Post emissions used tractors.

[Hay Dude]

And I have the opposite experience. I have about 500k on DEF vehicles with no problems at all (2011, 2013 and 2017 6.7 Ford's) touch wood

I also had the legendary 7.3 in a 1999 f350 that was nothing but problems. Would routinely have issues towing and leaving me stranded.
So experiences differ

Just curious- do you own all 3 now, or were they trades from your 11 to your 13 to your 17?

 

[rScotty]

So I am fairly new to tractoring and did not know a lot about them pre 2020.

I'm amazed that pre emissions tractors never went down. I mean reading this thread seems like tractors never broke pre tier IV.
I wish that my cars from back then would have been as reliable (clearly sarcasm)

I think this issue is so overblown right now its not funny. I mean someone earlier in the thread made it sound like finding DEF was hard. And in some cases SCR allows designs without EGR and I will agree thats a good thing.

I know you meant it as sarcasm, but you came closer to the truth than you know.
The problem was not emission equipment, the problem was electronics and in particular computer control. I went through the reasons for that and the evolution in message #24 above.

Without the sarcasm, it is true that diesel engines that used the older injevtion system instead of the common rail injection required by Tier IV usually didn't break down. They simply ran until they wore out from lack of compression. All over the world, industrial diesels were designed to do that and they did. Diesel power plants were designed as a unit to continue working until they wore out - usually from rubbing friction resulting in low compression. They were replaced or rebuilt as a unit when a certain number of hours were acccumulated. Within their hour lifespan they rarely broke. Even when worn out they would still run if they could be started - which could be difficult in a compression ignition engine with zero electrics - and was considered unacceptably unreliable. That was the point at which the engine was replaced.

So diesel owners became used to having engines that didn't break down. They simply wore out on on an hourly schedule whicy could be predicted. A person not from an industrial or Ag backgroud probably wouldn't know that, and think that tractors are like cars.
They are not.
rScotty

 

[Like Tractors]

I think that the dividing line should be between individual injection diesels and the common rail diesels.
Not by whether or what type of emissions control equipment the tractor has. The change to common rail injection had more influence on both performance & reliability.

Before common rail was invented, all diesels were fully mechanical with each cylinder being fed by its individual injectorstriggered by cam-generated pressure.
Common rail pressurized all the injectors all the time, and used a computer to trigger the electo-mechanical injectors at the proper time.

To give you some idea of when common rail became common, one of the first common rail diesels I encountered was the Ford Powerstroke which came out in 1995. Unfortunately it became infamous for computer related injector problems.

For awhile it was common for manufacturers to take a successful mechanically injected diesel and adapt it to the new common rail system. Kubota did that with the individual injection 60 hp engine in our 2008 Kubota. Later versions were common rail. Once an engine was outfitted with bolt-on common rail components, it was easy to add software to profile the injector operation. Common rail made more power and less emissions. But were also less reliable.

By about 2012 most tractors had changed to common rail and now had computer controlled engines. The reason for that was that even with emission reduction schemes & equipment, computer injection control was needed to meet Tier IV.

So in my opinion the biggest change was not the emissions equipment. The big change in tractors was computer control of fuel injection. But both happened at about the same time.

rScotty

The 7.3L International built electronic diesel, termed the Powerstroke, was first used in the Ford pickups in 1994, that system is not a common rail diesel fuel system. That is the injection technology that was chosen to meet the 1994 on highway diesel exhaust emission standard. It is a HEUI system which is Hydraulic actuated Electronic Unit Injector system. They used a common high pressure oil supply to actuate the injectors, not a common high pressure fuel system. The diesel fuel injection pressure is generated inside the injector using hydraulic pressure provided by the high pressure oil system.

The first common rail diesel fuel system in the US pickup truck market was the 2001 GM with the Isuzu built Duramax engine.

It's the business I am in that makes me a detail guy about this sort of thing.

 

[rScotty]

The 7.3L International built electronic diesel, termed the Powerstroke, was first used in the Ford pickups in 1994, that system is not a common rail diesel fuel system. That is the injection technology that was chosen to meet the 1994 on highway diesel exhaust emission standard. It is a HEUI system which is Hydraulic actuated Electronic Unit Injector system. They used a common high pressure oil supply to actuate the injectors, not a common high pressure fuel system. The diesel fuel injection pressure is generated inside the injector using hydraulic pressure provided by the high pressure oil system.

The first common rail diesel fuel system in the US pickup truck market was the 2001 GM with the Isuzu built Duramax engine.

It's the business I am in that makes me a detail guy about this sort of thing.

