Buying Advice Diesel smog emission stuff?

[Rich_Z]

DPF equipped tractors produce only ~ 1% of the cancer and smog producing diesel particulates which are produces by ~ 25-horsepower diesel tractors without DPFs.

Turbocharging an L2501 so it produces 200 times as much pollution as a 33-39 horsepower, DPF equipped Kubota tractor should be a crime.

If you need > 25-horsepower buy a DPF equipped, legal machine.

Well, honestly, never played with a turbo on a diesel engine before. But I have a 2002 Corvette with twin turbos, and I certainly played around a LOT with tuning them in a gas engine environment. I fail to see how they could increase any emissions above what is normal. You still have to make sure the air/fuel mixture is correct across the rpm and load band they operate within. Which means you are in a plus air pressure (boost) instead of a vacuum that normally is seen by the intake of an engine. Running too rich or too lean is STILL too rich or too lean, regardless of whether you are in boost or in vacuum, which is not good for the engine.

That exhaust simply powers the impellers on one side of a shaft that drive the other side impellers that force outside cooler air into the intake. An engine is going to develop exhaust gases with or without the turbo in place. It is a very simple process, and I am surprised more vehicles don't use it.

 

[Rich_Z]

@Rich_Z if you've not checked Mike's thread on turbocharging his L2501, you ought to. The ability to modify the tractor to produce more power, after the warranty expires, does exist. Now that's not necessarily something that appeals to you, but it may be something to consider.

I certainly keep the possibility in the back of my mind.

Well, that does sound like a good idea, except that the closest Kioti dealer to me that will likely get my business offers a free lifetime drivetrain warranty. Which I am sure putting a turbo into the mix would be the end of that warranty coverage.

 

[Rich_Z]

The Kioti CK line has a;
2620 with a 3 cylinder 24.5 Hp 100.5 cu.in. engine
3520 with a 3 cylinder 34.9 Hp 111.4 cu. in. engine
4020 with a 3 cylinder 39.6 Hp 111.4 cu. in. engine
All three models use the same loader and if wanted the same little backhoe,
they all use the same size tires and have the same choices of tires.

Yes, that is what I am seeing too. My goal for now is to try to get a price on each of those HP variants so I can see just what those small increases in horsepower would cost me.

 

[4570Man]

Yes, that is what I am seeing too. My goal for now is to try to get a price on each of those HP variants so I can see just what those small increases in horsepower would cost me.

Nearly 50 percent and over 50 percent isn’t a “small” increase. The practical difference is even more. The power lost to moving the tractor remains the same. You’re loosing a big part of the 25 hp just to move especially up hill. Adding another 10 or 15 hp to do usable work is a big difference. I used to operate a CK25 some. It wasn’t a bad tractor but it was pitifully underpowered. I have a Kubota L3800 now and the added HP makes a drastic difference.

 

[Rich_Z]

Nearly 50 percent and over 50 percent isn’t a “small” increase. The practical difference is even more. The power lost to moving the tractor remains the same. You’re loosing a big part of the 25 hp just to move especially up hill. Adding another 10 or 15 hp to do usable work is a big difference. I used to operate a CK25 some. It wasn’t a bad tractor but it was pitifully underpowered. I have a Kubota L3800 now and the added HP makes a drastic difference.

I guess it is a matter of perspective and mine is colored by my days playing around with high performance engines. 10 to 15 horsepower was considered negligible, and even just enough within a margin of error to be considered insignificant. To put an addon on an engine that only gave you 15 more horsepower (if you could even reliably detect it) would be OK if it were a $100 intake or exhaust tweak. But if that same increase cost you $2,000+, well, that would be a real tough sell to anyone.

Percentages are like statistics, I guess. They can sound good or bad depending on the eyeglasses you look at them through.

 

[4570Man]

I guess it is a matter of perspective and mine is colored by my days playing around with high performance engines. 10 to 15 horsepower was considered negligible, and even just enough within a margin of error to be considered insignificant. To put an addon on an engine that only gave you 15 more horsepower (if you could even reliably detect it) would be OK if it were a $100 intake or exhaust tweak. But if that same increase cost you $2,000+, well, that would be a real tough sell to anyone.

