(800) 853-2651
SHOP NOW

True Horse Power

I

Idaho spud

Member
I have a hard time of accepting the horse power rating on some engines. I have a 1937 restored farmall F30 that I pull in the local antique pulls that is rated 30 belt horse power. My neighbor has some kind of polaris snow mobile he says is 125HP. Now do you guys think that snow mobile engine if put in the F30 is going to pull the same load four times as fast. that's not true HP. what do you guys think
 
HP at what RPM and how much torque. The sled engine makes it's most power at about 75 or 80 % of maximum RPM which I guess would be 8000 or so. Run the F30 at 6000 RPM and see how long it lasts. HP is HP but there's more to it than that. Mack trucks used a 237 HP engine for years. Put a 237 HP out of a pick up in there and the truck wouldn't move. HP isn't the only thing to consider when figuring power.
 
*Inever have understood it. My H Farmall is rated at 23 hp or so, and my little Kohler lawn mower has a about the same rating. Are you tellingme that if I chain them back to back, that Kohler lawnmower will out-pull that H Farmall backwards??
 
the thing that separates tractors from toys is torque, not hp, hp without torque is not worth much that f-30 has a big heavy flywheel spinning away behind it and a much larger rotating assembly in its engine, this produces tourque which is a measure of its ability to keep spinning under a load, one fun thing thats always a hit, is to take a 23 hp ford N series tractor and brag about its power to the neighborhood saturday morning big box store lawn tractor guys, almost always there's one over educated one who doesn't understand torque and will brag that his super duper 26 or bigger lawn tractor has more power, here where you drop your money and hook them draw bar to draw bar, of course the little N will make the lawn job look ridiculous , torque and weight, wins every time, big trucks are the same deal, a big truck has say a 425 hp engine, now 425 hp isn't undoable in a diesel pickup these days, BUT torque rules the road, while the pickup may make 500+ ft lbs of torque souped up, the 425 hp in the big truck makes 1,800 ft lbs right off the showroom floor
 
Horsepower is a function of Torque x RPM, thats why the HP rating is quoted at X RPM. A small lawn mower engine with a short stroke obviously doesnt have much Torque, so to get much HP it runs at a fast RPM such as say 3600 versus a long stroke higher torque engine that only runs at maybe 1000 RPM..... The old 2 banger Johnny Poppers ran at low RPM but had a longgggggggggg stroke which gave them their torque so they could develop perhaps 40 HP at 1200 RPM

HOWEVER the same vintage screaming 6 cyliner Olivers didnt have as much Torque and a shorter stroke butttttttttt they got say 40 HP cuz they ran at a much faster RPM Get it?????????

HP is a function of Torque x RPM and thats the bottom line

I have to agree with the antecdotal evidence, my old John Deere B is rated at like 13 HP, while my lawn mower is 25, so gear them down and weight them however it takes and I just dont see the 25 HP engine ever outperforming (actual work) the 13 HP Deere??????

Last thought, HP in todays world may be part hype like when they started rating power amplifiers at 40 watts which were only maybe 20 watts a few years earlier?????

John
 
Actually it's simpler than that.

Over the years, horses have gotten smaller.

Today it takes two horses to do the work of one from 50 years ago.
 
If you gear that screaming 8000 RPM aluminum snowmobile engine down to the ground speed your
farmall runs it'll pull a LOT more than your Farmall. But it might not make it to the end of the track before it eats it's pigs from running under full load for more than a few seconds. The tractor with the snowmobile engine will be sitting there with smoking remnants laying on the track while the Farmall slowly and dependably chugs on by. Under full load there's a certain piston speed that can't be surpassed cause the heat can't be transferred away from the piston any faster.Jim
 
Shaft hp is shaft hp if you're doing pto work that doesn't have a huge startup torque to overcome.

Now if we start talking drawbar hp its a different story, although that sled can develop a lot of that too, only it is not at field working speeds.
 
heres a simple way of thinking of this ,that holds true. " torque does the work,hp says how fast". Without torque,you simply cant do the work. Less hp and you cant do it very fast.
 
