inline 4 vs inline 6

my grandpa bought me an allis with an inline 4, he has a bunch of olivers with inline sixes, we got into a debate about which one is a better tractor motor, but he did note that the inline 4 lugged down pretty good, so if there were two engines, with the same or similar displacement, which would you chose, or be better and why? thanks guys

I would take an inline 4 over inline 6 with same displacement, it would lug better.

In my experience fewer but larger cylinders lug
better but give less max hp.

If you're comparing a turbo 4 to a natural 6... I'd take the turbo 4. You're going to likely get more torque rise from the turbo engine. It'll also be more economical on lighter loads. It should overall have a higher level of efficiency...

Rod

Inline six of the same displacement as an inline four will run
much smoother with less vibration and stress the driveline
less.
The six will be easier to design into a higher HP engine as
there can be more port area and valve area per cu" of total
displacement.

dyno a 350 IH and a 77 Oliver making basically the same hp at 540 pto rpm, the Oliver will out lug the 4 cyl. by a ways

Inline 4 all the way, I have both, also in the winter the 6's are cold blooded and the 4 will run nice after a very short warm up period.

Sixes are smooth,put out 'more' power,but just dont
have the 'grunt' of a long stroke four.Neighbors old
1080 massey(4-318 Perkins) has more poop pulling a
plow than his 4020(6-404JohnDeere)

For max hp, a 6 is better because it has 2 more
intake valves. Also a 6 is better balanced. Most 4
cyl diesels need, or have a balancer running from
the crankshaft. That said my son has a 126 hp Kubota
that has a 300 plus cu in 4 cyl motor. It is so
smooth it feels like a 6 cyl. I think it has a 4
valve cylinder head. So it has the best of both
worlds smooth and lots of torque. Those darn
Japanese. Vic

Compare it to a WD45-D17 or 4Star-U302. Or a 620 no comparison. My neighbor had a WD45 and a 77. He said the only bad thing about the 77 was that it wouldn't tighten a log chain. Another friend said on his you had to run with the choke out till 9 o'clock! All kidding aside they are great tractors. I think 90% of them are antique pullers. We have a 77 with a 310 diesel. Vic

I only have one four banger and one six banger in the old tractor category. Both are gasses, an SC Case and an Oliver 88. No comparison in HP obviously but both need about the same amount of choke when cold. Both are leaned down a bit more than 'factory' settings to try to keep down the black smoke from our modern fuel. The neighbor's IH 656 six cylinder gasser is as cold blooded as they come. Oh yes, I forgot the B Farmall we mow with. Doesn't need much choke but it's only used in warm weather. Jim

well here is my experiment i did a few weeks ago. i used my 650 ih to pull a 14 ft deep tillage for a couple days since 660 was baling. 3rd gear was to hard of a pull in hard stubble.used 2nd gear used around 2 1/2 gal. per hr. of diesel.
then hooked the 660 to the same cultivator and used 3rd gear no problem and run 2200 rpm , wide open is 2400 rpm. used the same amount of fuel. traveled faster did not pull down as much as 650.
650- 350 cid. 4 cyl. 1956
660- 281 cid. 6 cyl. 1961
the 660 replaced the 650. the 350 is a tough old engine in its day , but the 281 did more work per hr. in this case newer is better.

None of the Farmall "letter-series" 4-cylinders had a balance shaft...and they did OK, for their era.

With a 4-cylinder 4-stroke engine, you have a cylinder firing every 180 degrees of crankshaft rotation; with an inline six, you have a cylinder firing every 120 degrees. If bore and stroke are equal between the 4 and the six--which seldom occurs--the six always has two more "mouths to feed" at any given RPM.

About the closest to the "all things being equal" that I know of in the IH/Farmall line are the 806, which had the 301 cid gas six...and the 544, which had the 200 cid four. [Since you brought up balance shafts, I chose a 4-cylinder that has one.] Same bore and stroke, just that the 806 had 50% more cylinders. The 544 was rated at about 53 PTO horsepower, and used 4.4 gallons of fuel per hour. The 806 was rated at 93 PTO horsepower, but consumed 7.4 gallons per hour to do it. So the 50% more cubic inches produces 75% more horsepower...and uses 68% more fuel to do it. [Notice, too, that the C301 in the 806 is rated at 2400 rpm max, and the C200 is rated at 2200 rpm.]

