Small 4 valve-turbo vs. big low-rev's ?

[eppie]

The new Sisu Diesel, the Fendt 412, the 6420S...

Will these high power, small displacement blocks be the future?? Or will the low rev designs win the battle, by their better endurance??

Personally i'm skeptical about the small, high pressure turbocharged Deutz 2013 engines.

I think lowering revs is a better way to achieve less power loss/fuel consumption due to internal piston friction, than the smaller engines with more inlet pressure.

[F6L913]

I'm agree with you Renze but...
... I'll anwer your question in the year 2005.

The 2013 is a new engine, 1998?

Deutz says 125 Kw for 4 cilinder version, 3'8 liters displacement. That's a little more than the best 4'4 Sisu. Don't know how many hours can work this engine without an internal problem.
Just look at the cars. The 1.9 TDI is now 180 HP, that means a hight pressure injection system, and a hight turbo presure. But maybe are the best engine for a car. I know a lot of cars with the TDI with more than 200000 Km without a problem on the engine.

Yes, it's not the same a car engine to a tractor engine but if all the manufactures turn to small displacement-hight power means something.

[eppie]

O.K.

With cars, Volkswagen gets more and more power out of their 1.9 TDI blocks.
They will never meet the kilometers the Benz of my brother made: 835.000 km since 1983. And he sometimes pulled 6 tons with it !!
Just a simple, but well designed indirect injected 3 liter Diesel, 85 hp. Fuel consumption: 1 liter every 17 km !!

A low rev engine is a more ideal construction, because by doubling the speed (revs in this case) the G-forces are four times as high.

All car manufacturers are switching to small displacement - high turbopressure blocks. This has a relation to weight concerns: a heavier engine will need more of it's power to accelerate it's own mass, and therefor drink more. The weight counts for cars, not tractors.

For tractors, if you look at the new 400 and 700 series Fendts, ALL of the tractors i have seen around here (1x 411, 2x 714, 1x 716) are carrying a big lump of cast iron in the front 3p hitch.

So why would you use a more expensive, low weight engine, when a low rev, higher displacement, higher weight engine would not even need that front weight??
You need the weight anyway, so the development costs for these low weights is like burning your heater with banknotes, instead of burning the wood logs you can buy for the same banknotes.

[JD Kid]

Hi ya's
I have to jump in on this with owning a low rever (8350 valmet)also loveing V8's ..i'd never think of owning a small 4 pot tractor again, 6 non turbo would be the only starting point ..the car motor can't even be in the same line as a tractor motor i have owned V8's puting out over 280BHP none of them would even start to stack up...sure in a one off tractor pull or run for a short day it may last .but bottom line is only way to get good useable CI/HP is more CI's (or CC if ya from the new school)ya only have to look at the old tractors to see low revs rule ..biggest prob is small motors need revs to get HP if ya drag them down ya always useing gears , ask a truck driver what motor he would have from the pick of cummings or a jap motor ..another point is i know of tractors deturned/dereved so max was just under 2000 fully open with over 10000 Hrs never missed a beat in there working life ...
catch ya
JD Kid

[Tellarian]

The technology ramp will inevitably lead to more of these units. Better materials, and, better control systems, (electronic injection, timing control etc), as well as better bearing and lube oil technology allow higher pressures and hence power. The slugging six pot you refer to was cutting edge stuff thirty years ago - the newer engine must and will replace them.

Even in marine engines, pressures and powers have increased year on year. (Remember, at 100 rpm with one valve per cyl;inder these are the ultimate sluggers)
Forty years back 1000 horsepower per cylinder was the limit.
Now.....http://www.wartsila.com/english/index.jsp?cid=en_sulzer_rta96c&WebLogicSession=9JFHZgGyHxRGiwHBwHUzldNCwxNTeIzy2HsMjnDvGpDeQvmN0Kcg!-542705390!168430697!80!443!1036600583792

[Fred]

You've finally found something to pull a Simba Solo:) That 14 cylinder at 102RPM should do the trick, dropped onto two challenger chassis' voila a Cat Quadtrac, might need to change gear ratios a little or top speed of approx 1.5km/h will defeat the object. I suppose an umbilical cord to the Gulf will be order also.

Yep funny as it may seem engine technology progresses/regresses depending on your view point. straight 6 cylinders were used at 85 hp SAE 30 years ago, 50 or 60 hp in the fifties. 6 cylinders equals 50% more pistons, con rods, rings, valves etc = more expense at repair time.

If the Ludytes had won Ferdinand would have died an unknown.

[eppie]

Hey Fred, werent you a Fendt man ??

Them 400 Fendts with Deutz 2013 have 50% more valves, etcetera than a good old straight six.


Could you PLEASE explain what you meant with these words:
"If the Ludytes had won Ferdinand would have died an unknown"
Is that Ferdinand Porsche ??


By the way: Why would you need electronica anyway?

Tatra T-928.80 Euro 3 truck engine:
300 KW/408 hp at 1800 rpm
b/s 120 X 140 mm, 12.66 liter displacement
in-line Motorpal fuel pump,

This engine is the onliest heavy truck engine which:

- Meets Euro 3 environmental regulations with standard mechanically controlled in-line fuel pump
- Has it's crankshaft seated in roller bearings
- Is air cooled in this engine class.

