Turbo or not

Texasmark1

Well-known Member
For altitudes below 1000', why would a person opt for a lower cu. in. turbo charged engine rather than a larger cubic inch naturally aspired engine....133 cu in, 43 hp vs 127 TC 52 hp when trying to decide on which engine and preferring the higher hp?

Does a turbo over nat. asp. cause the engine bearings (bottoms) to wear faster?

Got a neighbor looking at green with a Yanmar and just curious.

Thanks,
Mark
 

I prefer turbo charged engines because of better fuel economy. I think turbocharger has little to no affect on crankshaft brg wear. I think crankshaft brg wear is determined more by oil/filter change interval than turbo vs NA type engine.
 
We had two tractors of the same color. One had a NA 6 cyl. The other had a turbocharged 4 cyl. version of the same engine. The 4 cyl. one had more power, and burned less fuel than the 6 cyl.

I think the only reason I might want a NA engine would be a lower speed, maybe stop and start, power not an issue application. My backhoe comes to mind.
 
If the engine was factory designed for a turbo than I'd expect it to have good life with regular maintenance. Problems arise when adding one to something not designed to handle it.
Now a new thing is happening I just heard a little about. The EPA with all the new crazy regulations. There is a split around the 100HP mark I think ? where now companies are designing smaller engines souped up to put out more power but can slide under having to have all that regen stuff added. It might also involve making them put out more torque at lower RPM's ? Like I said I heard very little about this. But an engine somehow rated at 74 hp is able to perform better than the ones that were 100hp.
 
Hello Texasmark1,

Turbocharged engine hands down, no difference on engine wear,

Guido.
 
(quoted from post at 05:07:58 09/29/16) For altitudes below 1000', why would a person opt for a lower cu. in. turbo charged engine rather than a larger cubic inch naturally aspired engine....133 cu in, 43 hp vs 127 TC 52 hp when trying to decide on which engine and preferring the higher hp?

Does a turbo over nat. asp. cause the engine bearings (bottoms) to wear faster?...."

Typically a turbo charged engine will make more HP, at a lower RPM, using less fuel, than a similar size NA engine. For an engine designed for a turbo, bearing wear would not be a concern. If you want HP and a nice power curve go with the turbo.

The difference in displacement is 4.5 % (reduction) which is nothing. The turbo more than makes up for this using waste heat fom the exhaust to increase the air density in the inlet manifold, note the 21% (increase) in HP.

If HP is the objective then a turbo is the path to it.
 
As long as you change the engine oil regularly, and let the tractor sit idle for a few of minutes after using it hard so it can cool off a turbo will last along time. What usually hurts a turbo the most is when the engine shuts off when its spooled up making boost (turbo's run around a 100,000+ rpms).
 
Nothing lasts forever! I've had several turbocharged engines over the years, and have only replaced one. I don't recall it being that expensive. That was on a fast running combine engine, which ventilated the block when a rod let go. (Lubrication was not an issue) We discovered the engine was not original, and the turbo was not the correct one. We didn't like the slop in the bushing, so replaced it.
 
The smaller displacement turbo engine will most likely provide better economy at all load ranges.
 
Hello Gary Mitchell,

They usually outlast the engine. We have one in the family on a 2.3 or 2.4 liter 5 cylinder Volvo. About 150.000 miles. So far so good. It also helps having proper oil and maintenance,

Guido.
 
(quoted from post at 07:16:23 09/29/16)
I prefer turbo charged engines because of better fuel economy. I think turbocharger has little to no affect on crankshaft brg wear. I think crankshaft brg wear is determined more by oil/filter change interval than turbo vs NA type engine.

BMEP goes up with forced induction leading to higher bearing forces. Can be compensated with bearing design through wider bearings and larger journals (to a degree). If surface speeds on bearings get too high you have lots excessive oil shearing and lose your film strength.
 
Hello Bob Bancroft,

The only time I recall replacing turbochargers at work was at major ovehaul time. Cummins, IH, Mack, Detroit, Caterpillar. They are like bearings, either last one day or the life of the engine,

Guido.
 
(quoted from post at 08:07:58 09/29/16) For altitudes below 1000', why would a person opt for a lower cu. in. turbo charged engine rather than a larger cubic inch naturally aspired engine....133 cu in, 43 hp vs 127 TC 52 hp when trying to decide on which engine and preferring the higher hp?

