R Model w/3208?

[Geoff Weeks]

Not saying it wasn't cheap, in fact I said it in my 1st post, "Ford wanted a cheap diesel".

But comparing engines, displacement and output are the normal things compared, and the 3208 was anemic at best.

The 8.2 is a closer match and was a smaller displacement but gave better fuel consumption.

[BOBWhite]

9 hours ago, Geoff Weeks said:

For the same (aprox) displacement you could have a Cummins L-10 or a Cat 3306  and have a far better engine.

Both of those would pull a loaded semi at 80K.

Longer and taller but better suited.

If you look at comparing to a 5.9 or 6.7, you are comparing to a much smaller engine, in the case of the 5.9 almost 1/2 the displacement.

The 3208 was 10.4L

Not fair to compare it with those engines, they came out way later. The first iterations of the 3208 came out in the late 60s and Cat didn't stop production till the 90s. 

I can't really think of another motor that size that was available in the 70s Did cummins have anything before the 8.3? Detroit and Cat were really the only ones that offered diesels to replace the 50s gas engines at that time 

 

[tjc transport]

cummins had the "triple nickel V8" from the 60's though the end of the 70's.

[Geoff Weeks]

45 minutes ago, BOBWhite said:

Not fair to compare it with those engines,

 

I was comparing similar displacement and style (diesel). No they aren't in the same "league", but that was the point.

Medium diesels, until recently, have under preformed, be it the 3208, 8.2, IHC's  550, or Cummins triple nickle. (The Cummins was the best of them) and lets not leave out the toilet bowl, ah I mean toro flow. Notice something? they' re all V engines, most V8's.

The 3208 has the largest displacement of the ones mentioned, and still was mediocre at best.

[Joey Mack]

6 in a row, makes them go....

[cruiseliner64]

My apoloiges,I spelt Gardner the way it is said instead of the the correct spelling....They have to have been one of the best engines  ever made.Reliaible economical and long life span as well as being a great drivers engine.Maybe a large understressed engine is the way to go......

Paul

[Brocky]

Geoff

Go on and say that no one was able to get reliability out of a V configured engine in a variable speed truck application..  In stationary and marine applications where they were under a constant load and operating speed the V configuration held up.

[Geoff Weeks]

I have been inside and all over the LXB, great engines and fuel usage that no other could match until electronics came out and may be not then.

I still have a LXB piston and a head side cover with the Gardner script on it, I was always planning on making a belt buckle out of it.

In the dead of Chicago winters we would take the intake hose off and start a little fire in the intake with lacquer thinner to heat the air, then hit the start button, rush of air would snuff out the flame and draw the fumes in, started real smooth, until the -20F air hit then it ran a bit rough for a few seconds.

[Geoff Weeks]

2 minutes ago, Brocky said:

Geoff

Go on and say that no one was able to get reliability out of a V configured engine in a variable speed truck application..  In stationary and marine applications where they were under a constant load and operating speed the V configuration held up.

Nope, I will not say that, but I will say I don't like V engines. Mack had good luck with theirs, and Detroit produced many, all in variable speed applications.

[Brocky]

1 minute ago, Geoff Weeks said:

Nope, I will not say that, but I will say I don't like V engines. Mack had good luck with theirs, and Detroit produced many, all in variable speed applications.

I know modern technology has improved engine life overall but still I do not think (???) that V configurations ever bumped the million mile mark that the inline 6's did?????

[Geoff Weeks]

1 hour ago, cruiseliner64 said:

My apoloiges,I spelt Gardner the way it is said instead of the the correct spelling....They have to have been one of the best engines  ever made.Reliaible economical and long life span as well as being a great drivers engine.Maybe a large understressed engine is the way to go......

Paul

No problem, Paul, I am likely the least qualified  person to point out misspellings of other, but having been around them so much, I remember how to spell their name.

[Geoff Weeks]

3 minutes ago, Brocky said:

I know modern technology has improved engine life overall but still I do not think (???) that V configurations ever bumped the million mile mark that the inline 6's did?????

IDK, I do know the "nine-o- nothing" had a good rep down under, much better rep than it had here. Mack's V-8 might also have done that kind of miles IDK, Detroit's were in their own class and I don't think the 2 strokes ever made 1 mil regardless of inline or V

And no one person could ever afford to run a 3408 for 1 million !

Edited 5 hours ago by Geoff Weeks

[Geoff Weeks]

The Gardner powered buses were a treat to drive, most were transverse VRT's with semi-auto's but we had a few Lodekka's with 5 spds. There weren't a lot of drivers that could manage the 5 spd well.

 The bus I drove from Columbus, Oh to Chicago was a Lodekka with a 5 spd.