) and does not give us any electrical problems.
Why is there a new vid on this every couple weeks?
Basically, it takes a lot of time and money to design and build a new engine. The gov promised cat a period of time say 8 years where emissions regulations would be the same, but they kept going back and changing their mind. Every politician wants to be more virtuous than the last, so it went from 8 years to 4 and down to 2 year intervals. Making it not financially viable for them to keep redesigning only for it to be redesigned once production started.
Long story short, gov ruins everything with red tape and will burn down your house for a crumb of good publicity.
Give us a part 2. informing us on what cat present situation is...i.e are they planining a comeback, are they working on emmisions products, etc etc
OTR = OVER the road, not ON the road. Just trying to help. (Been doing this since the 1970s.) Great video. I was a CAT man for many years and only grudgingly shifted over to Cummins once I had no real choice. (I hated ACERT and kept hoping for an EGR system. There was a rumor floating around that CAT had plans to make a retrofit kit to save owner-operators from all the pain and expense of swapping platforms. Of course that was all BS.) Your comment about paying the government for approval was dead-nuts accurate, by the way.
Which class 8 engine did you find most reliable?
I'm just doing dryvan from Texas to Colorado or Florida and anywhere in between.
I was told that on road engines were about 10% of their sales. With most of their sales being off road engines they didn't feel it was worth it to meet new emission standards.
Joke was on them, they still had to go DPF and SCR for offroad Tier 4 regulation.
Second hand info but CAT didn't seem to be interested in the light duty truck market which I believe basically funded Cummins emission and power technology on a smaller scale without needing to deal with large expensive engines first. Look at Cummins, over 1000 lb/ft of torque from 6.7 litre engines
A few years back I had a temporary job driving for a company that only bought new trucks to expand their fleet. The old trucks were rebuilt rather than replaced. Sometimes I got to drive very old trucks. Even though they were maintained on a high level. I can't believe a truck with millions of miles on it would be better than when it was new. However they drove exactly the way I remember. Much better than any of the new trucks. Many had cat engines in them but all of the old ones ran much better regardless of who made the engine. It's not just the engines though even the old dashboards and controls were more logical. The old trucks were simply better. Of course none of the old ones have those damn auto shift transmissions. For those of you who don't know what that is. It's an attempt to make an automatic transmission out what would be a manual by replacing the controls with a computer that shifts it very poorly.
Eh , idk Kevin, my Mdrive on my Mack truck works amazing, no problems shifting, it's like it can read my mind, also got a Volvo with ishift and X15 manual. I'll be honest with you, I'll choose the new automatic over manual and day.
Glad to I aint the only one who thought the auto shift transmissions blew chunks. Rough shifting pieces of crap.
Cat engines were never dominant in the class 8 otr market.. that crown was split between Cummings Detroit diesel and Volvo..most of Cat sales went to owner operators and very small trucking fleets.
My last truck , a Kenworth , was powered with a C-15 450 hp. , never ran out of power with the 18 speed . But my favourite was a 3460 425 hp , it was in a Western Star . Did a lot of T& P with that truck , pulling black top in the mountains of B.C. It pulled really hard from 1100 revs .
Many decades ago in the last century I was a simi truck
mech. I remember hearing that John Deere was trying to
get into the truck engine market. I heard from a driver he
was at a truckstop when another driver proudly showed
him his JD truck engine. Supposedly this engine had a
lot of horses. More horses than the average truck engine.
But, I never heard anything about it after that so I guess
it did not fly.
!
A guy was probably referring to a 60 series Detroit a lot of truck drivers or Clowning Around in calling them John Deere engine
Yeah I wish CAT would come back. I’ve been playing a lot ATS lately and I’ve using Zee’s engine sound mode. His C16 sound so much better and made me do some research about CAT and why they got out of the business for commercial big rigs trucks and quit around 2008 to 2010.
