Thread #7798 / / Total number of messages: 7 / Thread View Count: 957 / Add thread to favorites:
AnonymousUser 7798 87 Agcostar either
This is the only big-power tractor who has a 6-cilinder.
my guestion is:are this good engines for long-day field
It's not important to have many cylinders. Many new big
engines have only 4 or 6 cylinders. One example is the
Mercedes engine of the Doppstadt Trac 180. It has 172hp (I
think) but only 4 cylinders. The advantage is the lower fuel
consumption because of less friction at the pistons.
All the major manufacturers of large articulated tractors in
the US, and most of the world have 6-cyl engines.
JD 9000/9020 series, Case IH 91-93 series, CIH STX, NH TJ,
Buhler versatile, i belive all Caterpillar Challenger
Using a big Turbo and intercooler there is hardly any upper
limit to how much power you can get out of a 6-cyl.
your opinion is relative.
A four cylinder needs more, thicker, or tighter piston rings
to hold the higher pressure of the turbocharged engine. If
you make a larger 4 cyl engine, the circumference of the
piston rings will be bigger, thus more friction. A larger
stroke will cause the piston rings to reach higher speeds,
to make the longer stroke distance in the same time.
Personally, i prefer a low rpm V8 like the Tatra 928. That
would be a nice engine for these tractors. BxS 120mm x
140mm, 12.6 litre, 410 hp and extreme torque at 1000 rpm,
max 1800 rpm, air cooled, crankshaft seated in roller
bearing (less wear with extreme oil temperatures, hot or
cold) Mechanical controlled Motorpal fuel pump, complying to
Euro 3 exhaust gas emission requirements.
You might know the V12 variants of these engines from Europa
Truck Trials on Eurosport TV.
I've never herd anyone who had trouble with them
I wanted to compare two engines with the same piston
displacement, the same output, the same mean effective
pressure... but one with 4 cylinders and one with 6 or more.
And if you also have the same length of stroke, you'll have
about 20% more total circumference (added up all cylinders)
for 2 additional cylinders (6 instead of 4).
But my opinion is really relative and only theoretically
valid, because two engines with these properties maybe don't
Nevertheless I think that development goes in the direction
of less cylinders.
You are right, my opinion is only theoretically valid.
But if you compare a 6- and a 4-cylinder engine with the
same piston displacement, the same length of stroke, the
same mean effective pressure ... (only different cyl. bore),
you have about 20% less total circumference of all piston
rings at the 4-cyl engine and they dont't need to be tighter
or thicker. Hence less friction.
But only theoretically, because to get the same output from
a 4-cyl engine, these data (stroke, pressure, ...) cant't be
Nevertheless I think that development goes towards less
cylinder, although more cylinder are more attractive.
Loading Message List