Which engine would you choose?

[Robert_in_NY]

I am looking for a 100 horse tractor to replace my 7710-II eventually and was talking to the MF dealer today and he was showing me the 5400 series. One thing I noticed and was curious about is the engine choices.
On the MF 5465 you have the Perkins 1106 (402 CID, 6 cylinder) putting out 100 pto hp. On the 5470 you have the Sisu 44CTA (269 CID, 4 cylinder) putting out 105 pto hp. Both are rated at 2200 RPM to reach their hp numbers.
I know Sisu has a good reputation as does Perkins but to me a 6 cylinder would be better then a 4 cylinder. I like the added length wheelbase the 6 cylinder provides also.
So does anyone have any thoughts? Does a 4 cylinder putting out 105 horses with less displacment seem like a better option then a 6 cylinder putting out 100 horses with more displacement?

Also, please note I am not buying one anytime soon. I just noticed these engine options today and it made me wonder.

 

[ToadHill]

With todays fuel cost, which is the most fuel efficient?

 

[Maka]

Sisu has a great reputation and I have had dealers tell me they are the best they have ever dealt with but for me who deals with lots of Perkins 4 and 6 cylinders I have to say that I love Perkins.

We sell the Perkins engines in our ASV machines as well as our McCormick tractors and they are great.

From all accounts I think they are both great but I bet Perkins has more support no matter where you go. The fuel efficiency thing Toad brought up is certainly something to weigh.

Maka

 

[Robert_in_NY]

I know both motors have good reputations but wouldn't the 6 cylinder be smoother running then a 4 and wouldn't the 6 cylinder handle loads better then a 4 cylinder? I just keep remembering to other farmers always say you can't beat displacement and the 6 cylinder Perkins beats the 4 cylinder Sisu easily in displacement.

As for fuel usage, well, the stats don't list that but I am not sure which is better. I would almost think the 6 cylinder would be easier on fuel as it doesn't have to work as hard to get 100 hp as the 4 cylinder does to get to 105hp. Those 4 cylinders are going to have to really work and I know my 4 cylinder 7710-II sucked fuel when at full throttle.

 

[flusher]

I am looking for a 100 horse tractor to replace my 7710-II eventually and was talking to the MF dealer today and he was showing me the 5400 series. One thing I noticed and was curious about is the engine choices.
On the MF 5465 you have the Perkins 1106 (402 CID, 6 cylinder) putting out 100 pto hp. On the 5470 you have the Sisu 44CTA (269 CID, 4 cylinder) putting out 105 pto hp. Both are rated at 2200 RPM to reach their hp numbers.
I know Sisu has a good reputation as does Perkins but to me a 6 cylinder would be better then a 4 cylinder. I like the added length wheelbase the 6 cylinder provides also.
So does anyone have any thoughts? Does a 4 cylinder putting out 105 horses with less displacment seem like a better option then a 6 cylinder putting out 100 horses with more displacement?

Also, please note I am not buying one anytime soon. I just noticed these engine options today and it made me wonder.

If I were in your shoes one item I'd check is the difference in harmonic balancers in these two engines.

I'm no expert, but 4-cyl engines use counter-rotating shafts for dynamic balancing.

At one time I was interested in the old JD 3020, a 70-hp 4-cyl diesel. I was told that the balancers in that engine are large,heavy and need to be removed to do servicing on the bottom of the engine (I think replacing that oil pump was under discussion at that time).

 

[Wayne County Hose]

There is no replacement for displacement. The smaller engine will have to work harder to obtain the same power #'s as a larger displacement engine. The larger displacement engine will also have a broader torque range than the smaller. They are supplying you hp #'s. Horsepower doesn't mean much, believe it or not. I would ask for torque #'s. Both at 2200 rpm and max torque at what rpm? If you took 2 tractors, same model but put the different engine in each, and hook a chain between them. The one with the larger engine would almost always pull the smaller one in circles.

As far as fuel efficiency goes, an engine runs the most efficient at it's torque peak, not horsepower peak. That's another reason I ask for torque peak at what rpm.

 

[Robert_in_NY]

There is no replacement for displacement. The smaller engine will have to work harder to obtain the same power #'s as a larger displacement engine. The larger displacement engine will also have a broader torque range than the smaller. They are supplying you hp #'s. Horsepower doesn't mean much, believe it or not. I would ask for torque #'s. Both at 2200 rpm and max torque at what rpm? If you took 2 tractors, same model but put the different engine in each, and hook a chain between them. The one with the larger engine would almost always pull the smaller one in circles.