Put it on a dyno and find out.
Pull the snowmobile engine in the tractor and hook to a transfer sled. Ground speed will be four times faster.
Where the confusion often originates from is torque rise, that isn't HP rise.
Just looking a the situation is confusing unless you have done dyno work, lab work and know the math involved.
The farmal may lug down to 10HP but the torque could be 150% above torque at rated HP and rated rpm.
We often see jubilant tractor owners at the dyno. Thinking that their 50HP tractor is making 75HP when lugged down. Ain't so.
In a nut shell. It's an apples and oranges comparison among people using different and various terms for the same factors. Odds of understanding is actually slim.
 

Horsepower is a calculated value: RPM and torque are measured on a dyno and horsepower is calculated from the following formual:

HP = (RPM x Torque) / 5252

HP is a measure of the amount of work an engine can do per unit time and holds true regardless of the combination of RPM and torque. Note that for a low speed engine the torque must be high and conversersely for a low torque engine the RPM must be high for equal HP.

Engine torque is a function displacement and cylinder pressure. For a given engine displacement, increasing cylinder pressure will result in an increase in torque. The average cylinder pressure for any engine can be estimated by the folllowing formula:

MEP = (HP x 792,000) / (Displacement x RPM) MEP = Mean Effective Pressure

Increasing engine displacement will result in an increase in engine torque. The increase in displacement can be from boring or stroking - the torque increase will be similar.

For low speed applications a longer stroke is typically used since large valves are not required to flow air at high RPM. Also, longer stroke engines have smaller pistons so the torque comes with a lower rod and crank bearing load. In this case low speed is a mis-nomer since piston speed can be very high in these engines.

If very high HP is the goal then the engine is typically designed with a larger bore to allow room for large valves. The large valves allow the engine to breathe at high RPM and the shorter stroke reduces piston speed.

Long stroke, short stroke, high torque, low torque, high speed, low speed; HP is HP. However, for this to be true the engine needs to be coupled to the load with the appropriate gearing.
 
I guess that's it in a nutshell. A 3 horse chunk of iron on a steel wheel cart... with a flywheel that weighs about 3/4 ton, and it can throw silage further than the tallest silo. Put a 100 horse tractor on the same blower, barely does the same thing. Put a 3/4 ton flywheel on that tractor- now ya might have something impressive!
My personal theory on diesels is along the same line- I figure as the exhaust valve opens on either gas or oil- the diesel doesn't have a distributor rotor slowly trying to get to the next spark plug wire.... when it can't make it in time...and stalls- the gas engine is call inferior... a big enough flywheel on the gasser, and she would hit every time.... just like her diesel twin....
Put electronic fuel injection on a gas model, we'll see how the fuel economy does too, just like cars in the 80's... suddenly some gas models became more efficent than most diesels didn't they? Put a carb on a diesel see how that goes....
 
In all honesty and no insult intended. If that is your limit of understanding and you think that is a test. Then there is no use trying to explain.
Put both engines on an electric generator and see which 23HP engine makes more KW.
 
IF I understand this right the 13 hp deere will twice outdo the 25 hp lawnmower engine. While making 13hp the JD is making 70lbft but while making 25hp the lawnmower engine is making 36lbft. So technically if the lawnmower was heavy enough to gain traction, it could do the same work at slightly over half the speed. Another example. There is a certain person on here that has claimed that a 6.0L gas can keep up to a 6.6 diesel because HP is all that matters. At cruising speed (around 1700rpm) the 6.0(L76) makes about 325lbft of torque. The 6.6(LB7) makes over 500lbft at 1700rpm and stays there till 3000rpm. It's true that the 6.0 torque keeps going up with RPM (to a point) but it still never matches a 6.6.
 
Indiana Ken has one of the best explainations.
What worries me is the sad state of the education system that lets people out on the street . That can't tell power, torque and rpm is . Or how to use the formulas.
 
