Cadillac of tractors?

[sweettractors]

Dollar for dollar, a Mustang will destroy a 'Vette or Cadillac anytime. :thumbsup:

I sold my wifes 4.6 L GT Mustang and replaced it with a STS Cadillac about 2 years ago. The Mustang just did not have all that it was hyped up to be. I would like to see the Caddy up against the old GT in the 1/4 mile. Ken Sweet

 

[Rob-D]

I sold my wifes 4.6 L GT Mustang and replaced it with a STS Cadillac about 2 years ago. The Mustang just did not have all that it was hyped up to be. I would like to see the Caddy up against the old GT in the 1/4 mile. Ken Sweet

Are they in the same price range? That Caddy looks pretty hot!

Rob

 

[sweettractors]

Are they in the same price range? That Caddy looks pretty hot!

Rob

No, They were not in the same price range. I guess I got what I paid for on both purchases. No complaints. Ken Sweet

 

[dodge man]

To the O.P. great choice on your tractor. If thats what you end up getting, post some pictures of it.

I'd say this thread may have taken a little drift to say the least.

The argument for turbo vs non turbo is pointless. In smaller tractors, its cheaper just to bump up the displacement to get more h.p. In larger machines, its cheaper to add a turbo to get more h.p. Turbos are a proven technology. This isn't cutting edge technology so the argument for or against is pointless. It's up to each tractor maker to decide what is the best way to get more h.p., bigger engine or a turbo. The question is at what level of power requirment is a turbo cost effictive?

 

[Dargo]

I sold my wifes 4.6 L GT Mustang and replaced it with a STS Cadillac about 2 years ago. The Mustang just did not have all that it was hyped up to be. I would like to see the Caddy up against the old GT in the 1/4 mile. Ken Sweet

I have the video and run tickets from where I outran a Mustang GT in the 1/4 with my 2006 F350 4X4 dually diesel crew cab. (And, yes, it is freaking turbocharged! ) I weighed in over twice what he did yet caught him at about the 90' mark and ran away from him. Apparently a stock Mustang V8 runs the 1/4 in the mid 14 second range.

 

[SPYDERLK]

First, it's not arguing, arguing is when ad hominem attacks come into the picture, only one person did that here and it wasn't either of us. It's a debate and hopfully we'll all learn from it.

In the end we'll all go out and fall in love with our tractors once again with a new appreciation for everyone else's tractor. The bottom line is we all have one thing in common, we love tractors. Actually we have two things in common, we love to talk about them too!


Ken: 1 hp = 746 watts; also 1.0 kilowatt (kW) = 3413 Btu/hr = 1.341 horsepower;

Petro-diesel = 130,500 Btu/gallon

The 3320 uses 2.0 gph = 2.0 x 130,500 = 261,000 btu/hr
Since it has 33 hp its efficiency is: 33/1.341 = 24.61 x 3413 = 83,993.93 / 261,000 = 32.18 %

The 3520 uses 2.4 gph = 2.4 x 130,500 = 313,200 btu/hr
It has 37 hp its efficiency is: 37/1.341 = 27.59 x 3413 = 94,169.28 / 313,200 = 30.07 %

Rob

Rob, I seriously doubt you could put that much fuel through either onr of those machines.

I have a 265 MF that turns 72 hp on 1.7 gallon per hour. It is even naturally aspirated.

Well, Im with Rob there. ... His fuel consumption numbers are factory numbers, I believe, And are realistic to producing the HPs stated. The lower efficiency of the turbo is plain weird, and I think that its HP is either speced conservatively or the engine was detuned non optimally for compatibility with the turbo. [Normally a lower compression is used, and I believe aquired by using very slightly shorter rods.]

Duffster, I too can get 1.7 GPH or better on my 70HP tractor ... but not when Im asking for 70HP. Then it uses over 3GPH.
larry

 

[sweettractors]

I have the video and run tickets from where I outran a Mustang GT in the 1/4 with my 2006 F350 4X4 dually diesel crew cab. (And, yes, it is freaking turbocharged! ) I weighed in over twice what he did yet caught him at about the 90' mark and ran away from him. Apparently a stock Mustang V8 runs the 1/4 in the mid 14 second range.

You are about right on the stock 4.6 L Mustangs. 14 second range may be liberal. Once that turbo diesel gets going, it is a awesome machine. Ken Sweet

 

[Soundguy]

But is the engine itself designed to hand the turbo. Cooling systems, compression ratio etc?

Adding a turbo to a base engine not designed for one could be a recipe for failure!

They were not generic kits to install them to just any machine.

They worked out specific kits for specific machines. for instance.. a 7000 and a 5000 ford are essentially a NA and a turbo charged setup.

you can't get crazy with the smoke screw though.. you have to stay in reasonable limits. i know a guy that had an M&W on a 5000 and turned it up past 100hp and of course turned the crank into a piece of yard art.. had he been in the mid 85-90's I think he'd have been ok, and still had a nice improvement over the stock 70 that the na 256ci put out.

soundguy

 

[beppington]

To the O.P. great choice on your tractor. If thats what you end up getting, post some pictures of it.

Thanks! And will do on the pics.

I'd say this thread may have taken a little drift to say the least.

No doubt! But that's OK! If we have nothing to discuss or argue we'll all just fall asleep!

 

[Soundguy]

The lower efficiency of the turbo is plain weird, and I think that its HP is either speced conservatively or the engine was detuned non optimally for compatibility with the turbo. [Normally a lower compression is used, and I believe aquired by using very slightly shorter rods.]

larry

Could be. I've had a turbo charged gasser car that had lower compression ratio than the identical non t-charged engine.. apparently mine had a spacer.. etc. boost pressure was maxed out at 14 psi

soudnguy