CAT did actually adopt an Exhaust Particulate Filter and EGR in 2007. The problem was that they sucked. The R-Heads which is used to raise exhaust temperature to burn off the soot in the EPF keeps failing. Part of this is because they only had 3 years to get their EPF shit right, whereas the competition had been doing EPF for 7~8 years at that point. They also did EGR in 2007 and their EGR system is actually quite good -- it draws "clean" air from after the EPF rather than dirty air from the exhaust manifold. But, they kept the variable intake valve duration system which means their engine is more complicated than the competition. Ultimately, the 2008 recession and the lack of profitability on the commercial truck engine line lead to the executives cutting their losses and pulling the plug on this part of of CAT's portfolio. Because the decision was made to exit the market about a year and half into the 2007 emissions compliant engine line's life cycle, the R-head system was never fixed because additional engineering investment in a dead-end product no longer made sense.
--
It's a sad story of environmental extremism killing our own industry.
The fuel consumption was one of the things truckers complained about. They loved the power.
The rebuild cost also makes people cry, then again Cummins rebuilds are getting more than the truck is worth
So how are they still supplying I6 engines for the Ram 2500's and up? How are they able to meet EPA reqs for the small truck market, but not the Semi-tractor markets? Im just curious how they do it.
What I learned from this video by quoting and paraphrasing your narrative:
1. Rewinding the clock back to 1990 (32 years ago), emission standards were put in place on Diesel engines requiring 1994 models meet those standards.
2. When new emissions standard went in place in 2002, Cat rejected them and instead paid a fine to not change.
3. It wasn't until 2007 (17 years later) that things got much tougher. (Wow, somehow others responded in time, but Cat didn't see this coming)
4. Cat decided to use a very different emissions system (ACERT) than everyone else.
5. Cat made a huge investment in ACERT betting it was superior to EGR for emissions and ultimately it wasn't.
6. All systems had to be certified by the EPA to meet the emission standard. (This is not simply a matter of writing a check. It must meet the standard.)
7. Cat had tons of warranty issues with ACERT-equipped engines.
8. They lost market share, mostly to Cummins. (no doubt because who wants to have your engine in the shop rather than using it?)
9. Those two things made it barely profitable to build on-the-road truck engines.
10. 2010 standards would be even tougher (and apparently they hadn't yet met the 2007 standard).
11. In 2008 they announced they would leave the market in 2010 and team up with Navistar.
You then clarify they didn't simply switch to ECR because it didn't make financial sense. It might fix emissions but not market share loss and warranty costs for ACERT engines.
Everything about this says Cat went out of business because of bad choices and delays while their competitors stepped up. Had Cummins followed this path, making the same decisions and suffering the same effects of warranty costs, reliability issues, and market loss, they would have been out of business instead.
Conclusion? Emissions standards resulted in Cat's exit from the on-road-engine market. If that were true, why are their competitors still in the market?
They made a mistake, cut their losses, and are doing quite well in Marine and Oil & Gas.
Exactly my takeaway. Other companies could innovate, compete and meet emissions standards. CAT could not.
You can also thank the emissions regulations as well as the mileage regulations for all the improvements in automotive fuel and ignition controls
I find it amusing how many people in the US complain about their own government regulations without realizing the rest of the industrial world has regulations too.
Complaining about meeting a difficult standard when other companies are somehow managing is really just blame shifting.
CAT truck engines are small potatoes for CAT - they put their money in one technology, and then walked away when it didn't pan out.
Some of us remember the problems with cars in the early 1970's when early smog regs came in.
Engines have been forced to improve.
Yeah, this is where I'm at as well. All the other players in the market managed to make this work. Cat bet big and missed. It happens. In a way it's academic though. It seems like the movement over time with Caterpillar has been to cut cost and concentrate on their really heavy industry machines.
@@phuturephunk Absolutely - 20 years ago they were branching out in the marine market as well, but then they partnered with MAK for the larger engines and seem to be pulling away from many of the smaller lines. Heavy equipment is truly their bread and butter, so it makes sense to focus on what they do best. All over the world, engine makers are struggling to find the answers to increasing demands to get cleaner running engines.