Percentages are like statistics, I guess. They can sound good or bad depending on the eyeglasses you look at them through.

If you turned a 400 hp engine into a 750 hp engine you would be extremely impressed. 15 more hp when you only had 25 to start with is a lot.

 

[Rich_Z]

If you turned a 400 hp engine into a 750 hp engine you would be extremely impressed. 15 more hp when you only had 25 to start with is a lot.

Probably so. But then again, buying a "smart car" and getting an optional "performance increase" of only 15 more horsepower, well, not so much.

 

[jyoutz]

Probably so. But then again, buying a "smart car" and getting an optional "performance increase" of only 15 more horsepower, well, not so much.

The difference between a capability of a 25 vs 40 hp diesel tractor is huge. It makes a big difference in the size of pto implements it can operate and the ability to operate ground engaging implements.

 

[Torvy]

My baseline was higher, I opted for a 55HP turbo vs a 48HP NA. The gain on PTO HP gives me more options to safely run some PTO driven implements (mowers, tillers, chippers).

To me this biggest risk going from 25HP to 30-40 is just a math thing. More moving parts means more potential points of failure. The gain, imho, is much greater than the risk.

 

[FERLING]

When I first started thinking about buying my first tractor, my thoughts were to limit my search to all tractors with less than 25 or 26 (number varies, it seems) horsepower in order to avoid buying a new tractor with government dictated smog emission controls to have to deal with. Some people claim that they can be a real pain. Others are saying they are no big deal. So, what is the TRUTH?

Are some brands better than others in this department? I have been focused on probably buying a Kioti brand tractor, particularly the CK20SE CAB series, in which it appears all the models are pretty much identical except for the amount of horsepower the engine will put out. I guess it is a matter mostly of tuning and air/fuel control of that diesel engine making the difference. So I can choose to buy the 24.5 horsepower version, or perhaps the two other models with higher engine ratings (34.9 and 39.6 hp respectively), but having the onerous smog emission complexities attached.

Is this a big deal, or not? Headache, or not? Is it really something I should allow to influence my decision about what to buy?

Of course, another perspective of looking at this is: Will the difference of just 10.4 and 15.1 horsepower even worth fretting over and just buy the 24.5 horsepower version and be done with it?

New Holland Workmaster 50, 60, 70 hp (same motor just more fuel) has automatic emission that takes care of itself. You never know when it occurs and you don't have to do anything. I am sure they must have smaller tractors that do the same.

 

[tacticalturnip]

Well, that does sound like a good idea, except that the closest Kioti dealer to me that will likely get my business offers a free lifetime drivetrain warranty. Which I am sure putting a turbo into the mix would be the end of that warranty coverage.

I saw that! Do they require you to bring it in for service there? Have you looked into the details?

I've never seen a lifetime warranty on a tractor; cars and trucks, absolutely, but never a tractor.

 

[tacticalturnip]

New Holland Workmaster 50, 60, 70 hp (same motor just more fuel) has automatic emission that takes care of itself. You never know when it occurs and you don't have to do anything. I am sure they must have smaller tractors that do the same.

The compacts are heading in that direction, but for the moment they're still using DPF.

 

[5030]

Posters on here appear to be infatuated with horsepower. I'm not, what I look at is, because it is a 4 stroke diesel engine, I look at advertised torque and torque rise in the operating range first and then horsepower. Torque is what gets the job done efficiently with a diesel tractor, but then 39 years of driving big trucks with big Cats with huge torque numbers and stellar torque rise numbers was paramount for me and still is.

 

[5030]

Once again, start up aside, this has not been my experience with the Turbocharged L2501

I have zero interest in your what I consider a useless for my application tractor and I would have never did what you did in the first place. In fact I tend to not even read your comments other than to scratch my head in wonderment why you dropped all that jack doing something when all you had to do was upgrade to a larger unit.

