Cat 3208 - small???

Topic: Cat 3208 - small??? (Read 3352 times) previous topic - next topic

Cat 3208 - small???

July 09, 2011, 12:04:21 pm

Some time back I was posting an issue I was having with my Cat 3208T and a responder mentioned that I had a "small" engine. I just came across the original brochure from PPL where I noted that the engine has a 10.4 liter displacement. I have discovered that the 3116 is 6.6 liters, the 3126 is 7.2 liters and it appears that the C- series engines numbers are their displacement. So it would seem that my engine is the equivalent of a C-10, so why is my engine considered small?

Re: Cat 3208 - small???

Reply #1 – July 09, 2011, 12:32:38 pm

John, The 3208 engines were originally designed as stationary engines for oil field use etc. Compared with some other off road engines they may have been small. I had a 3208T in a 85 ORED and loved it. A friend had a 78 Newell with a 3208 ( no turbo ) and it did the job. Enjoy it, at least anyone can fix it, no fancy computers to worry about.
Gary B

Re: Cat 3208 - small???

Reply #2 – July 09, 2011, 05:57:50 pm

One of the (few) problems with the 3208 is that it only has 30 or 35# exh valve springs. If you add an exh brake you don't gain much braking power.

Re: Cat 3208 - small???

Reply #3 – July 09, 2011, 06:55:11 pm

10.4 liters and 250-300 hp may be small to some with 14.6 liter, 475 to 600hp (with kit) 3406E Cat in the multi-slide 40 footers. Sure a lot bigger than 5.9 Cummins.

Some trucking companies have gone over a million miles w/o overhaul with the 3208. Engine lives best with stock hp.

Much less to go wrong with mechanical engine vs computer. Perhaps a small % less fuel mileage.

They didn't make thousands of them because they were bad.

Re: Cat 3208 - small???

Reply #4 – July 11, 2011, 02:47:18 pm

Quote from: Gary Bouland – July 09, 2011, 12:32:38 pm

John, The 3208 engines were originally designed as stationary engines for oil field use etc. Compared with some other off road engines they may have been small. I had a 3208T in a 85 ORED and loved it. A friend had a 78 Newell with a 3208 ( no turbo ) and it did the job. Enjoy it, at least anyone can fix it, no fancy computers to worry about.
Gary B

Not quite, Gary.

As an ex Caterpillar guy with 20 years with CAT, dealers, subsidiary company and as a contract engineer later, the origin of the 3208 comes from the earlier family of 10+/- liter parent bore V8 engines. The automotive models were first the 1145 and the larger 1160 with a scroll metering inline 8 injection pump. The industrial engines were the 3145 and 3160. Fuel systems had different governor springs, etc. to respond to different loading. Those engines were replaced by the 3208 family for both automotive and industrial. The fuel system was changed to the sleeve metering pump at that time. The difference between auto and industrial was in the governor portion of the pump assembly.

At that time, the 3208 was IT in the world of midrange engines, midrange as to HP not displacement. There were over 300,000 built. Original piston design was a two ring piston, one compression, one oil control. They were really good at oil consumption issues. An aftermarket company came out with a three ring piston which had better oil control. Cat resisted that for years. Something to do with "not invented here" syndrome!

They are good engines. Granted they do not have the HP of lesser displacement engines. Neither are they plagued by computers. They are simple to repair if you have the knowledge and tools. No troublesome sensors and ECMs. The injection pumps can be easily repaired by many diesel pump shops. The pencil injectors are simple to replace.

Here is a little known fact: the 3208 frequently does not idle with all 8 cylinders firing. Most idle with fewer than eight. That is due to the small differences in the lowest fueling position of the sleeve on the injector plunger. At off idle and under load, all eight are delivering as expected.

Re: Cat 3208 - small???

Reply #5 – July 11, 2011, 04:29:26 pm

Gary, its nice having you around. Experience is appreciated.

Re: Cat 3208 - small???

Reply #6 – July 11, 2011, 04:56:37 pm

My 3208 with turbo does a nice job.

Re: Cat 3208 - small???

