kubota vs. kioti

[lilranch2001]

wow, all I can say is
What a pissin match!

Almost reminds me of the ole Friendly Politics

 

[arlen4720]

If horsepower is the key ingredient in moving a load, can you explain how a steam locomotive can get moving when the engine starts out producing exactly ZERO horsepower, but thousands and thousands of pounds of torque?

Horsepower is being produced....in the boiler.
It's not a very good comparison, however I do get your point, a steam engine will produce torque from a stalled state. Internal combustion engines don't.
Electric motors are the same way. They put out maximum torque when stalled.

 

[94BULLITT]

I understand what LD1 is trying to say. You can compensate for low power/ torque by gearing. He was just giving a very extreme example.

Try looking at it a different way. This winch is rated to pull 8500lbs. It is only 4.5hp but it has a 235:1 gear reduction. It will only pull 8500lbs 3.5 feet per minute or .035mph.

I understand what torque is and what it does. I have seen towing comparisons were an engine with less torque will outperform and engine with more, a gas outperforming a diesel.

wow, all I can say is
What a pissin match!

Almost reminds me of the ole Friendly Politics

It is all George Bush's fault

 

[TSO]

I have seen towing comparisons were an engine with less torque will outperform and engine with more, a gas outperforming a diesel.

Yeah, gearing definitely comes into play. My V10 gasser can keep up (towing) with most comparable diesels (in 3/4 & up trucks). I was actually commenting on it earlier today with someone, I was towing around 12,500 lbs and it had no problem with it, even gaining speed up some sharp, long inclines. But, the powerband of that engine is in the high revs. There's not much low end "grunt". She screams and powers thru, but I'd take the low end power of the diesel over the higher revving power of a gasser any day ... But this is what I have to work with.

Didn't the 8n have a gasser?

 

[94BULLITT]

Yeah, gearing definitely comes into play. My V10 gasser can keep up (towing) with most comparable diesels (in 3/4 & up trucks). I was actually commenting on it earlier today with someone, I was towing around 12,500 lbs and it had no problem with it, even gaining speed up some sharp, long inclines. But, the powerband of that engine is in the high revs. There's not much low end "grunt". She screams and powers thru, but I'd take the low end power of the diesel over the higher revving power of a gasser any day ... But this is what I have to work with.

Didn't the 8n have a gasser?

They guys on Fordtrucks.com tested gas vs diesel. The V10 will pull right with a diesel of the same year. The V10 is a great engine.

Yes the 8N was a gasser.

 

[joe04785]

When I saw the headline Kubota vs. Kioti and noticed it was 13 pages, I knew it was gonna be good. :scratchchin:

 

[paulfun9]

Just to be clear, I never said tq wasn't important. And this discussion somehow got sidetracked into comparing motorcycles and mack trucks. I believe we were discussing tractors. And in the engine range and rpm range that tractors are offered in, it is "my opinion" that HP is more important than torque.

And I believe it was that simple statement of "my opinion" that started this debate.

And I stand by that statement. You can have all the torque in the world, but if you lack in HP you will be slow at whatever you are trying to get done.

I have a challenge for you. Since I don't really need to sell my old JD755 I will build two engines for it. One being a 2110 cc air cooled engine with a long stroke crank and a short duration cam built for a flat long torque curve, the other will be a 2109 cc air cooled engine built with a shorter stroke crank and longer con rods to increase the rod ratio, lighter pistons with a bigger bore, much wilder heads and valve work and a long duration cam basically built to turn High HP with little regard for the torque curve. When they are done we will do some time tested chores with the tractor, with my flat curve engine then again you can do them with the high HP engine and which ever person can do all the tasks in the least time wins. The looser can pay for the cost of building the engines and I will donate my time just for the **** of it. Wanna learn something about the balance between torque and HP and which one is more important. You are simply not able to comprehend which came first the chicken or the egg? The gearbox really has nothing to do with it except that it is built around the engines torque curve to take advantage first of the torque and second of the HP. A smart engine builder considers torque first and foremost as it is what wins races!

 

[LD1]

A smart engine builder considers torque first and foremost as it is what wins races!

No. A good engine builder considers everything that is important for what he wants to do. IF torque were first and foremost, they'd all be running diesels right?? And wouldnt be spinning 8-10krpm or better to get the most HP.

As to your tractor building proposal, interesting concept. But if you dropped them both in the same tractor, you arent accounting for gearing. Gearing has to be matched to the motor, and to provide the torque to do the job you want.

With only changing the motor, the comparison is pointless.

