High horse power four cylinders can’t sustainably do the same job as a larger six pot of similar HP. Tell me I’m wrong

Hazza6930

Member
Mixed Farmer
You are wrong. The four will be more efficient, will have sharper response and recovery, will be just as reliable while being cheaper to run, maintain and repair. Engines tend to last longer than ever before, no matter how many cylinders. Some are not, but their six cylinders are equally as unreliable as their four cylinder engines. But at least the four only has four of every main moving part.
The torque and torque rise, and even the start-off torque of most four cylinder engines today at least equal that of the six cylinder version of the same horsepower from the same engine family.
Just look at how far car Diesel engine have advanced in recent years. The same goes for tractors. My 2.0 Volvo four cylinder engine was 20% more powerful and 30% more torque at similar low revs to my 4.2 litre turbo-intercooler Land Cruiser engine and uses literally half the fuel to go way faster with less noise as a bonus.
We have a 6715s , although it is a hell of a tractor it does have a weak spot in that you can bog the engine down easily with pto work. Occasionally boost can overcome the strain but it’s bigger brother the 7615 can be dragged right down and still carry’s on lugging. Prehaps some tuning may be needed.
 

Cowabunga

Member
Location
Ceredigion,Wales
We have a 6715s , although it is a hell of a tractor it does have a weak spot in that you can bog the engine down easily with pto work. Occasionally boost can overcome the strain but it’s bigger brother the 7615 can be dragged right down and still carry’s on lugging. Prehaps some tuning may be needed.
Perhaps the latest engines are compromised by emissions regulations? The 6470 would pull like a train right down to 1100 revs like a six cylinder any and every day of the week.

Just for information I do run three turbocharged six cylinder tractors and one lower powered four cylinder.
 

dave mountain

Member
Livestock Farmer
where as a T6 160 will probably be nearer 110hp at the shaft
Well never predicted this, new holland are making what everyone said they wanted, a fairly basic 6t 140hp tractor with a proper engine in and now everyone is wanting more expensive and heavier 4 cylinder masseys and valtras instead. just shows that people dont actually buy what they say they want.
 

dave mountain

Member
Livestock Farmer
Perhaps the latest engines are compromised by emissions regulations? The 6470 would pull like a train right down to 1100 revs like a six cylinder any and every day of the week.

Just for information I do run three turbocharged six cylinder tractors and one lower powered four cylinder.
The 6470 is also incredibly thirsty, far more so than my t7 on the same work. Granted it does pull though.

Just out of interest, why are you running 6s? Seems from your other posts that you prefer 4s?
 
Last edited:

Masseymad

Member
We have a 6715s , although it is a hell of a tractor it does have a weak spot in that you can bog the engine down easily with pto work. Occasionally boost can overcome the strain but it’s bigger brother the 7615 can be dragged right down and still carry’s on lugging. Prehaps some tuning may be needed.
We had a 6616 and found the same. one heck of a good tractor but just lacked that something the 6 pot equivalents have
 

Hazza6930

Member
Mixed Farmer
Perhaps the latest engines are compromised by emissions regulations? The 6470 would pull like a train right down to 1100 revs like a six cylinder any and every day of the week.

Just for information I do run three turbocharged six cylinder tractors and one lower powered four cylinder.
Yeah could well be , that’s what I’d geuss at. On another note are MFs known to be uncomfortable? Mine is rediculas. The 6715 isint bad just terrible when light or nothing on the back end
 
If used as a replacement to a larger six cylinder tractor of around 160 HP with the same kit. Increased engine wear, brakes and transmission. Turbos blown? High service costs ? Overall will they take the wear and tear as well as a larger six ? I know a lot are buying these four pots to replace there old six but and just weighing them up. How will they be with some hours under the belt. Give me your thoughts
If you go back about 40 years ago you could get 3 and 4 cylinder tractors with 50-60 hp or you could get a comparable 6 cylinder Kubota.
Of those 6 cylinder Kubota's , just how many survived....🤔
 

