So, I'm taking a look at the CAT 259B3 2012 CTL. They have a CAT Diesel engine which is NOT turbo aspirated. Is that really a big deal? I'm the kind of guy who loved the Dodge truck HEMI ads and couldn't begin to tell you what a HEMI is. I just knew that if I ever were to by a Dodge truck I sure as hell would want to have a HEMI. With the Turbo thing, which for me is 60's muscle car lingo, I am also really kind of stupid. Does it mean more hours/gallon and maybe more guts /hp which for me are important?. If so, something in me wants to ask why the Granddaddy of all dirt moving machine mfgs (Caterpillar) would just forget to design in turbocharging if it was a "must have" for efficiency minded customers and that means everyone except.. maybe Jay Leno.
The 259B3 is turbocharged.
ointhead :duh
I am going to jump in here and probably show my ignorance (again) but here goes anyway. Turbocharging is simply a way to get more horsepower out a given sized engine. Basically they use a fan (that is driven by exhaust gases) to increase the pressure of the fresh air delivered to the combustion chamber. This allows the system to pack more air (and fuel) into the combustion chamber during each firing (power) cycle thereby creating more power. My first skid (NH LX565) was normally aspirated (non turbocharger), the second one (NH LS170) was turbocharged. The one I have now (NH L190) is also non turbocharged. It has the most powerful engine of the bunch (it is the largest engine). If a fellow wants the most power he can get out of an engine, get the turbocharged one. On the other hand, if a larger engine will develop the same horsepower as a smaller turbocharged one and it is enough horsepower to do the job, get the non turbocharged one. Since the combustion pressures are lower it stands to reason (in my feeble brain anyway) that the non turbo engine is likely to last longer. Also, when shutting down a turbocharged engine you need to let it cool off by idling it for a minute or so before shutting it down. No need for this ritual with a non turbo engine. I also have a D3500 Dodge pickup with a 5.9 liter turbocharged diesel engine in it. (way better than a Hemi ). I am on my second one now, a 2006 version. I had a waste gate failure on my first one (a 1997). It essentially took the turbo offline. The truck would still run, but had little power. Fortunately the problem was just a broken vacuum hose so it wasn't hard or expensive to fix. Tim
With older turbo gas motors they often used more fuel, newer direct injected gas ones do not. Neither compares to a diesel. A diesel engine is nothing more than a massive air pump, it has no spark and operates on autoignition of the fuel when injected. The more air you have crammed into the cylinder the more fuel you can injected and atomize to a point. Diesels run high compression ratios to create high enough temps for combustion. Gas engines are in the single digits enough times but most turbo diesels are between 16:1-18:1, non turbo diesels run over 20:1 ratios some as high as 25:1. It takes a lot of cubic inches to make up for what a turbo can provide which is why aside from some small engines, almost every modern diesel has at least one turbo. It's much more than a "sexy" term that automakers use. There are reasons no turbo diesel exist though, they tend to be cheaper and can be made to run efficient, but many people complain about non turbo SSL's lacking the feeling of torque and response that the turbo models have. As for the 259B3, as digdeep said that is a turbocharged engine. It is not a "Cat" engine, it is a 3.4L Mitsupillar (Mitsubishi) engine that they used in a lot of their SSL/CTL/MTL's and had good success with before switched to Kubota in the new D series. Perkins models preceded the Mitsu.
Thanks Durallymax... My misinformation came from a website comparing machine specs... At least that bad info led me to get some really useful info from all of you guys. :drinkup. BTW... A Bobcat salesman who almost had me writing a check for $60k for a 2012 T750 (actually a pretty good deal) hit the ceiling when I shared with him some of the very useful info I get from this forum. I have dropped the Bobcat lineup for my project in favor of the CAT 259b3 mainly because I'm now looking at say $42K for a low hr 2012. I'm really liking the suspension concept on the CAT and do believe I can get the job done with $20K in my pocket. Try this for a Flameout! "......OK. Let’s move on to the undercarriage. CAT Blog Brag is full of Crap and people who have way too much time on their hands and don’t know what they are talking about. The Cat suspension undercarriage was designed and built by a company named ASV now owned by Terex. Look them up. Cat had a brief partial share relationship with them in order to purchase their undercarriages. After realizing that the undercarriage was a POS, they backed out. They continue to purchase the suspension undercarriage for their lower price units but decided a couple of years ago to copy our undercarriage. Look at the new CATs. That’s enough education on machine history. I think you are convinced that strangers on the web are the most reliable source for information. They are much like MySpace and Match.com. Everybody is something other than what they are when Face to Face. How many of the Bloggers have come out to your project and how many have stood face to face with your to talk out the process. For a guy who says he’s not knowledgeable about this area, you would think he would jump on opportunity to get help from someone who actually does. Like to guess who that is? Good luck and happy hunting on the blogoshere……………………………." Wheeeew! :guns:guns