New tractors and high RPMS?

FordManiac · Sep 18, 2012

This may sound silly but curious as to if others have noticed the same. What is the deal with most all the newer tractors and the need for high rpms to reach PTO speed. Ive driven a few now and just dont seem nearly as nice to drive as the old massey and fords with huge pistons develepong low end torque. Any thoughts? And i am not familiar with stuff over 60hp so maybe they dont follow this same trend. I am very curious as to others thoughts and experiences.

KYfarm · Sep 18, 2012

I have a 2008 MF 5465, 100PTO HP, 6 cylinder Perkins and it
runs about 500PTO rpm at about 1900 engine rpm.

That is about as fast as I felt the baler or bushhog ever needed to
go.

FordManiac · Sep 18, 2012

(quoted from post at 04:18:46 09/18/12) I have a 2008 MF 5465, 100PTO HP, 6 cylinder Perkins and it
runs about 500PTO rpm at about 1900 engine rpm.

That is about as fast as I felt the baler or bushhog ever needed to
go.

This is what im talking about. My Ford 2810, 3910, 4000 SU, and Massey 461 all reach PTO speed around 1800 rpms. BUT i know a couple people that have Kubotas another close friend with a Deere and a guy i work with that has a NH 45hp compact. All these tractors need around 2700-2800 rpms to reach PTO speed and to have most of their torque. I guess its what your use to but driving them makes you feel like your going to blow the motor. And at lie rpms they dont have any balls at all. Just curious as to why most manufactors have gone this route. Another issue is you will see more engine wear due to higher rpms which should reduce engine life somewhat.

Bob Bancroft · Sep 18, 2012

I was surprised when several years ago I borrowed my neighbors Kubota and found it had to be run nearly wide open (2500RPM plus!) for PTO speed.
I think it's simply a tiny engine(less material and weight) spun up like a top to get a HP rating. Not any what I would call torque.
I don't believe that's practical with the mass required to build a larger engine. In fact- I think they have gone the other way. I've been surprised to see some peak torque speeds quite low- below 1500 RPM.

Allan in NE · Sep 18, 2012

Sure, this is called 'marketing'.

Higher revs wear out a motor faster. :>)

Allan

Traditional Farmer · Sep 18, 2012

Its because the newer engines are short stroke low
torque engines if they ain't screaming they have very little power.

Coloken · Sep 18, 2012

I loved my 600-900 Case at some thing like 1500 RPM. They were out pulled by IHC "truck engines" at 2200RPM. I once saw a 500 Case diesel (LA chain drive with the first Diesel engine) with 9000 hours and he said it did not need any work.

Texasmark1 · Sep 18, 2012

Not so!!!!!!

My Branson (made in So. Korea, engine by Tohatsu in Japan under Cummins license) diesel, naturally aspired, 4 cyl., 16.5:1. Torque curve peaks at 1600 which happens to be the rpm my 2000D Ford reaches PTO speed. This engine drives a 57 PTO hp 4wd tractor that I can hook to my 12' 14 shank JD chisel with 10" sweeps and 3 rows of fingers, and pull it in mid range gears just like my JD 100 hp 4230 did. Here's the kicker: I can plow the same acreage in the same time on HALF THE FUEL. Maybe that has something to do with the design. Sure has something to do with my wallet.

The PTO is 2500 rpm if at 540, but it has 3 pto positions and each reaches 540 at a lower rpm depending on how much hp you need to do the job.....saves FUEL.

HTH,

Mark

DeltaRed · Sep 18, 2012

How about those X66 IH that run 2400-2600?

MarkB_MI · Sep 18, 2012

If you want a high power-to-weight ratio, speeding up the engine is the easiest and cheapest way. If you want to bump up the horsepower without increasing rpm, you have to do it with torque. That means pretty much every part of the engine (block, pistons, rods and crank) all have to be stronger, which adds cost and weight.

Makers of compact tractors are delivering what they think their market wants: small, light tractors with decent horsepower that they can sell at a profitable price point. If they thought they could make more money selling heavy, slow-turning tractors, that's what they would make.

