240 u........40 hp??????

glennster

Well-known Member
poking around tractorr data website and looked up the hp on my 240 utility. say 40 hp.........is that correct or a misprint. geez my m s are at leat 37 hp . i
would gyess the 240 u would be closer to a super a or c hp wise. gees my w9 is 50 hp.
 
What you are looking at is gross engine hp, belt, which would be similar to pto, is 30.82. The belt HP for an M is 36.66, and being a much larger displacement engine probably has a lot more torque and lugging power.
 
Very likely that is estimated gross engine horsepower at the crank. Modern tractors are rated that way, rather than the old way of drawbar and PTO/belt horsepower.

Nebraska Test 667 shows the 240 with a maximum belt HP of 30.99, and there is quite a bit of loss in the transfer of power from the engine to the belt, so it is plausible if you pulled the engine and stuck it directly to a dyno, it would put out 40HP.

However, an M will still run circles around it in the field given the same condition of tractor, and same implement.
 
Look it up on you tube, Reds or Bibs Super C, with the 135 engine will hold 40 horse, on the Dyno.I thought the same thing my dad's M, only has 44, but my brother put in flat top pistons the last time he overhauled it! Red had gotten that motor off a air compressor!
 
well i did try it today on my new 6 ft rototiller. one pass to open the ground, then two more passes to hit full depth
cvphoto20600.jpg
 
the international harvester tractor data says 40 hp the farmall tractor data says 34 which i think is closer. i know grandpas 200 had firecrater pistons and my uncle said it had more power than the H and handier to boot. if you look at the history of the M it started out around 38 hp by the time the run was over with the super M they had over 50 hp
 
Good set up, most on here will say groung speed with 240 is too fast for tiller use but I have been using an offset King Kutter on my 240 utility for a few years now. Now as you say one pass on new ground will not get you where you want to be for planting. But I have a 656 hydro with a 7 foot tiller and one pass with that on new ground also will not be ready for planting. Again I have extremly soft ground and pulled 3 16's with a 385 IH tractor with no problem. Some on here have ground that it probably would have had trouble pulling 1-16. Heck one time I even posted a photo on here of my 240 utility doing tiller work a some still did not believe it.
 
Also have to consider the compression ratio and the engine speed at which horsepower is made.

The Classic Equation is Torque * RPM / 5252 = HP. Torque must be expressed in ft-lbs.

The first M is tested at 1450rpm and the 240U might be tested at 2000 rpms so there is a difference.

The Nebraska test for 240U is approx 30hp max measured...not SAE Gross.

http://www.tractordata.com/farm-tractors/000/3/1/313-international-harvester-240-tests.html

So reversing, 30HP * 5252 / 2000 rpms = 78 ft-lbs. Can't say that's the absolute peak but I'd bet its pretty close.

The Nebraska test for the 1939 M has approx 36hp @ 1450rpms.

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1491&context=tractormuseumlit

So, 36* 5252 / 1450 = 130ft-lbs. ~60% increase over 240U.

You get into the Super M Nebraska test, 46hp @ 1450 rpms.

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1491&context=tractormuseumlit

So 46 * 5252 /1450 = 166 ft-lbs, ~~30% increase over M.

For interest I got into the Farmall 450 Nebraska test...

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1013&context=tractormuseumlit

55hp @ 1450 rpms = 199 ft-lbs, another ~20% increase over SM.

I don't have any info readily available on the compression ratio but again another way to get more useable work out of the same amount of gasoline.

I like to think of torque as how steep of a hill one can climb and horsepower as how fast it can be climbed.

When it comes down to straight-up dyno testing, the 240U could come close, its still down 20% in power over the original 1939 M, but no comparison when it comes to lugging and starting heavy loads from a standstill as you can see from the torque values.

The takeaway for me is displacement always correlates strongly with torque.
 
(quoted from post at 05:27:25 04/22/19) poking around tractorr data website and looked up the hp on my 240 utility. say 40 hp.........is that correct or a misprint. geez my m s are at leat 37 hp . i
would guess the 240 u would be closer to a super a or c hp wise. gees my w9 is 50 hp.
the 240 is a 2 bottom plow tractor and the M is a 3 bottom plow tractor. there aren't too many distillate ones around muchthses days since most of them were rebuilt with higher compression pistons, the Farmall H is a better comparison but I would take an H in the field over a 240

a 40 hp 240 with a C135 really isn't a 240 anymore and not a good comparison IMHO
 

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