Reply #7 – July 11, 2011, 11:59:02 pm

Just so you know, mine is 300 HP and it pushes the 19,000 pound chassis just fine. With a better transmission it would even do better towing my 7,000 pound truck - four speeds does not get it in the mountains.

From what I heard at the Cat dealer the engine is considered nearly bullet proof unlike the modern high horsepower engines that have less metal in them.

BTW, when I was researching the Cat 3208 I came across a flyer that said the marine Cat 3208 went up to 435 HP.

Re: Cat 3208 - small???

Reply #8 – July 12, 2011, 01:59:50 pm

My first introduction to Caterpillar highway engines was in the mid 1970s. A friend had brought a brand new Peterbilt with a 425 Cat in it. He was using it to pull double flatbed trailers hauling steel coils and rod. It was a total of 9 axles all together and a payload of about 90,000 pounds of freight. That 425 Cat would walk away from almost anything on the highway at the time, and even faster when pulling a serious hill like Hamilton Hill up in Hamilton, Ontario on the 403. It was one phenomenal engine. Even Cummins and Detroil had nothing at the time that would touch it. One company (Ohio Fast Freight) was running a Allison Chamblers engine in their company tractors that would keep up with it. But those engines did not stick around for some reason.

Re: Cat 3208 - small???

Reply #9 – July 12, 2011, 03:55:24 pm

Quote from: John Cooper – July 11, 2011, 11:59:02 pm

Just so you know, mine is 300 HP and it pushes the 19,000 pound chassis just fine. With a better transmission it would even do better towing my 7,000 pound truck - four speeds does not get it in the mountains.

From what I heard at the Cat dealer the engine is considered nearly bullet proof unlike the modern high horsepower engines that have less metal in them.

BTW, when I was researching the Cat 3208 I came across a flyer that said the marine Cat 3208 went up to 435 HP.

Yes, the marine version was capable of 435 HP for a short time. Once the boat is on plane, there will not be 435 at the prop. Most marinized diesels have far higher HP ratings than the land versions due to the short time it takes running up to plane speed. Once that point is reached, the governor senses the reduced engine load and scales back the fuel setting.

I would also agree very much that the older engines may weigh more as they do have more iron in them than late model engines with higher HP ratings. An example would be the Cummins ISL or ISC. Both produce much more HP than the 3208T. Compared to that older model they are racing engines.

No computer, no sensors, no baloney.....the 3208 is a great engine.

Re: Cat 3208 - small???

Reply #10 – July 12, 2011, 04:16:56 pm

That was a 1693 cat 425 hp Pat. We ran some and it was a horse just like you said. Boss bought a 550 Allis Chambers at that time and you recall is right again, very strong engine but had cam problems before 60 thousand miles routinly......... I loved to here that old 1693 rattle...... They came in 325 hp..... 375 hp and the 425. All ran stronger than the numbers implied.

Re: Cat 3208 - small???

Reply #11 – July 12, 2011, 04:59:49 pm

This is great, and yes I started with a B-61 Mack with Triplex, 220 Cumalong, 238 DDC, 318 DDC, 335 Cumalong and then the 425, 1693, A wonderful and as usual sounded like a bucket of bolts being rattled at idle, but very smooth and quiet under load, oh yeah. Only bad side was the weight, it is like the 12V-71, about 3500 lb chunk of iron. The only thing that ever passed me with the 1693, was a long nose Pete with "Pair of 238's" painted on side of hood.
Never could figure out how he was loaded, but it took him about 1/4 mile to get around me on that mtn on I-80 Pa, west bound. Always remembered that and most likely why I put the 12V-71TT in the MCI conversion, just had to have one of em "Pair of 238's"

Now enjoy the ISM 500 @ 1550 Torque and 30,000 weight.

Re: Cat 3208 - small???

Reply #12 – July 12, 2011, 05:17:58 pm

that 220 with a triplex would give a fella much shifting practice.

Re: Cat 3208 - small???

Reply #13 – July 12, 2011, 05:23:52 pm

CaT 3208 Small, not really, just small in power, they have always been considered a "Throw away" engine, no liners much like the A, B,and C Series Cummins, IE, Med Duty engine.