Fendtbro

Member
You are wrong. The four will be more efficient, will have sharper response and recovery, will be just as reliable while being cheaper to run, maintain and repair. Engines tend to last longer than ever before, no matter how many cylinders. Some are not, but their six cylinders are equally as unreliable as their four cylinder engines. But at least the four only has four of every main moving part.
The torque and torque rise, and even the start-off torque of most four cylinder engines today at least equal that of the six cylinder version of the same horsepower from the same engine family.
Just look at how far car Diesel engine have advanced in recent years. The same goes for tractors. My 2.0 Volvo four cylinder engine was 20% more powerful and 30% more torque at similar low revs to my 4.2 litre turbo-intercooler Land Cruiser engine and uses literally half the fuel to go way faster with less noise as a bonus.
Fairly low rpm torque, maybe comparable. Idle and take off torque must be different. Our manual 4.2 landcruiser’s will take off on a steep hill with 3 ton, at 800 rpm no sweat.. the new hilux won’t even take off until 1500 rpm with a red hot clutch. Pals navara is noticeably better.. All modern pickups need a bit of throttle to get up into the turbo before taking off with their glorified car engines, and I have seen every make of Unloaded pickup going except vw, stall on take off as driver leaves my yard. Car engines, 2 litre is fine. Pickups for hard towing, should have bigger engine options available. You can have half a dozen turbo’s on an engine but still stall on takeoff. I’m not too keen on automatic transmissions, rather a proper manual. As far as I can see, hgv’s still have big displacement engines.. as the transmission has no torque converter??
 

Fendtbro

Member
Having used both the N174 and T174 valtras I think I can comment. The smaller 4 cylinder actually boosts higher than the 6 and yet ploughing it was rubbish on steep ground, had to change down and rev the engine which caused wheel slip whereas the 6 could just keep ticking along below 1400rpm.
Pto work they are similar but towing loads on hills the 4 though lighter just died away.
Only a place for a 4 cylinder on our farm is in the yard.
I’m not surprised. My loader tractor has a 125hp 6 cylinder Deutz engine And will pull from idle to full power with zero turbo lag because it doesn’t have one! It has so much torque it’s almost impossible to stall.. can’t see the 4’s equalling that that.
 

Cowabunga

Member
Location
Ceredigion,Wales
Fairly low rpm torque, maybe comparable. Idle and take off torque must be different. Our manual 4.2 landcruiser’s will take off on a steep hill with 3 ton, at 800 rpm no sweat.. the new hilux won’t even take off until 1500 rpm with a red hot clutch. Pals navara is noticeably better.. All modern pickups need a bit of throttle to get up into the turbo before taking off with their glorified car engines, and I have seen every make of Unloaded pickup going except vw, stall on take off as driver leaves my yard. Car engines, 2 litre is fine. Pickups for hard towing, should have bigger engine options available. You can have half a dozen turbo’s on an engine but still stall on takeoff. I’m not too keen on automatic transmissions, rather a proper manual. As far as I can see, hgv’s still have big displacement engines.. as the transmission has no torque converter??

Gearing and/or auto transmission. The Ranger 2.2 diesel, which is my equivalent of your HiLux has an auto box so I can compare it to the Land Cruiser directly. The Ranger engine is tuned so as not to rev quickly off idle. It just won't do it and is a pain in the but pulling over three tons [I had 4.5 tons behind it the other day] out of a junction up a slight hill. This is why I chose an auto, because the torque converter partly compensates. It has nothing to do with the number of cylinders, it is to avoid diesel soot blocking the DPF. Once under way it pulls like a train. A train with only 350Nm admittedly.
 
Depends what you want, I had Fendt 415 (4 cyl 155hp) and T6090 (6 cyl 165hp), obviously the T6090 had more grunt but the 415 is extremely capable, over a ton lighter, turns a much tighter radius and is cheaper on fuel for the jobs it is used for (which are mainly field operations). But obviously the bigger 6 cylinder tractor has way more torque and so walks all over it for haulage work
 

J 1177

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Durham, UK
One of the best lugging tractors we ever had was a 4 pot zetor 9111 turbo, it was an absolute animal, also one of the sweetest sounding engines, it was replaced by a 5130 straight 6, and frankly thats been the best tractor weve ever owned.
 

Wellytrack

Member
Depends what you want, I had Fendt 415 (4 cyl 155hp) and T6090 (6 cyl 165hp), obviously the T6090 had more grunt but the 415 is extremely capable, over a ton lighter, turns a much tighter radius and is cheaper on fuel for the jobs it is used for (which are mainly field operations). But obviously the bigger 6 cylinder tractor has way more torque and so walks all over it for haulage work

You’ll lose 20 geegees with the Vario to powershift on the road.
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 75 43.6%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 61 35.5%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 27 15.7%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 3 1.7%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,284
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top