Cadillac of tractors?

[Rob-D]

Yup, that's why every piece of heavy equipment, modern full sized tractors, dozers, scrapers, pans etc. etc. all have turbo chargers.

Not mine!

 

[Rob-D]

It's got to be better than a NA engine at high altitude. as least the turbo'd unit has some air force feeding going on.

soundguy

Let me know when you're using your tractor at 25,000 feet.

What I've noticed as that no pro diesel guys have addressed the facts:

1. Two engines with the same volume, with one developing greater hp, the one developing the greater hp must, and does, have greater stresses.

2. Turbos cost considerably more, they have more expensive parts.

3. An engine without a turbo can't have a turbo failure... EVER but an engine with a turbo can have a failure and that's why there are places that cater to turbo repairs.

Rob

 

[rjkobbeman]

Let me know when you're using your tractor at 25,000 feet.

What I've noticed as that no pro diesel guys have addressed the facts:

1. Two engines with the same volume, with one developing greater hp, the one developing the greater hp must, and does, have greater stresses.

2. Turbos cost considerably more, they have more expensive parts.

3. An engine without a turbo can't have a turbo failure... EVER but an engine with a turbo can have a failure and that's why there are places that cater to turbo repairs.

Rob

All of these arguments are just crackin' me up.

It is well known the benefits of turbo at higher altitudes. You don't have to be at 25k feet to have HP losses with a N/A engine.

Saying a turbo puts too much stress on you engine is funny too.

Turbos do cost more, but the same argument could be made about every feature on the tractor/vehicle.

Sure, an engine without a turbo can't have a turbo failure. I think it has been already stated several times tha the reliability of modern turbo diesels is not a real concern.

I never thought there was so much worry about a tractor having a turbo...

This reminds me of all of the "old timers" that complain about leaps/progress in technology... Guess we should all be using old narrow front end tractors!

 

[Soundguy]

Let me know when you're using your tractor at 25,000 feet.

What I've noticed as that no pro diesel guys have addressed the facts:

1. Two engines with the same volume, with one developing greater hp, the one developing the greater hp must, and does, have greater stresses.

2. Turbos cost considerably more, they have more expensive parts.

3. An engine without a turbo can't have a turbo failure... EVER but an engine with a turbo can have a failure and that's why there are places that cater to turbo repairs.

Rob

you don't have to be at 25000' to have air pressure differences. Ever boil water when in the mountains?

agreed. 2 identical engines, one making more hp has more stresses. If this is taken into account with engine design.. I see no reason to not take advantage of the hp. is the extra hp going to hlep you get soemthing done easier and faster.. does that equate into less long term wear? Maybee How about positive emissions effect? that's worth soemthing.

turbo's add cost tot he assembly. no doubt. So does chrome, and other premium parts like an hst trans over a gear trans. You want the extras you pay for it, then get the use out of it you paid for. IE.. you want the extra hp and response of a turbo then you pay for it and use it. You want to not clutch all the time.. then you pay for an hst trans.. etc..

as for failure? well.. everything fails. If it does fail.. get it rebuilt. We run alot of heavy equipment on our jobsites. all our equipment save things like a rider lawnmower.. etc.. is turbo charged. in the rare instance that we do have a failure.. we get it rebuilt. few hundred bucks isn't bad .. can pay 2-3 times that for a tire and we loose a whole lot more tires than turbos... cost of doing business.

same with computers.. faster processor.. more heat.. more heat.. more stresses. So.. you want the old 4.77 mhz 8088 family of chips back in your computer.. or do you like the new ones ( faster, cost more, more heat, more stress)?

soundguy

 

[Soundguy]

dang.. I shoulda read your reply first and just said 'ditto'

saved me some typing!

soundguy

All of these arguments are just crackin' me up.

It is well known the benefits of turbo at higher altitudes. You don't have to be at 25k feet to have HP losses with a N/A engine.

Saying a turbo puts too much stress on you engine is funny too.

Turbos do cost more, but the same argument could be made about every feature on the tractor/vehicle.

Sure, an engine without a turbo can't have a turbo failure. I think it has been already stated several times tha the reliability of modern turbo diesels is not a real concern.

I never thought there was so much worry about a tractor having a turbo...

This reminds me of all of the "old timers" that complain about leaps/progress in technology... Guess we should all be using old narrow front end tractors!

 

[SPYDERLK]

All diesels detonate, that's what that familiar knock is and knock is detonation.

"Knocking is more or less unavoidable in diesel engines, where fuel is injected into highly compressed air towards the end of the compression stroke."

