|
Post by AdamL on Apr 3, 2005 10:54:20 GMT 1
when ford introduced the 40 series in '92 they went down the cubes route and offered us a naturally asperated (sp?) 7.5 litre with 110 horses in the guise of the 8240 and 120 horses in the guise of 8340. Within 18 mths the 8340 had a turbo and some torque, when before it had neither. The place I worked back then had 14 tractors of different colours and hired in a similar number. We used to hire new 5140's (5.9 turbo) and 8240's (7.5 natural), both 110 hp, both pulling the same trailers. Yes the fords were more comfy and didn't bounce, but the 5.9 in the Case would out pull the 7.5 all day long. Personally I prefer an engine that is not at the lower end of it's power rating. I've no science to back this up but some forced induction always seems to make for a more lively motor.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwibob on Apr 3, 2005 20:24:18 GMT 1
JD kid said he heard of an MX210 doing the same heavy work as an MX 170 used half the fuel.
There is a bit of hyperbole here that is not helping the discussion. There has been so much research go into diesel engines and fuel consumption that the differences between the efficiency of various engines is minimal and rarely greater than 5%. Just look st the Nebraska tests. From there the differences come down to traction (the heavier the better), rolling resistance (the lighter the better) transmission losses, tyres, etc.
We run an MX220. I like to think that it was twice as efficient as other tractors. It Isn't. Dream on.
Kiwibob
|
|
|
Post by AdamL on Apr 3, 2005 21:43:55 GMT 1
several years ago a read a test of tractors that, I think, were 90 hp ish. Amung them were the usual suspects Deere, NH, MF and a Zetor and a Belarus. The Belarus was signifcantly thirstier than the rest, however they said that it only used 5% more fuel...
Back to cubes...
I have before me the sales guff for series 10 Gen III fords.
The 7610 has 100 horses from it's 4 cyl 4.4l turbo charged engine and makes 419 nm of torque at 1400 revs.
The 7810 has also 100 horses from it's 6.6l 6 cyl naturally asperated engine and makes 409 nm of torque at 1200 rpm.
aint no substitoot for good engine design
|
|
|
Post by JD Kid on Apr 3, 2005 21:49:25 GMT 1
Hi ya's yea intresting with the 5.9 in the 51?? models most pulled well above there weight class the 5130 i had would run all of our gear apart from big tilling gear mind you i did stick a 25 foot maxi till on it just to heat the oils up for a service 2 rounds and the temp was close to red with not driveing a ford for years i can't realy say .. but if ya take the 5130 Vs 5140 ie 5.9 non turbo vs turbo on paper the gap is 10 Hp in the feild i think ya will find the gaps a bit smaller add hills and something strange starts to happen (only happens if ya lug them down to about 1200-1400 rpm) turbos will make a motor more lively at the top end a cracked injector pump will make a motor better all round seen it happen on alot of older 3140 JD's some people added turbos makeing them =to a 3640 some opened up the pump the turboed ones were ok in lighter work or PTO work where ya keeped the revs up the cracked JD's plowing or tilling would run rings around the turbos know a spud grower that had both and the turbos got sold any how kiwi bob yea i thought the clame the made was a bit over the top but thinking back a mate run a 5150 pro and mx 170 about the time i owned the 7210 doing the same job's (ie same feild same size gear) the fuel use in the 7210 was stuff all , even between a JD 7700 and the 7210 the diffrance in fuel use was huge (i could get the old fuel accounts to back it up but off the top of my head 30 % fuel in the 7210 ) catch ya JD
|
|
|
Post by JD Kid on Apr 3, 2005 22:05:29 GMT 1
Hi ya fuel use is a strange one ..5 % i don't know where they get that from the diffrance between a 7700 JD and a DF 150 (cracked to 165) is 50% in fuel use got the paper work to back that one up .... also know a guy that went from a DF to caseih at the end of the first year his accountant told them to buy padlocks for there fuel tanks as someones steeling fuel the number cruncher could not belive the increase in fuel use (and before some smart ass says "yea but the case would have been working where the DF was getting fixed " the 2 DF's they had clocked up more hours per year than the cases )now ya add another thing 4 pot vs 6 pot in the book 4 win's in the feild 6 is king ya should know that adam catch ya JD
|
|
|
Post by AdamL on Apr 4, 2005 17:29:27 GMT 1
4 v's 6, I assume you refer to my 7610 and 7810 comparison. I worked on a farm that had both and the 7610 was by far the better tractor no matter what job they were doing. these two tractors were main line machines at the time and used to swap jobs.
