Does Anyone Buy Used Tractors?

[BadDecisions]

New crossed my mind for about 2 or 3 days. Reality is that I just didn't have $20K+ to drop in to something new anyways, and I refuse to finance something that isn't making or saving me money with rare exceptions. The other side of it is parts availability. I saw many cases of late model tractors of around 10 years old only having general maintenance parts available. Break a transaxle, and you're scouring craigslist or ebay looking for a parts tractor. Prior experience has proven that I can research for months, and STILL end up buying some model with a well known unfixable problem, yet not be aware of said problem until after I've bought the problem child.

Ended up buying an ancient N series tractor, as from what I found, I could dang near build an entire new tractor out of aftermarket parts. Though I would LOVE to have a tractor intended to have a loader, power steering, hydrostatic drive, a gazillion gears to choose from, etc etc etc, as a regular ol' homeowner with limited funds, ability to keep stuff going is more important than getting something newer with a bunch of whizz bang features.

 

[mo1]

You’re talking about tractors that have been out of production for thirty or forty years. International for one hasn’t made a small or medium sI e wet sleeve tractor engine since the mid eighties, and nobody that I know of makes a dry sleeve Diesel anymore. Perkins was probably the last. They’re all parent bore engines that have to be pulled and over bored now.

The 466 was discontinued almost ten years ago, as was the 530 and 570. Volume was pretty low the last few years.

Larger, class 8 Cummins, Detroit, and the more recent European Derived engines are Wet sleeves.

The Deere three cylinder is a relic from the late sixties or early seventies. Good engine, but not very cost effective, which is w it’s not used anymore in their smaller equipment. I had one in my skid steer, but they switched to lower cost parent bore engines shortly after mine was made. That would be over ten years ago.

That’s why the DT466 engine was discontinued. Customers liked the wet sleeves, but simply wouldn’t pay the premium in a medium truck. Navistar uses Cummins B series purchased engines to cover that market now.

I discussed both current ("All of Deere's current utility tractors...") as well as older tractors as the discussion is titled "does anyone buy used tractors?" Thus what was offered 30 years ago is absolutely relevant as those are quite a few of the used tractors out there for sale.

Deere absolutely still uses the 3029 engine, they offer it in the current 5050E, 5060E, 5067E, 5075E, and 5075M as well as offering it as a standalone engine through their power products division. Yes, the engine traces its roots back to the 1020's 3152 engine but all of the tractor engines Deere makes up to about 300 HP share the same lineage with the mid-60s 300 series engines. The 4045 that Deere puts in their current 90-145 HP tractors is a four-cylinder version of the 3029 with a 5" stroke instead of a 4 1/3" stroke and the 6068 used in the 155-300 HP units is a 3029 with twice the cylinder count and the same 5" stroke as the 4045. As far as it being not cost effective, then why would Deere have briefly used the parent-bore 5030 skid loader engine in the 5225, 5325, 5065M, and the first 5075M but still use the 3029 in the less-expensive 5x05 and 5x03 series? And then why would they quit using the parent-bore 5030 after its short stint and go back to using the 3029 in all 75 HP and under 5 series units if it were so uneconomical?

Navistar had some real problems with the 2007 EPA emissions issues and and abandoned the medium-duty engine market as a result. The VT365 was a real problem for them, and that wasn't a sleeved engine. Cat got out of the same market for the same reason. At least Navistar has gotten back into on-road engines, and ironically they are wet sleeved and also used in tractors.

 

[finn1]

I discussed both current ("All of Deere's current utility tractors...") as well as older tractors as the discussion is titled "does anyone buy used tractors?" Thus what was offered 30 years ago is absolutely relevant as those are quite a few of the used tractors out there for sale.

Deere absolutely still uses the 3029 engine, they offer it in the current 5050E, 5060E, 5067E, 5075E, and 5075M as well as offering it as a standalone engine through their power products division. Yes, the engine traces its roots back to the 1020's 3152 engine but all of the tractor engines Deere makes up to about 300 HP share the same lineage with the mid-60s 300 series engines. The 4045 that Deere puts in their current 90-145 HP tractors is a four-cylinder version of the 3029 with a 5" stroke instead of a 4 1/3" stroke and the 6068 used in the 155-300 HP units is a 3029 with twice the cylinder count and the same 5" stroke as the 4045. As far as it being not cost effective, then why would Deere have briefly used the parent-bore 5030 skid loader engine in the 5225, 5325, 5065M, and the first 5075M but still use the 3029 in the less-expensive 5x05 and 5x03 series? And then why would they quit using the parent-bore 5030 after its short stint and go back to using the 3029 in all 75 HP and under 5 series units if it were so uneconomical?