Does a turbo over nat. asp. cause the engine bearings (bottoms) to wear faster?

Got a neighbor looking at green with a Yanmar and just curious.

Thanks,
Mark

Higher part load thermal efficiency
 

What ruins turbos is when Bubba gives the throttle a couple of snorts just prior to shutdown. Or as previously stated an engine is shutdown from high load without any cool down.
 
The 4440 is about to roll 10,000 on its original engine and turbo. Come to think of it, they didn't put a turbo in the 8430 when they did the engine. It's at 11,000 hours.
 
Hello notjustair,

Lots of the turbos I charged could have gone many more miles. Company policy said change at hoverhaul. On the Detroit's diesel series 92 the roots blower got changed too!

Guido.
 
Again, thanks for your time.

Only one I had was on a 800 cu in, 400 hp Big Cam Cummins (11 gallons of engine oil for a change as I recall....bought 15-40 Rot T by the 55 gallon drum), in an International cab over rock bucket I played around with for a couple of years after I retired from industry......second or third childhood. Played with dump trucks in the sand piles when a tot....couldn't get it out of my system. Grin. Got a squeal in the engine one day, a million mile truck with one major, don't know if the turbo was replaced or not but I thought it was the problem since nothing in the engine was going fast enough to produce a squeal like that.

After $700 for the turbo and all day lost waiting for it at the truck stop, the problem turned out to be a small hole in the interface plumbing to the engine. I'm thinking I had a 300 rpm power band around 1200-1500 rpm. Had a 15 speed hi-lo. Going into it I thought I was going to have to clutch for all those gears every time I stopped (in town). Not so. Soon as she got rolling no more clutch......just set the shifter in the correct position for the gear desired, a little up lift on the stick with a couple of fingers, let off the rpms till the gears were in sync and click, shifting done. Smooth as silk.

Back then Diesel was running a buck a gallon and I used 100 per day. One day diesel went up 10 cents a gallon and I took it real hard. Felt that the oil company just stuck their hand in my pocket and helped themselves to 10 dollars of mine........I'd probably had a heart attack had I still been trucking when fuel peaked awhile back.
 
Hello Texasmark1,

Many a turbos were replaced for just what you described. A hole rubbed on the output side before or after the air to air aftercooler, some times sipmly a loose or broken clamp. A small hole in the after cooler also would make that sound,

Guido.
 
I had the International cab over with the behind the seat single bunk (made for a super nap after lunch, on a hot summer's day, AC blasting, truck idling and rocking you to sleep.....mmmmm good) so there was a little room in the cab.

I got a mechanic at the International dealership to take a ride with me, after I described the problem and nobody had a surenuf positive answer. So down the road we went, me exercising the engine and him listening. I didn't have a clue other than the turbo nor did he initially. But after the dust settled, the next time he had a problem like that he would surely be more prepared to nail the smoking gun.
 
Hello Texasmark,


Who said: life is the best teacher? No substitude fir experience....

Guido.
 

A smaller engine with turbo doesn't have the low rpm grunt a larger na engine has but once the rpm's come up enough for the turbo to make boost the smaller turbo engine will perform just as good.
Not sure if was the cooling system design flaw or engine performance issue but when the 4 cyl turboed JD 6400 replaced the 6 cyl na JD 2955 any owners in my area complained about over heating problems when under heavy loads. Many where claiming the 4.5 turbo didn't have the torque of the 5.9 six cylinder.

The last semi I owned (92 Pete 379 exhd) had the turbo replaced on the series 60 Detroit during it's first overhaul at 1.2 million miles.
Some of the loaders at a local mill have nearly 20k hours on original engines and turbos.

I upgraded the turbo in my pickup a couple years ago, this year the head gasket started seeping causing oil contamination which wiped out the turbo bearings in short order.

Oil changes and oil condition are the life of a turbo.

Seems like the smaller a turbo is the more it cost, I can get one for a semi for around a grand but one on a small economy car will cost 2-3 grand.
 
Hello texasmark1,

They sure do, and they get taller every time I tell them😂


Guido.
 
Hello Texasmark1,

Just for your info, big cam Cummins was not 800 Cu.In. but 927. Crossing you T's and dotting your I's
Double Grin!😂😂

Guido.
 
Hello Texasmark1


First big cam was 855 Cu. In. I guess it was just way back even for me I thought it was 927 Cu. I.i.😯

Guido.
 

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.

Back
Top