As far as fuel efficiency goes, an engine runs the most efficient at it's torque peak, not horsepower peak. That's another reason I ask for torque peak at what rpm.

If I ever get to the point where I am strongly considering these two models I will have both dropped off and hooked to the plow to see how they handle. The plow is going to be the hardest task any of my tractors will see.

 

[Farmwithjunk]

Conventional wisdom says the 6-banger would be the wise choice based on the big engine works less to produce power theory. The sterling reputation of the Perkins diesel says the 6-banger is the wise choice. Perkins direct affiliation with CATERPILLAR can't be ignored. 6 cylinder engines normally operate smoother than a 4 cylinder.

BUT....

SISU is quickly gaining a stellar reputation. Conventional wisdom of yesteryear has taken a big hit with new technology in diesel engines. Theory is just that. Theory. We can speculate 'till the cows come home. It would take real world, side-by-side comparison to fully evaluate which is REALLY the best choice. Robert, you need to buy ONE OF EACH, then report back in a year.

I seem to recall hearing somewhere that the SISU engines are sort of a Perkins knock off. Anyone know about that?

I did get a set of 4 CD's on the new Massey Ferguson models at the National Farm Machinery Show in Feb. So far, they've never made it out of their jackets. Maybe time to do a little research.

 

[chh]

SUMMARY OF OECD TESTS 2110 & 2111鋒EBRASKA SUMMARY 558
MASSEY FERGUSON 5465 DIESEL
16 SPEED
POWER TAKE-OFF PERFORMANCE
Power Crank
HP shaft
(kW) speed Gal/hr lb/hp.hr Hp.hr/gal Mean Atmospheric
rpm (l/h) (kg/kW.h) (kW.h/l) Conditions
MAXIMUM POWER AND FUEL CONSUMPTION
Rated Engine Speed?PTO speed?100 rpm)
97.8 2199 6.26 0.454 15.63
(72.9) (23.70) (0.276) (3.08)
Standard Power Take-off Speed(1000 rpm)
106.1 2000 6.30 0.421 16.85
(79.1) (23.83) (0.256) (3.32)
Maximum Power (2 hours)
109.4 1848 6.13 0.397 17.86
(81.6) (23.20) (0.242) (3.52)
VARYING POWER AND FUEL CONSUMPTION
97.8 2199 6.26 0.454 15.63 Air temperature
(72.9) (23.70) (0.276) (3.08)
84.5 2216 5.58 0.469 15.13 68ｰF (20ｰC)
(63.0) (21.14) (0.285) (2.98)
63.2 2238 4.81 0.540 13.13 Relative humidity
(47.1) (18.21) (0.329) (2.59)
42.5 2259 3.97 0.662 10.72 54%
(31.7) (15.01) (0.402) (2.11)
21.0 2276 3.00 1.011 7.02 Barometer
(15.7) (11.34) (0.615) (1.38)
-- 2293 2.20 -- -- 29.3" Hg (99.2 kPa)
-- (8.32) -- --
Maximum torque - 342.2 lb.-ft. (464.0 Nm) at 1398 rpm
Maximum torque rise - 46.5%
Torque rise at 1790 engine rpm - 36%
DRAWBAR PERFORMANCE
(Unballasted - Front Drive Engaged)
FUEL CONSUMPTION CHARACTERISTICS
Power Drawbar Speed Crank- Slip Fuel Consumption Temp.ｰF (ｰC) Barom.
Hp pull mph shaft % lb/hp.hr Hp.hr/gal cool- Air inch
(kW) lbs (km/h) speed (kg/kW.h) (kW.h/l) ing dry Hg
(kN) rpm med bulb (kPa)
Maximum Power?th(4TA) Gear
82.6 6775 4.57 2160 6.0 0.566 12.54 183 36 29.9
(61.6) (30.1) (7.36) (0.344) (2.47) (84) (2) (101.1)
75% of Pull at Maximum Power?th(4TA) Gear
64.1 5060 4.75 2195 3.0 0.616 11.51 181 36 29.9
(47.8) (22.5) (7.65) (0.375) (2.27) (83) (2) (101.1)
50% of Pull at Maximum Power?th(4TA Gear
43.9 3370 4.88 2220 2.0 0.743 9.54 181 37 29.9
(32.7) (15.0) (7.85) (0.452) (1.88) (83) (3) (101.1)
75% of Pull at Reduced Engine Speed?th(4TB) Gear
64.6 5035 4.81 1764 4.0 0.531 13.35 178 37 29.9
(48.2) (22.4) (7.74) (0.323) (2.63) (81) (3) (101.1)
50% of Pull at Reduced Engine Speed?th(4TB) Gear
44.3 3395 4.89 1774 3.0 0.583 12.17 178 37 29.9
(33.0) (15.1) (7.87) (0.355) (2.40) (81) (3) (101.1)