David G · Sep 18, 2012

Cars are the same way, I think it how they can get the HP
with less cost.

Allan in NE · Sep 18, 2012

Yep,

I've two of the silly things. Run 'em 1800 to 2000 all the time. :>)

Allan

mkirsch · Sep 18, 2012

The smaller higher-revving engines are also more fuel efficient.

You just have to get used to the sound. Nothing's going to blow up.

rusty6 · Sep 18, 2012

Fuel use increases on my CIH magnum 7130 at higher rpm. I normally run it about 1800 to 1900 rpm for field work. For pto work on the combine it needs to run at 2100 engine rpm to reach the 1000 pto speed required by the combine. The fuel guage goes down quicker at 2100 I think even though it is not working hard at all.

BushogPapa · Sep 18, 2012

Mostly, the Emissions are what is dictating the Design..
The Government requires a certain level Maximum Emission and the Manufacturer must comply..
The higher the RPM, the Smaller the engine Cu. In> required to make "X" amount of power..so they feel it uses less fuel and satisfies the EPA..
Higher RPM's arguably improve "Thermal- Efficiency"...
With the latest CNC Machining techniques maybe the new engines will last longer..

Ron..

Dean · Sep 18, 2012

Agreed.

I've noticed the same trend over the last couple of decades, and it has become pretty much industry standard absent a couple of holdouts, e.g., MF.

Recently I shopped for a basic 55 - 65 PTO HP tractor for mowing duty. I shopped NH, Kubota and MF (JD is a non entity in my area due to the lack of a nearby dealership). I really wanted a Kubota due mostly to modern ergonomics and tight turning radius. NH was my second choice.

The PTO gearing of the models that I considered from both Kubota and NH required near rated engine RPM to attain 540 PTO RPM. Rated engine RPM of the NH models was generally around 2200-2300 RPM while that of the Kubotas around 2600-2700.

I do lots of mowing where I basically cruise along, only rarely requiring anything near rated PTO HP. The need to operate the engine at rated speed to maintain adequate blade tip speed is a MAJOR disadvantage to me due mostly to rapid accumulation of hours. Fuel consumption and noise are of lesser importance.

The MF model that I bought is rated at 2200 engine RPM but 540 PTO speed is at about 1750 engine RPM. This allows me to cruise along at relatively low engine RPM with lots of governor and foot throttle available for the rare tough spots. The fact that the MF priced out nearly $6000 less due mostly to very aggressive incentives when compared to comparably equipped models from both NH and Kubota was icing on the cake.

It appears that others are beginning to take notice of this issue as the new Powerstar line from NH offers optional, shiftable PTO gearing producing rated PTO RPM at either 2160 or 1592 RPM.

Dean

FordManiac · Sep 18, 2012

(quoted from post at 07:20:24 09/18/12) The smaller higher-revving engines are also more fuel efficient.

You just have to get used to the sound. Nothing's going to blow up.

I disagree with this statement. My 3910 has a little bigger motor and uses way less fuel than my friends john deer 990. We both can put in 5 gallons of fuel and when he needs to refuel i still have plenty to go. His tractor is only a few years old where mine is over 20 years old. He even runs a 5 ft bush hog where i run a 6ft. I think the better reason is the fact that they are cheaper to manufacture.

old · Sep 18, 2012

Yep the older low RPM high torque engine is a thing of the past. Bet if you hooked say a 50HP tractor to a 50HP tractor of the same weight the old one would pull circles around the newer high rpm one due to lack of torque. Cars and trucks are the same way now days and they get HP from RPM not from torque. That is why in the 60s on the drag strips the 6 cylinder and the V-8 got changed as for what class they where in due to the fact the 6 cylinder produce max torque at low RPM and that caused the guys with the V-s to loose so they change the classes

RGMartin · Sep 18, 2012

It appears that others are beginning to take notice of this issue as the new Powerstar line from NH offers optional, shiftable PTO gearing producing rated PTO RPM at either 2160 or 1592 RPM.

Dean

Amazing another CASE of resurrecting old technology, DB had 2 speed PTO as standard equipment as far back as the 60s.

Nice to just run them at near idle when spraying of other light work.

