Tractor Sizing Nothing-Electronic... 4x4... cabin.. 6-cyl?

[RickB]

I’ll pass on your examples. I’ve been around this stuff all my life and am approaching 25 years of dealership experience. We have differing viewpoints.

 

[fitterski]

I’ll pass on your examples. I’ve been around this stuff all my life and am approaching 25 years of dealership experience. We have differing viewpoints.

You certainly have a right to pass on my examples and I assure you that my war is with design policy makers and not with dealers

I spent my life in technology too, and have as a result become a fan of severe constraints on anything and everything digital or in some cases even electronic or electrical. Simply put I advocate that (in the case of vehicles at least) nonmechanical services should be controlled by a single overall or perhaps additionally service-dedicated mechanical selector switch(es) which itself/themselves would in the event of failure to select fail to the first OFF mode. This/these switch/es should have 3 positions:

OFF = nonmechanical service disabled
"physically" disconnected

ADV = nonmechanical service constrained to advisory mode
ex: just showing navigation & performance data/projections

OVRD = nonmechanical service controlling but overridable by MERE normal operator control input
ex: cruise where stepping on brake OR gas trips it out, or crop-row steering where touching the wheel trips it out.

Just to provide some context for the above here's two more examples (Toyota Tundra), for the benefit of those who care to read them (as usual in any forum).

#1
The other day one of the pollution pumps that add fresh air to the exhaust failed to respond to computer demand as prescribed. The computer thereupon threw the truck into limp-home-mode. Hello? What if I was just then trying to outrun a tsunami or a volcanic plasma avalanche, or maybe a jealous husband peppering my snow-white truck with lead? It isn't the computers that are stupid, it's the *brain-dead flatliners that design* the systems!

#2
I had just bought the Tundra used when a year and a half ago my brother passed away and the whole family piled into the truck for an early morning departure on a 900km drive to arrive in time for the funeral (it is otherwise an A1 'highway" truck BTW). Half an hour out just as I was passing the engine quit, almost getting me into a head-on situation! I pulled off and tried to restart in vain. Still being very unfamiliar with the car and tight for time I did not even try to open the hood. Told my son to call a cab and go back home to get one of our other cars and meet us with it at the Toyota dealer to where I called a tow truck to bring us. Total loss 1:35. Three days later we was back and I went to said dealer to pick up the pickup. A mechanic had forgot a small piece of 1/4" vacuum hose in the air tunnel, subsequently passing revs sucked it in and it jammed the air valve just as I was releasing the pedal. That was it, hello again? So I explained to the dealer what would have happened in a mechanical situation, like in the case of my cars in the 60's and even much later. The hose piece would maybe have jammed the throttle valve and upon sensing abnormal pedal response I would quite naturally have just cycled it with a couple of short kicks, the hose would have been ingested resulting in a small blueish puff out the exhaust and we would have resumed normal operation like nothing had happened because ..nothing would have happened. Ok, argument is always possible about two-foot crow-bars in there too but let's be reasonable. The designers HAVE been flying right off the handle when it comes to scoping the computers' authority. I haven't had any similar experiences in tractors yet because except for some solenoids my Cat-426 is relatively mechanical but the horror stories told by my remaining farming neighbors abound.

 

[fitterski]

Just fishing for a general purpose 4x4 tractor that 'could' take a Cummins-5.9....
TIA

Thanks for all the wisdom, experience and comments!!!!!! I have given up on tractor 'height' as such and am casing the Case 51 series again for possible purchase.

There are several of these with the Cummins 5.9 with/without turbos and up to 150hp. Some comments on a brittish farming forum indicated that the higher hp versions pulled like tanks but I don't understand how hp would give more pull which is really torque and since most of these engines have about the same 400-450 peak torque around 1600 regardless of more hp attainable at higher revs.

More importantly I'd like to know which if not all in the 51 series are still totally free of electronics/digital-services?

Finally, i've read negative comments about the electrical system design/layout/conventionality. Not really exited by such comments but does anyone know of details about any such 'possible' an issue?

Thank you

 

[RickB]

Powershift controller and wiring harnesses NLA, have been for years.

 

[dnw64]

There are several of these with the Cummins 5.9 with/without turbos and up to 150hp. Some comments on a brittish farming forum indicated that the higher hp versions pulled like tanks but I don't understand how hp would give more pull which is really torque and since most of these engines have about the same 400-450 peak torque around 1600 regardless of more hp attainable at higher revs.

I am guessing you know this, but to refresh your memory and put some perspective on it, torque and HP are merely different ways of expressing the same thing, i.e. they are inextricably linked. Torque is available Power, HP is the ability to do Work (torque x RPM/constant).

For example, if an engine has a flat torque "curve" of, say 400 lb/ft from 1600-2600 rpm - then yes, it can do more at 2600 RPM than it can an 1600 RPM, about 60% more, in fact. The question becomes, can you use the engine at 2600 RPM? Is it economical to use it at 2600 RPM? How long will it last at 2600 RPM? Do you have the right gears to make 2600 RPM drivable? Probably some other questions as well...