 

[chh]

SUMMARY OF OECD TESTS 2358 & 2359鋒EBRASKA SUMMARY 559
MASSEY FERGUSON 5470 DYNA 4 DIESEL
16 SPEED
POWER TAKE-OFF PERFORMANCE
Power Crank
HP shaft
(kW) speed Gal/hr lb/hp.hr Hp.hr/gal Mean Atmospheric
rpm (l/h) (kg/kW.h) (kW.h/l) Conditions
MAXIMUM POWER AND FUEL CONSUMPTION
Rated Engine Speed?PTO speed?100 rpm)
108.0 2200 6.25 0.413 17.26
(80.5) (23.66) (0.251) (3.40)
Standard Power Take-off Speed(1000 rpm)
110.5 2000 6.01 0.387 18.38
(82.4) (22.75) (0.236) (3.62)
Maximum Power (1 hour)
110.6 1980 5.98 0.385 18.48
(82.5) (22.65) (0.234) (3.64)
VARYING POWER AND FUEL CONSUMPTION
108.0 2200 6.25 0.413 17.26 Air temperature
(80.5) (23.66) (0.251) (3.40)
92.9 2240 5.57 0.426 16.70 66ｰF (19ｰC)
(69.3) (21.08) (0.259) (3.29)
71.6 2284 4.69 0.466 15.27 Relative humidity
(53.4) (17.77) (0.284) (3.01)
47.9 2304 3.49 0.519 13.71 53%
(35.7) (13.23) (0.316) (2.70)
24.5 2356 2.55 0.739 9.63 Barometer
(18.3) (9.67) (0.450) (1.90)
-- 2399 1.74 -- -- 30.1" Hg (101.8 kPa)
-- (6.57) -- --
Maximum Torque - 346.4 lb.-ft. (469.7 Nm) at 1150 rpm
Maximum Torque Rise - 34.4%
Torque rise at 1750 engine rpm - 26%
DRAWBAR PERFORMANCE
(Unballasted - Front Drive Engaged)
FUEL CONSUMPTION CHARACTERISTICS
Power Drawbar Speed Crank- Slip Fuel Consumption Temp.ｰF (ｰC) Barom.
Hp pull mph shaft % lb/hp.hr Hp.hr/gal cool- Air inch
(kW) lbs (km/h) speed (kg/kW.h) (kW.h/l) ing dry Hg
(kN) rpm med bulb (kPa)
Maximum Power?th(3A) Gear
88.5 5775 5.75 2200 5.7 0.510 13.91 183 57 29.8
(66.0) (25.7) (9.25) (0.310) (2.74) (84) (14) (100.8)
75% of Pull at Maximum Power?th(3A) Gear
69.6 4315 6.05 2280 4.3 0.552 12.84 183 57 29.8
(51.9) (19.2) (9.73) (0.336) (2.53) (84) (14) (100.8)
50% of Pull at Maximum Power?th(3A) Gear
47.1 2865 6.16 2290 3.0 0.635 11.17 183 57 29.8
(35.1) (12.8) (9.91) (0.386) (2.20) (84) (14) (100.8)
75% of Pull at Reduced Engine Speed?0th(3B) Gear
69.1 4295 6.03 1858 4.7 0.512 13.85 181 57 29.8
(51.5) (19.1) (9.71) (0.312) (2.73) (83) (14) (100.8)
50% of Pull at Reduced Engine Speed?0th(3B) Gear
47.5 2880 6.18 1881 3.6 0.624 11.37 181 57 29.8
(35.4) (12.8) (9.94) (0.379) (2.24) (83) (14) (100.8)