Turbo Charged Engines - Avoid or Buy?

[ecoslik]

What is the consensus about tractors with turbos? I tend to be a little cynical about turbos on tractors ... but they can be fun in fast cars :thumbsup:.

The preference is for a tractor with at least 48 HP to the PTO.

Are turbo charged tractors less reliable and expensive to maintain? I expect to use dealer service departments except for fluids and filters which I will do on property (home). My preference is to buy used (less than 400 hours) and find a great buy/price from a seller with tractor, implements, appropriate trailer, etc. I am flexible, but this approach seems to be a good opportunity, or I will buy from the rental fleet of a great Kubota dealer and servicer here in North Texas.

I can shorten this to say that I like the M6040 HST, M7040 HST and M59, but they are quite heavy and large for working relatively close to the landscaped areas, animals, barn, out buildings, and homes on our property. I have noticed that I could buy a slightly smaller/lighter turbo charged tractor (Grand L40 series) or a slightly larger/heavier M series.

After spending 40 hours at night reading reading the TBN posts and spending untold hours looking at the wish books/catalogs, online classified ads ... I am ready to stop the fantasy, pull the trigger and buy our first tractor ... as the TBN gang says, I need seat time and decided it will be a Kubota. :drool: :drool:

Before describing our intended uses, animals, land, hobbies, construction projects, etc ... let me be honest (with myself) and say that our needs are modest, my ambitions/desires large, and we can generally hire out most of anything. We live on 12 acres with a desire to expand to 30-40 acres. Today, if I had to admit, this tractor will be a want a little more than need. But, I like projects, tools, material handling, and to stay busy improving the property (construction projects) and working with the land (for the "hobby" animals).

I appreciate the opinions of the TBN members. Thanks so much.

 

[RollingsFarms]

What is the consensus about tractors with turbos? I tend to be a little cynical about turbos on tractors ... but they can be fun in fast cars :thumbsup:.

The preference is for a tractor with at least 48 HP to the PTO.

Are turbo charged tractors less reliable and expensive to maintain? I expect to use dealer service departments except for fluids and filters which I will do on property (home). My preference is to buy used (less than 400 hours) and find a great buy/price from a seller with tractor, implements, appropriate trailer, etc. I am flexible, but this approach seems to be a good opportunity, or I will buy from the rental fleet of a great Kubota dealer and servicer here in North Texas.

I can shorten this to say that I like the M6040 HST, M7040 HST and M59, but they are quite heavy and large for working relatively close to the landscaped areas, animals, barn, out buildings, and homes on our property. I have noticed that I could buy a slightly smaller/lighter turbo charged tractor (Grand L40 series) or a slightly larger/heavier M series.

After spending 40 hours at night reading reading the TBN posts and spending untold hours looking at the wish books/catalogs, online classified ads ... I am ready to stop the fantasy, pull the trigger and buy our first tractor ... as the TBN gang says, I need seat time and decided it will be a Kubota. :drool: :drool:

Before describing our intended uses, animals, land, hobbies, construction projects, etc ... let me be honest (with myself) and say that our needs are modest, my ambitions/desires large, and we can generally hire out most of anything. We live on 12 acres with a desire to expand to 30-40 acres. Today, if I had to admit, this tractor will be a want a little more than need. But, I like projects, tools, material handling, and to stay busy improving the property (construction projects) and working with the land (for the "hobby" animals).

I appreciate the opinions of the TBN members. Thanks so much.

you have no need to be concerned with turbos on these newer tractors. my tractor is the size your looking for(47 pto hp) and it's a turbo, no problems whatsoever. in fact, i can't even hear the turbo(which takes the cool factor out of having a turbo). the main thing you have to remember is when you start it up, let the tractor warm up for a few mins, and when you shut it off, let it idle for about a min or two to let the turbo cool before shutting off. if you ever stall the tractor while working, crank it up again as soon as possible.

 

[kuboman]

Turbos are with proper care absolutely no trouble at all. All most every engine I own and operate which is many has a turbo and can't recall ever when a turbo has failed or caused anything else to fail.
Have no fear:thumbsup::licking:

 

[Egon]

Turbo's probably work better in the narrow RPM range of most tractors as compared to the wide bands on cars.

 

[irvingj]

Also, if the engine is a diesel... My understanding is that diesel exhaust is quite a bit cooler than a gas engine's, which aids in turbo life.

 

[aczlan]

If you go with a turbo, run synthetic oil in the engine. It will withstand the extra heat of a turbo better than dino oil.

Aaron Z

 

[whistlepig]

The advantage with a turbo is when the tractor engine hits a heavy load the turbo will kick in. The turbo will pull the tractor through stuff that would bog down a normally aspirated motor. Some of us need this extra turbo boost and some of us don't. Depends how we use the tractor. The turbo's today are as reliable as the motor itself. If I had a choice between a turbo and non-turbo tractor for the same price I wouldn't hesitate to go with the turbo. The only thing negative I have ever heard concerning a turbo is if a hydraulic line breaks and the oil hits the hot turbo housing it will cause a fire.

