Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38

[Jim Owens]

James,

Mike believes you've validated (i.e. stroked the ego of) a
controversial figure in the 'Bird community...

Jim Owens

--- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, "orbitalsolutions"
wrote:
>
> I'm almost afraid to ask, but what did I do?
>
> -James
> 78FC33SB
> LasVegas NV
>
>
> --- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Hohnstein"
> <MHOHNSTEIN@> wrote:
> >
> > Now you've done it.
> > MH
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: orbitalsolutions
> > To: WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 12:20 PM
> > Subject: [WanderlodgeForum] Re: Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38
> >
> >
> > Thanks for the GREAT link on diesel motors, Tom. I have 30
> years
> > experience with marine diesel applications. The article you
> posted
> > may be the most comprehensive and concise piece on diesels I
> have
> > ever read. I am in complete agreement with it's assesments and
> > summarys.
> >
> > Thanks again.
> >
> > -James
> > 78FC33SB
> > LasVegas NV
>

[Henry Jay Hannigan]

---Jim:
Suggest you put the bird on propane..lpg....half the gas guzzlers in
Australia are on lpg..many conversion kits available....much cheaper
than petrol.
I have a toyota over here on propane and runs great.
you already have a propane tank..therefore just need a conversion
kit........there is propane available at every gas station in
Australia...USA has not had high petrol prices so no need gor lpg
before but now it is catching up.
lol

Hank Hannigan & Naty
still in Kangland
90SP36 ( stored in Vegas)







In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Owens"
wrote:
>
> Scott,
>
> The larger two-stoke diesels generate more power, more quickly at
the
> cost of greater fuel usage than the smaller four-stokes. It's all
moot
> to me, I'm stuck with a gas guzzling Ford 534 :o
>
> Jim Owens
> 77 FC33SB (Gas)
> Lake of the Ozarks, MO
>
> --- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Forman" <sforman@>
> wrote:
> >
> > My 82 FC with 225 hp turbo 3208 consistently gets 8mpg. I am
> amazed
> > that is better than the PT's. I would have expected the
opposite,
> > since the under-powered FC's require a foot to the floor pretty
> much
> > all the time. Learn something new here every day.
> >
> > Scott Forman
> > 82 FC35RB
> > Memphis
> >
> > --- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, krminyl@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Andy,
> > >
> > > On a good day, I get around 5 mpg in my '86 38' PT, fully
loaded,
> > and
> > > pulling a 24' enclosed trailer with a sand car, quads, and
gear
> > (about a 6000lb
> > > trailer and load). Unloaded, I don't ever remember getting
any
> > better that
> > > 6mpg. Although it probably doesn't matter much, I run my
> generator
> > about 1/3rd
> > > of the time when driving (to run the A/C's), and about 3-4hrs
a
> day
> > to cook,
> > > and charge the batts because 90% of our travels and
destinations
> > involve no
> > > hookups. I think the 8V92 traditionally gets around 4-6 MPG,
> the
> > 6V92 6-8 MPG,
> > > and the 3208 CAT in the range of 6-10 (give or take a little,
> and
> > depending
> > > on terrain, speed, and load)
> > >
> > > I try to soften the shock at the pump by filling
often...pumping
> 50
> > gallons
> > > a couple different times vs. getting 200 gallons at once.
Silly
> as
> > it
> > > sounds, I don't feel so bad getting fuel this way! Remember,
> > these vehicles weigh
> > > twice as much and are 10 times safer than the plastic palaces
> and
> > > sticks-and-staples on the road right now. I'll sacrifice a
> little
> > MPG over safety any
> > > day.
> > >
> > >
> > > Good luck...big decision!
> > >
> > > Kevin McKeown
> > > Yorba Linda, CA
> > > 1986 38' PT
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
>