Compact Tractor Power

[WKPoor]

I was reading tonight an article about gas vs diesel for tractor engines. It quoted from Kohler and Kubota specs about HP and Torque. A 22 hp Kohler only produced 37ft lb. torque and the Kubota was 41ft. lb. That supports what I've been thinking about new vs old. I'm wondering if the Cub has between 30-40ft. lb. of torque for its meager 9HP. Also those engines cranked to 3600rpm to make that power-not 1600 like the Cub. To expand I would be curious to see specs on up to 50HP on compacts to see how they might compare to C's H's and M's. A new massy 50HP weights only 3500lbs. An H weighs in about 3700 or 3900 bare and is rated at about 27HP. HMMMMMM.
I wonder just what is compareable. Donny has a brandy new compact. Maybe he can shead some light for us as to the capabilites. Overlooking creature comforts like power steering and shuttle shift etc.
I have a 7ft 3pt. tiller that the manufacture said required 60hp to operate. My H pulls it with part throttle easily. And thats with it taking a full bite.

[Jim Becker]

Figures published in 1959, evidently for the UC-60 power unit:
16.5 continuous brake horsepower with accessories
2500 RPM @ continous bhp
38.5 torque, max with accessories
1700 RPM @ max torque

Note that the tractor was rated at lower RPM and would come up with lower hp.

[Donny M]

Bill,

The tractor I have is a Case/IH JX 55. It has a 3 cylinder diesel with 59 HP and 207 Nm (Newton-meters)which translates to 207 x .737 = 152 ft. lbs.the rated HP is at 2500 rpm and the rated torque is at 1500 rpm.

[Jack fowler]

I have some specs in front of me on a Massey Ferguson with a 3 cylinder Perkins Gas or Diesel engine that states; 152.7 cu.in, H.P. Flywheel 42, H.P. drawbar 33, maximum torque @ 1200 rpm 120 ft.lbs.

Gas and Diesel has the same specs why is that? The gas engine has 9: 1 compression ratio and the Diesel has 17: 1 compression ratio. I would think the Diesel would have the maximum torque and H.P.at the low R.P.M’s, but how are they doing it with the gas engine with the lower compression ratio?

Jack Fowler

[WKPoor]

My conclusion is that the numbers really don't mean a much except within a givin product type. Trying to compare capabilities on paper is probably impossible. It just isn't apples to apples. I would love to see a newer compact at a plow-in to see how they compare right along side the antiquers though. Pull type work might be hard to beat the antique but for PTO work they might be had. I'm always curious so see how things measure up and to find out if modern technology really has made a better mouse trap or not.

[George Willer]

I have some specs in front of me on a Massey Ferguson with a 3 cylinder Perkins Gas or Diesel engine that states; 152.7 cu.in, H.P. Flywheel 42, H.P. drawbar 33, maximum torque @ 1200 rpm 120 ft.lbs.

Gas and Diesel has the same specs why is that? The gas engine has 9: 1 compression ratio and the Diesel has 17: 1 compression ratio. I would think the Diesel would have the maximum torque and H.P.at the low R.P.M’s, but how are they doing it with the gas engine with the lower compression ratio?

Jack Fowler

Jack,

Just a guess... the extra fuel the gasser uses makes a bigger "bang"?

[Jack fowler]

George wrote:

Just a guess... the extra fuel the gasser uses makes a bigger "bang"?

You’re probably right George. What I can’t understand, after reading more in the specifications, the Diesel is direct injection. I don’t really see how the gas engine can compare.
I think I’ll make a post in the Massey site and maybe somebody can explain.

Jack Fowler

[400lbsonacubseatspring]

As in the other discussion, you could run a tiller, plow, or whatnot with the smallest of engines, providing you could gear things down enough.

The gear reducer that EJP has was made for the rotovator for the Cub. It slows the cubs speed enough to allow the tiller to do it's job. I suspect that a lot of antiques could happily run tillers in their lower gears, however.

We used to pull 4 bottom plows with Farmall M's. Albeit sometimes slower than you would wish, but there was no question as far as being "able" to pull them.

Increase in work at the expense of speed.

I think when implement manufacturers come up with a HP requirement, they calculate how fast a job "should" be done, and base their calculations on that. It is not reasonable to plow 1 acre in 3 hours, as we do in the cubs, in modern terms of labour costs, etc. It's not even practical to plow 3 acres in 1 hour, as we did with the M's some 25 years ago. Not unless you're a small, family farm, and you don't measure your input in terms of "dollars per hour". The costs involved, however, outside of the labour factor, make using antiques extremely economical, as it costs me less than $5/ acre in gas to plow, in a tractor that has so far cost less than $2000.

Compare that to modern machines, and you can see why the antique farmalls are still so widely used in small farming operations.

The amount of work you can do with them increases proportionately with the amount of time it takes to do it. If time is expensive, then one is better off with a machine that can perform the tasks quickly. I'd like to think that doing things more slowly leads to doing a better job, and the fastest tools aren't always the best. That's just my opinion, however.