Re: Cat 3208 - small???

Reply #14 – July 12, 2011, 05:27:09 pm

Dub, Yes however a 318 with the 13 o/d Road Ranger will give you all the rowing you could ask for, non stop unless in the flat land, why I loved the 1693 w/13 spd much less rowing the shifter.

Re: Cat 3208 - small???

Reply #15 – July 12, 2011, 05:31:03 pm

Could anyone project, based on past 20 years, what people will be saying about my poor ole cummins 450 celect plus 99 model 20 years from now, so I can prepare myself for defending how good it has performed or not. jc

Re: Cat 3208 - small???

Reply #16 – July 12, 2011, 05:54:01 pm

I hope I never have to drive a 318 again......I never had the opportunity to drive a v12.... I raced one in 1976 with my 425 1693. No one won that race because the terain wasn't suitable for our speeds. The V12 was a horse that would not be denied.... Have to give some credit to Cummins in the late 70's when them came out with the KTA 6 headed 600 hp. Two versions, the 450 and the 600 hp. They could compete.... I think it was 78 we bought a 3408 cat that was impressive but for the extra 2 holes it really didn't out perform the 425 1693 in my opinion. 3 mpg at 55 mph or 100 mph... take your pick..... In those days we had to carry mutiple drivers license. Hauling produce across I10 and being in my 20's kept one license to deep in points....... I miss those days.. I thought I was something more than foolish..... Wasn't much traffic then and a guy could turn one loose across the desert southwest.

Re: Cat 3208 - small???

Reply #17 – July 12, 2011, 05:56:36 pm

My apologies for hijacking your post Mr Cooper. Dave, Pat and myself are old truckers.

Re: Cat 3208 - small???

Reply #18 – July 12, 2011, 06:00:14 pm

Well it will surely prove one way or the other how good or bad it is. The good point is the M11 / ISM is the smallest engine Cummins considers as a heavy duty engine, anything smaller is Med duty at best.
Knowing Cummins reputation, I expect the the ISM to be considered a good great engine. The ISM is no longer being produced as the small ISX has replaced it. Am told the EPA / Emissions killed the ISM series.
Look at the old 903, 743, 855, 1150 highway engines, they were great engines, just got bypassed by newer and better technology. I would relax and not worry about it.

Re: Cat 3208 - small???

Reply #19 – July 12, 2011, 06:36:00 pm

After retiring from the Navy ,I started A boat business , ran it for 27 years . It didn't take me very long to figure out that I needed A med to large forklift . I bought A Cat , 30,000 lb lift size .It had 8 foot forks that were needed to unload boats on trailers from trucks .The engine was A 3208 , loved it . That thing would start up no matter the zero temp out side . All you had to have was A strong battery . That lift weighed 30,000 lbs , it could lift it's weight at A medium idle .Didn't run it on the interstste so have zero info on that , but dependable--trouble free---yep, yep and yep

Re: Cat 3208 - small???

Reply #20 – July 12, 2011, 06:58:32 pm

Quote from: Dave M – July 12, 2011, 04:59:49 pm

This is great, and yes I started with a B-61 Mack with Triplex, 220 Cumalong, 238 DDC, 318 DDC, 335 Cumalong and then the 425, 1693, A wonderful and as usual sounded like a bucket of bolts being rattled at idle, but very smooth and quiet under load, oh yeah. Only bad side was the weight, it is like the 12V-71, about 3500 lb chunk of iron. The only thing that ever passed me with the 1693, was a long nose Pete with "Pair of 238's" painted on side of hood.
Never could figure out how he was loaded, but it took him about 1/4 mile to get around me on that mtn on I-80 Pa, west bound. Always remembered that and most likely why I put the 12V-71TT in the MCI conversion, just had to have one of em "Pair of 238's" Now enjoy the ISM 500 @ 1550 Torque and 30,000 weight.