Obviously you are either flush with money or like to fiddle, neither of which trips my trigger. I much prefer investing my money in things that make me more money, not it things that deplete my money with no tangible results.

Far as turbocharging goes, both my engines were designed by Kubota from the ground up for turbocharging as well as charge air cooling. No add on's required or warranted.

The more one fiddles with an engine trying to extract more power, the less reliable they become and the shorter the working without issues lifespan becomes. I find your modifications to be without merit, especially when you can upgrade in power and torque by just buying a larger unit. It's not a race car, it's a small tractor.

I'll leave it at that.

 

[aircommuter]

All my tractors are well over 50 hp and none are smog equipped. I like my equipment to work dependably. I have less time to get things done as I get older. I restore as needed to avoid new more expensive units. If I were to buy a different car or truck I would be searching for older non computer versions.

 

[seijirou]

Posters on here appear to be infatuated with horsepower. I'm not, what I look at is, because it is a 4 stroke diesel engine, I look at advertised torque and torque rise in the operating range first and then horsepower. Torque is what gets the job done efficiently with a diesel tractor, but then 39 years of driving big trucks with big Cats with huge torque numbers and stellar torque rise numbers was paramount for me and still is.

Work: The energy transferred to some weight by a force (torque) to move that weight some distance.

So you're kind of right, torque gets the job done. But how long is it going to take, an hour or all day?

Well once you care about time then you have the definition of Power.

Power: The energy transferred per unit of time. If you have all the time in the world then you can just care about torque. If you want to know how quickly the work can be done then you care about power.

 

[Torvy]

Work: The energy transferred to some weight by a force (torque) to move that weight some distance.

So you're kind of right, torque gets the job done. But how long is it going to take, an hour or all day?

Well once you care about time then you have the definition of Power.

Power: The energy transferred per unit of time. If you have all the time in the world then you can just care about torque. If you want to know how quickly the work can be done then you care about power.

Easy now. Don't be messing up perfectly good opinions with facts and definitions.

 

[Rdrcr]

I have zero interest in your what I consider a useless for my application tractor and I would have never did what you did in the first place. In fact I tend to not even read your comments other than to scratch my head in wonderment why you dropped all that jack doing something when all you had to do was upgrade to a larger unit.

Obviously you are either flush with money or like to fiddle, neither of which trips my trigger. I much prefer investing my money in things that make me more money, not it things that deplete my money with no tangible results.

Far as turbocharging goes, both my engines were designed by Kubota from the ground up for turbocharging as well as charge air cooling. No add on's required or warranted.

The more one fiddles with an engine trying to extract more power, the less reliable they become and the shorter the working without issues lifespan becomes. I find your modifications to be without merit, especially when you can upgrade in power and torque by just buying a larger unit. It's not a race car, it's a small tractor.

I'll leave it at that.

I’ll continue you to allow yourself to scratch your head.

Upgrading to more power within the Kubota Standard L lineup makes zero sense when I could simply Turbocharge my L2501. Why? Well, the Turbo Kit is cheaper than ‘upgrading’ to either the L3901 or L3902. Including the cost of the Turbo Kit, I’m saving roughly $2,234 over the L3901 and $4,487 over the L3902. And, I have more power and torque! And, I don’t have Regens or DPF!

Sure, some folks are fixed on buying only OEM tractors and equipment and some folks need a warranty. Adding a turbocharger to an N/A tractor as an alternative, is for those other guys that see and understand the benefits.

It’s really simple math. I’m sorry you don’t understand it.

Mike

 

[Torvy]

If I understand correctly, the 3301 and 3901 are just turbo/tuned versions of the 2501. No?

 

[Rdrcr]

If I understand correctly, the 3301 and 3901 are just turbo/tuned versions of the 2501. No?

No. They are both N/A tractors (completely different engine than L2501). However, both do share the same engine but, the L3901 is ‘tuned’ to have more fuel, resulting in the power increase over the L3301.

Mike