Sorry but there are statements there that need reworked.
The flywheel does not make energy it only stores energy.
Diesels have low end torque because of the high compression rartio and the very short cam timing.
If a diesel was cammed with gasser specs and the valves didn't hit the pistons. And if you didn't mind using a block heater and a 20HP starter motor to make enough cranking RPMs. The diesel would have less low and torque and more peak HP. Just like a long duration cammed diesel at the modified pulls.
Put the short cam in the gasser, raise the compression and use direct injection. Now the gasser performs like a diesel. Low end torque and falls flat before 3000rpm.
 
Your tractor can put out its rated 30 horsepower (or something close to it) all day long, seven days a week, 365 days a year, stopping only for refueling. How long do you think that snowmobile will put out its "rated" power before it comes apart?
 
Bingo!

I learned this lesson from my father when I was about 17 or 18. At the time I had a 1964 Impala SS with the 327/300 (SAE gross), which, by the way, was underrated and quite competitive with the run of the mill 389 tri power GTO of the day.

My father was an engineer for GMC Truck and Coach and a Detroit Diesel expert. I was learning about fuel injection, roller cams, blowers, etc., at the time, all of which were incorporated into the Detroits. Curious, I asked my father how much HP the 426 CI 6/6V 71 Detroit made. He told me that, depending upon configuration and options, around 180 net crankshaft HP as configured for transit bus (hydramatic) applications.

I was stunned and asked how my carbureted 327 V8 engine could make well over 100 HP more without FI, roller cams, blower, etc. Well, he said, your car engine might make 300 HP at 5,000 RPM+ for a short time but the Detroit will make its 180 HP at 1800 RPM 24 hours each day, seven days each week, indefinitely, stopping only for routine maintenance.

It was a lesson well learned.

Dean
 
I weigh in with one statment below being the escense. Assume true HP for each. (easy to doubt, but harder to test without a lab)
The high speed engine is designed to make its HP for 30 seconds then go to 20% power. It can make the HP, but it must be on life support on a dyno after the 30 seconds.
The tractor engine and its life support (built into the lube and cooling (and governor)) will produce its modest conservatively rated HP for 50 years. Jim
 
Your F30 engine would be a useless clunk in a snowmobile that could do 25 mph on a frozen lake or road. and not even move on the trail or open field.so that proves your tractor engine is junk and the sled engine is best.
At least according to your line of logic. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
 
Guess I opened up a can of worms,but you guys havhave brought out some facts that inlightened me in several ways. I was told that one HP. is the ability to lift 33000 LBS on foot in one minute. Given that the old tractor at 30HP. should lift thirty feet in thirty seconds. Will the sled engine lift the 33,000 LBS the same distence in7.2 seconds to be the true 125HP. I don't know, what do you guys think.
 
What it all really comes down to, the gearing an engine is hooked to something makes the most difference. The big horse power of a freight engine will move thousands of tons at a pretty good rate of speed. But you can also make it move with a washing machine motor if you use enough gears....
 
I glanced through the responses. Did not see a mention of traction. The engine power must be applied so that it grips the surface on which it will travel. On most surfaces, the F-30 is the winner in that category.
 
Oh. So that's what happened to the poor old Western Maryland.... so Don! did you get a job with Maytag when you were thru as WM roundhouse foreman?
 
Go ahead and try to explain it then. A kw is just hp in different units. A 23hp engine is a 17kw engine. It should technically be a straight transfer minus ineffeincies.(This isn't my position, as I think torque plays a greater role than HP) A 17kw engine should make 17kw of power at 100% effiency. I don't think it takes an uneducated society to be confused by hp and torque. You yourself have said that a 360hp gas engine will out work a 305hp diesel which is complete horse crap. Based on that a comment, a
25hp B&S should do more work than a 20hp gas tractor engine.
 
On HP is one HP, regardless of the engine. That being said one HP is the ability to move 33,000 lbs one foot, in one minute, or said another way one HP equals 33,000 ftlbs of work done in one minute. As others have basically said the difference is all in the speed at which the HP is produced, and that in effect is called torque.

To make the explination a bit clearer look at it this way. If you moved 33,000 lbs one foot in one minute you've done one HP of work. At the same time if you move 1 lb 33,000 feet in one minute you've still done 1 HP worth of work. That's a bit simplistic but in the end one HP worth of work is still one HP of work.
HP defined
 
Sure you wanna stick with "But you can also make it move with a washing machine motor if you use enough gears...."

