Case IH Magnum (Cummins) Engines

[barrylndn]

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.

 

[Birdhunter1]

What model tractor is it in?
I work for a guy who runs Case/IH Magnum tractors, 200-285 horsepower (7150, 8950, MX230, MX285) and the engines in them are very good engines, run very smooth and I'm thinking under load somewhere between 6-9 gallons of fuel per hour.

 

[barrylndn]

Actually, it's not a Case tractor. It's a JCB Fastrac 3185, but it has a cummin's 5.9 ltr. engine in it. Dealership mechanic says it seems to be the same as the Case Magnum. No one hardly knows what a Fastrac is, but Case is pretty familiar.

 

[Birdhunter1]

A look at tractordata.com shows this for a JCB 3185:
TractorData.com - JCB Fastrac 3185 tractor data

All of these from Case/Ih have a 5.9L diesel in them, not all are labeled as Cummins though:

Case/IH 1896 (96 PTO HP) Year 1984-1989 doesn't say Cummins anywhere but same displacement and bore?stroke specs as the JCB 3185
TractorData.com - CaseIH 1896 tractor data

Other 5.9L engiens used by Case IH

Case/IH 5130 (86 PTO HP) year 1990
TractorData.com - CaseIH 5130 tractor data

Case/IH 5140
TractorData.com - CaseIH 5140 tractor data

Case/IH 5240
TractorData.com - CaseIH 5240 tractor data

Case/IH 5250
TractorData.com - CaseIH 5250 tractor data

Case/IH MX120(Doesn't say what this one is) TractorData.com - CaseIH MX120 tractor data

Case/IH MX130 TractorData.com - CaseIH MX135 tractor data

Case/IH MX 150 (130 PTO HP)
TractorData.com - CaseIH MX150 tractor data

Case/IH MX 170 (145 PTO HP) Probably the same engine HP as your JCB but tractor data only shows PTO hp which will probably be 20-30 lower than the engine.
TractorData.com - CaseIH MX170 tractor data

I hope this helps some, if you want to know more you may research these models more and see what you can find.

 

[chh]

Is your tractor one of the ones with the high speed road gear range in it? I saw one listed for sale a while back that claimed a 35mph(I think) highway speed. Was just wondering.

 

[barrylndn]

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.

 

[art]

Barry, that size engine was never used in a Magnum tractor. Case used it to 175 engine with a turbo and intercooler in the MX175 but that tractor never took off as in order to ensure a ten thousand hour engine life they had to turn the torque down so it wouldn't self distruct so it was considered under powered compared to others in the field.
The biggest problem with the JCB's in our area was that they were light compared to other tractors in their class and had trouble pulling our hills while doing tillage work. We had one farmer (from England) and he bought two a 130 and 180. The 130 was ok for weight to power and the 180 was the best on the road but worst in the field because of the excess horsepower. The 130 could pull the same equipment with less traction problems.

 

[barrylndn]

That's actually very good to know. We aren't really in a tillage area; bought it to pull a baler. Thought about getting one of the european style mowers where you can mount it on the front and rear, but it doesn't have a front PTO, and the dealer said it's cost prohibitive to put it on aftermarket, so baling it is. I wasn't certain it was a Magnum engine; the mechanic at the dealer said it looked a lot like it, so that's what I based it off of.

On a different not, a mechanic friend that works for CAT told me that with a slight upgrade of the injectors and tweaking the pump, it could put out almost 100 hp more than it does currently, with about the same fuel consumption. Not sure if I'll go that route - seems to have plenty of power for what I'll use it for anyway.

Thank you again for the info! That's good to know. It is a little light for what it is - right around 15k lbs. Compared to other tractors of the same hp, they appear to weigh a lot more. I guess that's how they get the higher road speed. The new models, I read, have gone to a 6.4 ltr Cummins, and the big one's have 8+ ltr cummins.

 

[slowzuki]

You can tweak to get more hp and it won't affect fuel economy if you don't use that hp but it certainly will if you do.

 

[Renze]

On a different not, a mechanic friend that works for CAT told me that with a slight upgrade of the injectors and tweaking the pump, it could put out almost 100 hp more than it does currently, with about the same fuel consumption.

variants of this 12 valve engine ran up to 300 hp in the Dodge trucks... A few years ago i was visiting relatives in Canada. Their local airco serviceman had a Dodge with the later 5.9 24 valve engine, tuned to 440 hp. The guy only used the 440 hp mode when showing off with an empty truck, not when pulling his trailer because he knew it would blow.
However these engines did have a much easier life in a truck than in a tractor.

Your engine wont produce 275 hp very long with just different injectors: If you dont upgrade the intercooler it will melt its pistons in a matter of days.

About them Fasttracs: the Cummins engine wont cause you any trouble... however the rest of the tractor wasnt as reliable as competing standard farm tractors, and they lacked traction due to the small wheels.

For baling they would do good due to the huge number of gears.
If you want an aftermarket PTO kit, contact the specialists at Zuidberg, they sell aftermarket and OEM kits all over the world, for 99% of all tractors currently on the market today. www.zuidberg.nl

=== on edit: for North america visit Frontlink Inc. :: The North American distributor of Zuidberg front linkages and power drives. What is the front of YOUR tractor doing?

 

[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...