Massey 6170 turbo kit

[puma power]

Does anyone have a Massey 6170 fitted with a turbo kit that has exhaust coming out of bonnet? Going to turbo mine and just trying to work out how to route exhaust using existing hole in top of bonnet.
@masseybreaker @Massey mad @massey man

 

[KB6930]

Don't do it .

We had a 6160 and after 3 engine rebuilds the 4th time it then blew a hole in a piston the turbo was taken off !!

 

[puma power]

Its my toy!

Only doing the odd day here and there!

6180 and 6190 handle the turbo.

 

[KB6930]

Ours was great when it was going !

The neighbour's had a 3085 with one and it only had 1 blow up in it's life.
Ours was turbo'd from new to run the trailed forager which wasn't exactly pushed to it's limit but it just couldn't take the extra power for some reason.
That and 2 absolutely dire 62 series was the downfall of MF with us

 

[john432]

Don't do it .

We had a 6160 and after 3 engine rebuilds the 4th time it then blew a hole in a piston the turbo was taken off !!

Factory turbo engine probably had different pistons, cooling spray jets underneath, and a much better engine oil cooler.

 

[Lincs Lass]

Its my toy!

Only doing the odd day here and there!

6180 and 6190 handle the turbo.

The 80 and 90 had factory fit turbo with intercoolers,,the 70 was too heavy,,more go in a squashed slug

 

[puma power]

@Lincs Lass it is as flat as a fart!!

The pump is apparently quite hard to play with as well?

I just wanted to make a bit of smoke and a nice noise really! My father in law's 6270 sounds lovely!

 

[J 1177]

The 80 and 90 had factory fit turbo with intercoolers,,the 70 was too heavy,,more go in a squashed slug

Neighbours get on ok with theirs, round baling and drilling, good run about to go along side their magnum.

 

[Lincs Lass]

Neighbours get on ok with theirs, round baling and drilling, good run about to go along side their magnum.

Had ours on the tatty harvester ,,reekie 2170 with wheel drive and an oil driven farmhand topper on the front ,,It was a dead duck trying to push on and fill the main web ,,nowhere enough power but boss wouldnt listen,,after 5 acre of deathly slow progress we put the 80 on it ,,diferent all together .
That bit more umph was all.it needed

 

[J 1177]

Had ours on the tatty harvester ,,reekie 2170 with wheel drive and an oil driven farmhand topper on the front ,,It was a dead duck trying to push on and fill the main web ,,nowhere enough power but boss wouldnt listen,,after 5 acre of deathly slow progress we put the 80 on it ,,diferent all together .
That bit more umph was all.it needed

Ahh see his isn't working like that just a general run about. He bought it to replace a knackered old fastrac. Apart from his the 61 series never caught on around here. Another neighbour was all Massey until them, he has jd now. I'm the only one in our area apart from the lad with the 6170 that has a Massey, with my 6480, I like to be different.

 

[Blue.]

I doubt the 6170 didn’t have piston cooling jets,most Perkins of the era did.

In my experience 6 pot Perkins stood a turbo as well as any other engine,just look after it well.

 

[DeeGee]

Does the 6170 not have the same 110hp engine as the earlier 3095?
If so then our 3095 seems to have plenty of waft and certainly not flat in any way; there again it all depends what you are used to and what you are expecting. You may be pushing your 6170 much harder than I would.

 

[puma power]

Is a 3095 turbo?

 

[Blue.]

Is a 3095 turbo?

Nope

 

[DeeGee]

Many years ago a neighbour had a new Massey 290 (A4.248 engine) on a 3m mower conditioner.
The tractor was always under powered and the engine under tremendous load. Or as he said ‘on it’s knees’.

He fitted a turbocharger which pushed up the power from under 80hp to about 105hp. The engine was never designed for a turbo but from then on it was always on top of the job with the mower, doing the job quicker and easier than the standard engine.

This tractor did many thousands of hours and was still ok when traded in some years later. So there is an argument that says that if a turbocharger enables the tractor to do its work easier and with less stress, then it surely has to be better for the tractor and the operator?