The problem with that analysis is THE GEARING ISNT 100% EFFICIENT, I.E. THE GEARING FRICTION CREATES HEAT LOSSES AND THATS ENERGY LOST

The thing is if you had engough gear boxes and gearing down it takes HP to turn all those heavy gears, theres friction and heat, and I doubt a small HP motor would even turn that big of a gear box LET ALONE IF YOU PUT A LOAD OUT ON THE END.

A gear down box REDUCES RPM but INCREASES TORQUE,,,,If the gear box had no friction and produced no heat losses, since HP is a function of Torque x RPM, the HP out would = HP in buttttttttttttttttt it takes up and wastes HP in conversion to heat so you DO NOT END UP WITH AS MUCH OUTPUT HP AS INPUT HP

HOWEVER (cant create energy only change its form) HP IN ISSSSSSS EQUAL TO HP OUT PLUSSSSSSSSS HEAT LOSS....the gear box cant create or destroy energy, only change its from from HP in to HP out plus heat

Hope this helps, best wishes

John T
 
John T, good try, but it probably won't, because some just can't grasp that a small motor with a 12 or 13 ft-lb torque output moving the same load at the same speed as a larger 60 ft-lb output motor. Or they want to move the argument to durability, acceleration, range of operation, etc.,etc., etc. Sure gears are not 100% efficient, but they are not killers either. 5.8:1 ratio isn't out of the realm of large equipment such as trucks & tractors. My numbers I tossed out could be a physically small 20hp, 12.5 ft-lb, 10, 500rpm unit with 5.8:1 gear box @ 80% efficiency and move the same load at the same speed as a larger 20hp, 60 ft-lb, 1800rpm unit. The argument shouldn't be about torque and/or horsepower and equivalency. That is just simple multiplication & division. The engine used depends on many factors, some of which have been discussed, but not whether hp is hp or torque is torque.
 
(quoted from post at 08:20:57 11/06/12) IF I understand this right the 13 hp deere will twice outdo the 25 hp lawnmower engine. While making 13hp the JD is making 70lbft but while making 25hp the lawnmower engine is making 36lbft. So technically if the lawnmower was heavy enough to gain traction, it could do the same work at slightly over half the speed. Another example. There is a certain person on here that has claimed that a 6.0L gas can keep up to a 6.6 diesel because HP is all that matters. At cruising speed (around 1700rpm) the 6.0(L76) makes about 325lbft of torque. The 6.6(LB7) makes over 500lbft at 1700rpm and stays there till 3000rpm. It's true that the 6.0 torque keeps going up with RPM (to a point) but it still never matches a
6.6.
Click to expand...

With respect I would like to comment on comparing the 6.0L to the 6.6L engine.

I am not familar with the 6.0L or the 6.6L engine or who manufactures them, so I am not taking sides here. I do maintain that the measure of an engine's capability is indeed HP. However, for those that insist on using torque as a measure the process is as follows:

1) Obtain the torque and RPM values for each engine at the engine HP peak.

2) Choose an RPM value that you wish to compare the torque output at.

3) The engine with the greatest torque output wins.

For example:

Lets assume we want to compare torque at 1700 RPM. You stated that the 6.6L will hold 500 ft-lbs at 3000 RPM, that would be 286 HP. However, the HP peak typically occurs after the torque begins to fall off. So lets assume the 6.6L can put out 450 ft-lbs at 3400 RPM, that would be 291 HP. For our example we will call it the HP peak. Since we want to compare torque at 1700 RPM we need a 2:1 gear reduction. At the output of the gear reduction the engine will produce 900 ft-lbs of torque at 3400 engine RPM. Note, (900 x 1700) 5252 = 291 HP, we are using torque for comparison but it is based on peak HP.

Repeat the process for the 6.0L engine. Take the torque value at the HP peak and multipy by the gear reduction required to reduce the RPM to 1700. If the 6.0L has greater HP than the 6.6L you should find it will produce greater torque when compare at a common RPM.