Improvements?? I have a 2002 Dodge Cummins that is tuned to the same horsepower and torque as a new Ram Cummins my 2002 gets 28 MPG on the highway, my buddies brand new Ram Cummins gets 13 and 14 on a good day. You burn twice the fuel so you have to produce and transport twice as much fuel to do the same thing not to mention you have to mine for metals and manufacture all of the emissions equipment and replace it when it does go bad. The engines also don't last as long which means more mining and production of parts. Now after all of that pollution caused by all of that production tell me which is cleaner 🤔?
we are against the rest of the world being tryannical governments also. with government regulations the world is poorer everywhere
As someone that was part of these decisions and involved in the consent decree, NCPs, and inability to get NCPs, I can say that the story is a good 40% accurate and 20% completely wrong but matches what the trade journalists were paid to say from corporate communications and the lobbyists. The reality of the decisions has been left out, including the negotiations with the trucking companies.
Are we allowed to ask how and why JF took his own life over the C15 engine's relaunch? Why did that happen?
Dude, spill the beans what else do you have to share? This is fascinating
@@robertkollasch2473 right
CAT just didn't hire the VW emissions engineers.
My dad has a 2000 Western Star with CAT engine. It has 3.4 million kilometres (2,000,000 miles) . All he replaced was a turbo and injectors. Best engines ever build.
I only got to drive a truck with a "Dozer Motor" a coupla times before I 'hung it up' in 2007. You could drop those things down below 1000 rpm and pull right back out of it without downshifting(FL is mostly flat). The two trucks I owned-1 at a time-in my early days were Cummins powered: a good ol' 290('bumped' up to ~330) in my 79 COE FL, and a Formula 350 in my 87 long-nose FL. The last trucks I drove had 12.7 Detroits.
I think more thought needed to go into 'assigning the blame'. A lot of the new rules were mandated by a bi-partisan Congress due to the ability to massively improve diesel emissions over a period of years, while progressively lowering emissions through technology.
This is a good thing for anyone with lungs!
I learned about this because in my job I had to specify back-up diesel generators and there are standards and exceptions to standards depending on the use of the equipment. I think this is a worthwhile subject to talk about, but in this case it was oversimplified.
For those who think the emissions rules are somehow 'bad', visit Beijing or Mexico City during an inversion. Lungs do not appreciate nitrous oxides and they can't get rid of soot.
Knew the answer before you asked the question, having to make product changes every 3 or 4 years, is expensive and confusing, look at the changes you listed on the Evolution of the Duramax engine (good video BTW) now what parts fits what, in what year?
This story reminds me of the last three (of four) car companies announcing the closure of manufacturing operations in Australia in the space of a year.
The parent companies are dissatisfied with red tape and low sales so they end a chapter in history.
I'm undecided.... I'm not sure if I'd prefer the H1 kwaka 500 or the H2 kwaka 750... both lovely 2 stroke triple engines that wail and scream, and obliterate the competition (and the rest of the suburb) in a cloud of blue smoke. Bring em back I say!
You are forgetting a major factor. Remember "back in the day" when truck engines had split power ratings? All the engine companies set their engines to produce more power and therefore more pollution when they were using cruise control. They were all very open about it as well. The thinking was pollution was more harmful in cities where there were more trucks, but you wouldn't use cruise. after the fact, the EPA made this a retroactive problem. Part of the settlement was that the 2007 and 2010 standards were moved up beyond where they were originally planned to be implemented. another part of it was a monetary fine. That fine was based on the company's ability to pay instead of levels of pollution. Cat as a company was fined much more since they had their 90% of the company paying for the fine picked up by the 10% of the company. That's gotta hurt.
There used to be smog trails being pulled from the tops of the high-rises in Calgary Alberta Canada every single day. I haven’t seen smog in downtown Calgary for over 15 years do you think that there’s some sort of conspiracy on where the smog trails went? I drive a Volvo D13 with DPF and a quiet Jake. In 400,000 miles I haven’t seen a drop of soot exit my exhaust stack. Compete or die.
But you see mine cuz you will always be behind me..
@@georgealmeida7382 You must be one of those hero freedom fighter truckers! Lol
Cat has t4final engines in off road equipment now so I wonder what’s their reason now
Doest off road engines have different regulations for emissions?
