Black smoke out of Machinery

[Cowabunga]

A big selling point of DB s were good fuel economy thanks to better design of combuction chamber and cross flow headds. They also built their tractors so they normally out performed their stated figures. That was helped by the PTO design of straight through shafts
That and 12 speedtractors made them an altogether better tractor, but sadly other aspects let them down a little such as a very delicate hydraulic system which could not tolerate dirty oil and the less saud the better about their Hydrashift

Well yes but people forget SelectoSpeed on the Fords which was a far bigger disaster.
Brown engines were certainly more economical than Ford's per horsepower and just as torquey. The noise let them down as did the three bearing crankshaft, especially on early ones which were prone to failure. The hydraulics improved with the introduction of the new micronic filtration on Q cab tractors but was never great. The speed of drop of the rear links when unloaded was a pain on the bigger tractors I recall. Couldn't get the links to lower acceptably fast even while standing on them with the dump valve used.
The casting they used behind the diff as a diff cover, where the top link was connected to, had a particularly weak thin cast iron flange bolted around the diff that was prone to break spectacularly.
I despised the early narrow door Q cab models with the big black slab of plastic dashboard. The reason being the IPTO PTO clutch lever. It was ridiculously strongly sprung and was pushed back and down towards the rear cab structural cross beam. The Bowden cable would snap, slamming ones's hands and jamming fingers between the lever and the beam with all of ones weight on it. Designed by some madman with no foresight whatsoever.

I remember that DB1410 4wd doing 1000 hours in its first six months, a lot of it spike rotavating in front of a potato planter, 24 hours a day. In those days the 92hp tractor would consume 80 UK gallons [360 litres] of diesel near enough. Which, if you think about it, is only about 15 litres an hour on average and in-line with MF 135 [47hp] that would use 210 litres or 45 gallons in 24 hours on irrigation pumps. If the 45 gallon barrel was not replaced with another on the dot of 24 hours, it would run dry. The load on the 135 being more consistent than on the DB rotavating of course, due to no headland or sneaky nap or refuelling respites.

 

[2wheels]

Actually very few achieved their advertised official power output. There was a hell of a scene in Lampeter where LAS or Greens were Ford tractor dealers at the time. ADAS from Trawscoed had an enthusiastic engineer that had built an accurate PTO dynamometer and he had a free test organised for mart day. Almost all 5000's tested were significantly below spec. They should have been around 64hp at the PTO I believe but the majority were down in the mid 50's. Greens made complete arses of themselves by complaining to all and sundry that ADAS had no right to test tractors randomly, rather than apologise and rectify the fleet they had sold as being 71net at the engine and [I think I remember] 65 at the shaft.
This explained a lot to me why my own 5000 hardly outperformed my MF165. There were probably only four or five hp between them whereas there should have been 13hp. My 165 was tested to be an acceptable 53 at the shaft.

The advantage the 5000 had was one extra useful gear ratio and IPTO.
[Yes I know it had an 8 speed box compared with six but fourth and fifth were near enough identical ratios].
My 5000 was a medium smoker. Not clean but not too bad either. The other disadvantage of the 5000 was the tiny fuel tank for the rather thirsty engine. On silage I had to refill every four hours to be safe and in those conditions the gearbox casting would get ridiculously hot [almost age-frying hot] whereas the 165 would only get pleasantly warm. During '75-76 I worked with a fleet of 5000 and 6600 and the variation between some tractors and others in performance with 5000 was glaring as was the universally dismal performance of the even noisier 6600's. All were very reliable though. All had massive governor run-outs which meant that the different in revs between slight load and slight over-run amounted to around 500 revs and required much very regular adjustment of the throttle to maintain steady rpm. This was I think a Ford design feature, because it didn't matter which type of injector pump was fitted, they were all the same. This persisted until the end of the Series10 and the introduction of the Powerstar engine was a quantum leap forward in the company's engine performance in so many ways. The Powerstar [series40] was/is torquey, quieter, cleaner, tighter, and an all round exceptional engine.

our leyland 384 would eat the 5000 we had for breakfast.

 

[Robt]

Remapping them seems to encourage black smoke. Our 2170 will put out a decent amount pulling away from low rpm.

See a fair few diesel cars blowing out black reek now too. Normally driven by baseball cap wearing youths. Remapped I suspect.

No smoke. No poke.

Er no, black smoke is cheap remap. Basically throw more fuel at engine….

 

[Flatlander]

Grey Ferguson paraffin engine would glow red halfway up the exhaust ploughing here.
Never seem to get much smoke from our 1970’s diesels, other than a bit on a cold start or if overloaded, in which case change down a gear. I don’t like to see a smoky exhaust. Engines either on its way or overloaded. Get is serviced or ease off. Deliberately increasing the fuel limit beyond design spec is pretty stupid in my view.

Lots see push the hp up on tractors which is not practical for service life. If you want more power buy a bigger tractor. Many here do it and then complain the transmission has issues or the can’t keep the engine cool on a hot day when pulling hard. It’s not the engine that’s just effected,someone way smarter than most has designed every part of the tractor around that powerhouse. Even if it’s the same block and tranny doesn’t mean the same components

 

[fieldfarmer]

Er no, black smoke is cheap remap. Basically throw more fuel at engine….

