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 [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?   [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!   [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   [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.   [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.   [Reply]  [No Email]