And we are taking things to far too great extremes to make our points I think. Like I said, when it comes to tractors, the engines are similar. And they nearly all spin 2500-3000 rpm or so. So you can figure that they all will have similar torque curves, and ample torque to do what they were intended. You then select the appropriate HP based on how fast you want to get done.

 

[SPYDERLK]

Larry, you keep trying to correct me, and every time we get to a point where you can't make your false argument any longer, and then you quietly go away. Can we just jump to that point immediately for a change?

If horsepower is the key ingredient in moving a load, can you explain how a steam locomotive can get moving when the engine starts out producing exactly ZERO horsepower, but thousands and thousands of pounds of torque?

Oh wait....you won't be able to argue that one, so we can skip right to the point I referenced above.

I dont recall any case like that. It may be that you have me or my actions confused with something else. It may be that "going away" is just giving up a hopeless case as deduced from a series of posts. If you have a specific instance please call it to my attention.
....No engine produces power at zero speed. So what?

As to power, or work[energy] per unit time, no power is guaranteed by a force. When that force produces movement there is work and therefore power. For a steam engine the thermal power of the fire transfers energy to water where it is stored as steam pressure. Many HPHrs of energy stored. When that thermal energy [pressure] is valved to a piston, a force proportional to its area ensues. This is a "gearing" arrangement. The piston moves the wheels and the conversion is complete from thermal to mechanical power. A steam engine is very good at dead start torque. The horspower hrs of stored energy from the fire are its enabler. The thermal HP of the fire is its sustainer. The stored energy can be released quickly. Lots of HP in that piston stroke - likely more than the fire is putting out. But then the next stroke is easier. Less available HP would just limit acceleration and speed. A bigger piston. Slower strokes. A "lower gear".
....Mechanical HP is just a measure of the ability to apply force at speed.
larry

 

[GManBart]

Horsepower is being produced....in the boiler.
It's not a very good comparison, however I do get your point, a steam engine will produce torque from a stalled state. Internal combustion engines don't.
Electric motors are the same way. They put out maximum torque when stalled.

Actually the boiler is only producing pressure and heat, but no horsepower (power requires movement). You are absolutely right that it produces torque in a stalled state.

The point being, you can have torque without horsepower, but you can't have horsepower without torque. People are stating the relationship backwards. Torque creates horsepower, not the other way around.

 

[SPYDERLK]

Actually the boiler is only producing pressure and heat, but no horsepower (power requires movement). You are absolutely right that it produces torque in a stalled state.

The point being, you can have torque without horsepower, but you can't have horsepower without torque. People are stating the relationship backwards. Torque creates horsepower, not the other way around.

....No.

 

[GManBart]

....No.

Yes. His name was James Watt, and nothing has changed in 200 years.

If you're trying to say that the boiler produces horsepower, they do rate them that way to enable comparisons, but it's an equivalent rating (water evaporated over time), not a direct one like mechanical horsepower.

You can have torque without horsepower. You can't have horsepower without torque. The formula for horsepower requires torque (higher than zero) to get a HP number above zero. The formula for torque doesn't involve horsepower at all.

 

[SPYDERLK]

Yes. His name was James Watt, and nothing has changed in 200 years.

If you're trying to say that the boiler produces horsepower, they do rate them that way to enable comparisons, but it's an equivalent rating (water evaporated over time), not a direct one like mechanical horsepower.

You can have torque without horsepower. You can't have horsepower without torque. The formula for horsepower requires torque (higher than zero) to get a HP number above zero. The formula for torque doesn't involve horsepower at all.

Nor does it involve work. Accomplishing work is what we are talking about in the thread - starting with debunking your claim that a generic hi HP engine would not accomplish the work of a lower HP engine having hi torque output. Horsepower requires force and movement. It does not require torque. Torque is a construct of force, a lever, and a pivot. HP defines force and rate of movement.
larry

 

[GManBart]

Nor does it involve work. Accomplishing work is what we are talking about in the thread - starting with debunking your claim that a generic hi HP engine would not accomplish the work of a lower HP engine having hi torque output. Horsepower requires force and movement. It does not require torque. Torque is a construct of force, a lever, and a pivot. HP defines force and rate of movement.
larry

This is completely wrong, but pretty funny.

So, "Horsepower requires force and movement" is your position? Okay, let's go with that. Evidently you don't realize that the "force" you mention in the horsepower formula IS torque.

The definition of horsepower is torque multiplied by RPM, divided by the constant of 5252. If there is zero torque, there is zero horsepower. Horsepower doesn't define anything else in the equation, it is defined by the variables of torque and rpm.

For folks that want to understand the actual math/physics involved, this is a pretty good summary with actual formulas, not inaccurate theories.