I take it you have spent time sat in a tractor on the dyno while its being mapped to back that up, do you think tractor pullers spend all that money on a engine then put a "cheap" map on it.

 

[Robt]

I take it you have spent time sat in a tractor on the dyno while its being mapped to back that up, do you think tractor pullers spend all that money on a engine then put a "cheap" map on it.

So how please tell me does the exhaust give more smoke if it’s not more fuel ?

 

[fieldfarmer]

So how please tell me does the exhaust give more smoke if it’s not more fuel ?

You denied that smoke = poke. Well the dyno don't lie.

 

[Robt]

You denied that smoke = poke. Well the dyno don't lie.

No I didn’t

 

[fieldfarmer]

No I didn’t

Well the last paragraph in the post you quoted says poke -= smoke and you post starts "err no." so maybe I'm reading it wrong.

 

[Speedstar]

So how please tell me does the exhaust give more smoke if it’s not more fuel ?

Timing, air , fuel, boost all make smoke

 

[Will 1594]

Er no, black smoke is cheap remap. Basically throw more fuel at engine….

rob you just need an old shovel shaft
open door if you had cab , wack excess fuel button in and off you go

ever tuned a grey fergy till your feet vibrate on foot plates
put bigger wheels on back play with governors
transport box on back with two seater sofa
get rolling , feet on drag links to stop wheels wobbling and swing on hanle and keep up with cars , much more fun than a datsun cherry or old escort

 

[Dukes Fit]

It’s pretty simple, diesel has a given calorific value and therefore a given amount of emissions.

If you want more energy you have to burn more of it.

If you burn more of it, it will produce more emissions.

This is a fact. Now someone please inform the idiots who make the rules and tell them that you can’t make it magically disappear.

 

[Cowabunga]

It’s pretty simple, diesel has a given calorific value and therefore a given amount of emissions.

If you want more energy you have to burn more of it.

If you burn more of it, it will produce more emissions.

This is a fact. Now someone please inform the idiots who make the rules and tell them that you can’t make it magically disappear.

Not quite correct apart from CO2. Today's tractors are up to and over 60 times cleaner in NOx and soot emissions than tractors of only 20 years ago. That's without even counting the reduction in sulphur facilitated by cleaner fuel, the stuff that used to cause acid rain but which we now need to add to our land as fertiliser because its no longer in the air or rain.

 

[Dukes Fit]

Not quite correct apart from CO2. Today's tractors are up to and over 60 times cleaner in NOx and soot emissions than tractors of only 20 years ago. That's without even counting the reduction in sulphur facilitated by cleaner fuel, the stuff that used to cause acid rain but which we now need to add to our land as fertiliser because its no longer in the air or rain.

They produce less “tailpipe” or exhaust emissions. They have become more efficient at burning the fuel but the bare fact is if you burn x amount of fuel you release x amount of energy and emissions.
What you do with those emissions afterwards and how many times you recycle it is what comes out of the exhaust.
You cannot take sh!t and make it in to a diamond.

Don’t even get me started on DPF technology. That is horrible.

 

[Dead Rabbits]

 

[M-J-G]

Grassmen Aka boys!

I saw someone had on FB that the Grassheads had a "charity dyno day" which appears to be like a tractor gang bang with them all queuing up to take turns on the shaft.
Somebody wipe that dyno down with a towel

 

[Oliveau]

I wouldn’t say that the smokey ones were necessarily the better ones either because early non-Q 6600 had CAV pumps and were all noise and smoke but couldn’t hardly pull themselves let alone do much work. They were appalling non-performers.

And bloody noisy as well!

 

[40 series]

I saw someone had on FB that the Grassheads had a "charity dyno day" which appears to be like a tractor gang bang with them all queuing up to take turns on the shaft.
Somebody wipe that dyno down with a towel

Think of the bigger picture sir. The 13 year old recovering from cancer is what it was in aid of

 

[M-J-G]

Think of the bigger picture sir. The 13 year old recovering from cancer is what it was in aid of

I know, but that doesn't change weirdness of it.

I wonder how many of those participants would have taken part in a sponsored walk or run for the same cause?

 

[fermerboy]

I run older NH tractors and I run them to high hours 16-17k on a couple.
Yes some of them do smoke a bit under load, though the turbocharged ones generally don't, a puff on pulling away at low revs is about it.

What I'd like to know is the overall pollution footprint of me buying a new or newer cleaner burning tractor with add blue or egr, with all the extra infrastructure, and logistics required, also the extra maintenance and repairs, and running that over say 5 or 10yrs against the pollution of running my older but admittedly smokier tractor over the same period.
The newer ones are no more efficient on actual fuel use either though they don't show it at the exhaust pipe.

I'm not against looking after our environment, but my older tractor which I am taking a longer life out of, may be better than my neighbour who swaps every 3 years.