- Thread starter T_Bone
- Start date
Evenly spaced crank throws and therefore reciprocating masses should have a better chance of smoothing out the vibrations simply than a 4 cylinder with extra complications such as counterbalances.
Whether 3 cylinders is smoother than 4, by virtue of more power strokes per unit time (with the 4 pot motor), might be debatable.
Now, get to 6 cylinders or 8 and the engines are really smooth and mostly vibration free, except for the rocking couples associated when the cylinders are arranged in V formations (for a shorter, stiffer crankshaft).
So 5 must be a good compromise...best of the bunch, perhaps.
Regards, RAB
Whether 3 cylinders is smoother than 4, by virtue of more power strokes per unit time (with the 4 pot motor), might be debatable.
Now, get to 6 cylinders or 8 and the engines are really smooth and mostly vibration free, except for the rocking couples associated when the cylinders are arranged in V formations (for a shorter, stiffer crankshaft).
So 5 must be a good compromise...best of the bunch, perhaps.
Regards, RAB
Honestly......do you think a major manufacturer...these days anyway.....is going to produce some POS that shakes itself and the operator to death? Furthermore.......why should it be expected to get worse with time?
What is this paranoia concerning odd cylinder counts? Are you aware that radial aircraft engines...dating from early 20th century....as in 100 years ago to the present....have odd number of cylinders...5,7,9 being common configurations. If you wanted an 18 cylinder, they sandwiched two banks of them together.
Also...for the cubic inches displaced....the fewer cylinders...the higher the torque impulses. That is why a 3 cylinder of 200 cubes makes more torque than a similar 4 cylinder.....the pistons are larger.....there are fewer power impulses per revolution....but they are larger/more powerful. That is one reason why the big 6 cylinder truck engines generally out lug a V8. On the open highway....the V8 wins the race.
Don"t be afraid of a 3 cylinder engine.
What is this paranoia concerning odd cylinder counts? Are you aware that radial aircraft engines...dating from early 20th century....as in 100 years ago to the present....have odd number of cylinders...5,7,9 being common configurations. If you wanted an 18 cylinder, they sandwiched two banks of them together.
Also...for the cubic inches displaced....the fewer cylinders...the higher the torque impulses. That is why a 3 cylinder of 200 cubes makes more torque than a similar 4 cylinder.....the pistons are larger.....there are fewer power impulses per revolution....but they are larger/more powerful. That is one reason why the big 6 cylinder truck engines generally out lug a V8. On the open highway....the V8 wins the race.
Don"t be afraid of a 3 cylinder engine.
Dad has a JD 750 that is a 3 cyl. rated at 18hp but makes more like 24-25hp. It has always ran very smooth and quiet. I tried out some of the newer tractors and wasn"t as impressed with them. Some have fast idles they just seemed noiser then the 750. The new ones are less CI and run faster so I think that is alot of the problem. You will just have to go try some out and see how you like them. I am partial to JD but Kubota is likely what I"d buy today or the more expensive New Holland compacts as they look like they have heavier built cast iron housings. Many of the small compacts have alum.
How did your auto search go ?
How did your auto search go ?
Casey in Ky
Member
Ford/New holland has used 3cyl in there 3xxx/4xxx series tractors for years(only exception is 4830, it has a 4cyl, and they only made them for a few years) and most will agree, engine wise they are pretty good tractors. Pretty much bullet proof and strong for there size. I've ran both 3cyl and 4cyl Fords and never really notice any difference in them. I've got no issues with a 3cyl engine.
farmer boy
Well-known Member
4 cylinder engines are usually smoother than a 3 cylinder but like mentioned the 3 cylinder will usually have more torque for the same displacement engine. 5 cylinder engines are smooth as can be and usually pretty zippy compared to a 3 cylinder. If you put our Kubota 6030 beside a Kubota 6800 there is no doubt that the 6800 is quieter but the 6030 has an obvious torque advantage compared to the 6800 which is only 6 cu in bigger. it also helps that the rated rpm on the 6030 is 200 rpm lower than the 6800
Hey Mike,
Well the steelers are not ready to give any of them away, just yet that is. Maybe a couple months they will be more willing to deal. The car was to help our grandson out.
Kubota is over priced in there 50hp class when compared too JD or Case. In fact from my first look at the spec's, it's going to be hard to beat a new 50hp JD.
T_Bone
Well the steelers are not ready to give any of them away, just yet that is. Maybe a couple months they will be more willing to deal. The car was to help our grandson out.
Kubota is over priced in there 50hp class when compared too JD or Case. In fact from my first look at the spec's, it's going to be hard to beat a new 50hp JD.
T_Bone
buickddeere
Member
It's much worry about nothing about rpms, number of cylinders or who the manufacture is.
It's all about design, quality of materials, precession manufacture/assembly and operator service.
Every manufacture and had an occasional dud leave the factory in any model.
Rare now for a brand name manufacture to build a line of engines with chronic problems.
And if the line of engines have chronic problems. It doesn't matter if it has 1 or 16 cylinders. Or if it runs at 600 or 3600rpm.
A 3 cylinder isn't "better or worse" than a 2,4,5 or 6 cylinder.
It's all about design, quality of materials, precession manufacture/assembly and operator service.
Every manufacture and had an occasional dud leave the factory in any model.
Rare now for a brand name manufacture to build a line of engines with chronic problems.
And if the line of engines have chronic problems. It doesn't matter if it has 1 or 16 cylinders. Or if it runs at 600 or 3600rpm.
A 3 cylinder isn't "better or worse" than a 2,4,5 or 6 cylinder.
