3 cyl. vs 4 cyl.

[RobJ]

IMHO I think 3 cylinders in tractors has more to do with manufacturing cost than anything else. With one less cylinder/piston/valves/injector/ ect....the 3 cylinders are cheaper to produce. I have owned both and 4 cylinder is smoother than the 3 cylinder I owned. But that again could be better engine mounts.

Bingo!! it's all about the money. if you can build a 3 cyl cheaper than a 4 and do about the same work then they will do it. 3cyl have been around for some time. my BIL jd 350 crawler is a late 50's or early 60's we think. it has a jd 3cyl in it. around 36hp if I recall.

also I'm not really buying the added wear of a longer stroke thing. in theory yes but dirt in the oil and dirt in the air causes the wear. also remember the skirt never touches the cyl wall, or at least if it does it won't last long.

3-4 it doesn't matter. I almost bought a used L285 (i think that was it), it had a 4cyl, one smooth running engine, much smoother than my 3.

rob

 

[_RaT_]

Prior to the overseas invasion by tractors, I would say that the majority of tractors had 4 cyl or more, and 4 or 5 speeds. Then, tractors started becoming smaller by demand, so it's easier to fit a 3 cyl engine into a smaller frame, and you add more gears to get about the same performance. Most of the smaller tractors have 4 ranges and 4 gears plus reverse. Look at what used to be accomplished with lawnmower engine powered machines (Cub Cadets, etc.).

I don't know if that is true. My older International 454D has a very nice 3 cylinder diesel. It had 179 cu in. Many of the older construction tractors I drove had 3 cylinder Perkins diesels. If deleting cylinders was a huge financial bonus, a Cummins I-6 diesel should be cheaper then a International Navistar or GM Duramax V8, this is not the case. I will refrain from commenting on the physical plus's and minus's of more or less cylinders and leave that to the designers and engineers. From my experience, it makes little or no difference.

 

[redlevel]

Is it true that 4 cylinder engines perform better, are easier to maintain, etc... or is it just an "urban legend"?

It ain't no urban legend. It is bovine excreta. As pointed out by many posters, there are too many tractors with three cylinder engines that have been around too long. I'll put a three cylinder Perkins up against anything for efficiency, performance, and ease of maintainance.

 

[Farmwithjunk]

It ain't no urban legend. It is bovine excreta. As pointed out by many posters, there are too many tractors with three cylinder engines that have been around too long. I'll put a three cylinder Perkins up against anything for efficiency, performance, and ease of maintainance.

AMEN!

 

[davemhughes]

If deleting cylinders was a huge financial bonus, a Cummins I-6 diesel should be cheaper then a International Navistar or GM Duramax V8, this is not the case.

Not so.....you have answered your own question. Cummins engine is a known trade name for quality, power, and Durability. So they charge more for the product. Just as a Perkins is known for the same and charge more. Money truly is the real difference in 3 vs 4 engines. Who can produce what the cheapest. Thats why they are almost all foriegn engines....cheaper to produce.

 

[Farmwithjunk]

Seems like a no brainer..... On small diesel engines of near equal displacement, 3 cylinders seem to for the most part, out perform most 4 cylinder versions, outlast them, operate considerably more efficiently. and according to SOME, they're even cheaper to produce.

We can thrash out all the "armchair quarterback" theories, but let the FACTS speak for themselves. In EVERY case where a 4 cylinder was dropped from a product line in favor of a 3-cylinder, there was no debating the fact that the 3-cylinder was a dramatic IMPROVEMENT over the 4 cylinder model they bumped. (Maybe in the sense that offering a better tractor will SELL more tractors, it was an economic move on their part...)

Let's talk gas engines too while we're at it. The Continental "Red Seal" 4 cylinder engines used in all those old Fergies was dropped in favor of a 3 cylinder PERKINS gas engine in the late 1960's. While that was a purely economic move, it resulted in a very reliable and efficient motor. Anyone who's used both will jump at the 3 cylinder version over the very respected 4 cylinder models. (More low end torque at the same HP rating)

If someone wants to rationalize the industry wide use of 3 cylinders as an economic move, so be it. To me, it WAS an economic consideration....... My money needed to be spent on the best possible choice of tractors.

And for the record, when Massey Ferguson made the switch FROM "Standard diesel" 4 cylinder engines in 1958, to the 3 cylinder Perkins, cost of the tractor INCREASED around 20%. It wasn't an economic move. It was for the sake of a better, more efficient tractor.

