Case IH Magnum (Cummins) Engines

[plowrup]

I worked for Case I-H when the Magnum came out (1986), and other than a few minor problems (front Cover leaks, occasional Turbo problem) we had very little problem with them, however in the Magnums we ran the 8.3 litre engine, and the 5.9 was used in the Maxxum Tractors and others (lower horsepower)-by the way, we had one of the first 7150's (rated @195 h.p, if memroy serves, and it pulled 232 h.p. on our Dyno)-

The 8.3 was also used in the 1680/88 Combines, and was turned up to 250+ h.p.-in that configuration we had problems with the early design Pistons (they would break the top ring land), and, they came out with a new Piston design that fixed them-we did retrofit a few Magnums with them (if we had a failure)-

It should be noted that the reason that the Engines in the Case I-H Products were not called Cummins is that the original Company was called Consolidated Diesel Corp (a joint venture between Case and Cummins)-the 50% made for Cummins were call Cummins, and the Case I-H side we called CDC's-

I too would be leary of cranking a 5.9 too high (look what happens in the Dodge pickups when turned too high)-

As far as Fuel consumption, as rated by the Nebraska Test, they rated the 8950 (227-12 h.p. @2200 RPM) to use 9.8 GPH (Gallons per Hour)at full load-hope this helps-

 

[D7E]

Don't believe the horror stories about fastracs .
We ran a handfull of them (4) along side JD's, NH's , MF's and Maxxums and reliability or repair cost was never an issue and we used them on drilling ploughing and other arable work and never saw a grip problem .
Machines doing up to 3000hrs per year and we kept stuff up to 10'000 hours .

 

[D7E]

I worked for Case I-H when the Magnum came out (1986), and other than a few minor problems (front Cover leaks, occasional Turbo problem) we had very little problem with them, however in the Magnums we ran the 8.3 litre engine, and the 5.9 was used in the Maxxum Tractors and others (lower horsepower)-by the way, we had one of the first 7150's (rated @195 h.p, if memroy serves, and it pulled 232 h.p. on our Dyno)-

The 8.3 was also used in the 1680/88 Combines, and was turned up to 250+ h.p.-in that configuration we had problems with the early design Pistons (they would break the top ring land), and, they came out with a new Piston design that fixed them-we did retrofit a few Magnums with them (if we had a failure)-

It should be noted that the reason that the Engines in the Case I-H Products were not called Cummins is that the original Company was called Consolidated Diesel Corp (a joint venture between Case and Cummins)-the 50% made for Cummins were call Cummins, and the Case I-H side we called CDC's-

I too would be leary of cranking a 5.9 too high (look what happens in the Dodge pickups when turned too high)-

As far as Fuel consumption, as rated by the Nebraska Test, they rated the 8950 (227-12 h.p. @2200 RPM) to use 9.8 GPH (Gallons per Hour)at full load-hope this helps-

What were the years where the "CDC's" gave problems ? I find that hard to believe because there are literally 000's of those around us (I have 2 1688's) and they are known as a perfect motor and i've never seen one give trouble ,Most people crank those 8.3's well over 300 and seem to take it well .
Many of these are early 91-93's .were there particular years before it was straightened out ...Just curious...Mine are 94's , Set at 295hp.Running at 2450rpm?

 

[RickB]

What were the years where the "CDC's" gave problems ? I find that hard to believe because there are literally 000's of those around us (I have 2 1688's) and they are known as a perfect motor and i've never seen one give trouble ,Most people crank those 8.3's well over 300 and seem to take it well .
Many of these are early 91-93's .were there particular years before it was straightened out ...Just curious...Mine are 94's , Set at 295hp.Running at 2450rpm?

Piston failure was a known but not necessarily endemic problem in very early 8.3 engines; earlier then the 91-93 versions you have experience with.

 

[plowrup]

What were the years where the "CDC's" gave problems ? I find that hard to believe because there are literally 000's of those around us (I have 2 1688's) and they are known as a perfect motor and i've never seen one give trouble ,Most people crank those 8.3's well over 300 and seem to take it well .
Many of these are early 91-93's .were there particular years before it was straightened out ...Just curious...Mine are 94's , Set at 295hp.Running at 2450rpm?

