Turbo vs Non-turbo

[tommott77]

Hi all,

Still searching for a used Toolcat. I think i’ve zeroed in on the 2006 model because of the limited slip differential and the updated boom with increased curling ability. From what I can gather the 2004-2006 models had the option of turbo vs non-turbo engines.

Anybody have any buying advice on the turbo vs non-turbo engines? I was originally only interested in the turbo models for the extra torque going up and down our mountain property (Also the reason i’m wanting diff lock). After some research here though it looks like the NA motor is actually 2.2L vs the 2.0L turbo, so i’m starting to think you’re getting more of a HP bump with the turbo than a torque bump with the turbo models. Aside from maybe a sweeper I don’t myself using any PTO implements too often (which may be where the turbo excels), mainly just need the bucket/forks/bed to move material/supplies up and down our property (mountain).

 

[90cummins]

Turbos increase HP at any given engine speed by increasing torque.
That’s why turbo engines are generally smaller in displacement. Forcing more air in the cylinders means more fuel can be injected which creates higher combustion pressures which = more torque.
90cummins

 

[Roadworthy]

Personally I go for simple over complex. The turbo adds a degree of complexity and more things to break.

 

[CobyRupert]

There’s no replacement for displacement.

Also, it comes down to how much stress, heat and longevity you want from a motor that delivers X hp.

 

[ruffdog]

Here is a good thread for toolcat history and specs:

Toolcat Years and Major Features

 

[dirttoys]

General turbo opinion: in machines where weight is an advantage skip the turbo and get N/A. Couple less things to break.

If you live above about 4000' then I would opt for the air pump.

Best,

ed

 

[ruffdog]

Another thread explains the differences between the turbo/non-turbo toolcats. The non-turbo ones got the smaller fuel tank and were NOT high-flow capable.

A vs B vs C Series

 

[ROUSTABOUT]

No turbo.

 

[tommott77]

Thanks for all the responses. What’s everybody’s take on the travel speed of the turbo vs non turbo? Bobcat lists both the turbo and non turbo with the same top speed, but what about under load? The machine will be used to traverse supplies up and down my STEEP mountain property. Some of its paved where you can up the mountain at full speed.

That reminds of one more question about toolcats that i haven’t been able to find an answer on. How well would the brakes actually work on the toolcats for my steep loaded declines? Not sure how the work in form of mechanical operation or real world functional capability.

 

[laurencen]

the turbo is definatly a advantage going up hill, regarding the brakes they hold 100% loading on my trailer, at the cabin our road has quite a incline never touch the brakes the ease off the go pedal does the job fine

 

[tommott77]

From what i’ve found through searching around the hydraulics serve a controller that actuate mechanical springs to stop the wheels. Is that correct that there is a secondary mechanical braking system that works in conjunction with the self braking of the hydrostatic drive? Is this the case through all models of toolcats both with the live axles and independent suspension?

 

[CloverKnollFarms]

After seeing turbo leaks and associated DPF issues… I went NA

 

[laurencen]

a good example turbo versus non turbo, the 2005 Toolcat was used for 5 years clearing snow on my driveway with the V plow, could only go in low speed and at full rpm and go pedal would bog down so had to reduce pedal, never stalled but worked hard and such rarely enough speed to throw snow off the side.

the 2020 model easily runs high speed, rarely the full rpm and does throw snow off the side easily, yesterday cleared snow 4 to 6 inches at 12mph, yes when I hit a drift it slowed but easily picked back up

realise there was a power difference between models but a good example how the turbl improved the power of the machine

on another note slid off the side and thank god for the traction, the old machine would have stopped in its tracks this one finally got out, in the ditch easily 2 to 3 heet of snow but slowly backed out in its tracks

 

[ruffdog]

From what I have read, the old solid axle models had a much rougher ride than the newer independent suspended ones.

 

[laurencen]

yes the solid axles were a rough ride even with no load, the new inderpendent is a better ride though with a fill bucket both machnes would bottom out and ride the same

 

[Snobdds]

There’s no replacement for displacement.

There is a replacement for displacement and it's called turbo psi.

Welcome to the 21st century.

 

[CobyRupert]

There is a replacement for displacement and it's called turbo psi.

Welcome to the 21st century.

Yes, you can pack more horsepower into fewer pistons, less displacement, less mass. Energy per piston can be greatly increased.
That’s also an increased amount of heat per piston that must be moved away. And this is better for engine longevity?

But how much does the engine gets babied, how much are you asking 100%? If babied, longevity may not be a noticeable difference.

Loosely related: Sometimes when sizing generators, the same engine-gen set might come in three different “sizes” (say 150, 200, 250 kva). But how can one generator set have three different hp and kva ratings? It came down to how hard is that motor and generator going to work and how often.
A standby generator, that might only run for a few hours or days a year, it’s a 250 kva generator. For an emergency standby, maybe it’s a 200 kva generator. For a primary 24hr/7days a week mining operation that’s off grid, maybe it’s a 150kva generator.

Turbo or not, at the end of the day it’s a judgement on how much do you want to get out of that engine, often at the trade of the longevity. If you want more power, by all means, add the turbo, or bigger turbo, and turn up the pump! That’s why I say there’s no replacement for displacement.

 

[Snobdds]

Yes, you can pack more horsepower into fewer pistons, less displacement, less mass. Energy per piston can be greatly increased.
That’s also an increased amount of heat per piston that must be moved away. And this is better for engine longevity?

But how much does the engine gets babied, how much are you asking 100%? If babied, longevity may not be a noticeable difference.

Loosely related: Sometimes when sizing generators, the same engine-gen set might come in three different “sizes” (say 150, 200, 250 kva). But how can one generator set have three different hp and kva ratings? It came down to how hard is that motor and generator going to work and how often.
A standby generator, that might only run for a few hours or days a year, it’s a 250 kva generator. For an emergency standby, maybe it’s a 200 kva generator. For a primary 24hr/7days a week mining operation that’s off grid, maybe it’s a 150kva generator.

Turbo or not, at the end of the day it’s a judgement on how much do you want to get out of that engine, often at the trade of the longevity. If you want more power, by all means, add the turbo, or bigger turbo, and turn up the pump! That’s why I say there’s no replacement for displacement.

I think the word your looking for is duty cycle.

Duty cycle is largely managing thermal cycling. Turns out common rail diesels love a higher thermal temperature to have complete combustion. It kind of solved the higher duty cycle needs all by it's self...