As other posters have mentioned there are loses in transmissions. However, the loses are small and in the above example both vehicles have transmissions, so the loses tend to cancel out.
 
I want 1700 engine rpm, not 3400 engine rpm. It isn't practical to run a 6.0 (or 6.6) at 4500-5000rpm to attain maximum power. In practice a gas will not perform along side a diesel unless it's a large displacement engine that sucks fuel. In that case though HP and torque are comparable. Ask anyone that has driven both a 6.0 gas(GM) and a LBZ Duramax which one tows better, faster, less slowing down, and performs more reliably and the Duramax will win everytime. There is no comparsion, despite B&D saying that a 365hp gas will outperform a 305hp diesel. Let me lay out another scanario in which there is no room for denial. A 1994-1998 Cummins 6bt when in a Dodge Ram 2500/3500 made a maximum of 215 HP (rpm doesn't matter) A Chevy Vortec 305 makes a maximum of 220hp at a much higher RPM. Assuming they're each geared to work at peak rpm, a 5.9 will walk all over that 305. In every scenario you can put it in that fits into the purpose of a truck, the 305 won't perform and will die trying.
 
So you are telling us you trailer 26,000lbs 500 miles daily through the mountains?
For the bit of trailering that is done a time or two a month on average. Why do you need all this HP.
As for the gasser and diesel HP comparisons . Instead of using the seat of your pants. Look at the results with two otherwise identical trucks and loads, one the higher HP gasser and the lower powered diesel.
Other than your sensibilities being upset by a few extra rpms. The diesel is going to trail behind. Even more so as the direct injection gazers stomp over the EPA and CAFE choked diesels.
This isn't the days of carbureted gasses and non emission diesels. The LS series 6.0 and 6.2 gassers are superior in a majority or truck and occasional duty trailering.
The direct injection gas 6.0 or 6.2 will leave the diesel only for the diesel diehard . Who wants a diesel for ego and to program up to 600HP to smoke the tires and a smokey exhaust for attention.
Lets not forget the exhaust stack sticking up behind the cab to compensate for his little willy.
 
I never said that I (or anyone) needs a 400hp diesel. I simply said that HP for HP, a gas will not perform along side a diesel. You have repeatedly said that all that matters is HP, and I have given you two examples disproving this THEORY. According to you, I don't need a diesel to pull 26000lb through the mountains, a gas will outdo it anyways. Nothing about the 305 to 5.9 6bt comparsion is seat of my pants. Look at the speedometer up a hill and odometer when the truck is dead. The 305 is a stout engine, but it doesn't perform nearly as well as a 5.9. I'd dare say that a 5.9 ISB, maybe even a 6bt, would out do a mid decade GM6.0L. I have to be concerned about the high rpm required for a gas to perform. There is no gear available in the 50-65mph range in a 4l80e that gets you into the 5k rpm. Even 70mph with 4.1 rear is only 4650 rpm. That's 2nd gear which has no lockup which means you'll fry that tranny in short order if towing without additional coolers. The 6spd Allsion locks up in 2nd gear and up.I won't make a comparsion with the 6l80e, as it doesn't appear to have the durability of the 4l80e which holds up to everything a stock engine can throw at it(minus heat). I still maintain that even in their peak power bands, the gas won't perform compared to the diesel and I have proof(shown above) The Main thing that makes the 3.5 Eco Boost so good is the fact that it is a low displacement engine that with a small load, will operate without boost, giving it the mileage of a 3.5L with the added advantage of being direct inject. Add boost and mileage drops off to a number that is proportionate to the amount of air being consumed. It is unlikely that GM will use the 6.0 or 6.2 as a platform for their new DI engines. It will likely be a 4-5L engine with a turbo. Otherwise there is little advantage. I will state once again that HP for HP, a gas will fall behind a diesel in the event of maximum power being demanded. The only case where this isn't true is when a gas has comparable HP AND torque, such as the LB7 and the 8.1L BB gas. The diesel truck with a stack is completely unrelated to the conversation on power.
 