 

[SPYDERLK]

Turbo boosted engines do not weaken at higher altitudes like a non turbo boosted engine.
larry

 

[Grateful11]

We have 2 tractors with Turbos, a Case IH 5140 with a 6cyl. Cummins and IH 686 with an aftermarket M&W Turbo on it's D312 German made 6cyl. You actually hear the turbo on 686 but not on the 5140. The 686 went from 66hp at the PTO to 106hp, it's been dyno tested. It's also straight piped and has over 4000hrs on it and it's never gave a problem, although IMO hearing protection is required ;-) It has a separate oil filter just for the turbo. I wouldn't be a bit afraid of turbo on diesel.

 

[Grateful11]

If you go with a turbo, run synthetic oil in the engine. It will withstand the extra heat of a turbo better than dino oil.

Aaron Z

Not arguing that synthetic is not great stuff but my wife has never ran anything but CaseIH No.1 Engine oil 15W40 in the Diesel tractors and it's always been fine. Straight 30 in the IH 140 and the Farmall Super H.

 

[Ken45101]

As I understand it, the whole reason for introducing the turbos was to meet the EPA standards, NOT to improve tractor performance.

They only add ONE horsepower to the Kubota specs. Not worth it, IMO. More cost and you have the hassle of the "waiting to shut it down". If I had my choice, I'd go non turbo. Not saying it's a big deal, but why add complications and more contraptions to go wrong?

Ken

 

[Duffster]

As I understand it, the whole reason for introducing the turbos was to meet the EPA standards, NOT to improve tractor performance.

They only add ONE horsepower to the Kubota specs. Not worth it, IMO. More cost and you have the hassle of the "waiting to shut it down". If I had my choice, I'd go non turbo. Not saying it's a big deal, but why add complications and more contraptions to go wrong?

Ken

Turbos have been around alot longer then EPA standards.

Also letting the turbo cool is a non issue 99% of the time. Unless you work the tractor right up until the time you shut it off it will have already cooled enough to shut it down.

 

[kuboman]

As I understand it, the whole reason for introducing the turbos was to meet the EPA standards, NOT to improve tractor performance.

They only add ONE horsepower to the Kubota specs. Not worth it, IMO. More cost and you have the hassle of the "waiting to shut it down". If I had my choice, I'd go non turbo. Not saying it's a big deal, but why add complications and more contraptions to go wrong?

Ken

Turbos have a lot more history than the EPA. As for emissions they may reduce the soot but not anything else. As for adding HP they will add minimal HP unless the fuel is adjusted, otherwise they make the engine more efficient for a specific fuel setting. Complication??? no more than a steering wheel adds complication.

 

[soulasphil]

My present tractor is turbo-charged, the previous one wasn't. In my experience, the turbo doesn't require any special precautions when starting or stopping the engine. You can forget about it completely. It brings more HP (5 on my JD 3520) as well as higher torque without adding weight.

 

[ManAtArms]

I think it's safe to say that turbo's are highly reliable nowadays.

In automotive applications, turbos used to get a bad rap for decreasing engine life and turbo "lag"...the time between when the pedal is pressed to when the turbo responds with additional power. Over the years, they've figured out how to reduce the lag with newer turbo designs (variable vane turbos, computer controlled wastegates, etc.)

On a diesel tractor engine, which will generally be operated at a higher, constant RPM (and is not required to provide the "responsive" acceleration of a car or truck) turbo lag is a non-issue.

Turbos are really quite simple...and ingenious. They use the energy of the exhaust gas (that would otherwise be expelled as waste through the exhaust system) to spin a small fan pump (the turbocharger)...which in turn powers a compressor...which compresses air and pumps this compressed (higher density) air back into the engine's intake manifold...which allows the engine to get more air and produce more power.

They basically take free, unused energy (the exhaust gas) and recycle it...but the result is way more power than the engine can make without a turbocharger. In automotive applications, a given engine can easily make 30-40-50% more power with a turbocharger.

Yes, a turbocharged engine will carry a higher maintenance cost...it is more complex...but in my opinion, the pros (increased power and efficiency) outweight the cons (maintenance).

I would buy the tractor you like and not worry about it.

-Mark

 

[E/S]

One of the biggest deciding factors for me to go turbo was the loss of power at my elevation on a non turbo engine.

Living at at 6000' drops power on a non turbo engine considerably.

E/S

 

[SPYDERLK]

One of the biggest deciding factors for me to go turbo was the loss of power at my elevation on a non turbo engine.

Living at at 6000' drops power on a non turbo engine considerably.

E/S

Yeah, the turbo just spins a bit faster to make up for it.:thumbsup:
larry

 

[medicshawn]

We have turbos on most of our firetrucks and ambulances. They get worked very hard without any problems.

 

[firefighter jim]

We have turbos on most of our firetrucks and ambulances. They get worked very hard without any problems.

Our fire trucks had superchargers (blowers). Quite different than turbos.

 

[Duffster]

Our fire trucks had superchargers (blowers). Quite different than turbos.

That seems strange. What kind of trucks/engines do you have?