Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38
02-02-2006, 14:20
Post: #7
Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38
The FC Cat Turbo 3208 is more economical.

R.E. (Ron) Marabito, Dallas, TX 92WB40


--- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, "Andy Coleman"
wrote:
>
> Hello Tom,
>
> You mentioned fuel economy differences between the PT36 and PT38.
>
> I might soon be in the market for a 70's to 80's Wanderlodge.
> However, the motor choices are confusing! The FC35 with a Cat Turbo
> 3208, the PT36 with a Detroit 6V92, and a PT38 with an Detroit 8V92
> are all similar sized coaches. Performance (225 HP to 475 HP) is
> obviously very different.
>
> With the high price of fuel these days, do any of these motors stand
> out in fuel economy? If they are all similar, I guess the more
> powerful 8V92 is the way to go!
>
> Anybody know?
>
> I'm so happy that I found this group!
>
> Andy Coleman
>
>
>
> --- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, Tom Warner wrote:
> >
> > Ron there might be other considerations but then maybe you considered
> > them and/or had information that I did not see. For instance,
> > unless I absolutely knew what the maintenance history of both coaches
> > were and the price that will be finally paid for each including taxes
> > and registration fees if there are some ( realizing they had a max
> > budget of $50-75K) that would leave somewhere in the range of
> > $60,000 not including taxes.
> >
> > I would go with the coach that fit in that budget IF I knew :
> >
> > 1. The tires were all servicable and had a DOT date of less then 5
> > years and had some assurance that they had not been abused by running
> > over/or under inflated or run over curbs. .
> >
> > 2. You had service records for the coach to ensure it was regularly
> > maintained and not sit for long periods of time.
> >
> > 3. You consider the fuel mileage. The PT36 with a 6V92 will get
> > better mileage then the PT38 with a 8V92. Either one I would have
> > inspected by a reputable mechanice to make sure there are no problems
> > with the engines.
> >
> > 4. And lastly use the Vintage birds checklist and go over every
> > single item in the coach. That checklist could very well help you get
> > a lower price then the owner is willing to go to knowing that there
> > are no problems. If everything checks out however you will feel
> > better about the price you do have to pay.
> >
> > Good luck in which ever one you buy.
> >
> > Tom Warner
> > 1982 FC35
> > Vernon Center,NY
> >
> >
> > At 06:03 PM 2/2/2006, you wrote:
> > >I've run coaches with both. I would not consider the 6V92 again. On
> > >a small coach, it might be fine, but between the two coaches,
there is
> > >not a lot of weight difference, thus go with the 8V92 for
performance.
> > >You won't be sorry, unless other considerations are more important.
> > >
> > >R.E. (Ron) Marabito, Dallas, TX 92WB40
> > >Forum Moderator
> > >
> > >
> > >--- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, "buddyballs79"
> > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello and thanks in advance for the replies.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > We're looking at two coaches right now, one is an 89 PT 36 with
> the 6V
> > > > 330 Detroit and the other is an 87 PT38 with the 8V 475hp Detroit.
> > > > Both are the silver editions. The PT 36 has 135k and the PT
38 has
> > > > 100k. Since they are both a considerable distance away we were
> > > > wondering if anybody has had any experience with these coaches.
> How is
> > > > the performance of the 36 with the 6V Detroit vs the 38 with
the 8V?
> > > > Any pros or cons for one or the other? It will be our first
diesel
> > > > motorhome and we love the look of the older Bluebirds. Our
> budget is
> > > > $50k to $75k max.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks again for the help.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >----------
> > >YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > > * Visit your group
> > > "<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WanderlodgeForum>WanderlodgeForum"
> on the web.
> > > *
> > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > *
> > >
>
Wanderl\
odgeForum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> > >
> > > *
> > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> > > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> > >
> > >
> > >----------
> >
>
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


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



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