The 1693 was a Bull and weighed more than the 3408 V8 that replaced it! That engine was a handful. I worked for a Caterpillar dealer during the heyday of the 1693. Most truck dealers would not work on them instead sending the customer to Caterpillar. If you dropped a valve on that engine, you paid dearly as it would break a tooth on every gear in the gear train! Originally, it was a construction machine engine. It had a crankshaft that would not quit. It was called the D343 and was used in the 988 wheel loader and the 983 track loader as well as the 631B tractor scraper. That aluminum cam box was a real nightmare when you tried to remove the 1/4" cap screws that held the cover on. The aluminum female thread of the cam box would seize the bolts and they would break off. LOTS of fun removing the pieces.

Did you ever see one with a CAT Brakesaver? It was a hydraulic retarder that was between the crankshaft hub and flywheel.

Re: Cat 3208 - small???

Reply #21 – July 12, 2011, 08:00:40 pm

Did not actually use the brake saver, but know how it operated with a lever like the trolley valve. Ever see one on a dyno with the rack stop screw removed ? a 600 hp dyno was not enough.
And yes the D343 version was the non highway model. As for the 3408 & 3412, they did ok on generators, not so well in trucks. The off set rod journals always worried me and others, but never saw a problem with it.
Yes, Cat I guess is still bull dozer mentally. Heavy and rough.
The weight of the D343/1693TA is what finally got me off the road as could not scale any load, just deadhead miles. Best thing that happened to me, I got into a good business and stayed home.

Re: Cat 3208 - small???

Reply #22 – July 12, 2011, 10:13:55 pm

Back in the late 1970s, my father in law had a International cab over with a Cummins formula 290 in it. There was a place in Tampa, Fl (just down the road from Cigar City truck stop) that specialized in setting up Cummins engines. He was the brother of the guy who started Pittsburgh Power. He set up the FILs engine and would that engine run!!! He could walk side by side with a 400 Cummins, with the same load, and by the time they got to the 5th red light he would be going through the light and the guy with the 400 Cummins would be behind him and get stuck for the light. She would pull over Fancy Gap with the best of the big boys, but was just a little Formula 290. but you could not get into it full throttle cause it would come apart. Had to feed the fuel easy to it.

Re: Cat 3208 - small???

Reply #23 – July 12, 2011, 10:28:06 pm

My dad started driving trucks about 1960. His first was a Mack cabover with Cummins 220 (?) and a quadriplex transmission. It provided five forward speeds on the main shifter and four speeds on the splitter. My recollection is that it had 18 usable forward gears. With a 76,000# rig between Oklahoma and California, he used every gear available.

After his early trips, he kept trying to shift gears on the automatic transmission on the family car. He also tended to ride the center line. After driving for a while, he started making a better transition between driving the truck and driving the car.

He last drove in 1975 in a truck he really enjoyed. It was a Peterbilt conventional with a Cat engine. I don't know which engine, but I know he loved to drive it.

Re: Cat 3208 - small???

Reply #24 – July 16, 2011, 12:09:43 am

Quote from: J. D. Stevens – July 12, 2011, 10:28:06 pm

My dad started driving trucks about 1960. His first was a Mack cabover with Cummins 220 (?) and a quadriplex transmission. It provided five forward speeds on the main shifter and four speeds on the splitter. My recollection is that it had 18 usable forward gears. With a 76,000# rig between Oklahoma and California, he used every gear available.

Back in the days when I hauled double trains out of Bethlehem Steel in Lackawanna, NY to the auto plants in Michigan there were two White conventional day cab tractors leased on to Pittsburgh - Detroit Motor Freight that were also hauling double flat bed trains. Those tractors were powered by the old Cummins 220. They hauled the same payload that I was hauling, 90,000 to 100,000 pounds of steel coils or rod. Those guys would leave Fort Erie, Ontario Customs the same time I would. I would stop and fuel up at Woodstock and while I was fueling they would go by. I catch up with them on a hill somewhere, and would loose sight of them. Would stop for a bite to eat and a break in a little jerkwater east of Sarnia, On and would see them go by again. They would alway end up at the plant in Michigan about the same time I did. The Cummins 350 I was running at the time would run circles around them on the hills, but those guys just kept plugging along and never stopped except when they had to. Those old Cummins 220s were super good engines. And the same engine with a turbo was a 250. It to was a great engine in its time.

Affiliate Notice