Navistar had some real problems with the 2007 EPA emissions issues and and abandoned the medium-duty engine market as a result. The VT365 was a real problem for them, and that wasn't a sleeved engine. Cat got out of the same market for the same reason. At least Navistar has gotten back into on-road engines, and ironically they are wet sleeved and also used in tractors.

Navistar never really left the on road market, but certainly reduced their footprint. Their “BigBore” engine built in Huntsville is a heavy duty derivative of the MAN engine., and was introduced well before they exited the medium duty market. Now that Volkswagen owns Navistar, along with MAM and Scania, that engine will be replaced by a “CBE” (Common Base Engine) engine to be shared among the different brands. These are heavy duty over the road engines though.

The major tractor companies (well two of them anyway) all seem to have introduced a series of 3, 4, and six cylinder engines in the mid sixties. You mentioned Deere, which is the only surviving of these engine families, but also IH. The trend at the time was in-line wet sleeve engines, with a couple of bores and strokes, all made on the same transfer and assembly lines. Both the Deere and International engines were German Built, and, I think, designed by AVL in Austria. Perkins engines followed a similar pattern, except they were dry sleeved.

The IH engines included 151 and 179 three cylinder, 206, 239, and 268 fours, and 310, 359, and 402 sixes. The 268 and 402 had different deck heights but shared the same architecture.

The later IH US built 312, 360, 414, 436, 466, 530, and 570 were patterned after the German engines, with many improvements.

The problem with these engines is that they just aren’t profitable when compared against simpler, smaller, lighter parent bore engines, although they are robust engines that perform well, and customers love them. The Kubota, Daedong, Yanmar, Cummins A derivatives, and, to some extent Cummins B engines used by the Japanese and Koreans pretty much dominate the bottom end of the market where cost is important and hour accumulation is minimal. That’s even true of the wet sleeve DT466. It’s competition was the disposable Cummins B.

Deere May still use the 179, but I don’t think they make much money on it.

 

[mo1]

Navistar never really left the on road market, but certainly reduced their footprint. Their “BigBore” engine built in Huntsville is a heavy duty derivative of the MAN engine., and was introduced well before they exited the medium duty market. Now that Volkswagen owns Navistar, along with MAM and Scania, that engine will be replaced by a “CBE” (Common Base Engine) engine to be shared among the different brands. These are heavy duty over the road engines though.

The major tractor companies (well two of them anyway) all seem to have introduced a series of 3, 4, and six cylinder engines in the mid sixties. You mentioned Deere, which is the only surviving of these engine families, but also IH. The trend at the time was in-line wet sleeve engines, with a couple of bores and strokes, all made on the same transfer and assembly lines. Both the Deere and International engines were German Built, and, I think, designed by AVL in Austria. Perkins engines followed a similar pattern, except they were dry sleeved.

The IH engines included 151 and 179 three cylinder, 206, 239, and 268 fours, and 310, 359, and 402 sixes. The 268 and 402 had different deck heights but shared the same architecture.

The later IH US built 312, 360, 414, 436, 466, 530, and 570 were patterned after the German engines, with many improvements.

The problem with these engines is that they just aren’t profitable when compared against simpler, smaller, lighter parent bore engines, although they are robust engines that perform well, and customers love them. The Kubota, Daedong, Yanmar, Cummins A derivatives, and, to some extent Cummins B engines used by the Japanese and Koreans pretty much dominate the bottom end of the market where cost is important and hour accumulation is minimal. That’s even true of the wet sleeve DT466. It’s competition was the disposable Cummins B.

Deere May still use the 179, but I don’t think they make much money on it.

Deere used three different bores and two different strokes for their 300 series diesel engines, and made most of the combinations in 3, 4, and 6 cylinder versions. They had a few more combinations than that when you throw in the gasoline and LP versions with the 3.86" stroke crank. With just the diesels, the 3.86" bore 4 1/3" stroke versions were the 152 three, 202 four, and 303 six. The 4.02" x 4 1/3" engines were the 165 three, 215 four, and 329 six. The 4.19" x 4 1/3" engines are the 3029/179 three, 239 four, and 359 six. The 4.19" x 5" engines are the 4045/276 four and the 6068 six, there never was a three-cylinder version of that engine.

