- Thread starter SDE
- Start date
Janicholson
Well-known Member
It might just do that while covering 20% more ground! JimN
Hugh MacKay
Well-known Member
SDE: I don't know about that, 856 is quite a big engine alongside a 400. The 856 will probably pull twice the size disk on 4 gallons of fuel per hour.
My experience, and I'm quite surprised your getting by on that 400 and only 3 gph. My 300 burnt 3 gph on a 9' haybine. My 560D and 656D did the same job 25% faster on 1 gph. The 300 constantly broke shear bolts on the haybine. The same haybine and 560 and 656 never broke a shear bolt. Why, because diesel power is much steadier power.
These big gassers were toast 40 years ago. We don't have them in Canada, at least not many. Due to our tax system, we always paid 25% more for fuel than Americans, using a common dollar. I've only seen one IH 6 cylinder gasser in my life, and that guy never did anything but look at it.
My experience, and I'm quite surprised your getting by on that 400 and only 3 gph. My 300 burnt 3 gph on a 9' haybine. My 560D and 656D did the same job 25% faster on 1 gph. The 300 constantly broke shear bolts on the haybine. The same haybine and 560 and 656 never broke a shear bolt. Why, because diesel power is much steadier power.
These big gassers were toast 40 years ago. We don't have them in Canada, at least not many. Due to our tax system, we always paid 25% more for fuel than Americans, using a common dollar. I've only seen one IH 6 cylinder gasser in my life, and that guy never did anything but look at it.
Larry B 1486
Member
I guess you are pulling not more than a 10ft disc with your 400. I would guess because I have a 856 diesel and two 806 diesels that if you hook the same disc you are pulling with your 400 that a good 856 would not use over 2 to 2 1/2 gal. per hr. I use to pull a 13 ft disc with mine most of the time in low 4 and it used around 3 gal. per hr.
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
Diesel power is not "steadier power'. If your experience is true, and I'm not saying it is not, it is because the six fires once every 120 degrees as opposed to the four cylinders 180. The more power impulses you cram into a revolution the smoother the output.
I think Hugh is onto something. On the square baler: with a gasser you can hear in the exhuast the engine speed up when plunger is on compression stroke, the diesel you can hear no difference in engine speed or exhaust sound. (I've observed this on multiple tractors on our farm)
I think it has to do with the governor. The gassers performs beautifully in tillage work and steady load situations, so they are mechanically sound.
karl f
I think it has to do with the governor. The gassers performs beautifully in tillage work and steady load situations, so they are mechanically sound.
karl f
Hugh MacKay
Well-known Member
The results would be no different with a 4 cylinder diesel. Before I bought my 6 cylinder diesels, I had neighbors useing B-275, B-414, MF 35 and 135 how much steadier they were on PTO than my 300. And they were right.
Hugh MacKay
Well-known Member
Karl: The day of the 30+ horsepower gasser was over in 1957. IH as did most other companies believed that. Europe switched to diesel right after WW#2.
In 1958, IH and most other north American companies believed North American farmers were ready to switch to diesel. Not much money went into R&D on gas tractor engines after the 350-450 series. For the most part IH were using modified truck engines. Even the 4 cylinder engines were 4 cylinders of the old 264 truck engine. Cost of operation was the biggest factor, diesel power was doing the job at roughly 1/3 to 1/2 the cost on fuel. The pre 1958 IH gassers did a decent job on power, but they couldn't match the same size diesel.
Gassers produced after 58 were a disaster. The only 6 cylinder gasser I ever saw was a 460 a neighbor had. The roar that thing made would make you think it could haul the city of New York to the west coast. Yet you put it in the field it had difficulty keeping up with a 4 cylinder 300. About the only thing it did more of, was burn more fuel.
In 1958, IH and most other north American companies believed North American farmers were ready to switch to diesel. Not much money went into R&D on gas tractor engines after the 350-450 series. For the most part IH were using modified truck engines. Even the 4 cylinder engines were 4 cylinders of the old 264 truck engine. Cost of operation was the biggest factor, diesel power was doing the job at roughly 1/3 to 1/2 the cost on fuel. The pre 1958 IH gassers did a decent job on power, but they couldn't match the same size diesel.
Gassers produced after 58 were a disaster. The only 6 cylinder gasser I ever saw was a 460 a neighbor had. The roar that thing made would make you think it could haul the city of New York to the west coast. Yet you put it in the field it had difficulty keeping up with a 4 cylinder 300. About the only thing it did more of, was burn more fuel.
IH sold an awful lot of big gassers down here in the States up until the early 1970's. At least where I grew up, anything smaller than an 806 was almost exclusively gasoline-powered. My grandfather owned two 806 gas tractors at one point. It wasn't until the 856 that diesel really started to make inroads, but even then more 656 and 756 gassers were sold than diesels. Heck, there were even a few 766 gassers around for a while.
It could have been the need to have powerful tractors that would start reliably in the cold weather on dairy farms, that's what kept the big gasser in production for so long.
Gasoline may have been dead technology by 1958, but it still sold well and made money for IH.
It could have been the need to have powerful tractors that would start reliably in the cold weather on dairy farms, that's what kept the big gasser in production for so long.
Gasoline may have been dead technology by 1958, but it still sold well and made money for IH.
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
Can you back up your belief with anything? Is there some magic break over point, is a 2 cyl. Diesel smoother than a 3,4,6 or 8 cyl. gas? This should be an easy one for you, tell me why a single cyl Diesel runs smoother than a single cyl gas.
Hugh MacKay
Well-known Member
Unforgiven: Yes, 125,000 tractor hours on my farm with both gas and diesel. I might add, before I bought the 560 diesel I had tried a 4 cylinder 52 hp David Brown one both the haybine and baler, and the results were the same much fewer broken shear bolts on the baler and none on the haybine.
Now, I didn't buy the David Brown, because I could see I needed 60+ horsepower for tillage and forage harvester work. My surprise was the 560 doing 25% more work per hour on haybine using 1/3 as much fuel as the 300.
Take your nonsense somewhere else.
Now, I didn't buy the David Brown, because I could see I needed 60+ horsepower for tillage and forage harvester work. My surprise was the 560 doing 25% more work per hour on haybine using 1/3 as much fuel as the 300.
Take your nonsense somewhere else.
Janicholson
Well-known Member
Nutshell from Jim (hypothesis) A diesel will have a substantially larger flywheel and rotating (moving inertial mass) than a gasser. It will also have a more direct reaction to governor response and speed control. A gasser will drop 5 to 10% in engine speed to get to its sweet spot in the torque curve, whereas a diesel may not be pulled down 2%. The above makes for less speed drop, more continuity in RPM, and less direct piston pulse related change in the power delivery.
An impact wrench will twist off bolts that a torque wrench will not. (assumes the averaged torque is equal) One is steady, the other is pulsed higher and lower than the average. JimN
An impact wrench will twist off bolts that a torque wrench will not. (assumes the averaged torque is equal) One is steady, the other is pulsed higher and lower than the average. JimN
Hugh MacKay
Well-known Member
MKirsch: Gassers may have made money for IH, I doubt it, they were headed down the tube before 1958. I don't give a damn what Barbara March or others wrote.
The question at hand here, did those gassers make money for farmers. I think not, most couldn't afford to use them. All one need do is look around, exceptionally high numbers of those gassers around with less than 3,000 hours on the clock. Didn't take that many big tractors to feed the cows and plow snow all winter. Hell, I had 125 cows, 75 replacements, never started a tractor over 40 hp all winter.
Well, I did run the Deere forestry skidder in my 500 acre woodlot, but that had nothing to do with dairy cows. It did start all winter, miles from any electricity, and probably a bit colder than Upstate NY.
The question at hand here, did those gassers make money for farmers. I think not, most couldn't afford to use them. All one need do is look around, exceptionally high numbers of those gassers around with less than 3,000 hours on the clock. Didn't take that many big tractors to feed the cows and plow snow all winter. Hell, I had 125 cows, 75 replacements, never started a tractor over 40 hp all winter.
Well, I did run the Deere forestry skidder in my 500 acre woodlot, but that had nothing to do with dairy cows. It did start all winter, miles from any electricity, and probably a bit colder than Upstate NY.
Hugh MacKay
Well-known Member
Jim: EXACTLY, well said. Your description is exactly what my 300 was famous for, drag down maybe 100-200 rpm, then the governors would hit with a vengence. It had the wallop for the size tractor it was, but it was not steady.
I never did much belt work in my time, but was at a threshing bee few years back. Tractors those old timers were discussing for threshing were Farmalls 300, and M. Their accessment, while the 300 could give an M a run on power running thresher, it's governors jumped the belt more frequently.
I never did much belt work in my time, but was at a threshing bee few years back. Tractors those old timers were discussing for threshing were Farmalls 300, and M. Their accessment, while the 300 could give an M a run on power running thresher, it's governors jumped the belt more frequently.
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
I will take my "nonsense" somewhere else, sounds like you already have plenty.
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
Can't dispute anything you said, you understand engine design.
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
Hey Hugh, sorry I mouthed off to you, I was just trying to get you to substantiate what you were saying, because there are some mathematical rules that are hard to get around once you start talking 6 vs. 4. Ask your old-time belt power buddies about, say, a 720 vs. a W-9, or a WD-9 for that matter.
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
Sorry, after thinking about it I'm not presenting my point very well. A 560D will run smoother than a 300 gas, but a 560 gas will too.
Hugh MacKay
Well-known Member
Unforgiven: Ah ha, that one they allready discussed, gas or diesel those old 2 cylinder Deere's were rough on the belt compared to W9 or WD9.
At that same show was a IH steel thresher, apparently the largest IH ever made. The guy had a WD9 that wasn't working just right so they belted up a R diesel. The last time this thresher had been used commercially was 1967 and the owner had it belted up to a 656 diesel with a PTO belt pulley. He put the 4 best men he could find on two wagons pitching sheeves in. They couldn't stump the 656. On the day of this particular show and the R diesel on the belt, I tried my damndest to get a another guy with a Cockshutt 30 to shut down so we could pull his wagon up on other side of the big IH thresher. They weren't about to let it happen, blocked me at every move.
At that same show was a IH steel thresher, apparently the largest IH ever made. The guy had a WD9 that wasn't working just right so they belted up a R diesel. The last time this thresher had been used commercially was 1967 and the owner had it belted up to a 656 diesel with a PTO belt pulley. He put the 4 best men he could find on two wagons pitching sheeves in. They couldn't stump the 656. On the day of this particular show and the R diesel on the belt, I tried my damndest to get a another guy with a Cockshutt 30 to shut down so we could pull his wagon up on other side of the big IH thresher. They weren't about to let it happen, blocked me at every move.
Things must have been different north of the border, because by the time I left the farm for the service in 1961, there were almost no diesel farm tractors of any size to be found in our area. I only know of one 560D, most 460 and 560s, which were in production at that time, were still gas. One of my uncles had a 560 gas when I was home on vacation a few years later (I got to run a baler with it) and Dad had a 460 gas from the mid-'70s until he passed on in '84. Mom kept it until she left the farm about 10 years later, when she gave it to one of my nephews who still has "Grandpa's tractor". I can't say about the "smoothness", but what has been said about rotating mass, governor response, etc. makes sense, but for sheer numbers, I'd bet there were way more gasers built than diesels through the 460/560 series. Even the 4 and 6 cyl. John Deeres were mostly gas in our area the first few years. After that, probably diesels outnumbered gas above 50-60HP in all brands.
added: Also, the R JD was a gutless wonder compared to the later 820/830.
added: Also, the R JD was a gutless wonder compared to the later 820/830.
Hugh MacKay
Well-known Member
IH Fan: Here in Canada diesel were out numbering gas by 4-1 in the over 30 hp class by 1960. Fuel cost was the major reason, about 30% higher than in the US,using a common dollar. Tax was and still is the culpert.
Another reason was the influx of British diesels like the B-250, B-275 and B-414. there were still duties between Canada and US at that time, however not within the British Empire. We could buy one of those 35hp British diesels, (B-275 and B-414) with live PTO for less money than a 130, 230, 140 or 240. They would bale hay with a 300 anyday of the week. Once we got started using those diesels in the late 50s, there was no turning back. When we wanted more hp in the 60s it was diesel, no questions asked. Most other makes were doing the same, supplying the Canadian market with European tractors. Europeans had been heavy on diesel since the war.
By the mid 60s the duty was gone. We had been exposed to diesel long enough that any larger tractors had to be diesel. While the Europeans did a good job on 35Hp diesels, the big ones were cumbersom, platforms cluttered. It's one thing to sit with your legs down each side of a B-275 transmission, not quite so funny when it's 75 hp, and the heat fried everything from your toes to testicles. Believe me, we soon wanted our Farmalls back but we wanted diesel.
Another reason was the influx of British diesels like the B-250, B-275 and B-414. there were still duties between Canada and US at that time, however not within the British Empire. We could buy one of those 35hp British diesels, (B-275 and B-414) with live PTO for less money than a 130, 230, 140 or 240. They would bale hay with a 300 anyday of the week. Once we got started using those diesels in the late 50s, there was no turning back. When we wanted more hp in the 60s it was diesel, no questions asked. Most other makes were doing the same, supplying the Canadian market with European tractors. Europeans had been heavy on diesel since the war.
By the mid 60s the duty was gone. We had been exposed to diesel long enough that any larger tractors had to be diesel. While the Europeans did a good job on 35Hp diesels, the big ones were cumbersom, platforms cluttered. It's one thing to sit with your legs down each side of a B-275 transmission, not quite so funny when it's 75 hp, and the heat fried everything from your toes to testicles. Believe me, we soon wanted our Farmalls back but we wanted diesel.
I can understand the differences in the US and Canadian situation then. Another thing I had always heard, and it may not have been true, was that the IH diesels of the day, MD on at least through the 350/450 series, were not as strong as their gas counterparts. Only real experience I had with any of the older IH Ds was with a 350D that was on the ranch I worked on while stationed in the Air Force in Wyoming. Only work I remember doing with it was with a loader and Farmhand bale handler that picked up 8 bales dropped by an accumulator. We had 400 acres of irrigated alfalfa on the ranch and it seemed like we baled hay almost every day in the summer. They also had a 450 gas that we used for the tillage work, pulled the IH baler and an IH chopper for filling the trench silo with corn. Don't remember ever doing any hard work with the 350D, but that was 1964... 45 years ago. Don't know what is left of the ranch as I-90 goes right through the middle of it now. I do remember the 350D was easy on fuel though.
IH Fan, all the specs I've read on the gas-start-diesels were just as you say. The diesels didn't have as much PEAK horsepower as their gas counterparts.
I don't know about torque, though. Would an MD out-lug an M, all other things being equal?
Maybe this has been mentioned before but with regards to diesels being smoother than gas, that should have a lot to do with how the fuel explodes too. Gasoline is a quick "BANG" in the cylinder at top dead center, giving the piston a quick punch downward. Diesel is a relatively slow "WOOSH" and keeps burning, expanding, and pushing the piston over a much longer distance.
I don't know about torque, though. Would an MD out-lug an M, all other things being equal?
Maybe this has been mentioned before but with regards to diesels being smoother than gas, that should have a lot to do with how the fuel explodes too. Gasoline is a quick "BANG" in the cylinder at top dead center, giving the piston a quick punch downward. Diesel is a relatively slow "WOOSH" and keeps burning, expanding, and pushing the piston over a much longer distance.
Similar threads
We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.
Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.
All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.
Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy