caterpillar 3176 600hp ..... any good ?

M

meracus

Well-Known Member
Joined
10 Oct 2015
Messages
81
Visit site
hello
any thoughts on reliability , performance and comsumptions of these engines from 1996
regards
andre
 
i guess silence means no one knows anything about these , been looking around the net and all i can see is a few negative reviews so it may mean its a lemon !
 
meracus said:
hello
any thoughts on reliability , performance and comsumptions of these engines from 1996
regards
andre
Click to expand...

Bit of a curates egg......

CAT 3176 was designed as a Cummins L10 competitor. CAT really liked the stiff Cummins mid stop liner design however it was heavily patented. In order to get around the patent they used aluminum spacer on the block.

As 3176 evolved it did become a better engine, however it was not until CAT C10 when the alloy spacer deck was eliminated, C10 has conventional block using mid stop liners (Cummins patent had expired) that engine stopped being a problem child.

Much on the internet regarding 3176 head gaskets, sadly a bit red neck, however the is basic issue is the spacer deck.
 
For what I know of the 3196 (which is the same engine with more HP 660hp vs 600) I can say they are very reliable and performing engines and quite advanced for its time.

What you need to check for sure is the correct guarantee recall work was done on these.

I know a couple of persons who did over 2000 engine hours on these and are pretty satisfied.
 
PowerYachtBlog said:
For what I know of the 3196 (which is the same engine with more HP 660hp vs 600) I can say they are very reliable and performing engines and quite advanced for its time.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that the 3176 is actually based on a significantly smaller block - about 10 liters vs. 12 of the 3196.
What I don't know (and I'd be curious to hear) is whether the latter shares the same problems that LS1 mentioned for the former.
In fact, the 3196 has been widely used by several builders, like Ferretti and AZ to name but a few, on some of their most popular models.
For instance, Deleted User of this parish had a 3196 powered Ferretti, and he was happy about them.
Otoh, when I read LS1 using terms like "curates egg" and "problem child" for an engine, that's enough for me to prefer something else, if possible.
Hence my curiosity about how similar the 3176 and the 3196 really are... :confused:
 
in my earlier post about a man powered sarnico ..... the mention of " better to look for a cat powered one .....) most of the cat powered ones have a 3176 on ! a little confused
can a 3176 be rebuilt with better parts for instance ?
thanks
 
MapisM said:
My understanding is that the 3176 is actually based on a significantly smaller block - about 10 liters vs. 12 of the 3196.
What I don't know (and I'd be curious to hear) is whether the latter shares the same problems that LS1 mentioned for the former.
In fact, the 3196 has been widely used by several builders, like Ferretti and AZ to name but a few, on some of their most popular models.
For instance, Deleted User of this parish had a 3196 powered Ferretti, and he was happy about them.
Otoh, when I read LS1 using terms like "curates egg" and "problem child" for an engine, that's enough for me to prefer something else, if possible.
Hence my curiosity about how similar the 3176 and the 3196 really are... :confused:
Click to expand...

3176 125mm bore X 140 stroke 10.3 liters with alloy spacer plate, additionally cam runs in the spacer plate in non replaceable bearings!!

Once patent ran out on mid stop liners cast the block in one piece and now you can win a little 5mm more bore giving 130 mm. Increase the stroke by 20mm and you have 130mm X 150mm engine giving swept volume of 12 liters 3196/C12. However IF you use the same one piece block with with 3176 liners and crank you have a CAT C10 (Never marinised).

3196/C12 in early days caused CAT much grief due to design of Modine charge air cooler however as far as I am aware stood behind every single failed engine.
 
meracus said:
in my earlier post about a man powered sarnico ..... the mention of " better to look for a cat powered one .....) most of the cat powered ones have a 3176 on ! a little confused
can a 3176 be rebuilt with better parts for instance ?
thanks
Click to expand...

They tell you this cause Cat parts are cheaper to Man ones, as are the mechanics. The Sarnico 45 of same vintage should had Man 610hp.
That's a lovely boat btw, with quality second to none.
Also the Cat was a bit lighter and usually gave a knot or two of extra speed. Sarnico 45 was also available later on with 3196, C12 and Cummins.
 