@@fatpatlives1998 yup t4 isn't 1 emission stand. it is several. Off-road t4 is broken up by power. that is why all the small tractor companies are pushing 24.5 hp engines where they used to put a 28hp engine or whatever. under 25hp is pretty loose with emissions. This is also why the next step up that has SCR doesn't have DEF. you have to get bigger before they need to add DEF. Could CAT get back into the On-Road market? yes. Do they want to? no.
I’ve been working on diesel engines and related components since 1989. Anything from military vehicles to locomotives.
To be fair, I have never worked on construction/agricultural equipment.
I started working for KW around 2002, and I remember all of those years.
Short story, you are correct, mostly.
Caterpillar had a “good idea” of sorts when the government announced new EPA regulations for OTR commercial vehicles.
While everyone else was outfitting their engines with EGR ( exhaust gas reduction) systems, Caterpillar went a slightly different way.
You see, EGR redirects a portion of exhaust gas back into intake air, which, introduced soot and carbon into the intake.
Caterpillars idea was called CGI (clean gas induction).
They filtered their exhaust gasses through the DPF BEFORE redirecting a portion of it back through the intake.
The major problem with their CGI system, it eventually produced a yellow powder at the precooler, which when inevitably water was introduced through condensation, would form an acid that ended up being worse than the carbon and soot every other manufacturers engines were being force fed.
Caterpillar HAD the better idea, it just never panned out and they NEVER met emissions standards.
I hated losing Cat engines, I enjoyed working on them.
And I can’t tell you how many problems Cummins has had with their EGR systems, and continue to have. Carbon packing of the pistons being one of the worst. Cummins had their fair share of warranty expenses too. They just weathered it better because ultimately the Cat guys had no better choice after Caterpillar dropped the ball. And to be fair, Cummins has come along ways. Their engines have gotten way better. And the product support I see on a daily basis as far as warranty goes, is top notch.
As far as Paccar engines go, well, they have gotten better as well, and their product support is definitely on par if not better than Cummins is. Let’s just say they’ve still got a long way to go though.
Love them or hate them, Cummins and Paccar ARE your 2 best choices on the road today.
Between those 2 which engine model is the most reliable?
Would you recommend anything from Detroit engines over Cummins or Paccar?
Companies are really pushing for in house brands. Kenworth/Peterbilt are pushing hard to increase the percent of trucks with PACCAR engines. Having said that, Cummins buying Meritor and their joint venture with Eaton Fuller is making a weird love triangle with PACCAR. Meritor makes the PACCAR 40K axles and the Eaton Cummins Endurant transmission (branded as PACCAR TX-12) are in most fleet trucks I see.
I wish they would come back into the field. My current Kenworth has a C13 with 1.3 million miles on it. My last one was a C15 with about the same miles. Yes, each one was rebuilt but what great engines. Real work horses.
I don't get to work on Cat a whole bunch these days, Just move the engine to another truck kind of thing. They made a huge mistake not fighting for it. The downfall is spreading, Those mandates are spreading to industrial to. Companies like Cummins have been stepping up and have great support. Cummins made it easy and affordable to swap out a Cat in almost any application. There is a lot of equipment out there getting rebuilt with the red iron. That's not to say I don't enjoy building around a new twin or compound turbo cat. They are nice.
In your opinion who makes the most reliable modern class 8 engine?
Cummins or Detroit?
I've read Cats are too expensive to rebuild and that's why swapping Cummins killed Cat.
@@nostradamus7648 when you talk reliability, there are a few factors. All of the engine platforms are really roust mechanically, and it comes down to the maintenance, usage and the driver for how well they hold up and how often they need rebuilt. The problems you run into affecting the down time of the unit are the emissions systems. Each one has their own way of doing things and each are equally as bad as the next. Cummins for example, if you have a pto, or your driver insists on idling his truck a lot, The egr system will soot up your oil and wipe out your bearings. Taking a million mile engine down at 300k. The DD's have a very expensive "one Box" that will shut the truck down for any little thing, internal failures of the box are common and it takes months to get a new one. Personally I think the Cummins are better for keeping running and working. Cats are a pain to diagnose, and DD's Take more special attention, but are monsters.