Anonymous-0 · Sep 18, 2012

hi performance / shortlife ,,failed asian toilet rim technoloy using ricebunny schitmetal

Traditional Farmer · Sep 18, 2012

Try running it at 1000RPM like many of the old tractors would it'll die out quick.Many old tractors had a MAX RPM around 1600,some 1200-1400

Traditional Farmer · Sep 18, 2012

BTW 2000 Fords were pretty gutless too

Tx Jim · Sep 18, 2012

(quoted from post at 09:29:09 09/18/12)This engine drives a 57 PTO hp 4wd tractor that I can hook to my 12' 14 shank JD chisel with 10" sweeps and 3 rows of fingers, and pull it in mid range gears just like my JD 100 hp 4230 did. Here's the kicker: I can plow the same acreage in the same time on HALF THE FUEL.
Mark

Mark
I dang sure think that your 57 pto HP MFWD(weighing according to Tractordata 5,808 lbs) CAN NOT pull a 14 shank chisel as fast and deep as a JD 4230 100 pto HP 2WD(weighing according to Tractordata 8100 to 14150 pounds. I'm curious how many inches in the ground are you pulling this 14 shank chisel with your Bransom tractor???????

RMinVa · Sep 18, 2012

I have a deutz fahr with the modern water cooled
engine. The Agrofarm 100 reaches its maximum
torque at just 1250 rpm and keeps it constant up
to a speed of 1700 rpm. Maximum power is reached
at 2000 rpm.

Some pto jobs I shift up to 1000 rpm and run the
engine at 1,200 rpm to get 540. It's great on fuel
and when switching to 540@1200 it's even better.

Some of those compact tractors are up there close
to 3,000 engine rpms. Screaming!

FordManiac · Sep 18, 2012

(quoted from post at 10:24:34 09/18/12) BTW 2000 Fords were pretty gutless too

Not sure on the 2000 as ive never owned on BUT i own a 2810 which i thought was about the same tractor and its a beast to be supposedly only 32pto hp. Again my friends Deere 990 had more hp but cant come close to handling a 6ft cutter like the Ford can. Its like comparing apple to oranges. My guess is that the Ford just has alot more torque. The Deere is a smooth running engine though but if running a heavy disk harrow better keep the rpms up before you drop it in the dirt.

Texasmark1 · Sep 18, 2012

Obviously it's not designed for that rpm since it is below the peak of the torque curve. What's your point? You had a bad day and too much to drink and feel like making an a$$ out of yourself? You are accomplishing your objective.

Mark

FordManiac · Sep 18, 2012

(quoted from post at 17:12:37 09/18/12) Obviously it's not designed for that rpm since it is below the peak of the torque curve. What's your point? You had a bad day and too much to drink and feel like making an a$$ out of yourself? You are accomplishing your objective.

Mark

Well sir based on your response i believe your speaking of yourself as ive actually had a good day and am not drinking. Im simply curious as to why many newer tractors have "what seems to me" less useful torque curves than some of the older models. Simply that and no more. Maybe i hurt your feelings as you have one of those bumble bee motors and if so i do apologize.

Texasmark1 · Sep 19, 2012

My first post was how I feel about it and the fact that my JD is no
longer on the property attests to that, nor my other JD, nor my MF,
nor 2 of my 4 Fords...I kept 2 of them for utility work, both diesels.
Also the fact that it is made overseas is no biggie either as a lot of
tractors are, and have been for a long time, made overseas. Try
one, you may like it and especially as I said, the fuel economy.

Mark

Tx Jim · Sep 19, 2012

(quoted from post at 09:29:49 09/19/12) My first post was how I feel about it and the fact that my JD is no
longer on the property attests to that, Try
one, you may like it and especially as I said, the fuel economy.Mark

Mark
I still think the JD 4230(100 hp) will pull a 14 shank chisel deeper/faster than your Bransom(57 hp). Yes JD will use more fuel per hour than your import tractor but the JD will "GIT-R-DONE". Bigger horses require more feed.

New tractors and high RPMS?

Member

Member

Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Member

Member

Well-known Member

Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Similar threads