[AT] 2-cycle oil and 340 Farmall

[Rob Wilson]

Cat quit the over the road engine manufacturing because they could not meet
the EPA requirements. I have a buddy of mine that works for Kenworth aka
Paccar and the Cat engine fiasco cost them a ton. LOTS of Kenworths were
ordered with Cats and when they couldn't use them, Jan 07 I believe, they
had a bunch of truck orders sitting waiting to be built with Cats but
couldn't do it. Now ironically they have their own Paccar diesel. Cummins
had the least problem meeting the EPA requirements just like their like 6B
engines in the Dodges. But the old adage of a owner operator has a Cat and a
driver had a Cummins must say most Kenworths are owner operator. 
Rob

-----Original Message-----
From: at-bounces at lists.antique-tractor.com
[mailto:at-bounces at lists.antique-tractor.com] On Behalf Of Ronald L. Cook
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 4:13 PM
To: Antique tractor email discussion group
Subject: Re: [AT] 2-cycle oil and 340 Farmall

Okay, I see I need to clear things up.  I should have made two postings.

The 340 Farmall is gas.  It is still difficult to get on and off of. 
And I still do not have photos.

My diesel is in a Freightliner.  3406 mechanical Cat.  Vintage 1997.  It for
dang sure needs some lubricant.  It runs very bad without it.  I would not
have ever believed the difference unless I was witness.  It is unreal.
Someone somewhere posted the use of 2-cycle oil as an additive and I was
wondering what the ratio was.  Maybe the posting was not on this list.

The lubricant in the low sulfur diesel from the refiner is a bunch of crap.
It does not work for the older engines.  Several of the manufacturers are
now recommending additives for their new engines. 
General Motors and John Deere to name a couple.  Cat quit the truck engines,
I guess. Figure that one out.  Perhaps there really isn't any lubricant
added at the refinery?

Ron Cook
Salix, IA