Buying Advice Turbo or not

[Industrial Toys]

I was watching a youtube video about the switchblade turbo. A guy putting it on his D9 and highway tractors. Very interesting stuff. Mind you this guy is running constantly and any turbo costs will be offset by his fuel savings which he figures averages about 4mpg on his highway tractors.

 

[sd455dan]

One other thing that I didn't see mentioned

Turboes are generally more efficient- since they use (waste) energy from the exhaust to drive the the impeller set.

Superchargers literally take crankshaft horsepower to drive them.

an extreme example of the amount of power needed to drive a blower is in top fuel dragsters where the HP input is huge.
Diesel tractors a turbo makes more sense since the efficiency is generally higher than on a non turboed diesel engine which can result in reduced fuel consumption.

That said I am a big believer in No replacement for Displacement- and that a larger displacement diesel engine operating at a Lower rpm for the same HP output is preferable, and if operating at high altitude a turbo is a real advantage, but if possible pared with a larger displacement diesel that does not have to be revved way up in rpm for it's rated output HP

 

[radios1]

I change the oil more frequently in my gas turbo cars and use synthetic oil. But those engines are highly tuned- the current one makes 295hp from 2 liters. I'm not sure I'd bother on a turbo tractor.

The torque curve on the Kioti looks good. For tractor use you want a torque curve that falls off towards PTO rpm. Tractor people call it "torque rise". The reasoning is that as you're pulling or plowing or whatever, when the engine rpms are dragged down due to load the torque increases, opposing the force. It's probably less of an issue on an HST where you can lower the gear ratio just by raising your foot. But even there it would be helpful in applications such as PTO driven chippers.

actually, the Yanmar is better, since the torque curve is very flat, unlike the other one where the torque is considerably less at low RPM's.. this shows you that the turbo has to develop enough speed to increase the torque/HP.. not good for heavy loads that would bog the engine down.. because you lose that torque..

 

[Texasmark]

"Size matters". 4 cyls run smoother.....2 bangs per revolution. Turbo is something else to worry with. I always thought (without scientific pursuit nor evidence) helped an engine to wear faster. Some turbos have to be cooled after running. Turbos do help in thin air situations, like high altitude where by a certain HP naturally aspired vs a turbo would loose it's HP earlier on the way up.

So to me it's whether you like one over the other. Plenty of both out there.

 

[hilltop Haven Farm]

"Size matters". 4 cyls run smoother.....2 bangs per revolution. Turbo is something else to worry with. I always thought (without scientific pursuit nor evidence) helped an engine to wear faster. Some turbos have to be cooled after running. Turbos do help in thin air situations, like high altitude where by a certain HP naturally aspired vs a turbo would loose it's HP earlier on the way up.

So to me it's whether you like one over the other. Plenty of both out there.

I think the turbo would be great for bushhogging high stuff. But my one concern is there will be multiple operators of this tractor and the others don't know anything about maintenance. So when they use it would be for quick on and off stuff. Like scooping a pile of manure, dumping it and parking the tractor. I would be doing all Bush hogging, loader work, logging road maintenance etc.

 

[farm boy00]

I think the turbo would be great for bushhogging high stuff. But my one concern is there will be multiple operators of this tractor and the others don't know anything about maintenance. So when they use it would be for quick on and off stuff. Like scooping a pile of manure, dumping it and parking the tractor. I would be doing all Bush hogging, loader work, logging road maintenance etc.

Just let them know to idle it down and if working it decently hard let it cool down for a few seconds. That way the turbo is coming down in temp

 

[Kyle_in_Tex]

actually, the Yanmar is better, since the torque curve is very flat, unlike the other one where the torque is considerably less at low RPM's.. this shows you that the turbo has to develop enough speed to increase the torque/HP.. not good for heavy loads that would bog the engine down.. because you lose that torque..

This is not always correct. When shredding at high rpm, when you hit thick stuff, your rpm's drop, but with the curved torque graph, your torque actually goes up (as rpms drop) and does it's job keeping the motor from bogging down more.

That being said, I love Yanmar engines. Some of the finest, but they don't over power them for their displacement, they go for dependability.

 

[Groo]

When highway trucks didn't have turbos, they had to keep those engines screaming to get anywhere. Now the turbos kick in the torque much sooner in the powerband.

That said, I would tend to prefer a NA engine for a tractor if given the choice.
For example, the Deere 4044 uses the same engine as the Yanmar YT347 (Deere runs it slower, that is why they claim less hp from the same engine), however when you go up to the 50-60 hp range for both tractors, the Yanmar gets a bigger NA engiine, and the Deere gets a smaller turbo engine. Both will do the same work. The added weight of the larger engine is not a detriment to the tractor. The added complexity is a detriment for a piece of equipment that we should expect to last 30-50 years though. In a car were weight is important, and the lifespan is lower, the turbo is the obvious answer.

 

[rScotty]

My reason for this question is the 2 tractors I'm looking at, kioti nx4510 has a turbo 3 cylinder, and a TYM 454 non turbo 4 cylinder. There specs are pretty close aside from completely different engines. I live in central pa where elevation is just moderate.

In general I prefer a three cylinder anything to a 4 cylinder anything because it is much easier to balance the rotating & reciprocating parts in a 3 cylinder. The result is a smoother running engine. Sometimes a little bit smoother (less vibration) and sometimes the difference is very large. It does tend to be very large in favor ot the 3 cylinder when comparing with a two or a four cylinder configuration. When you tested these, did the Kioti 3 seem smoother than the TYM 4?

As far as turbo or not, a turbo adds both combustion efficiency and total HP when comparing same size engines. It also adds complexity and expense - but not too much. Turbos are well worked out and last a very long time.
The way for a manufacturer to get around a turbo is to make the engine a little bit larger - that takes care of the disparity in HP....just open the throttle a little more.
But the efficiency difference is harder to get around without a turbo. Basically the less efficient engine makes more pollutants and requires the manufacturer to upgrade the tractor's pollution control. That's easy to do, but tends to add back the money they saved by not going with a turbo.

In the end, unless you are using the tractor all the time at full throttle I doubt you will notice a difference turbo or not as long as the non-turbo engine is a little larger. Balance is something you will notice - but only you can decide if the tractor's vibration is important to you.
For me - and I haven't tried either tractor - I would lean toward the Kioti just because it is a three and the balance thing....and toward the Yanmar engine in the TYM because in general Yanmar diesels are really, really good.
good luck,
rScotty

 

[Redneck in training]

Turbos are quieter if noise level mater to you.