3 cylinder vs 4 cylinder

[murphy1244]

Not all Perkins are created equal, my AD3-152 is a very good engine, starts easy in below -15c without any heating or glow plugs and are quick and very economical, but not all engines series are so good, and it's British and made in tens of millions scale. Only wished it had wet liners and not dry but not a big issue.

I have over 6500 hours on my 135 and it still runs strong!

 

[4570Man]

A 4 cylinder vs 3 cylinder is probably the last factor I care about when looking for a machine. I’d rate the seat covering material as a higher priority.

 

[johncanfield]

My Kubota L2900 was 30 hp three cylinder, very reliable machine. My current machine is a Deere 4720 is 66 hp 4 cylinder, I really didn't notice any difference between the two as far as noise or vibration. My JLG boom lift has a three cylinder Duetz diesel, great engine.

 

[Industrial Toys]

Good thing the Perkins is a Diesel, otherwise being British, if it required electric ignition, it would never start.

My Dad visited me today in his 5 cyl Diesel Sprinter. Just about surprised me, that thing is so quite.

 

[ptsg]

Isn't Perkins now owned by CAT?

 

[goeduck]

I have over 6500 hours on my 135 and it still runs strong!

One of my MF245s is right in there with you. 6000 something hours and running good and smooth. However, my smoothest engine is a 5 cylinder Kubota direct injection from the late 90s.

 

[Industrial Toys]

I think I heard one of those Kubota five cylinder tractors. I thought, it made our 70 PTO hp JD 6200 sound like a pile of junk. But what of torque? That 5 cylinder is also very fuel efficient, whereas our JD has a drinking problem!

 

[Rmart30]

We all remember the old adage, that "there's no replacement for cubic inches"....well, that's where the turbo charger (TB) comes in...a 3 cyl with TB may put out as much HP as a non TB 4 cly, and I'm pretty sure that 3 cly engines are "cheaper" for the manf. to build....I'd rather have a non TB 4 cyl putting out 60hp than a 3 cly putting out the same hp. For one thing, the 4 cly, with normal maintenance will most likely outlast the TB 3cly...also no cool down on the 4 cly. engine....just my 2 cents... BobG in VA

Agreed. A smaller cubic inch engine will likely need to be ran at a higher rpm to achieve its hp than a larger displacement one will. More displacement also equals more torque. I would rather be able to work with one that didnt have to be run at its highest rpm all the time to make its working hp.

 

[Agvg]

Why do you need rpm? A modern diesel with turbo pulls on low rpm, old sluggish,non turbos are total gutless without RPM, of course you kan add volum, cylinders and weigh ending up with a ineffective design that is very expensive and give you zero value.

 

[johncanfield]

Our sailboat had a Westerbeke 4-154 diesel (Perkins clone) normally aspirated, we were thinking about repowering with a turbo Yanmar of about the same displacement. The Yanmar would have been maybe 25% more fuel efficient than the old Westerbeke. This would have been a significant improvement since we only carried 75 gallons of fuel (we were blue water sailors.)