Hi B&D,
Well normally I would agree with you but I remember Fords big blunder in the 99 to 2000 7.3, disc brakes, clutch, electronics and the 03 6.0 injector problems.
Sure when I bought my 02 F350 PSD, I had a couple minor issues, fuel sensor, clutch master leaking( first 1000 miles) and PS pump leaking at 20k miles.
Although relative minor for the number produced, sures a PITA to load up a tractor and haul it 150 miles RT to get these minor problems corrected that I feel should have been taken care of long before the unit left the mfg.
Since I'm not into buying new equipment very often, I figure it don't hurt to ask a few questions before I buy.
T_Bone
Well normally I would agree with you but I remember Fords big blunder in the 99 to 2000 7.3, disc brakes, clutch, electronics and the 03 6.0 injector problems.
Sure when I bought my 02 F350 PSD, I had a couple minor issues, fuel sensor, clutch master leaking( first 1000 miles) and PS pump leaking at 20k miles.
Although relative minor for the number produced, sures a PITA to load up a tractor and haul it 150 miles RT to get these minor problems corrected that I feel should have been taken care of long before the unit left the mfg.
Since I'm not into buying new equipment very often, I figure it don't hurt to ask a few questions before I buy.
T_Bone
Hi B&D,
Well normally I would agree with you but I remember Fords big blunder in the 99 to 2000 7.3, disc brakes, clutch, electronics and the 03 6.0 injector problems.
Sure when I bought my 02 F350 PSD, I had a couple minor issues, fuel sensor, clutch master leaking( first 1000 miles) and PS pump leaking at 20k miles.
Although relative minor for the number produced, sures a PITA to load up a tractor and haul it 150 miles RT to get these minor problems corrected that I feel should have been taken care of long before the unit left the mfg.
Since I'm not into buying new equipment very often, I figure it don't hurt to ask a few questions before I buy.
T_Bone
Well normally I would agree with you but I remember Fords big blunder in the 99 to 2000 7.3, disc brakes, clutch, electronics and the 03 6.0 injector problems.
Sure when I bought my 02 F350 PSD, I had a couple minor issues, fuel sensor, clutch master leaking( first 1000 miles) and PS pump leaking at 20k miles.
Although relative minor for the number produced, sures a PITA to load up a tractor and haul it 150 miles RT to get these minor problems corrected that I feel should have been taken care of long before the unit left the mfg.
Since I'm not into buying new equipment very often, I figure it don't hurt to ask a few questions before I buy.
T_Bone
You can read engineering specs in regard to harmonics, balancing, ad nauseum, but generally speaking - three and fives are easier to balance and naturually smoother. Four cylinder engines are not - and just about always have a vibration problem when they get over a certain cubic inch size unless alternative/extra balancers are used. That's why Deere fours use twin balancing shafts (1020, 2020, 450 crawlers, etc.) or Deere big fours e.g. 3020 and 500 industrial use a balancing box added to the bottom of the engine. Deere threes and sixes don't need the extra balancing. Even with cars and smaller fours, many have used balancing shafts. Rememer Chrysler's "Silent Shaft Arrow?"
Threes and fives have been around for a long time - but from what I've read, not always very marketable in cars because they don't sound appealing in sales literature. Deere used the Perkins three cylinder diesel for years in Europe, and then finally built their own.
I'll add that for a few years, Deere tried to cheapen their smaller fours by leaving the two balancing shafts out - first doing it in the 210C backhoe/loader. They vibrated so bad the mufflers cracked.
Threes and fives have been around for a long time - but from what I've read, not always very marketable in cars because they don't sound appealing in sales literature. Deere used the Perkins three cylinder diesel for years in Europe, and then finally built their own.
I'll add that for a few years, Deere tried to cheapen their smaller fours by leaving the two balancing shafts out - first doing it in the 210C backhoe/loader. They vibrated so bad the mufflers cracked.
buickddeere
Member
Sorry I wasn't as clear explaining myself as I should have been.
I was trying to say that yes, a line of engines may have problems due to a fundamental design flaw or production problem. As in your ford of GM infamous Durmax leaking fuel injectors or Old's diesels.
The basic premise of the engine being better because of having 3,4,5 or 6 cylinders. And choosing primary on that account. That's the minor issue.
I'll admit a liking for 376 and 471 two cylinder diesels and 1200cc twin motor cycles.
I was trying to say that yes, a line of engines may have problems due to a fundamental design flaw or production problem. As in your ford of GM infamous Durmax leaking fuel injectors or Old's diesels.
The basic premise of the engine being better because of having 3,4,5 or 6 cylinders. And choosing primary on that account. That's the minor issue.
I'll admit a liking for 376 and 471 two cylinder diesels and 1200cc twin motor cycles.
I was always under the impression that 3 cylinders were easier to balance as well. Ford never used balancers of any kind on their 3 cylinders but they did use lancaster balancers on the 4 cylinders.
None of them vibrated too bad, or I don't find that they do.
Don't think it should be an issue if it's put together right.
Rod
None of them vibrated too bad, or I don't find that they do.
Don't think it should be an issue if it's put together right.
Rod
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
One of the most popular small diesels ever (in terms of numbers produced) was/is the Perkins AD3-152 3-cylinder (and it's spin-off, the AG3-152 gasser) They've proven to be stone reliable, thrifty with fuel, and make a fair amount of power for such a small engine. Massey Ferguson, Allis Chalmers, and a host of others made good use of this engine design. They don't have any more inherant vibration than any other small diesel.
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