 

[J 1177]

To be fair there was lots of turbos stuck on na engines back in the day, case 9/1056. Ford 7810/40
That ran no bother. It's what tb turbos business was based on

 

[Farma Parma]

Does the 6170 not have the same 110hp engine as the earlier 3095?
If so then our 3095 seems to have plenty of waft and certainly not flat in any way; there again it all depends what you are used to and what you are expecting. You may be pushing your 6170 much harder than I would.

99.9% sure its the same.. a 6170 was just a new cab & bonnet version of a 3095 & they were a brilliant tractor

 

[Cowabunga]

Many years ago a neighbour had a new Massey 290 (A4.248 engine) on a 3m mower conditioner.
The tractor was always under powered and the engine under tremendous load. Or as he said ‘on it’s knees’.

He fitted a turbocharger which pushed up the power from under 80hp to about 105hp. The engine was never designed for a turbo but from then on it was always on top of the job with the mower, doing the job quicker and easier than the standard engine.

This tractor did many thousands of hours and was still ok when traded in some years later. So there is an argument that says that if a turbocharger enables the tractor to do its work easier and with less stress, then it surely has to be better for the tractor and the operator?

Ah but it isn't under less stress. It just feels that way from the driver's perspective. In fact if it produces more power and torque, then that torque, when used, is literally stress, or the twisting force on the crankshaft caused by more fuel and bang in the combustion chamber at the top of the piston. More torque at the crank is transferred all the way through the driveline, through the rear, front axles and PTO drives. All under greater load unless none of that extra performance is used.

Don't confuse greater performance with 'less stress'. The greatest stress suffered by an engine happens when and where it produces maximum torque. This is not the same as where it produces maximum power where the mechanical stress [torque] is less but the power and heat produced and the fuel consumed is higher. There are other types of stress of course, such as the rate of acceleration/deceleration of pistons relative to their mass and similar for the valve train. It all needs to be taken account of at the design stage.

The same engine may have significantly different power ratings and maximum speeds depending on the duty cycle they are expected to perform. For short bursts in emergencies an engine may be allowed very much higher revs and peak power than when installed in a tractor. For very long periods of use, possibly 24 hours a day, the same engine may be significantly downrated in both peak power and revs for a gen set, for instance, compared to the tractor. Caterpillar generally have charts showing all their optional performance choices for the relevant engine applications. I'm sure that most other brands have similar details available.

 

[Cowabunga]

99.9% sure its the same.. a 6170 was just a new cab & bonnet version of a 3095 & they were a brilliant tractor

The 3095 and the top four cylinder in the range had unique engine performance characteristics for the time. MF called these 'Dynatorque' engines and none of the others apart from the 3120 had similar performance tuning.
Nowadays it has become commonplace to have, what we now know as 'constant power' engines. This is where torque rises so steeply as engine revs drop from rated power speed, that the power is maintained or even rises slightly as revs drop for at least 200 rpm, giving the same rated power 400 rpm down the rev range as at rated speed.
This was a revolution is engine performance at the time and soon copied by many other brands when new models were introduced.

Perkins were on a roll with the 1000 series engines. They introduced Viton oil seals, squish-lip pistons and the four lobed Quadram combustion chambers.
Just yesterday, Friday, I was talking to the local New Holland sales manager and we discussed Perkins, asking "what the hell happened and where are they now?"

 

[msheep66]

The 3095 and the top four cylinder in the range had unique engine performance characteristics for the time. MF called these 'Dynatorque' engines and none of the others apart from the 3120 had similar performance tuning.
Nowadays it has become commonplace to have, what we now know as 'constant power' engines. This is where torque rises so steeply as engine revs drop from rated power speed, that the power is maintained or even rises slightly as revs drop for at least 200 rpm, giving the same rated power 400 rpm down the rev range as at rated speed.
This was a revolution is engine performance at the time and soon copied by many other brands when new models were introduced.

Perkins were on a roll with the 1000 series engines. They introduced Viton oil seals, squish-lip pistons and the four lobed Quadram combustion chambers.
Just yesterday, Friday, I was talking to the local New Holland sales manager and we discussed Perkins, asking "what the hell happened and where are they now?"

Does the 3085 have the same engine as the 3095 just with the pump turned up?