4310/4410 whats the difference

[MJB]

I have seen some info showing the 4310 and 4410 having the same displacement but I am pretty sure that it is a typo. If my memory is correct the 4310 actually has 91cu in displacement where the 4410 is 101cu in. Back when I was shopping for my tractor the price difference between the 4300 and the 4400 was $1500 for the same configuration in each. The only difference between the two machines is the 3 PTO horsepower. I bought the 4300 and have not regretted it for a minute. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[rationalizer]

MJB - That makes sense, then the 4410 and the 4710 would have the same "per cyclinder displacement" - probably "bore and stroke" are the same. The 4 cyl. would have a bit more torque (due to some overlap of the force ouput from each cyclinder as the engine turns) - and more HP. Still - I can't disagree - the difference between the 4310 (which then has the same per cylinder displacement as the 4610) and 4410 is probably very marginal.

 

[thcri]

It is really interesting. This discussion group can really dig into things. The torque deal is something really good. But that still is a lot of money for the difference. But if you got the money, spend it, you will enjoy it.

Murph

 

[rancar]

<font color="blue">"...isn't there a 4510 and 4610 in there? Are you saying they are less or equal then the 4410 in terms of torque..."</font>

Yes, Rat....this is what I'm saying. Torque on the 4510 and the 4610 IS LESS than the 4410. I'm in the office right now and I have the specs at home at the home PC. Will look these up tonight and post here. Of all the 4x10 series tractors torque is highest in the 4710...one reason I purchased it. And.....I'll tell ya.....this little tractor is quite a dynamo....puts out more in difficult terrain conditions than I would have ever imagined. Can't be more pleased with my purchase of the 4710. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

....Bob

 

[JohnMiller3]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Torque on the 4510 and the 4610 IS LESS than the 4410 )</font>

Ahhhhhh Bob....

I believe there are some "misprints" in the spec sheets...

(Here's approx. what they should be on Yanmar diesels)
95 vs. 105 vs. 127 vs. 138 n*m (approx. peak torque)

91 vs. 101 vs. 121 vs. 134 ci… Nothing is quite as satisfying as cubic inches…! /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[rancar]

OK....John. I'll yield to your specs considering the extensive resources you have access to. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif The info I posted came from spec sheets that provided the info in ft.lbs (whether right or wrong, I don't know) Mark Brucker at KC-Canary had given me and this is what I used to post previous info...it's all I had to go by. John Deere has had misprints before. Many apologies to other posters here if I've mis-lead anyone.

....Bob

 

[JATO_RaT]

Oh yeah Mr Miller, then just tell me what my L48 has in ft lbs of torque. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif It has 170 N*m at about 1450 RPM. Whats an N*m, newtons/meters? I suspect its somewhere around 125 ft lbs. Rat

 

[BillyP]

This is out of my OM for a 4610.

4510:
Displacement-122 cu in
Torgue at 2600 RMPs-74 lb-ft
Torque at 1700 RPMs-92 lb-ft

4610:
Displacement-122 cu in
Torgue at 2600 RMPs-82 lb-ft
Torque at 1700 RPMs-95 lb-ft

4710:
Displacement-133 cu in
Torgue at 2600 RMPs-86 lb-ft
Torque at 1700 RPMs-108 lb-ft

It looks to me like these engines reach their peak torque too early. I would think it would be better to reach peak at or nearer to PTO rated RPM (2600)?

Billy

 

[MJB]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( It looks to me like these engines reach their peak torque too early. )</font> Naa. It is better to have the torque peak be at as low an RPM as you can get. This way as the load on the engine increases and lugs down the RPM the torque output of the engine actually increases to pull you through. This is what is commonly referred to as "Torque Rise". If the torque peak were at or near the horsepower peak any increase in engine load would decrease the torque output, thus decreasing the RPM, thus further decreasing the torque, etc. You would have to be quick on the clutch to keep from stalling the engine with that setup. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[rancar]

OK guys....the attached linked publication offers a brief primer on tractor engine size, torque, and RPM. They say torque is measured in ft.lbs not cu.in and torque WILL decrease with higher RPMs....Real nice charts for you technicians.

Tractor Engine Size, Torque, and Engine Speed