From your source: "Diesels actually don't suffer the exact same "knock" as gas engines since the cause is known to be only the very fast rate of pressure rise, not unstable combustion."

That knock is not detonation.
larry

 

[Dargo]

you don't have to be at 25000' to have air pressure differences. Ever boil water when in the mountains?

agreed. 2 identical engines, one making more hp has more stresses. If this is taken into account with engine design.. I see no reason to not take advantage of the hp. is the extra hp going to hlep you get soemthing done easier and faster.. does that equate into less long term wear? Maybee How about positive emissions effect? that's worth soemthing.

turbo's add cost tot he assembly. no doubt. So does chrome, and other premium parts like an hst trans over a gear trans. You want the extras you pay for it, then get the use out of it you paid for. IE.. you want the extra hp and response of a turbo then you pay for it and use it. You want to not clutch all the time.. then you pay for an hst trans.. etc..

as for failure? well.. everything fails. If it does fail.. get it rebuilt. We run alot of heavy equipment on our jobsites. all our equipment save things like a rider lawnmower.. etc.. is turbo charged. in the rare instance that we do have a failure.. we get it rebuilt. few hundred bucks isn't bad .. can pay 2-3 times that for a tire and we loose a whole lot more tires than turbos... cost of doing business.

same with computers.. faster processor.. more heat.. more heat.. more stresses. So.. you want the old 4.77 mhz 8088 family of chips back in your computer.. or do you like the new ones ( faster, cost more, more heat, more stress)?

soundguy

You know, I'm not going to ever buy a car with power windows! If I drive off into a river or lake, I won't be able to roll my windows down. I can't believe automakers offer such a dangerous and non-needed option!

 

[Rob-D]

you don't have to be at 25000' to have air pressure differences. Ever boil water when in the mountains?

What are we talking about here? I like the 3320, it's 4 hp less than the 3520. At 1k feet do you honestly think you're going to get any real benefit from altitude? I don't.

agreed. 2 identical engines, one making more hp has more stresses. If this is taken into account with engine design.. I see no reason to not take advantage of the hp. is the extra hp going to hlep you get soemthing done easier and faster.. does that equate into less long term wear? Maybee How about positive emissions effect? that's worth soemthing.

The 3320 is 4 hp less that the turbo 3720. How much faster do you think you'll do it? The 3520 uses 2.4 gph the 3320 uses 2.0 gph, you'll be using more fuel = more pollution.

turbo's add cost tot he assembly. no doubt. So does chrome, and other premium parts like an hst trans over a gear trans. You want the extras you pay for it, then get the use out of it you paid for. IE.. you want the extra hp and response of a turbo then you pay for it and use it. You want to not clutch all the time.. then you pay for an hst trans.. etc..

Apples and oranges. It's not about chrome, we're talking about engines. In my book the turbo isn't worth it. I still get all the features as the turbo tractor for less money, less noise, less stress and less parts.

as for failure? well.. everything fails. If it does fail.. get it rebuilt. We run alot of heavy equipment on our jobsites. all our equipment save things like a rider lawnmower.. etc.. is turbo charged. in the rare instance that we do have a failure.. we get it rebuilt. few hundred bucks isn't bad .. can pay 2-3 times that for a tire and we loose a whole lot more tires than turbos... cost of doing business.

You missed the point, If an engine doesn't have a part that part can't fail. If it doesn't have a turbo than it can never have turbo failure! Do turbo's fail? Yes, you want to pay to get it rebuilt, that's your business but if I can avoid having to ever rebuild something that's the option I want.

same with computers.. faster processor.. more heat.. more heat.. more stresses. So.. you want the old 4.77 mhz 8088 family of chips back in your computer.. or do you like the new ones ( faster, cost more, more heat, more stress)?

soundguy

Big difference, the 3320 loses very little to the 3520 (11%).
As far as any electronics, what is the major cause of parts failures? HEAT, push a semiconductor and it has a greater chance of failure, you're making my point.

Rob

 

[Dargo]

Not mine!

ROFLMAO, why would that not surprise me? Do you have bags on their rear ends to collect the manure or is that too many options and added items?

Seriously, your position is extremely weak, at best, and has no merit. You need to come out of the 60's.

 

[om21braz]

How long has JD been using turbo's on their CUTs?

I think the present 3x20 & 4x20 series were first that came with turbo. Pretty sure none of the preceding 4x10 models had one - nor did any of them have JD PowerTech engines. Not sure about the 5000 series machines. Tractors (diesel) & turbos are'nt a new concept though, a friend has a 1970's IH 1066 that has one. I expect the reasoning is now EPA related, not necessarily power-related.