turbocharge ?

[redka]

I'm thinking about buying a larger tractor. Reading on machinefinder site I see some are turbocharged, others are not. Any drawbacks or problems with turbocharged diesel engines? thanks for any help.

 

[JasG]

To some degree it matters how old a tractor you are looking at if there are drawbacks, they aren't very big ones. Modern tractors with waste gate water/oil cooled turbos I can see no disadvantage. To me it seems like they use a little more fuel in the same hp under light loads, but get greater torque under heavy loads so they are more efficent when being worked hard. The older tractors turbos take a minute to spool up. During that time it may put out some blacker smoke, newer ones responce is almost instant. Before shuting down it's recommended to let them idle a few minutes to cool, older machines can be 2 - 10 minutes, newer ones only 30 seconds to 2 minutes.
Turbo charged machines seem to make the oil blacker sooner and they usually need more oil and have a larger cooling package so they hold more coolant.
Because the turbo puts in a more regulated charge of air they are less affected by atmosphereic conditions. I operated 1 tractor that was 100 hp w/out a turbo that in the early AM and late PM when the air was cooler would have more power. I have only seen this one with a tractor, but with a truck pulling a trailer through hills a turbo isn't as affected by altitude.
A turbo is also one more thing that can fail. Personally I like them on a machine over 80 hp.

 

[LD1]

I only like them in bigger tractors to, where the HP is absolutly necessary.

In a lot of compacts, a turbo is a way to make a tractor the size of a 30 HP a with a 40HP engine. They are still physically a little smaller than a non turbo of the same HP (usually). Which is not always a bad thing.

But when comparing tractors of similar size and HP if I had a choice between a 3cyl turbo and a 4cyl non, I'd go with the 4cyl hands down, everything else being equal. And as mentioned, there is more moving parts to go wrong.

Basically I am not a fan of a turbo unless it is absolutly necessary.

 

[GaryCrowell]

Turbocharging and diesels go together like bread and butter. You didn't mention the age of the tractors or the make. Virtually all modern large ag tractors will be turbocharged and intercooled. By the same token, any heavy equipment of any size will be turbochaged, and all over the road trucks are as well. A turbo from any reputable company has no downsides, only upsides.

 

[chh]

I think you will find a lot of the newer tractors especially have turbo's. Every tractor I currently own is turbocharged. The trend for a lot of older tractors seemed to be to use larger displacement slower turning engines without a turbo. Newer tractors generally seem to use smaller engines with turbo's turning higher rpm's. As an example the JD 4020 I used to own was a 6 cylinder normally aspirated engine producing 96 hp(if I remember correctly), my MF 5455 is a 4 cylinder turbocharged engine putting out 105 hp. I used to have a D6C Cat dozer, the engine was huge, but my D4H is not that much less hp and the engines overall size is much less.
A lot of this trend, the way I understand it, is due to trying to raise fuel economy and to lower emission ratings.

 

[redka]

One tractor I'm looking at is a JD 2940, 80's model, 81hp.
After my original post I was reviewing some data on TractorData.com and see, as mentioned above, newer models in 60ish hp are turbo. 60-70 hp is what I'm looking for and it seems like many of them are turbo. I do like the principle of fewer moving parts. Thanks for the replies.

 

[RickB]

One tractor I'm looking at is a JD 2940, 80's model, 81hp.
After my original post I was reviewing some data on TractorData.com and see, as mentioned above, newer models in 60ish hp are turbo. 60-70 hp is what I'm looking for and it seems like many of them are turbo. I do like the principle of fewer moving parts. Thanks for the replies.

Depends on how you count the parts. A 2940 is a naturally aspirated 6 cylinder. The 60-70 HP turboed units you mention are likely 3 and 4 cylinder engines.

 

[radman1]

Depends on how you count the parts. A 2940 is a naturally aspirated 6 cylinder. The 60-70 HP turboed units you mention are likely 3 and 4 cylinder engines.

6 cylinders seems like a lot compared to todays tractors with turbos. Today, only the bigger ag tractors would have 6 cylinders.

 

[radman1]

Depends on how you count the parts. A 2940 is a naturally aspirated 6 cylinder. The 60-70 HP turboed units you mention are likely 3 and 4 cylinder engines.

6 cylinders seems like a lot compared to todays tractors with turbos. Today, only the bigger ag tractors would have 6 cylinders. We have owned lots of tractors with turbos. Never had a turbo go bad yet. One was used hard with over 12,000 hours.

 

[RickB]

6 cylinders seems like a lot compared to todays tractors with turbos. Today, only the bigger ag tractors would have 6 cylinders. We have owned lots of tractors with turbos. Never had a turbo go bad yet. One was used hard with over 12,000 hours.

Agreed. He mentions a 2940; hence the reply. They still have 6 cylinders. I have nothing against turbochargers. Another driving force behind the increased use of turbos on smaller engines is the ever tightening emissions standards that engine builders are forced to meet. That hasn't been mentioned yet.

 

[D7E]

I can't speak for 3 cyl's but turbo's are pretty much trouble free on bigger equipment , On hundreds of machines i've only had 2 go wrong on a 300hp detroit and a ford 7610.
I prefer a turbo'd engine generally and even fitting "after" turbo's has improved fuel consumption and made some run much sweeter..!

 

[Tractor Parts]

The turbocharge and intercooled devices were developed to decrease fuel consumption in internal combustion and diesel engines. The turbo, propelled by the hot exhaust gases, compresses ambient air into the engine. The relatively larger volume of air, and the pressure of it being forced into the combustion chamber, ensures complete fuel combustion. This results in less fuel being used, and more power for the engine.
Partswise, there is only a few seals, and an internal impeller to be changed. Turbos can work for years without no problems. My vote is for the turbo tractor anyday.

 

[lightninboy]

I only like them in bigger tractors to, where the HP is absolutly necessary.

In a lot of compacts, a turbo is a way to make a tractor the size of a 30 HP a with a 40HP engine. They are still physically a little smaller than a non turbo of the same HP (usually). Which is not always a bad thing.

But when comparing tractors of similar size and HP if I had a choice between a 3cyl turbo and a 4cyl non, I'd go with the 4cyl hands down, everything else being equal. And as mentioned, there is more moving parts to go wrong.

Basically I am not a fan of a turbo unless it is absolutly necessary.

I agree with this. In this day of more electronics on diesels, if you can find a non-turbo diesel, consider buying it.