The difference between a tractor engine and a automotive engine

[Wellytrack]

I don't think the diesel will be particularly missed, it was so far behind the competitors. Be interesting to see how Subaru go in the coming years. I've always had a soft spot for them, they are great machines and they really should be sold in bigger numbers.

They still have a massive following in rural America, their AWD system is still the best.

Long term however I fear they are doomed.

 

[Fendtbro]

Performance wise yes, but for some there is a human element whereby no amount of forced induction will ever rival the guttural warbling of a large capacity v8

I’ve never seen any modern engine that is anywhere near as capable at recovering from a low idle under load as the 5.7 Chevy.. all these small displacement engines seem to need just a little throttle to get going or they just stall. I can’t stand the lack of Idle torque in small displacement pickups.

 

[GeorgeK]

Whilst we’ve got the engine boffs around- what makes some engines sound so good, and others not so? It’s not even to do with volume. What is mechanically different about a lumpy V8 (even a 100hp Rover V8) an 80’s V6 Alfa, a 90’s V10 F1 car, a group B Audi Quattro or even a 10 series John Deere that makes them so kind on the ear? Yet something that should sound extraordinary like a McLaren V8 just doesn’t do the same. So it’s not power related

Modern regulations and soundproofing mean we hear very little true engine noise now, the noise from performance cars is mostly electronic, controlled by servo exhaust flaps and computer controlled fuel dumped in the exhaust (that stupid farting noise double clutch gearboxes make in between shifts). Also the pleasant offbeat lumpy tickover of old performance engines was thanks to aggressive cams that didn't run efficiently at low revs - now cams have variable timing so the 'character' is gone.
Diesels haven't sounded nice since common rail fuel injection appeared IMO

 

[ollie989898]

I’ve never seen any modern engine that is anywhere near as capable at recovering from a low idle under load as the 5.7 Chevy.. all these small displacement engines seem to need just a little throttle to get going or they just stall. I can’t stand the lack of Idle torque in small displacement pickups.

A lot of modern engines will have their torque curves constrained electronically, either to protect the driveline or due to emissions reasons.

 

[Cowabunga]

A lot of modern engines will have their torque curves constrained electronically, either to protect the driveline or due to emissions reasons.

All engines of any age have their torque curves and power output constrained in some way. Brilliant observation! Not.

 

[8100]

The Gardner 8LXB 8 pot was a thing of beauty .My dad worked for a large haulage company (back in its day it was large anyway) called Plants nr Macclesfield who had a fleet of ERF trucks of every type even round cab Chinese 6 but all Gardner engines .After the smoke had cleared these engines ticked away like Swiss watches. I think Gardner were Carb makers turned boat engine makers without googling them then they found their way into bus trains and haulage.
They no doubt got routed by Cummins as i saw some ERF trucks appear badged as so.Even the odd Rolls Royce powered one was seen .As i live near the old (now houses )Sun Works ERFs factory it was quite interesting and often spotted cab less chassis been driven about on test with men in goggles at the reins .Anyway back towards topic Pre turbo diesels like the Gardner sure did have some grunt real low down even with a Davey Broon box and splitter the low revving grunt was amazing in its day

 

[Cowabunga]

The Gardner 8LXB 8 pot was a thing of beauty .My dad worked for a large haulage company (back in its day it was large anyway) called Plants nr Macclesfield who had a fleet of ERF trucks of every type even round cab Chinese 6 but all Gardner engines .After the smoke had cleared these engines ticked away like Swiss watches. I think Gardner were Carb makers turned boat engine makers without googling them then they found their way into bus trains and haulage.
They no doubt got routed by Cummins as i saw some ERF trucks appear badged as so.Even the odd Rolls Royce powered one was seen .As i live near the old (now houses )Sun Works ERFs factory it was quite interesting and often spotted cab less chassis been driven about on test with men in goggles at the reins .Anyway back towards topic Pre turbo diesels like the Gardner sure did have some grunt real low down even with a Davey Broon box and splitter the low revving grunt was amazing in its day

Is that why they all pulled up main road hills this way at around 10mph while the modern Volvo and Scania typically pull heavier loads at 40mph up those same hills?
I think rose coloured spectacles are being worn when looking backwards through time.

 

[davieh3350]

I quite enjoyed throwing up the lever that put the two stroke Detroit motor on the silage chopper to full power

 

[Exfarmer]

Is that why they all pulled up main road hills this way at around 10mph while the modern Volvo and Scania typically pull heavier loads at 40mph up those same hills?
I think rose coloured spectacles are being worn when looking backwards through time.

just as modern family saloons can walk all over those classic sports cars

 

[Cowabunga]

just as modern family saloons can walk all over those classic sports cars

Indeed. I remember having my first 'performance' hatchback, a Golf GTi 1.8 new back in 1982. Wow did it go! 0-60mph in just 8.2 seconds. Need I say more? That's just average family hatch territory today and my recent Volvo XC90 diesel could beat it by nearly 2 seconds while having power-everything, 4wd, auto transmission and OVER twice the weight and yet beat the Golf's average fuel consumption of 30mpg by 10mpg. As a matter of interest [to me at any rate] the tank range of the Golf was barely 250miles whereas the Volvo's 15.5 gallon tank would allow me a safe 600 mile long distance run.
That's the reality of engineering progress.

 

[Clive]

Whilst we’ve got the engine boffs around- what makes some engines sound so good, and others not so? It’s not even to do with volume. What is mechanically different about a lumpy V8 (even a 100hp Rover V8) an 80’s V6 Alfa, a 90’s V10 F1 car, a group B Audi Quattro or even a 10 series John Deere that makes them so kind on the ear? Yet something that should sound extraordinary like a McLaren V8 just doesn’t do the same. So it’s not power related

crank angle and weight / size of crank, pistons and rods

F1 and other race engines (plus some exotic road cars) that “howl” are usually flat plane crank

lightweight also means higher max rpm which equals the scream of a F1 engine

v8 mac is turbocharged and nothing spoils engine sound like a turbo - its basicsly a dam great silencer

 

[Sharpy]

Is that why they all pulled up main road hills this way at around 10mph while the modern Volvo and Scania typically pull heavier loads at 40mph up those same hills?
I think rose coloured spectacles are being worn when looking backwards through time.

Possibly the fact the modern truck engines have 6 or 700hp and a much lower tare weight to shift ?

 

[Cowabunga]

Possibly the fact the modern truck engines have 6 or 700hp and a much lower tare weight to shift ?

Yes of course they have more power and torque and are far more efficient and have far cleaner exhausts. They are also quieter, which is another big advantage. The list goes on and on. They are just far superior engines fitted to far superior transmissions in far better trucks all round.
You can't get away from the fact that they are in a very different, superior league to those old Gardners.

 

[8100]

Uncle bill had a Commer 2 stroke tipper on the coal haulage. That was a interesting collection of cogs and tyres . We could hear that miles before he came into view.I recall a mate of my dads stopping one day in a Guy Big J which i understand were made by Jaguar !. They were supposed to be the weapon in the day or at least until the Volvo came to the party. Rose tinted glasses indeed here . I wont mention the Hell Drivers film

 

[Fendtbro]

Is that why they all pulled up main road hills this way at around 10mph while the modern Volvo and Scania typically pull heavier loads at 40mph up those same hills?
I think rose coloured spectacles are being worn when looking backwards through time.

8100 is referring to the impressive low down torque of the Gardner for it’s day.. he never said it was a rocket with 700hp. Some of the modern stuff is very poor for low down torque and stalls too easily. Then you have to spec auto transmission. Go and speak to our local haulier about Volvo auto’s, he’s now back on a manual Scania.

 

[Cowabunga]

8100 is referring to the impressive low down torque of the Gardner for it’s day.. he never said it was a rocket with 700hp. Some of the modern stuff is very poor for low down torque and stalls too easily. Then you have to spec auto transmission. Go and speak to our local haulier about Volvo auto’s, he’s now back on a manual Scania.

For its day it still only pulled up those hills at 10mph. It just might have been 1mph faster than rival engines of its day, I'll concede that much, although I'm not at all sure its true.
Some high revving engines from the 1970's, like Volvo's offering at the time, might have lacked start-off torque, but generally that hasn't been the case for decades now. Most engines pull maximum torque at around 1200 to 1400 rpm and the curve does not drop off a cliff below those revs.

 

[Fendtbro]

For its day it still only pulled up those hills at 10mph. It just might have been 1mph faster than rival engines of its day, I'll concede that much, although I'm not at all sure its true.
Some high revving engines from the 1970's, like Volvo's offering at the time, might have lacked start-off torque, but generally that hasn't been the case for decades now. Most engines pull maximum torque at around 1200 to 1400 rpm and the curve does not drop off a cliff below those revs.

Contractor ploughing with a Demo 6215r a couple of years ago Here had it stall dead on a steep bit, then it shot backwards not wanting to stop. He said it was weak at low revs compared to his other tractors. Some must be worse than others.

 

[Cowabunga]

Contractor ploughing with a Demo 6215r a couple of years ago Here had it stall dead on a steep bit, then it shot backwards not wanting to stop. He said it was weak at low revs compared to his other tractors. Some must be worse than others.

Some John Deere engines are far worse than others. Deere seem to have lost the plot when it comes to recent engines. Don't tar others with the same brush though, or even the whole range of JD models.

 

[dowcow]

Contractor ploughing with a Demo 6215r a couple of years ago Here had it stall dead on a steep bit, then it shot backwards not wanting to stop. He said it was weak at low revs compared to his other tractors. Some must be worse than others.

I like the sound my 5465 perkins strait-6 Massey makes when ploughing at 1200rpm. Meanwhile hearing Deeres ploughing it always seems a gruff rumbling noisy affair.

 

[2wheels]

8100 is referring to the impressive low down torque of the Gardner for it’s day.. he never said it was a rocket with 700hp. Some of the modern stuff is very poor for low down torque and stalls too easily. Then you have to spec auto transmission. Go and speak to our local haulier about Volvo auto’s, he’s now back on a manual Scania.

guy next to us has a recent scania 580 with auto box. he says the volvo's auto box is better but not the truck as a whole.