anyone else ran a 6400 against a 3350? Dads old contractor got rid of his 3050 turbo's (he had several) for 6400's... more grunt
|
|
|
Post by JD Kid on Apr 4, 2005 22:03:33 GMT 1
Hi ya's 3050 turbo never heard of one must be the missing link between the 2850 and 3350 anyhow seeing i spent years driveing both of them i'll go down that road the 2850 is as ya say a lively tractor motor with no load would be suited to a small truck fitted in to a base frame tractor of 3307 Kg and rated at 67 hp on the shaft just under 50 kg per hp ok 3350 6 non turbo with the cocked up power shift (needed to be a ocapuss to change a range gear and powershift ) this fat boy hits the scales at 4900 Kg (note this is fatory dripping wet weight most ended up wearing cast ) and 79 hp on the shaft 62 Kg per Hp well kid's looks like the 3350 is both a dead motor and has a lot of weight to carry around ... we will now add a set of duels a set of discs matched for there HP and head for the hills (note no roads or flat land coming into this WHY some are asking ,well long story short all tractor builders fall on there arse when ya stick hills in the pic ) so place ya bet's who wins a lively 4 pot with high power to weight or a work hardened 6 with a eating disorder ;D sad fact is on the flat or the road the little 4 would win add a hill to make a motor work 6 wins catch ya JD
|
|
|
Post by AdamL on Apr 6, 2005 21:31:36 GMT 1
3050's were 90 hp and most, well loads got turbo'd to 3650 spec and beyond. I've known them well over 125 at the shaft.
Got some comparisons for 6400 v 3350 here.
the 3350 is the last of the line that ran along side the 6000 series before the six cylinder models
3350 5.9l 6cly no turbo
103 hp @ 2300 rpm
constant power range 2200 -2300
max torque 378 nm (mile less that the achient 7610!) @ 1300 revs' 24% reserve.
219 g/kwh
6400 4.5 litre 4 cly turbo
100hp @2300 rpm
constant power range 1840 - 2300 rpm
max torque 404 nm @ they don't quote revs'
33% torque reserve
200 g/KWhr
so there we have it. same manufacturer and better performance from a smaller engine.
aint no subsitoot for good engine design.
6400
|
|
|
Post by Dariusz on Apr 10, 2005 14:01:06 GMT 1
let me explain my problems with the 150 - 170 mx. got the smaller one 150 in late 98, with ifs frontaxle. we grease it well, but the dealer told me that our dalbo frontpacker with a weight of nearly 2800kg was the problem. we then decided to get the two 170s in 2000, these without ifs. one was a monday morning - friday afternoon model, it lacked power dyno out 155 engine hp, and fuelpump was changed, back to work but still underpowered so orginally pump was "recalibrated" and wow 170hp . to keep us a little pleased it got anthoer wreck in we started to fell at little good about the tractor or should i say the engine. later on the other 170 got a really bad sound from the backend when hauling silage at high speed - above 35 kmh. dealer got it back and spilt it, crown flywheel was a mess, but no problem the warrenty was there so it was changed almost without costs for me, i was later told that it was a failure from the plant but was it.....after two years of use in autum 2002 the other 170 gets a sound like the first one, but we were busy so decided to run it for the last two days of maizeharvest, maybe we shouldnt because same case again, only this time cih didnt pay. in between all this there were lots of teething problems and also problems like leeking oil from various places at the backend, so i was getting concerned to keep them especially from the last thing with the flywheel. oilsamples was made and no trace of dirt, metalpieces or anything was found, and we had followed the inspections from the dealer to use hytran (red on) oil, so we did what we could. another bright light in this sorry story is the 110mx from 97 that still run the sprayer and some ligt work too, good piece of kit really. late 2002 i reach an agreement with the dealer as he was sad with the situation just like i was. the deal was made for one 130cs and two 190mxm. the 130cs was traded again two months ago for a 135mxu. we seem to be out of trouble again as we have no concerns with the pieces we have in stock now.
|
|
|
Post by mtx 140 on Apr 10, 2005 23:32:57 GMT 1
hi guys interesting debate.. just to add my piece. my cousin has a 2000 mx170 and they like big power out of there tractors as they get lots of potato land ready. their 170 was kicking around 165 pto hp out but wasnt enough for them so the had it turned to 210 pto hp the engine has coped well with the power increase but pto clutch pack went, but what do you expect when its 40 odd hp more and takes a big hammering.and just to add that we have a 1 year old mccormick mtx 140 with the perkins motor,which we run beside 2 maxxum 5150 pros,the cummins 5.9 engine is far better than the perkins unit, one of the 5150s kicks out 150 hp and never been touched,but the mccormicks far better to drive with IFS etc... hope this has been of interest
|
|
|
Post by AdamL on Apr 11, 2005 18:09:02 GMT 1
Dariusz, I've checked my hand book today then re read your post. It seemed the packer was a bit too much for the axle, not really the fault of the machine. The weight would be too much, then you have to factor in the fact that the packer would be transfering weight from the back of the tractor so putting imposing more weight than it actually weighs. I assum it has wide tyres that it is trying to push through soft soil while on its limit.
When you decide that your next tractor has enough power, get it put on a dyno, to find out how much power it is making. If it feels like it has more power it probably does.
|
|
|
Post by Samuel on Apr 11, 2005 18:41:11 GMT 1
MX170 has stronger IFS axle.
|
|