 

[fitterski]

I am guessing you know this, but to refresh your memory and put some perspective on it, torque and HP are merely different ways of expressing the same thing, i.e. they are inextricably linked. Torque is available Power, HP is the ability to do Work (torque x RPM/constant).

For example, if an engine has a flat torque "curve" of, say 400 lb/ft from 1600-2600 rpm - then yes, it can do more at 2600 RPM than it can an 1600 RPM, about 60% more, in fact. The question becomes, can you use the engine at 2600 RPM? Is it economical to use it at 2600 RPM? How long will it last at 2600 RPM? Do you have the right gears to make 2600 RPM drivable? Probably some other questions as well...

I learned it like so: torque is force, power involves time. Perhaps I misunderstood 'pull like a tank' to mean pulling-force equal to or greater than traction (tug-o-war). It's more likely that pulling-power is what they meant i.e. being able to equal or better traction at a higher speed (plow-race).

I also ignored the turbos which do slightly increase torque even at low rpm.

 

[fitterski]

I only have a rough idea about such features, like on my 426 they would involve solenoids but no electronic/digital services? I don't follow, NLA.. no longer available? And I should've said 5.9's in the the 5xy0 series, these being 1990-1997 vintage [from tractordata.com]

5130 1990-1991 6cyl 99hp
6-12, four speeds (1-4) in four ranges (I-IV). Synchronized shifting between speeds and ranges with the clutch. Power shuttle shifting with column-mounted left-hand reverser lever.

5130 1990-1997 6cyl 105hp
6-12, four synchronized gears gears in four synchronized ranges with power shuttle.

5140 1990-1991 6cyl Turbo 108hp
6-12 sync, four speeds (1-4) in four ranges (I-IV). Synchronized shifting between speeds and ranges with the clutch. Power shuttle shifting with column-mounted left-hand reverser lever.

5140 1990-1997 6-cyl turbo 117hp
6-12, power-shuttle, four synchronized gears gears in four synchronized ranges with power shuttle.

5150 1992-1997 6-cyl turbo 132hp
16-12, 4-speed power-shift, four power shift gears in four synchronized ranges with power shuttle.

5230 1992-1997 5.9 100hp
16-12 sync

5240 1992-1997 5.9 turbo 111hp
16-12 sync

5250 1992-1997 5.9 turbo 112hp
16-12 PARTIAL power-shift

I suspect that the level of electronics/digitals increased during 1990-97 so i'd be trying to sort out on that basis. Solenoids are just electrical, i don't like them but can live with them

 

[RickB]

I only have a rough idea about such features, like on my 426 they would involve solenoids but no electronic/digital services? I don't follow, NLA.. no longer available? And I should've said 5.9's in the the 5xy0 series, these being 1990-1997 vintage [from tractordata.com]

5130 1990-1991 6cyl 99hp
6-12, four speeds (1-4) in four ranges (I-IV). Synchronized shifting between speeds and ranges with the clutch. Power shuttle shifting with column-mounted left-hand reverser lever.

5130 1990-1997 6cyl 105hp
6-12, four synchronized gears gears in four synchronized ranges with power shuttle.

5140 1990-1991 6cyl Turbo 108hp
6-12 sync, four speeds (1-4) in four ranges (I-IV). Synchronized shifting between speeds and ranges with the clutch. Power shuttle shifting with column-mounted left-hand reverser lever.

5140 1990-1997 6-cyl turbo 117hp
6-12, power-shuttle, four synchronized gears gears in four synchronized ranges with power shuttle.

5150 1992-1997 6-cyl turbo 132hp
16-12, 4-speed power-shift, four power shift gears in four synchronized ranges with power shuttle.

5230 1992-1997 5.9 100hp
16-12 sync

5240 1992-1997 5.9 turbo 111hp
16-12 sync

5250 1992-1997 5.9 turbo 112hp
16-12 PARTIAL power-shift

I suspect that the level of electronics/digitals increased during 1990-97 so i'd be trying to sort out on that basis. Solenoids are just electrical, i don't like them but can live with them

You are correct on the meaning of NLA. The powershift transmission option was extremely popular across all of the 51xx and 52xx models. And the controller is obsolete and has been . The electronics on the later models were actually less complex than the first produced but accomplished the same functions. Solenoids are easy. The stuff that controls them may not be.

 

[arlen4720]

Why not just get an older tractor like a JD4020 and leave it alone? They made crap loads of them, and parts will likely be available for years to come. Why all the talk of repowering it? The engines are not the problem of these old machines. I guess repowering one with a Cummins might be kinda fun, but that’s about it. You would be hard pressed to convince anyone in their right mind that there is an economic or reliability benefit to creating such a Frankenstein.

 

[ericm979]

Or he could buy a new Branson with mechanical fuel injection and a Cumins engine, get to work right away and use project time for something else.