Yesterday's Tractor Co. New Parts for Old Tractors
Click Here or call 800-853-2651 
   Allis Chalmers Case Farmall IH Ford 8N,9N,2N Ford
   Ferguson John Deere Massey Ferguson Minn. Moline Oliver
 
Marketplace
Tractor Manuals
Tractor Parts
Classified Ads
Photo Ads

Community
Discussion Forums
Project Journals
Tractor Town
Your Stories
Show & Pull Guide
Events Calendar
Hauling Schedule

Galleries
Tractor Photos
Implement Photos
Vintage Photos
Help Identify
Parts & Pieces
Stuck & Troubled
Vintage Ads
Community Album
Photo Ad Archives

Research & Info
Articles
Tractor Registry
Tip of the Day
Safety Cartoons
Tractor Values
Serial Numbers
Tune-Up Guide
Paint Codes
List Prices
Production Nbrs
Tune-Up Specs
Torque Values
3-Point Specs
Glossary

Miscellaneous
Tractor Games
Just For Kids
Virtual Show
Museum Guide
Memorial Page
Feedback Form

Yesterday's Tractors Facebook Page

Related Sites
Tractor Shed
TractorLinks.com
Ford 8N/9N Club
Today's Tractors
Garden Tractors
Classic Trucks
Kountry Life
Enter your email address to receive our newsletter!

subscribe
unsubscribe
  
Oliver, Cletrac, Co-op & Cockshutt Tractors Discussion Forum
Show Parts for Model:

Re: 5.9 vs herc. engines

[Show Entire Topic]  

Welcome Guest, Log in or Register
Author  [Modern View]
Neil Grant

01-21-2013 16:58:32
64.228.200.40



Report to Moderator

I have the most respect for the Hercules engines, but I always thought cummins 359 had pretty good torque rise. I have spent some time out field in 1984 and 5 with the early ones with a couple of 9320 White prototype combines. I just compiled an excell sheet of some Nebraska test numbers of the lugability and varing drawbar power numbers. This should correlate reasonably well with the torque rise of the engine give or take a little. Wow. The 478 in the 2-155 is quite incredible. Best curve, with the IH 1086 second and the JD 4540 third. The white 140 is dead last and even goes negative at the lower rpm"s - meaning it will not pull as much as the rpm drops as it would at full rpms. Quite surprising.
Regards
Neil

[Log in to Reply]   [No Email]
just thinkin

01-23-2013 05:25:20
74.34.64.183



Report to Moderator
 Re: 5.9 vs herc. engines in reply to Neil Grant, 01-21-2013 16:58:32  
Thanks for the eye opening chart. What would an 1175 or 1370 Case look like on your chart?



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
olliekid

01-22-2013 19:31:32
199.18.32.183



Report to Moderator
 Re: 5.9 vs herc. engines in reply to Neil Grant, 01-21-2013 16:58:32  
really neat spreadsheet. Never knew the 5.9 was such a dog with no torque without the turbo. Thanks for taking the time to do those. And man the hercules has some torque!



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Neil Grant

01-23-2013 09:01:35
64.228.200.40



Report to Moderator
 Re: 5.9 vs herc. engines in reply to olliekid, 01-22-2013 19:31:32  
Actually the 140 was turbocharged and after cooled. If I get some time tonight I will add the 1370 case for fun.

Neil



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
kkiowa

01-21-2013 18:52:08
208.81.195.219



Report to Moderator
 Re: 5.9 vs herc. engines in reply to Neil Grant, 01-21-2013 16:58:32  
When the 100 series Whites came out, alot of guys complained about how doggy they were . Turn on the end , drop the chisel and hit the throttle and----- nothing. No smoke , no torque, unhappy customer. We were directed at the time to adjust the aneroid on the pump and that resulted in much better response. In those days, if you wanted fuel economy, you wanted the new Whites with the Cummins. If you wanted power and torque and didn't mind burning fuel, the herc was hard to beat. I remember the ads that came out at the time of the 2-155's said that they had the highest torque rise of any tractor in their power class.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Neil Grant

01-22-2013 17:42:34
64.228.200.40



Report to Moderator
 Re: 5.9 vs herc. engines in reply to kkiowa, 01-21-2013 18:52:08  

Yes, I can remember the ad also quoting the engineer from Nebraska talking about the 2-155 test about how the drawbar hp went up as the rpm decreased from lugging. I just added a little more info about fuel efficiency vs hp looking at the 2-155, 2-150 and 140. The 140 is quite fuel efficient at varying loads. The 2-155 is about the same as the 2-150, but the torque rise is not even comparable for either one to the 2-155.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
[Show Entire Topic]     [Options]  [Printer Friendly]  [Posting Help]  [Return to Forum]   [Log in to Reply]

Hop to:

TRACTOR   PARTS TRACTOR   MANUALS
Same-Day Shipping! Most of our stocked parts ship the same day you order (M-F).  Expedited shipping available, just call!  Most prices for parts and manuals are below our competitors.  Compare our super low shipping rates!  We have the parts you need to repair your tractor.  We are a Company you can trust and have generous return policies!   Shop Online Today or call our friendly sales staff toll free (800) 853-2651. [ More Info ]

Home  |  Forums


Copyright © 1997-2014 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