I am still curious as to why Deere would have moved away from the parent-bore 5030 five-cylinder skid loader engine back to the 3029 in some 5 series tractors if it was really that much more profitable to use a parent-bore engine, and especially why they would offer a wet sleeved engine in some very cost-conscious tractors like the Indian-market 5C and 5D series.

 

[finn1]

Deere used three different bores and two different strokes for their 300 series diesel engines, and made most of the combinations in 3, 4, and 6 cylinder versions. They had a few more combinations than that when you throw in the gasoline and LP versions with the 3.86" stroke crank. With just the diesels, the 3.86" bore 4 1/3" stroke versions were the 152 three, 202 four, and 303 six. The 4.02" x 4 1/3" engines were the 165 three, 215 four, and 329 six. The 4.19" x 4 1/3" engines are the 3029/179 three, 239 four, and 359 six. The 4.19" x 5" engines are the 4045/276 four and the 6068 six, there never was a three-cylinder version of that engine.

I am still curious as to why Deere would have moved away from the parent-bore 5030 five-cylinder skid loader engine back to the 3029 in some 5 series tractors if it was really that much more profitable to use a parent-bore engine, and especially why they would offer a wet sleeved engine in some very cost-conscious tractors like the Indian-market 5C and 5D series.

Did Deere make a five cylinder in house?

There’s a lot that goes into product planning decisions that really aren’t technical issues.

Volume of a particular model, factory utilization, engineering costs to meet emissions for low volume engines, product cost, packaging, and a hundred other considerations. These things also come into consideration for make / buy decisions. Engineers usually lean towards make, but bean counters run the company.

 

[rScotty]

I don't know the all the advantages of sleeved vs bored block diesels.
Maybe someone could explain more.
I do know that Yanmar used sleeved bore for their small diesel tractor & marine engines for many years. Maybe they still do. I haven't had a recent one open. What kind of cylinder is common for other compact/utility size tractors?
rScotty

 

[LouNY]

The nicest thing with a sleeved engine is that a complete overhaul can be done without taking the block to a machine shop. Or a fairly comprehensive one can be performed inframe which can be a large time and money saver.
Sleeve and piston rebuild kits are relatively low cost.
Many manufactures have been parent bore for years, Ford tractor were parent bored blocks for many years before they became NH.
Some people have had o-ring leaks and block protrusion, and water leak issues with sleeved engines.
I've always preferred them but it hasn't been a deal breaker.

 

[finn1]

I don't know the all the advantages of sleeved vs bored block diesels.
Maybe someone could explain more.
I do know that Yanmar used sleeved bore for their small diesel tractor & marine engines for many years. Maybe they still do. I haven't had a recent one open. What kind of cylinder is common for other compact/utility size tractors?
rScotty

A wet sleeve engine typically has better cooling around the circumference and length of the cylinder bore, and can generally be rebuilt in place, rather than pulling the engine and remachining the crankcase. There is also less mechanical distortion in most cases because cylinder head bolt tension doesn’t transfer load to the crankcase webbing through the cylinder wall. On the flip side, centrifugally cast wet sleeves aren’t cheap, and o rings as well as, in some cases, shims, are required.

Dry sleeves can sometimes be pulled without removing the engine from the chassis, but aren’t generally used in modern engines. The heat from combustion has to go through an additional boundary interface, and the sleeves are subject to mechanical and thermal distortion. Machining and assembly is more complicated in manufacturing than a parent bore engine, and maybe even than a wet sleeve engine. Dry sleeves are typically used to salvage a worn or damaged block in the reman process.

Then there’s the cost issue. Not important for one engine, perhaps, but if you’re making a hundred thousand engines, or more annually, costs add up over, say, a ten or twenty year product life run.

 

[rScotty]

It sounds like a bored block is cheaper. So it isn't manufacturing cost.

So why would Yanmar make so many small 12 to 20 hp multicylinder diesels with wet sleeves? You see them all over the world in everything from dugout canoes to water pumps to generators and tractorss. All those small diesels are easy to lift from the chassis, easy to work on, and all are wet sleeve.

 

[LouNY]

It sounds like a bored block is cheaper. So it isn't manufacturing cost.

So why would Yanmar make so many small 12 to 20 hp multicylinder diesels with wet sleeves? You see them all over the world in everything from dugout canoes to water pumps to generators and tractorss. All those small diesels are easy to lift from the chassis, easy to work on, and all are wet sleeve.

No machine shop needed for repair or rebuild as long as the crank doesn't need to be turned. A rebuild can be accomplished any where any time quickly and easily.