This engine has less bearing friction and wear (cold oil will not harm the engine, because there is no need for hydrodynamic lubrication/bearing

This engine is used in heavy offroad trucks, which are very popular in the central east armies, Siberia, all sorts of Africa expeditions and Paris-Dakar rally.
That's because everyone can fix them, and they perform better in extreme climatic conditions.

Deutz abandoned the air cooled engines, and the mechanical controlled fuel pumps. Some people say that this is because they had difficulties complying to the modern emission demands with the classic fuel pump and air cooled concept.

Now who makes the technological progress, Deutz or Tatra ??

The electronic control isn't better, just easier.

I suspect the engine manufacturers to load their engines with electronic junk, so that the Average Joe has to call in a dealer to adjust it, so that they, and their dealers can make more money.



Hey JD kid, i agree with you.

Just like the human body:
sportsmen who train on brute power, like bodybuilders, get a small, extremely muscled heart. This is dangerous, the blood flow through the heart muscle itself can get obstructed, it may cause a heart attack, so they suddenly drop dead. (as the Fendt 411's engine at my brother's work did )
sportsmen who train for endurance, get a big displacement heart, and they can do the triathlon without any problems. (my sports teacher told me that years ago.. well, he didn't knew there was a Fendt 411 at that time yet...)

[Woodbeef]

Hey Fred,

Think ol Ernest Doe&Sons could make up a Doe-Dual-Drive for the Challenger?

I think part of what is pushing these smaller displacement motors ,but more powerful motors besides the tighter emission regulations, is the higher road speeds you guys are wanting on your side of the pond. The lighter the total weight,the quicker the speed. But at what cost to start off torque,and lugging ability. In the future we might see two classes of tractors. The field type and the road type. Be interesting to see what the cross over ones are like. We are already seeing the beginings of this presently.

Like JD Kid said,"There ain't no replacement for Cubic Inches"!!

[eppie]

Hey Woodbeef, i didn't expect that you would share our opinion...

So, you are comparing the higher speed tractors with cars, about weight of the engine.

Well, all the Fendt 400 and 700's around here, carry that big lump of cast iron in the front 3p hitch, but the 700's are all used just for transport, a big Joskin silage wagon, or a 18 ton earth dumper. With the big weights of these tandem trailers, they need that front weight to stop the front axle jumping like a roebuck. Even the front axle suspension wont cure this.

well, the total weight can be less, because the center of gravity of this additional weight is over the front axle, to the front.

The Fendts have their torque raise, it doesn't differ much to the torque raise of a Deere or any other, but these engines just get beaten up more, than a slow long stroker.


Hey, is that old Ernest Doe still alive?

[Tellarian]

The modern engines will last just as long as the older units - however they will not stand poor maintenance.

My earlier reference to marine engine technology also demonstrates this - waste heat recovery, boost pressures to 1.7 bar, and every application of technology is applied to the ultimate slogger but they still will run bearings if oil filtration neglected. On a highly stessed engine better lubes mean longer life. The semi synthetics used in a modern diesel, if changed according to skeds, look after the unit. It is this that allows higher pressures = higher power.

And yes, the monster engines can and do run bearings - their conrod bigend loading is in metre tonnes!

[JD Kid]

Hi ya
yep new motors are built with better steels etc etc but if both motors get the same care IE oil's ,filters warm up/cool downs ..i have to say a motor not over taxed will outlast a worked motor anyday of the week .a car or boat motor can not be used in this case ,per hour the loads placed on a tractor motor change from no load to max lugging in a matter of sec's ie running a chopper turning on a headland no load then a lump at the start of the row a motor that has to rev to get Hp will die fast ..been there done that !! take a 4 pot with all the addon's and a 6 pot useing it's own lungs both putting out the same Hp and ya will find for hard agri work the 6 will win each time ,the 4 will still do the job but the use of gears will be higher to keep the revs up
catch ya
JD Kid

[Woodbeef]

For some more info on this new generation of diesels and what will keep them running,go to www.valtra.com and click on the link in the What's New section entitled: More Power with lower emissions

[eppie]

Hey JD kid,

How old was that turboed 4 pot you were talking about?? I guess about 20 years old??

The older turbo engines had large turbos, which needed about 3 to 4 seconds to get on proper working rpm, about 8000-9000 rpm. When you tumble into a lump when chopping, the turbo needs its time to gain more revs. This delay is called the 'TURBO GAP'


Newer turbos are smaller, so there is less flywheel effect, and they will reach their (higher) rpm of 14000-15000 rpm sooner, and you wont notice any difference in reaction on peek strains, just that a 6420 S, a 412, the new Sisu Diesel, and the 11441 Forterra with their waste gated turbos will be harder to kill, and drink 10% less than old 6 pots.

[Tellarian]

Also agree with Renze - modern engines both ignition timing, injection and boost are monitored - on older engines if not monitored or components closely matched turbo lag or a torque hole appeared. On a modern engine it simply does not.

If they wand to go back to a slow engine perhaps John deere will resurrect their two cylinder jobs.

[eppie]

Yeah, i might want to go back to a slow engine:

Personally, when i cant sleep at night, i think about a possible crab steer (4ws) tractor, on Raba axles (like the Steigers), with the Tatra T 928.80 V8 engine i spoke about, with the original Tatra 20 speed gear box (why powershift if max. engine torque is at 1.000 rpm ?) Or perhaps a Praga train tranny, that 2 step powershift connected to a very big torque converter.