@@nostradamus7648 I need to add a little more context as well that will help shed light on why cat is failing and on the way out. We are a small fleet, 160 trucks, 3 mechanics in the main shop and a few more scattered in other towns. Daimler provides us with the software we need to make repairs on the trucks. Cummins provides us with the software we need to work on the trucks. Cat does not. We are not a big enough fleet and they expect us to send it to the dealer. So F-you cat.
Another banger man! Keep ‘em coming!
Thanks! Will do!
Oh, and the CAT CT series truck cabs were fantastic. The Maxxforce-based 11/13 liter engines were troublesome.
Dates were off, ACERT came out in 04 when other manufacturers went EGR. DPF was 07, SCR was 2010(which Navistar made the mistake of skipping and going massive EGR)
As a diehard IHC partisan, I gotta admit: Never do business with an outfit that thinks it can cost-cut its way to profitability. That's what screwed the old IHC into the ground back in the 1980s
Rather informative video. Again, thank you.
However, I would add to your video the specifics of the Caterpillar twin turbo systems, and how the EPA pushed Caterpillar to market them before they were ready. And, ultimately causing their engines to be unreliable due to lack of proper testing phase. On top of that, I would mention how the EPA fined Caterpillar for "infractions" that Caterpillar, Cummins, and Detroit Diesel were all guilty of, while also NOT fining Cummins or Detroit diesel for those infractions. This entire thing has been a plan for many years (whether anyone wants to believe it or not).
And, if you are on any specific talks about EPA standards.... Please do not forget that, 1) the EPA has that new Kamalas Harris partnership for ALL class 8 trucks to be electric by 2027 - 2030, and 2) that current EPA regulations are deliberately strangling diesel engines for OTR.
Fuel prices are also adding to this headache. Between fuel prices, EPA regulations and designs causing added failures on engines, and a host of other things I am unaware of.. The "system" is trying to make it too expensive to run fossil fuels as a way of boosting electric markets.
However, when you get into electric markets, you have wonder about battery technology (which biden just used the emergency powers to boost resources for making them). You have battery weight to consider, life per charge of batteries to consider, and the fact that most likely, lithium ion will be the battery type. Have you seen what happens when you crack open a lithium nuke, I mean battery? They explode. The battery power necessary to run a class 8 truck for more than 10 hours at a time, turns those rigs into ticking bombs should a battery crack open.
To comply with the epa/harris mandates of 2027 - 2031, you have to build X amount of vehicles (over a million), and on top of that, you have to build charging stations. It is, as of right now, impossible to meet this deadline. On top of this, making trucks in their current state of design electric, is criminal and unsafe. Doing so takes away one of the best safety devices on a class 8 rig : Jake brakes. There is no way an electric motor is going to allow for the same level of safety as a Jake. We are going to start seeing increased accidents from brake fade.
However, I have spewwed enough commentary across more range than your video was intended to show. This is just my thoughts and such. Like I said, thank you for the video. Gave me more information than I previously had at a couple of points.
I feel like if they modernized some of the smaller stuff like the powerstrokes and duramaxes of the world to an OHC setup, and made everyone run clean tunes with DOCs and SCR only, remover the DPF and EGR, we could probably get to a great spot alongside small battery hybridization. Give them like a 20 mile battery only range, maybe drive the steer axle in trucks with an AWD system through the hybrid system, and that formula could produce some very capable and efficient trucks. Full electrification is still more than 10 years away, and if we made them hybrids we could save a lot of fuel and make more torque with the same engines we already have on big trucks.
@@Prestiged_peck
You're Correct
Should NEVER allow people that know nothing about diesel engines, to make decisions about emissions.
@@albundy8052 I agree ! Kinda like the "drug" testing , and who defines what a controlled substance should be . I feel bad for the CDL holders having no privacy. I myself have to give a warm sample on demand just to grade the re-man parts an ship back to vendor . I have a personal life off the clock just like the CDL's . I'm due back tomorrow from med leave because I handle so many CAT , MX , ISX & Detroit parts my arms / wrists need a break . From NOX sensors to complete engines someone has to handle them . We are breaking sales records in parts & service . Our evaluations are no longer based on talent , but a lab screening . So tired of brake shoes an steer gear cores ... We are due for another onsite surprise random , yay . Half the crew is dirty and is talented , the other half's talent is passing a drug screen , and their work ethics suck .
