Tractor News New Kubota M7 Series

[TomSeller]

Don't the Agco tractors in this range have 4 cylinders as well?

 

[Creamer]

What are they doing to these engines to get the HP/liter so high? I remember a 1466 International had a 436 Cu in inline 6 that put out 145 PTO Hp and it was turbocharged. Now you are talking 171 Hp out of 4.5L (I realize it is engine hp and PTO Hp). Do they still have the torque at low RPMs? I remember an old Mack Truck engine had great lugging capability but the Cummins you had to have RPMs which is why they mated them to a 15 speed transmission. I know the Macks were not as efficient but it was a lot easier to get a load moving out of a soft field.

 

[MHarryE]

What are they doing to these engines to get the HP/liter so high? I remember a 1466 International had a 436 Cu in inline 6 that put out 145 PTO Hp and it was turbocharged. Now you are talking 171 Hp out of 4.5L (I realize it is engine hp and PTO Hp). Do they still have the torque at low RPMs? I remember an old Mack Truck engine had great lugging capability but the Cummins you had to have RPMs which is why they mated them to a 15 speed transmission. I know the Macks were not as efficient but it was a lot easier to get a load moving out of a soft field.

I was at a dealer meeting my New Holland/Kubota dealer held tonight and picked up literature on the T6 series. The T6.175 has a 175 gross horsepower 4.5 liter 4. That's pretty close to the 175 HP 4.4 liter 4 I was working on at Cat when I retired. A diesel is a heat engine limited by the oxygen you can stuff in any piston stroke and the ability to break up the fuel into drop sizes that can make use of that oxygen in the short time it has to burn. I am not sure of the fuel injection pump on the 1466 but it might have been a Roosa-Master, now Stanadyne, pump with a few thousand psi injection pressure with a simple control giving 1 large injection shot. My Kubota, for example, can get to 31,000 psi and gives 3, sometimes 4, shots per cycle. The first is a small shot to stir the pot, then a large shot to provide most of the power, followed by a final small shot to clean. The 4th shot comes when during the regeneration cycle to provide the exhaust heat to clean the DPF. They have improved torque at low rpms, much higher torque backup than the older engines. Remember those multiple injection pulses I mentioned - they insure high combustion chamber pressures when the crank is around 90 degrees where it has the greatest lever arm. Torque is force times lever arm so the grunt is there - at least according to the Nebraska Tractor Tests and also shown in the graphs in the New a holland literature. They show peak torque has increased from 455 to 475 ft-lb between their Tier 4 interim and Tier 4 final and about 43% torque backup vs about 25% on the 1466 if I remember correctly.

 

[MHarryE]

Why did CaseIH get away from the 5.9L 6cyl. Cummins? The Maxxum here has one and it's been a great engine. I believe Dodge trucks still run them.

Because FPT and CNH are part of the same company. FPT makes some very good engines. Even my company, Cat, now sells FPT engines for marine applications as Caterpillar C8.9 and C12.1. I could be a little bit off on the name of the second one because they replaced Caterpillar's own C9 and C12 engines. They have both a belt driven supercharger and a turbocharger. Power density of marine engines is phenomenal because they have unlimited cooling - well, limited only by how fast they can pump water out of the ocean.

 

[RollingsFarms]

What are they doing to these engines to get the HP/liter so high? I remember a 1466 International had a 436 Cu in inline 6 that put out 145 PTO Hp and it was turbocharged. Now you are talking 171 Hp out of 4.5L (I realize it is engine hp and PTO Hp). Do they still have the torque at low RPMs? I remember an old Mack Truck engine had great lugging capability but the Cummins you had to have RPMs which is why they mated them to a 15 speed transmission. I know the Macks were not as efficient but it was a lot easier to get a load moving out of a soft field.

In my opinion, no they don't lug like the older tractors or have that down low grunt. Case in point, I had a John Deere 5203 that had a 179ci turbocharged engine that was mfwd. I got rid of it last year due to changes of my needs and replaced it with a ford 3600 that has a 174ci engine naturally aspirated. In 2wd I honestly believe the old ford would drag the Deere all over the place if it was in 2wd. When I hook the same implements to the ford it pulls them no problem whereas the Deere had to be put in mfwd sometimes doing the same work. Both supposedly have the same pto hp but I'm here to tell you the sheer lugging power between the two is night and day. The ford has gobs of torque and reaches 540 pto at 1800 rpms where the deer needed 2400 to reach 540.

 

[MessickFarmEqu]

A couple told us the Rocky Mount, NC dealer actually turned Kubota down as Kubota wanted them to be one of the first to receive one. A large dealer in Lexington, NC, that usually keeps several of Kubota's largest available now tractors, wanted one really bad but was told no by Kubota. I guess they are trying to place the first ones in strategic areas with the largest areas of crop land.

I am sure there are several things at work here. Its a big HEAVY tractor, many dealers don't have trucks big enough to move it. They have restricted \ discouraged dealers selling product where that's been in an issue in the past (KX080). Its also a very different product than todays Kubota line, and is bought by a different sort of customer. Kubota's production for new products is typically slow out of the gate, they won't build 10's of thousands of these so there are not enough to go around. As a CNH dealer, we know this size product and have 3 M7's on order. We wanted more, but this is all they would allocate us though 2016.

for what its worth, the new SSV skid loader is getting the same limited roll out. There is massive demand, and not enough inventory to go around so not every dealer gets them in the first year.

 

[Creamer]

Thanks MHarryE! I hadn't thought about the fuel control system - they are definitely improved. The 1466 had a Bosch pump on it but it mechanical and didn't have the multiple shot capability like the new ones do. I would also bet the new injectors create much improved atomization which helps in a lot of ways.

Your comment about the last pulse being in the regeneration cycle does seem a little funny though - dumping raw fuel in the exhaust really - doesn't seem like it would clean up the exhaust?

 

[ShowroomShine]

Even my company, Cat, now sells FPT engines for marine applications as Caterpillar C8.9 and C12.1. I could be a little bit off on the name of the second one because they replaced Caterpillar's own C9 and C12 engines. They have both a belt driven supercharger and a turbocharger. Power density of marine engines is phenomenal because they have unlimited cooling - well, limited only by how fast they can pump water out of the ocean.

Wow, I didnt know that new C8.9 was an FPT. I'm a huge fan of that engine and have been following it closely. I grew up at the beach on large sportfish and pleasure boats, amazing is an understatement when referring to the powerplants of boats.

 

[MHarryE]

Thanks MHarryE! I hadn't thought about the fuel control system - they are definitely improved. The 1466 had a Bosch pump on it but it mechanical and didn't have the multiple shot capability like the new ones do. I would also bet the new injectors create much improved atomization which helps in a lot of ways.

Your comment about the last pulse being in the regeneration cycle does seem a little funny though - dumping raw fuel in the exhaust really - doesn't seem like it would clean up the exhaust?

That pulse at the end during the regeneration cycle is to get the exhaust hot enough to burn out the soot so it happens for every 15 minutes every 18 - 20 operating hours. I know the idea doesn't found logical but I understand it is the most effective method.

 

[sixdogs]

That pulse at the end during the regeneration cycle is to get the exhaust hot enough to burn out the soot so it happens for every 15 minutes every 18 - 20 operating hours. I know the idea doesn't found logical but I understand it is the most effective method.

I'm not sure have this right. Does the engine automatically run itself faster in RPM's order to burn off the soot?