You missed the point. The issue is not the exact definiton of mechanical vs common rail injection. Those are convenience terms for how a system operates... I didn't intend them to be exact. As you point out, not all accomplish that in the same way.

The Point is that the traditional diesel systems were all mechanically timed and metered. The more recent Common Rail type systems are computer timed and metered. That goes for the HEUI as well. The early HEUI Powerstroke is an early example of computer control and had problems which mechanical diesels had never had to deal with. THAT is the point I was making. Your focus is too narrow.

Emissions controls happened at the same time that the injection control systems were being changed. But the problems today are not completely due to emissions complexity. They are due to the combination of changes.

rScotty

 

[Number15]

I agree that most of the issues are from the combination of changes. I personally think the issues are higher with older versions of common rail. Teething pains I would call it. Also early issues with dpf clogging. All of that has been mostly ironed out now and most systems will have a long life.

I think the major issue is when there is a failure its way more expensive than it was pre emission/common rail. So that tends to get people to make a lot more noise and gives the optics of having a greater problem. In addition you can't just fix these systems now without specialized equipment and I can see why that gives people heartburn. For the most part I think the majority of equipment made now will have long trouble free lives given people do the extra stuff required e.g. making sure to do regens, adding def etc. The extra requirements are not hard and as long as people are aware of it they should have no issues.

Computer controls have been around a long time and for me I see no issues with owning equipment that has them. For the most part they should have long lives and do their job without issue, but again when they do fail special equipment and costs are a concern.

All that being said I did specifically buy my Branson because it is mechanically timed injection and has no computer controls Just a data logger for the DPF. ON the other hand my AC is a completely modern machine with computer everything and a common rail engine with egr, doc and dpf LOL.

 

[newbury]

I do a lot of low rpm work where running at higher rpms is just not an option (dragging piles of logs over rough and hilly terrain, lifting logs onto sawmill, etc)

Finally - your usage.
I needed the same thing a decade ago.
But my logs are rarely big enough to require 70HP, rarely over a ton to put on my little sawmill. Are you sure you need 70HP?
Anyways - One other place to look is the "Public Surplus" auctions.
These are government auctions, mainly small county type sites. I picked up my 1995 M4700 for $12.5K. Only had ~1300 hrs on it. Well maintained, only used for ROW mowing.
Local governments are fiefdoms, some run well, others POS. The site I bought from runs a well maintained garage, I've seen others that I wouldn't take any vehicle to.
There's a county sewage facility locally that seems to turn over vehicles on calendar basis and I've seen relatively new well maintained tractors sold on short notice for very low prices.
It seems sometimes a county will get a bump of money and decide to change out equipment and sell it with a very short lead time.

 

[rScotty]

That's the same thing that I've found. Nice explanation. To your list of Public Surplus Acutions I would add local school districts, some utility suppliers, golf courses, and some churches. Look for the ones that have nice maintenance shops and who turn their equipment over on a calendar basis. I'd as soon buy from them as buy new.

 

[N80]

I don’t understand the concerns about DEF. I had a Volkswagen TDI and have a Dodge Cummins that use DEF. It’s cheap, and available almost everywhere. I’ve never had an issue with it.

For me it would just be one more thing to keep up with. I don't need another single thing to keep up with.

 

[N80]

Are you sure you need 70HP?

No. The Kubota M5040 and M6040 have the same loader and weight about the same. But those two models are much harder to find and cost nearly as much. The situation with JD models seems similar. When I search Tractor House I'm searching 60 - 105 hp.

But, I'm also hedging my bets on potential future use. If I'm going to pay $30k+ for a preemissions tractor I might as well get as much machine as I can get as long as it is not too big for my work environment or too big to tow with my current trailer/pick up. If I do this I want it to be the last tractor I ever buy. (I'm keeping my Kubota L4400.)

As for the logs for my sawmill: The mill will handle 16 foot logs up to 24" in diameter. And I have plenty of pines near that size. So far the biggest things I've put on the mill have been 20" diameter and 16 feet long. Even with 800 pounds on the three point hitch the tractor is light in the rear with that size log and the loader strains on my very light weight 45hp Kubota. I'm pretty sure something is going to break if I keep doing this.

I could get a QA for the L4400 rather than bucket forks which have all the wrong geometry for maxed out loader work. That would help some with the loader but still probably not prevent wear/damage to front axle.

 

[5030]

With each passing day, the 'field' of pre 4 units is getting smaller and smaller and the price of admission is rising as well. Fewer units available means they become more and more valuable. Not an issue with me as my pre 4 M's are increasing in value every day.