Power and Torque: Understanding the Relationship Between the Two, by EPI Inc.

 

[arlen4720]

Actually the boiler is only producing pressure and heat, but no horsepower (power requires movement). You are absolutely right that it produces torque in a stalled state.

The point being, you can have torque without horsepower, but you can't have horsepower without torque. People are stating the relationship backwards. Torque creates horsepower, not the other way around.

Pressurizing the header with steam means that you made "x" amount of steam in a certain amount of time.
To say otherwise, is like saying an idling engine isn't producing power because it's not doing anything useful. The idling boiler is producing power.

Yes power is a function of force and speed, No ****. A steam engine can produce torque in a stall condition, No ****. You can't have power without movement, No ****. You can produce a force without movement, No ****. Congratulations you paid attention to what you learned in 7th grade.

The horse power formula your talking about is for rotary motion. Power, in it's more fundamental form, Is just the rate of doing work...doesn't have to be rotary (as in the case of a boiler).
Wow it's funny the direction this thread has taken.

 

[GManBart]

Pressurizing the header with steam means that you made "x" amount of steam in a certain amount of time.
To say otherwise, is like saying an idling engine isn't producing power because it's not doing anything useful. The idling boiler is producing power.

Producing steam, and pressure isn't creating power until the steam causes parts to move...no movement, no power. It's doing something useful, but it's not producing power.

Yes power is a function of force and speed, No ****. A steam engine can produce torque in a stall condition, No ****. You can't have power without movement, No ****. You can produce a force without movement, No ****. Congratulations you paid attention to what you learned in 7th grade.

Some folks seem to want to argue those points...not sure why.

 

[dragoneggs]

And where are you all going with this??? :confused3:

 

[arlen4720]

Producing steam, and pressure isn't creating power until the steam causes parts to move...no movement, no power. It's doing something useful, but it's not producing power.

Boiler horsepower is producing a certain amount of steam over a certain amount of time.

It's kind hard to follow this thread because people keep flipping between the theoretical, and the practical.

From a pure theoretical perspective, you would always want the highest horsepower engine, knowing that by gearing, you could get whatever torque and speed that you needed for the application. Does anybody debate that?

From a practical standpoint, transmissions have to be reasonably sized, with a reasonable number of gears. And of course they have losses. And we like to shift as little as possible. A slow, governed diesel engine with a nice flat torque curve, would be a smarter choice for a tractor compared to a higher reving, higher HP engine with a lower, peakier torque curve. Right?

I really don't think everybody's opinion on this thread are too far apart, everybody is just kind of jumping around.

Not sure how the steam engine crept into the debate, but wow, that would be a nice torque curve to have in a tractor. They of course are a different animal. Like electric motors, they are kind of a surrogate engine. The steam engine has the boiler all stoked up ready to go behind it, and the electric motor has the power plant revved up with voltage potential on the lines. The poor internal combustion engine is all by himself. He has to convert the chemical energy into mechanical energy all by himself. And, he has to have some power input to get the whole reaction started. And he can't stall, or the whole reaction stops.
So, it's a pretty big stretch to compare them. The torque of steam and electric motors are in a class all their own.

 

[k0ua]

Boiler horsepower is producing a certain amount of steam over a certain amount of time.

It's kind hard to follow this thread because people keep flipping between the theoretical, and the practical.

From a pure theoretical perspective, you would always want the highest horsepower engine, knowing that by gearing, you could get whatever torque and speed that you needed for the application. Does anybody debate that?

From a practical standpoint, transmissions have to be reasonably sized, with a reasonable number of gears. And of course they have losses. And we like to shift as little as possible. A slow, governed diesel engine with a nice flat torque curve, would be a smarter choice for a tractor compared to a higher reving, higher HP engine with a lower, peakier torque curve. Right?

I really don't think everybody's opinion on this thread are too far apart, everybody is just kind of jumping around.

Not sure how the steam engine crept into the debate, but wow, that would be a nice torque curve to have in a tractor. They of course are a different animal. Like electric motors, they are kind of a surrogate engine. The steam engine has the boiler all stoked up ready to go behind it, and the electric motor has the power plant revved up with voltage potential on the lines. The poor internal combustion engine is all by himself. He has to convert the chemical energy into mechanical energy all by himself. And, he has to have some power input to get the whole reaction started. And he can't stall, or the whole reaction stops.
So, it's a pretty big stretch to compare them. The torque of steam and electric motors are in a class all their own.

I like this post! makes sense to me.

 

[dragoneggs]

I like this post! makes sense to me.

ditto... thanks arlen. And it has so much to do about kubota vs. kioti :laughing: