Cadillac of tractors?

[Builder]

Sorry pal, but those are your words. It's a direct quote from you. You said, and I quote again, "On a tractor, not so important." I gave information as to why I rather strongly disagree with your statement. Not trying to be contrary, but I've worked on plenty tractors with turbo chargers on them that made a HUGE difference. Have you tried to operate a D11 with neither turbo working? It seems like it has almost no hp or torque. I feel the twin turbos it has make quite a difference and are rather important.

But you said "full size" tractor, and it's obvious I was talking about my 70 HP tractor..... hardly full size.

 

[Builder]

4 hp is alot on a compact.

I agree. 4 HP is a decent amount on a compact. In my case, 1HP on a 70HP is not.

 

[whodat526]

yea its a decent amount on a compact but it shouldn't cause this big of a argument i believe no if it was a 10hp or more like the old 6610 nh verus a 7610 nh i would say yes it would make a difference the more hp and torque the more u can pull but most compacts within 5 hp difference will pull the same size implements maybe not as easy or as fast but still pull it

 

[om21braz]

So is it ya'll's opinion that JD's turbo'd motors are better than all the non-turbo'd NH's, Kubota's, Mahindra's, etc.? (I do know some of those brands have some turbo models too)

From JD's side, here would be some of the reason I could think of to start using turbo's:

1) They really are better than NA motors, thus they beat the competition, generate more sales, & increase profits.

2) They somehow allow JD to save manufacturing dollars but still charge the same as an NA tractor, thus increasing profits.

3) The gov't has mandated they meet certain emissions limits, & a turbo is the only (or best) way they could figure out how to do it. But then, why aren't all the other brand using turbo's on (nearly) all their motors like JD.

As a for-profit company, JD certainly wasn't going to start using turbo's if they didn't have to ... so why did they? It can't be only to benefit the consumer, so what is it?

As far as I know (3) is the answer. More reasons than I begin to answer cause one engine to be EPA-compliant, while a similiar size-hp/different manufacturer's engine cannot make it without turbo. In JD's case they are manufacturing a single engine block/head/other parts that with minor modifications can make varied amounts of power according to the application. Lastly, the turbo was years ago IMHO strictly for power gain, not the case anymore. Properly tuned, the turbo-diesel can provide better economy when not using all the available power and a reserve of power when needed.
P.S. These statements are more stated info from other sources - my only personal experience is mostly from operating a diesel mower and turbo diesel pick-up. My turbo diesel tractor experience is in it's infancy.

 

[Rob-D]

I'll go with 3 too.

But let's understand something a 37 hp turbo uses less fuel than a NA 37 hp turbo BUT more fuel than a 33 hp NA engine, which agrees with Deere's specs of 2.0 gph for the 33hp and 2.4 hp for the 37hp.

Also the 3320 passes emmisions in a NA configuration and the 3520 does it with a turbo. Remember pollution figures are based on a percentage of particles per volume not on total amount of exhaust.

Rob

 

[sweettractors]

I would also go with # 3. As far as comparing fuel consumption, Wouldn't You would need to figure with some sort of formula how much extra work/performance a 37 HP turbo tractor could do compared to a 33 HP NA tractor. Ken Sweet

 

[TripleR]

Very interesting and informative discussion on turbo chargers, I didn't realize there was such a diversity of opinion.

 

[MarkV]

So I guess we still haven't decided what is the "Cadillac of tractors?". Looks to me like color, size, turbo or not is all in the eyes of the beholder.

Hope you find what makes you passionate.

MarkV

 

[Egon]

If someone doubts the additional power provided by turbochargers, just go take the twin turbo chargers off of a D11 Cat dozer and try to use it. It's a worthless hunk of steel.[/QUOTE]

OK; now explain the reason in thermodynamic terms???? :laughing::thumbsup:

Now I'm also in a quandary. It's stated that turbo's are the real deal but then It's also been stated that those old tractors just last longer. Them old tractors didn't have turbo's. What's up??

Should I have an old tractor or a newer turbo'd one?

 

[beppington]

Very interesting and informative discussion on turbo chargers, I didn't realize there was such a diversity of opinion.

I'm not sure there is. Isn't it just me & Rob-D that don't want a turbo?

I guess I'm not willing to argue to his extent; I just figure to each his own.