I own a Massey Ferguson 150. It has the AD3-152 Perkins. When this tractor was tested by the folks at Univ of Nebraska, it was the most fuel efficient tractor ever tested to that date. (HP/hrs per gallon) It held that status for more than 20 years......until ANOTHER 3-cylinder tractor using the SAME MODEL OF ENGINE edged it out. Caterpillar now owns Perkins. (Was owned by Massey Ferguson from 1990 until the recent sale) They STILL produce an updated variant of that same engine. It's hard to justify producing the same configuration of engine for 50 years if it WASN'T anything more than a "cheap engine". To withstand a test of time such as that, it had to be a GREAT little powerplant.

I've now owned a gas powered Ford 3000 and a diesel 3000. Both are 3 cylinders. They WERE 4 cylinder motors BEFORE 1965. The 3 bangers will work circles around the earlier 4 bangers.

So... From my point of view, those little 3 poppers are BETTER as well as cheaper. Again, a no brainer.

 

[RobJ]

Originally Posted by _RaT_
If deleting cylinders was a huge financial bonus, a Cummins I-6 diesel should be cheaper then a International Navistar or GM Duramax V8, this is not the case.


Not so.....you have answered your own question. Cummins engine is a known trade name for quality, power, and Durability. So they charge more for the product. Just as a Perkins is known for the same and charge more. Money truly is the real difference in 3 vs 4 engines. Who can produce what the cheapest. Thats why they are almost all foriegn engines....cheaper to produce.

Actually another error in this thinking is the "cost to build" and the "retail sale sticker price" are connected on a sliding scale. The 24v is the best light truck diesel on the market (and I drive a Ford). If you have a hot item you can price it at what the market will bear, not what it costs to make.

 

[RobJ]

And for the record, when Massey Ferguson made the switch FROM "Standard diesel" 4 cylinder engines in 1958, to the 3 cylinder Perkins, cost of the tractor INCREASED around 20%. It wasn't an economic move. It was for the sake of a better, more efficient tractor.

See my above post, you can't mix price increase with better product. Much of what we buy today is going up in price, a lot of it is due to fuel costs, nothing to do with a better product. I'm not saying it wasn't a better tractor at all. But if I go to my favorite restraunt and the prices are 20% higher, it doesn't mean the food is 20% better.

Where I grew up around tractors the Masseys were considered an expensive tractor anyway. Kind of a rich mans tractor. No one had them because of that. Again, don't confuse that statement that they were not good tractors.

 

[Farmwithjunk]

See my above post, you can't mix price increase with better product. Much of what we buy today is going up in price, a lot of it is due to fuel costs, nothing to do with a better product. I'm not saying it wasn't a better tractor at all. But if I go to my favorite restraunt and the prices are 20% higher, it doesn't mean the food is 20% better.

Where I grew up around tractors the Masseys were considered an expensive tractor anyway. Kind of a rich mans tractor. No one had them because of that. Again, don't confuse that statement that they were not good tractors.

And re-read MY post if you would, carefully too. You'll not see where I said it was 20% better because it was 20% more expensive. It WAS/IS a better tractor without a doubt. MUCH better engine performance. No comparison. What I was commenting on was the fact that with ONLY the change of engine configuration, there was a 20% price increase in one single model year. That would be economic suicide for any reason without a marked improvement in the tractor itself. The price increase was the direct result of increased production cost passed on to the end user. Instead of commiting suicide, they then produced what was the worlds best selling line of utility tractors of its day. When the price increase came down, the engine change was still brand new.

Popularity had NOTHING to do with the increase, seeing as to how no one knew what sort of tractor the Perkins powered Masseys would turn out to be.

In actuality, with the dramatic increase in fuel efficiency, longevity of the engine, and extremely good resale value of Massey's smaller utilities (those with Perkins diesels) I'd venture a subjective guess it was substancially MORE than a "20% better tractor", but that's just my opinion..... And that of several million others who bought new Masseys back then, over other popular brands.

Not sure where you're from, but Masseys of that era were far less expensive than most anything else on the market. I shopped them out with every major brand. John Deere 2020's sold for almost $1000 more. IH 454 was higher than that. To this day, Massey's strongest selling point is they're less expensive than competing brands.

And if "no one had them because of that", please explain why the 135 Massey was the worlds best selling tractor throughout it's production run. Why is Massey STILL the best selling brand of tractor worldwide, ESPECIALLY in underdeveloped (read empoverished) countries?

BECAUSE THEY AREN'T a "rich mans tractor". No idea on this earth where that comment came from. Certainly not from facts as they present themselves.

You're expressing opinions, where I'm merely commenting on facts backed up with solid sales numbers, (along with solid RE-sale numbers) and MILLIONS of happy owners worldwide.

 

[Soundguy]

I'm not so sure about this, a diesel has a huge heavy flywheel to smooth out things plus the more cylinders firing the smoother the engine....less time between pulses.

Rob

I believe that was what he was saying.. more, and less intense power pulses should = a smoother run.. etc.

soundguy