Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38

[jvredden@...]

The mpg on my 91 PT-40 has ranged from a low of high 4 mpg to low 6 mpg. I
don't think that 2 fill ups will give you an accurate evaluation. There are
too many variables. How you drive, what you are carry on board, what you are
towing and how was your patience on letting all of the foam disperse when
you fill up. When I took the time I have nursed in 20+ gallons into the tank
once the nozzle clicked off. I have put 25K on the coach over the last 2.5
years and having kept track feel that if I drive like my wife prefers ( around
60 mph...remember if you get in a hurry in a RV you need to reconsider your
priorities) we get from the high 5's to low 6's. We would only see 8 mpg
down hill with a tail wind coasting in neutral. You didn't buy it for the mpg.
If that were your consideration buy a fiberglass coach and get the extra
1-2 mpg. You are still ahead of the game in the Bird when you consider that
the fiberglass coach will depreciate into a net nothing (scrap) value and the
Vintage bird will retain its base value. You bought to enjoy and
travel...sooooo enjoy and travel and don't sweat the mpg. You gotta pay to
play in any
endeavor.

john redden 91 PT40


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[krminyl@...]

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]

[orbitalsolutions]

Thanks for the GREAT link on diesel motors, Tom. I have 30 years
experience with marine diesel applications. The article you posted
may be the most comprehensive and concise piece on diesels I have
ever read. I am in complete agreement with it's assesments and
summarys.

Thanks again.

-James
78FC33SB
LasVegas NV


--- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, Tom Warner
wrote:
>
> Everyone might find this interesting even though it is comparing
> diesel marine versions of these engines.
> http://www.frybrid.com/forum/showthread.php?t=399
>
> Tom Warner
> 1982 FC35
> Vernon center,NY

[Mike Hohnstein]

Now you've done it.
MH
----- Original Message -----
From: orbitalsolutions
To: WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 12:20 PM
Subject: [WanderlodgeForum] Re: Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38


Thanks for the GREAT link on diesel motors, Tom. I have 30 years
experience with marine diesel applications. The article you posted
may be the most comprehensive and concise piece on diesels I have
ever read. I am in complete agreement with it's assesments and
summarys.

Thanks again.

-James
78FC33SB
LasVegas NV


--- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, Tom Warner
wrote:
>
> Everyone might find this interesting even though it is comparing
> diesel marine versions of these engines.
> http://www.frybrid.com/forum/showthread.php?t=399
>
> Tom Warner
> 1982 FC35
> Vernon center,NY







------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "WanderlodgeForum" on the web.

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WanderlodgeForum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Scott Forman]

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]
>

[Scott Forman]

--- 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]
>

[orbitalsolutions]

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]

--Ron: How bout the Cat turbo on the SP??? I have yet to get 8mpg
while my ole 77FC got 8mpg and more all day!!
Course I never drive the SP too slow either!!
I would say the answer is 6-8mpg no matter what engine one has.
Regards,
Hank Hannigan & Naty
Still in Kangland..going to big CMCA MH ralley 13-19 March in Mt.
Gambier, South Australia....Any Takers??
90SP36 ( Stored in Vegas)








- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, "ronmarabito2002"
wrote:
>
> 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:
> > > > *
> > > >
> >
> subject=Unsubscribe>WanderlodgeForum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > > >
> > > > *
> > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> > > > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >----------
> > >
> >
>

[Mike Hohnstein]

Oh...never mind.
MH
----- Original Message -----
From: orbitalsolutions
To: WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 6:23 PM
Subject: [WanderlodgeForum] Re: Performance of a PT36 vs a PT38


I'm almost afraid to ask, but what did I do?

-James
78FC33SB
LasVegas NV


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






SPONSORED LINKS Recreational vehicles Wanderlodge Automotive maintenance
Recreational vehicle dealer Used recreational vehicles Automotive
radiators


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "WanderlodgeForum" on the web.

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WanderlodgeForum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Jim Owens]

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]
> >
>