I am trying to remember, but it was in the early 90's-they were all 1680's-in my opinion, it did have something to do with the higher RPM's(compared to the Magnums)-after the Pistion redesign I never saw any problems other than an occasional leak-they are very good engines-

 

[cyril956]

Yeah, it is the one with the high road speed - got up up to 34 mph the day after I got it home. Wow...that's pretty much all I can say. Awesome, and a little scary being in a tractor 102 in. wide flying down the road. It has air brakes and air suspension, so you don't have the vibration of a regular tractor, and your head won't end up through the top of the cab if you hit a bump! It also stops on a dime, or at least pretty close.

hi there if your 3185 only dose 34 mph there is some thing wroung with it im from where jcbs built i have one and been a jcb owner all my life are fastrac dose 44 mph on the road it should rev to 2800 rpm and rated pto of 185 on pto not wheels we had ares checked it was putting out 250 hp oil changes every 200 hours i do have realy good contacts for parts and service also i have the workshop manual for it too

 

[RickB]

I am trying to remember, but it was in the early 90's-they were all 1680's-in my opinion, it did have something to do with the higher RPM's(compared to the Magnums)-after the Pistion redesign I never saw any problems other than an occasional leak-they are very good engines-

71XX Magnums were introduced in 1986 or 1987. Early style pistons were in the first year or two production. CDC engines went into CIH combines 4/1/1989. RPM related failures in the 1660 and 1680 combine were few, but cured with a gearing change in the later models. The 8.3 didn't like the higher governed RPM that the prior combine engine (IH400 series) used. IMHO the two failure scenarios were not related or concurrent.

 

[Renze]

How have the Magnum 5.9 lt Engines held up over the last few years? On a 180hp. machine, what kind of fuel consumption can be expected? Engine maintenance, what needs to be done? Any info is appreciated! Oh, the one I have is roughly a '97 model. 12 valve, mechanical injection, turbo.

Our experience with the 6bt and QSB5.9 in wheel loaders at 175 hp is that they didnt last 8000 hours. At 150hp in a smaller model, they did fine.

The 6BT was developed for the Maxxum 100-135hp, distribution trucks of 130-180 hp and pickup trucks at 250 hp.
It did fine at either of the duties in the given horsepower range. But they just didnt last as a 175hp version in heavy duty use.
Now we use Deere engines. Weigh 250 pounds more, which gives long term stability and durability in heavy duty use, because the heavier block has better support and stiffness for the crank and liners. the 6BT was developed to be as light as possible, to use it in on-road applications (thats why Case had to make a partial frame alongside the engine of the new Maxxum and Magnum)

I would leave that 180hp 5.9 alone, an especially when its in a Fasttrac. Case never put this engine in a 180 hp Maxxum nor magnum, the later MX range stopped at 170.
The 8.3 seems to cope better with higher power/displacement ratios.

 

[art]

Our experience with the 6bt and QSB5.9 in wheel loaders at 175 hp is that they didnt last 8000 hours. At 150hp in a smaller model, they did fine.

The 6BT was developed for the Maxxum 100-135hp, distribution trucks of 130-180 hp and pickup trucks at 250 hp.
It did fine at either of the duties in the given horsepower range. But they just didnt last as a 175hp version in heavy duty use.
Now we use Deere engines. Weigh 250 pounds more, which gives long term stability and durability in heavy duty use, because the heavier block has better support and stiffness for the crank and liners. the 6BT was developed to be as light as possible, to use it in on-road applications (thats why Case had to make a partial frame alongside the engine of the new Maxxum and Magnum)

I would leave that 180hp 5.9 alone, an especially when its in a Fasttrac. Case never put this engine in a 180 hp Maxxum nor magnum, the later MX range stopped at 170.
The 8.3 seems to cope better with higher power/displacement ratios.

Not quite right here, the 5.9 was designed for a frame mount from the start as the applications are far higher for a frame mount vs structual block engines.

Agco's division of White did use the CDC 5.9 engine in a 180 horsepower big chassis tractor. It's life in our area seemed to be about as good as any although we never had but a couple in our area. The model MX 175 maxuum was just five horsepower less!

The CDC 5.9 engines are up to 300 horsepower today in some applications, the things to consider is where they are used which is over the road which normally at best rate in at 1/2 load vs ag use at a minimum of 3/4 load to full.

Old secrets to higher horsepower small engines, just cut the torque load down and they will hold up.

 

[Renze]

Not quite right here, the 5.9 was designed for a frame mount from the start as the applications are far higher for a frame mount vs structual block engines.

The CDC 5.9 engines are up to 300 horsepower today in some applications, the things to consider is where they are used which is over the road which normally at best rate in at 1/2 load vs ag use at a minimum of 3/4 load to full.

Yes, thats about what i just said...