(quoted from post at 17:58:10 11/07/12) I never said that I (or anyone) needs a 400hp diesel. I simply said that HP for HP, a gas will not perform along side a diesel. You have repeatedly said that all that matters is HP, and I have given you two examples disproving this THEORY. According to you, I don't need a diesel to pull 26000lb through the mountains, a gas will outdo it anyways. Nothing about the 305 to 5.9 6bt comparsion is seat of my pants. Look at the speedometer up a hill and odometer when the truck is dead. The 305 is a stout engine, but it doesn't perform nearly as well as a 5.9. I'd dare say that a 5.9 ISB, maybe even a 6bt, would out do a mid decade GM6.0L. I have to be concerned about the high rpm required for a gas to perform. There is no gear available in the 50-65mph range in a 4l80e that gets you into the 5k rpm. Even 70mph with 4.1 rear is only 4650 rpm. That's 2nd gear which has no lockup which means you'll fry that tranny in short order if towing without additional coolers. The 6spd Allsion locks up in 2nd gear and up.I won't make a comparsion with the 6l80e, as it doesn't appear to have the durability of the 4l80e which holds up to everything a stock engine can throw at it(minus heat). I still maintain that even in their peak power bands, the gas won't perform compared to the diesel and I have proof(shown above) The Main thing that makes the 3.5 Eco Boost so good is the fact that it is a low displacement engine that with a small load, will operate without boost, giving it the mileage of a 3.5L with the added advantage of being direct inject. Add boost and mileage drops off to a number that is proportionate to the amount of air being consumed. It is unlikely that GM will use the 6.0 or 6.2 as a platform for their new DI engines. It will likely be a 4-5L engine with a turbo. Otherwise there is little advantage. I will state once again that HP for HP, a gas will fall behind a diesel in the event of maximum power being demanded. The only case where this isn't true is when a gas has comparable HP AND torque, such as the LB7 and the 8.1L BB gas. The diesel truck with a stack is completely unrelated to the conversation on power.
Click to expand...

GM uses the six speed Alison transmission in the 3/4 and one ton gassers.
If a diesel made more power per HP than a gasser. Why don't they use diesel engines in airplanes, performance cars/trucks and small to medium boats?
My 300HP LQ4 with the 3.73 and 4L80 hauls just fine and finds rpms matched to the transmission gear. Granted it wasn't always that way and it would shift too soon or too late. A little tweaking with a programmer reset the shift points.
Given the percentage and number of jacked up re-programmed diesels around with a stack. It's more than a coincidence.
I would prefer a diesel too if they were pre emission, if the diesel cost less than gasoline. If the diesel wasn't a high priced option. If the diesel did not require regular scheduled high priced service.
Just wait until the diesel starts requiring service after warranty runs out?
 
Not even close on the Allison being behind the 6.0. Only the 6.6L diesel and the 8.1 gas have ever gotten the Allison. The 8.1 is no longer available, which means only the Dmax gets the Allison. Do you know why? Because the transmission that the gas has would get destroyed by the diesel. It would tear it apart in no time flat. Go over to GM.ca and try to build a truck with a 6.0 and an Allison. Can't do it and it's been that way for the last 11-12 years. The Allsion also has max. rpm the the gas could go over. The 6.0 6 speed is a 6l80e/90e.
I never said that a diesel HP was bigger than a gas HP, I simply said that torque plays a role in the ability to pull. You have a 2003 truck with a 6.0 correct? Why didn't you get a 2003 Duramax instead. It was a pre-emmissions engine that used cheaper fuel, the diesel engine wasn't an $11000 option back then, closer to $4000, and given the mileage difference between the 6.0's 14-16 on the highway and the diesel's 20-24 on the highway I have little doubt it would pay. 14-16 is also a fairly optimistic number for a 6.0. Many report 12-14 on a really good day.
 