As a current Cat tech for the past 22 years. It was explained to "us" that Cat killed the ORTE program from emissions related. Couldn't keep their "cat" engine power and prowess while meeting emissions standards. The ORTE program was a small part of the company overall.
Can owner operators still use a 3406 in trucks if registered in a particular state?
Why? The EPA: destroyer of all things reliable.
Making Chem trails more effective
My 07 Pete has a c-13 accert. Terrible engine. Headgaskets blew from the turbo's 50 psi boost. Finally the boss took all that garbage off and put one big turbo and is way more reliable now. I love the power and it pulls from idle to 2100 rpm.
Because the C13 had that Navistar head and electrical.
My father drove 386 with c13 acert 425hp. It wasn’t bad. Kinda gutless, the jakes were okay not the best
Can you make videos comparing trucks from different generations? Trying to buy a good cross country/car hauler that's reliable.
Like Ram/Ford/Chevy from the 90s, 00s, and 10s. 1500s, 2500s and diesels.
If you've got the dough id get a new gas truck like the ford 7.3. These new gas engines get the same mpg as the old diesels with the reliability and power. But if you just have to get a diesel (trust me I understand) cummins or 7.3 power stroke is the obvious answer, unless you're a GM fanboy.
@@robwhite3241 thanks for the advice
Caterpillar said "fk it, we're sticking to off-road applications" , due to too much stringent emissions laws for on-road diesels.
At least they were already big time with heavy equipment so they could leave without much loss, many couldn't. But i found it funny and interesting how CAT reacted to the EPAs constant new bull crap standards because they weren't too worried about pulling out of the market, like they didn't have to play nice like the others.
Interesante. Porque NISSAN TITAN dejó de utilizar los CUMMINS?
Awesome video as always, Could we get a 4BT video?
I have a 4BT video in the pipeline as we speak!
Wouldn't that be a short vid since what is there to say "hi this is the 4bt cummins its the same thing as the typical 5.9 6bt it just has 2 less cylinders"
@@nou8257 You'll see lmao
@@Jeko_9785 Everything i've ever heard on them is what i said its just a 6bt with 2 less cylinders what makes it different
@@nou8257 again, wait for the video. lmao
It was all about PACCAR deciding to build their own engines. The on-highway engine market at that time was extremely price sensitive and Cat was building 400 engines per day for PACCAR and making very little profit. It wasn't so much about emmisions but losing a big chunk of their daily build at Mossville. ACERT did have some problems, too.
99-02 7.3 won. Good video.
ACERT also had problems with Diesel that wasn't exceptionally clean. There were many places in the world, like Eastern Eaurope and South America that didn't have the infrastructure to deliver fuel that was clean enough. The sulfur content had to be very low, or it would eat the injectors. Also, ACERT couldn't run on biodiesel. The esters in the biodiesel would eat the injector seals right out of them, and cause the injectors to gum up and clog. And forget running on Kerosene or modified olive oil. Not even. Some of the fuel system warranty issues were with the system made by the truck manufacturer. In short, ACERT was damned finicky.
The EPA is every bit as bad as the IRS, way too much power other words the government really does suck
The EPA is unelected but Congress can place limits on them, but seldom does. As long as the EPA thinks CO2 is a poison the future of transportion looks to be much more costly. At below 200 ppm atmospheric CO2 most plants will struggle, few plants can survive with less than 150 ppm. At 800 ppm the crops of agriculture and the trees of forestry would be much happier than what the EPA would like. Some deserts have visibly greened because CO2 at 412 ppm enables many plants to consume less water.