PowerYachtBlog said:
They tell you this cause Cat parts are cheaper to Man ones, as are the mechanics. The Sarnico 45 of same vintage should had Man 610hp.
That's a lovely boat btw, with quality second to none.
Also the Cat was a bit lighter and usually gave a knot or two of extra speed. Sarnico 45 was also available later on with 3196, C12 and Cummins.
Click to expand...

CAT 3176 600 1177 kg, MAN 2866 LE 401 600 1166 kg.

However if you drill down CAT 3176 will have more get up and go than MAN 2866. CAT advertised power is 447kW (599hp) vs MAN 441kW (591hp) however MAN rating is plus minus 5%, CAT advertises plus minus 5% however in leisure marine market engines are only passed off at nominal plus 5%.

Therefore CAT 600 will actually delver power in the range of 599/628hp whereas MAN 600 will deliver power in the range of 561/620hpand still be within spec. In addition CAT are particularly good at aggressive AFC (Air Fuel Control) tables, hence my comment about CAT having better get up and go rating for rating.
 
thanks gents
So would you still go for a 3176 powered sarnico ( the manufacturer certificate shows that they build it with those very cat )
Could a cat 3176 be reliable ? What would you do to make it so ?
The mechanic that looks after it for 11 year had a new turbo fitted 2 years ago and a changed an after cooler after detecting a leakage
Thanks
 
I can only state the facts as I know them, based on that it has to be your call.

I would love to know failure mode of turbocharger requiring change out and how much damage CAC did before it was replaced.
 
Sorry to wake up an old thread.

Just wondering how fast you gents reckon a couple of these Caterpillar engines could push a 40-tonne, 70-foot motor yacht?

As fast as the claim in this advert on Apollo Duck? I'd love to see this enormous old Italian outpacing the Red Jet across the Solent. ;)

Chiavari%2070ft%2030knots_zpscokjvewc.png


Here's the advert: http://motorboats.apolloduck.co.uk/boat.phtml?id=524853
 
There's obviously a huge amount of wishful thinking behind the asking price.
But dancrane is right in pointing out her declared speed, because calling it miraculous is an understatement.
Of course, it would be neither the first nor the last ad where the actual top speed of the boat is much lower than declared.
But here, based on the boat size and the installed power, it's not like I would expect say 25 instead of 30kts max.
It's rather HALF of that, which could sound feasible - if that. So, what's the point of declaring a totally mad number?
Btw, she seems to have a deepish V hull, which doesn't help efficiency, in principle.

PS: it's almost worth placing an offer subject to a satisfactory seatrial, in order to see where the land lies.
Pretty sure she won't reach a speed anywhere near 30kts, allowing the punter to walk away.
And if she would, well, then the boat is probably worth half a million quid as a case study for the whole naval industry...
What's there not to like? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Cruise 10 , Max 20 in best condition.
They are out by 10 .
Price out by £400 K , around £150 K should buy as is and then ,Year 1 tip £75 K in then Y 2 another £75K and so on .
The £550 resembles the TOTAL ownership experience .killer Q is over what time ??
 
MapisM said:
dancrane is right in pointing out her declared speed, because calling it miraculous is an understatement. Of course, it would be neither the first nor the last ad where the actual top speed of the boat is much lower than declared.
Click to expand...

Thanks MapisM. What surprised me about this advert is that it seems not to be written by a devoted owner with a tendency to exaggerate his vessel's power, but by the Boatshed employee, one Mike De Graaf.

It does seem so extreme a claim, I wondered if Meinheer De Graaf is a Dutchman, and meant kilometres per hour? :biggrin-new:

EDIT: On second thoughts, he should know the difference, now...his name was mentioned to his credit on the forum five years ago: http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthrea...e-State-Of-The-Market!/page12&highlight=graaf
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

boatmike
Merry Fisher 695
Replies
3
Views
283
Bouba
Bouba
C
Sealine SC42/450
Replies
9
Views
391
Momac
Momac
A
Refilling engine room extinquisher
Replies
14
Views
419
penberth3
P

Share this page

Top