So which tractor is "better"? Depends on what your needs are for a particular job. If you need a 120 hp tractor, BOTH are gonna suck. If the job only requires around 50 hp or less, why not use the 4-cylinder and put the fuel savings in your pocket? And when you get to the point of needing 75-80 hp, the 4-cylinder is gonna suck. As I said, it all depends on what your NEEDS are. Y'know why 8N Fords remain popular? Because that's all the tractor some folks NEED for what they do with a tractor.

well during this particular day, the tractor was pulling empty grain wagons up to the shop for air and grease and then taking them out to the field, it could move 1 on a flat piece of ground in road gear at idle, could move 1 on a slight hill at idle in 3rd, and when we started moving 2 at a time it was a tight turn so i shoved it in first at idle, we also road through the water way at idle in road gear, and in road gear was where we noticed the lugging ability. a tractor that is close in displacement with my allis is his 770, and i have noticed, with being rather not very smooth with the clutch at times, that his 770, while it has more hp than the allis, is easier to kill and lugs less before it dies, my allis lugged for about 5 seconds in road gear with the wagon on the hill before it choked out, gotta love it :shock:

most anything would out pull a 4020, the syncro-mesh trans. eats alot of power because it is constant mesh at the benefit of easy shifting, I would take a 301-4 in an 830 Case long before a 282-6 in a 560

Each has advantages and disadvantages and there is no better or best.

That said, increased manufacturing cost limited usage of 6 cylinder engines in vintage tractors.

Dean

Pretty good comparisons is the 44 Massey Harris. Normally a 4 cyl tractor but right before wwII there was a shortage of engines so several were factory fitted with 6cy engines. The 4 cyl is 260 cu in and I think the 6 was 266 no comparison. The 4 cyl tractor will out lug the 6 cyl version.
I spent about 2 thousand on an old one building a pulling tractor before I figured out the 4 cyl. was the way to go.

(quoted from post at 12:23:06 10/14/13) most anything would out pull a 4020, the syncro-mesh trans. eats alot of power because it is constant mesh at the benefit of easy shifting,

Click to expand...

Please explain how a standard trans "eats a lot of power"??? I suppose you think the same thing about a standard shift pickup. Both 4020 & pickup transmissions utilize the same basic type of synchronizers. FYI JD standard trans of the 4020 era were called Syncro-range not syncro-mesh. :lol:

one could compare 3 cyl tractors to 4 cyl tractors

Yabbut, which one, when owned by Billy Bob"s brother"s friend"s sister-in-law"s Uncle will pull a 5-bottom plow for 9 hours and use hardly any fuel?

they're both good engines. I like the 4 cylinder, but prefer the 6 cylinder. The 4 cylinder will lug better. I'd take a Massey Harris 44 over a Massey Harris 44-6 any day of the week. At the same time, I'd take a 6 cylinder Oliver over a Massey Harris 44 any day.

So by the same logic a two cylinder would lug even better than the four. A single would be superior yet. And an engine with no cylinders at all would pull the most.

(quoted from post at 18:47:15 10/14/13) So by the same logic a two cylinder would lug even better than the four. A single would be superior yet. And an engine with no cylinders at all would pull the most.

Click to expand...

LOL now that's funny!

OK guys, getting back to the OP's question: to compare one to the other they would both have to have the same displacement and compression ratio. The same weight flywheel too just to make it real fair, same max RPM and really the same stroke. Only other way to do it is to compare, in a tractor, 2 engines with the same brake HP.

Rick

For a guy professing to have run all of the green you were talking about a couple of days ago, and professing to know all there is to know about everything, there you go running your mouth again.

No doubt the poppers with the gallon paint can jugs and 1000# flywheel couldn't pull the pants off the best of them. I never had one with their little pony engines but my next door green lover has and he could make them smoke.