Two of my customers (Warren CAT, Foley CAT) have no problems making huge profits off rebuilds and parts. In a partnership, we actually tested one of their CAT/NAV trucks. It lasted 6 months before having serious issues. The problem with CAT is it's corporate direction and ego driver "We are bigger" approach. They really don't care a lot on quality anymore, but the end customers like Holt CAT are the ones paying the price. CAT needs a corporate change or they will end up much like UPS is.
What can you add regarding Caterpillar's 2010 acquisition of EMD? Was that a successful move?
I like to see Review on 2011 Nissan frontier 2.5 liter gas engine and manual transmission. is it any good ?
In New Zealand we were able to get the CT630 with a NXS C15 ACERT and 18 speed road ranger, we once had a whole yard full of them. They were pretty good trucks and we only really saw them for servicing. unfortunately the CT610 was an absolute dog with its maxxforce 13 engine.
We also used to re-rate them on our dyno to 550hp
I am a 48 year long haul driver, and I always loved Cat engines for a whole lot of reasons. In my last job I was forced into a Peterbilt with a Cummins engine. I always hated Cummins and now even hate them more. The main thing that bugs me about Cummins is that they have their engine fans set to come on even on cool morning after start up. Of course if you know the fan is on you can compensate your shifting a bit faster, but sometimes that fan comes on and catches you off guard, and you blow a shift. Very annoying for a perfectionist like myself who always likes silky smooth shifts. The shifting speed of a Cat is always consistent. RIP Cat !
I miss California Agricultural Tractor engines.
Love the sound effects ,best part.keep those up,that's a winner???
Now was Cat not compliant because the exhaust was too polluted or that they didn't use systems off the approved list? Perfect example vehicle fails visual inspection but passes sniffer test.
C15 6NZ, the last real CAT RIP
managed to get a Century with a C15 6NZ in 2008, said then I would never buy anything with add blue or egr. I parked it in a paddock with 1,300,000 on the clock in 2020 and neither of us has worked since.
Cat engines were the best in the business, I worked for a company that made engine parts for Cat engines plus we re-man piston for them. We would get pistons in with over million miles and check them on tolerance and maybe 1 in 1000 might be worn but most we just re-bushed the pin bore and shipped them out, Cat said their re-man program made more money then selling brand new pistons. Now all of heavy duty truck engines get mono-welded pistons which are suppose to be the best way to go now.
Those cat trucks had a international engine with c15 valve covers
I have a 1999 freighter classic with a 3406 still running it every week
I know the situation is not ideal with the EPA, but I'm old enough to remember big rigs pouring black smoke out the pipes as if they were burning dirty coal. A million trucks doing that to our air certainly wasn't ideal either. Tech waits for nobody. 2 decades on trucks are still rolling, still making money. If not, they wouldn't do it.
EXACTLY! Nostalgia and rose colored glasses make us forget that. That black smoke looked nice. But it caused a lot of problems and wasn’t good to breathe. I work at a Ford dealership. If a 2008 or later truck comes inside the shop, I can allow the engine to run for a while without anyone noticing. But if I bring an older diesel or a truck with the emissions deleted inside the shop, I have to shut it off IMMEDIATELY, or the guys next to me will start cursing at me for trying to choke them out. I notice that a post 2008 diesel is likely to have a clean tailpipe. It isn’t even the characteristic black and soot coated as with older diesels. Yes, the EPA is a pain . But so is being choked by exhaust and black smoke, especially if caught behind or beside a pre emissions diesel in a traffic jam.
Ironically though, the older mechanically/hydraulically injected Diesel engines where far easier to convert to run on vegetable oil. But scary smog so make it a computer.
And yes, other companies have adapted and are making money. As a side effect, engines are evidently even more powerful. In times past, I’d hate to get behind a truck even going up a modest grade because they’d almost slow to a crawl if hauling a load. Now they can maintain speed on modest grades.