(quoted from post at 10:52:49 11/08/12) Not even close on the Allison being behind the 6.0. Only the 6.6L diesel and the 8.1 gas have ever gotten the Allison. The 8.1 is no longer available, which means only the Dmax gets the Allison. Do you know why? Because the transmission that the gas has would get destroyed by the diesel. It would tear it apart in no time flat. Go over to GM.ca and try to build a truck with a 6.0 and an Allison. Can't do it and it's been that way for the last 11-12 years. The Allsion also has max. rpm the the gas could go over. The 6.0 6 speed is a 6l80e/90e.
I never said that a diesel HP was bigger than a gas HP, I simply said that torque plays a role in the ability to pull. You have a 2003 truck with a 6.0 correct? Why didn't you get a 2003 Duramax instead. It was a pre-emmissions engine that used cheaper fuel, the diesel engine wasn't an $11000 option back then, closer to $4000, and given the mileage difference between the 6.0's 14-16 on the highway and the diesel's 20-24 on the highway I have little doubt it would pay. 14-16 is also a fairly optimistic number for a 6.0. Many report 12-14 on a really good day.
Click to expand...

The Duramaxs of that era had injector leakage problems and cracked cylinder heads
Checked the diesel option and it was a couple of bucks over 10 Grand with the tax.
The Duramax does well to average the high teens in real world driving. Now at the age where the truck is rusting to bits. The diesel would break even if it wasn't for all the out of warrenty engine work.
I've trailered through the hills on Highway #17 in the Ontario portion of the Trans Canada along with some forsaken roads in Northern Ontario along with the Lake Placid region of NY and through Appalachion Mountain of Pennsylvania, Vermont , New Hampshire and New Bruiswick. To know what a climb is.
Truck was in 3rd and 2nd at times but neither engine or trams were even close to over heating.
If low rpms are better, why didn't machinery manufactures go with a 250rpm pto instead of a 1000rpm pto.
 
I know about both the cracked heads and injector problems, though from what I understand, the cracked heads wasn't a problem guaranteed to happen unlike the injectors. The injectors got a heck of a warranty, so that really isn't an issue, and there are options to extend life to atleast 2x. What were you towing in these hilly areas? 6k or 12k I don't think the 250vs540vs1000rpm has much to do with engine rpm's. 540 and 1000 are usually with 1-300 engine rpm of eachother. 540 vs 1000 has more to do the implement and at what speed it best operates. 1000 is too fast for many things, but getting 1000 from 540 shaft rpm may require an extra gear box on an implement that is better suited to 1000rpm. Just stop on this whole dam subject. You can claim what you like in the name of science, but EVERYTING in science is just a theory. There are many things that happen that science can't explain. In practice, a diesel outpulls a gas. End of story
 
I asked a similar question a while ago. The consensus seemed to be that HP is HP no matter engine size. I used an extreme example of a tractor engine
spinning at 1700 rpm making 100 HP vs. a small electric motor spinning at 500,000 RPM making the same HP (or whatever RPM is required).

Could the electric motor pull what the tractor can pull if you geared it low enough? I just don't see how, even if you cancel out the overhead of the gigantic gears.
 
(quoted from post at 21:10:26 11/08/12) I asked a similar question a while ago. The consensus seemed to be that HP is HP no matter engine size. I used an extreme example of a tractor engine
spinning at 1700 rpm making 100 HP vs. a small electric motor spinning at 500,000 RPM making the same HP (or whatever RPM is required).

Could the electric motor pull what the tractor can pull if you geared it low enough? I just don't see how, even if you cancel out the overhead of the gigantic gears.
Click to expand...
I just don't see how,"........there in lies your problem! Just trust the math, sir.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Worked a Little Ground Last Night
Replies
19
Views
2K
SVcummins
S
C
MF Power Steering
Replies
1
Views
596
Mduncan60
M
J
CHOOSING WIRE SIZE AND WELDING
2 3
Replies
44
Views
3K
DoubleO7
DoubleO7
olgentdc
B-i-L Joel passed away His Eulogy 10-22--56/// 11-8--
Replies
9
Views
1K
olgentdc
olgentdc
B
Things I learned on D17 Engine rebuild.
Replies
0
Views
4K
Beak
B
Tractor Parts Tractor Manuals

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy

Back
Top