The real reason trucks are still rolling is. There are more older engines still on the road (swamped into newer trucks) and lots of trucks have had their emissions deleted. Also, I hear that trucks over 800HP don't have to meat emissions
@@453tye65e65e65e65 Some delete emissions. But most don’t. Reliability has increased. I admit that The weak point in the trucks we work on is still the Exhaust Temp sensor . That’s the component that can disable the truck . But they are a relatively inexpensive part and easy to replace. But in my experience since 2003, the trucks that give the most problems are those owned by urban cowboys who never Haul anything and drive their trucks around town on short trips. Those who use their f250-550’s as TRUCKS don’t have near the problems as the urban cowboy
A partnership with navistar failing? what a surprise there
The funniest thing about that failed partnership, is that Navistar turned around and sold the designs of their Maxxforce 15 to MAN in Europe....who tweaked it, installed scr on it, and has been making them as the big bore option there ever since their euro6 range came out...
Seems like the c15 and the n15 were good engines, but had subpar quality parts, especially since considering that the Man D3876 is a direct evolution of those 2 engines and as far as I know are pretty reliable both in Europe and Australia
The MAXXForce 15 was based on a C15
4:38 Really? That's what you get out of that?
Regulations that improve air quality for everyone is somehow evil? Isn't it Cats fault that they simply didn't engineer an engine that met the emission standards? I know it's challenging but the others managed with EGR-tec and DPG-tec...
An emissions designed engine won’t be as efficient as an engine purely designed to do work, I’d prefer to see the limit of heat efficiency.
@@OCtheG Maybe so, but NOX is really harmful to lungs but also to vegetation and for rain acidity. Efficiency isn't the only metric that determines the overall quality of an engine.
Don't mean to call you out but I would love a source on your statement. I'm really interested in engine design and efficiency.
I think there has to be a compromise. We're all for clean air, who isn't? But at some point the scale tips and the miniscule improvements get outweighed by reduced reliability and greatly increased expense. We normal people understand this but the EPA hasn't figured that out. Or more likely, they simply don't care. A pristine environment at whatever the cost.
@@AmandaHugenkiss2915 Us normal people are uneducated morons, why do we feel we have a better idea of what the EPA should do and not do? The small amount I've studied about environmental science at uni made me realise that this stuff is way too complicated for everyday people to meddle in.
Basically: "leave it to the professionals"
@@MrNeutross Generally the correct engineering solution employs the fewest parts possible to accomplish task, every step in complexity increases cost and likelihood of failure. Absolutely ignoring environmental ramifications, it’s the difference between a machine considering multiple tasks from the jump and one purely designed to do work and not break. Easy off the shelf example, while catalytic converters are wonderful for the environment Backpressure is detrimental to engine longevity and performance. You get more out of the hardware without them. Peak power is how fast the rotating assembly can spin, and every piece of exhaust and intake restriction reduces that potential and runs up long term maintenance
I did used have 3176 but those could not manage the work so I changed the and used 3406C and have no problem
Cummings motors with the egr on them suck. We have problems all the time with the egr system.
Thanks. Great job. Good info.
I remember those V8 Cat engine in Ford truck in Jamaica.
Why did you show Australian CAT branded trucks when you were referring to US based CAT CT660/680/681?
The trucks in your footage were Australian built cat trucks, right hand drive out of Melbourne, international cabs but had 13 and 15Lt cat acert engines. Australia was few years behind on usa emissions laws.
The cab design dident work with Australian dimension laws for multi trailers on long distance work and it was a slow selling truck.
Money. Plain and simple.
Could they partner with scania ???
How many of the CAT trucks were even built? I know of 1 example the recycling yard I buy mulch and top soil from bought one brand new to move drop off dumpsters. I saw it on the road this past week its still pretty. But iv never seen another one.
Worked on a CAT7 this week he had it sitting for two years though, coolant was low(kept stalling out) and alternator was seized (snapped his belt)
It was in a freightliner
fabulous video thankyou man
The University of Wisconsin is working on a fuel injector system that injects air with the fuel. Diesel fuels do not atomize well. And if that can be fixed. Mechanical injection systems and electronic injection systems both may burn much cleaner. Maybe Catapillar will use that system, and get back into the highway market.
Of course the Achates system that Cummins has gotten approved for the 2024 emissions rules. Is a nice rebirth for the 2 stroke Diesel.
Low rpms in diesel because the fuel burns, gas exploded. A time element is needed to Burn the fuel
Thus low rpms.
cat should have partnered up with scania