Really interesting vid - turbo vs NA of same model tractor
Results 1 to 8 of 8
Like Tree9Likes
  • 2 Post By jgayman
  • 1 Post By mike01
  • 3 Post By 69project
  • 1 Post By Cutty72
  • 1 Post By trboxman
  • 1 Post By mike01

Thread: Really interesting vid - turbo vs NA of same model tractor

  1. Top | #1
    mike01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 08:18 PM
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,251
    Thanks
    34
    Thanked 158 Times in 104 Posts

    Really interesting vid - turbo vs NA of same model tractor

    This is a really interesting vid. I've never seen a direct real-world comparison of a turbo vs a naturally aspirated version of the same tractor. These Indian dudes really love their tractors! There are a lot of Indian tractor vids on youtube.

    The results are quite interesting. I imagine that though it may seem trivial to some of us, if you are disking/plowing a very large field, that 100 RPM advantage ads up to some time savings. I'd love to know what the fuel cost difference is, and whether the additional fuel used is mitigated by the time saved.

    2019 X758, 54" Autoconnect deck
    2018 2032R, 220R Loader, dual rear SCV, hydraulic top link, SB1164 Snow Blower, RC2072 rotary cutter, BB5048L box blade, 42" Titan forks, BB2060L back blade

    Owned in the past:
    X570, X758 (2015), 1025R, X590

  2. Remove Advertisements
    GreenTractorTalk.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. Top | #2
    mike01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 08:18 PM
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,251
    Thanks
    34
    Thanked 158 Times in 104 Posts
    I realize that the video may be hard to follow...but the gist of it is this:

    He has two versions of the same tractor (Mahindra Arjun), one turbo, one naturally aspirated. He pulls the same disc harrow across the same field with both machines with the throttle at the PTO marked position on the tach, and notes the resultant RPM loss under full power (pedal to the floor).

    The NA tractor dropped 200 RPM and slowed down accordingly.

    The turbo tractor dropped 100 RPM and slowed down accordingly.

    The difference is very minor, but probably significant in the long run.
    2019 X758, 54" Autoconnect deck
    2018 2032R, 220R Loader, dual rear SCV, hydraulic top link, SB1164 Snow Blower, RC2072 rotary cutter, BB5048L box blade, 42" Titan forks, BB2060L back blade

    Owned in the past:
    X570, X758 (2015), 1025R, X590

  4. Top | #3
    jgayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 11:24 PM
    Location
    Central Pennsylvania
    Posts
    9,762
    Thanks
    366
    Thanked 1,597 Times in 1,215 Posts
    That's doesn't seem like much of a difference. Since the turbo is basically just adding a few HP to the engine, it seems he would be better off with a tractor that has a larger engine with more HP increase. I've had turbo vehicles in the past and it always seemed like a bit of a "cheat" instead of adding displacement. The downside to the turbo is cost and complexity.
    mike01 and goat704! like this.
    2012 2720 -- 200CX Loader -- 54" Quick Attach Snow Blower -- Frontier LR5060 Rake -- Land Pride RB1660 Blade (Hydraulic Angle) -- Artillian 42" Forks -- Ken's Bolt on Grab Hooks -- Fit Rite Hydraulic top-link -- 2013 X500 for mowing duties

  5. Remove Advertisements
    GreenTractorTalk.com
    Advertisements
     

  6. Top | #4
    mike01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 08:18 PM
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,251
    Thanks
    34
    Thanked 158 Times in 104 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by jgayman View Post
    That's doesn't seem like much of a difference. Since the turbo is basically just adding a few HP to the engine, it seems he would be better off with a tractor that has a larger engine with more HP increase. I've had turbo vehicles in the past and it always seemed like a bit of a "cheat" instead of adding displacement. The downside to the turbo is cost and complexity.
    Well this particular tractor only has a 10% HP increase with the turbo. So with 20% you might see a smaller drop in RPMs. But I find it very interesting that Mahindra finds even this small increase very significant. They advertise a 2.3 (or something like that) KPH speed increase (presumably while doing field work). Which may seem like nothing to most of us, but is probably quite important on a big farm where time is money. If you have 10 tractors that are spending 10 hours plowing, it would be a big deal if those same tractors would spend 9 hours plowing. That's a total savings of 10 tractor hours per day during which you could do something else. 9 tractors would then be able to do the work of 10 tractors in the same time.

    But yeah, agreed, a larger engine would be better in every way except fuel economy. As far as complexity though, turbos are very simple and not prone to failure, especially in tractors with the low boosts (compared to cars). I think the only concern would be the engine itself, but it would take a very long time for the increased wear to manifest.
    Last edited by mike01; 02-06-2019 at 02:42 PM.
    AlKozak likes this.
    2019 X758, 54" Autoconnect deck
    2018 2032R, 220R Loader, dual rear SCV, hydraulic top link, SB1164 Snow Blower, RC2072 rotary cutter, BB5048L box blade, 42" Titan forks, BB2060L back blade

    Owned in the past:
    X570, X758 (2015), 1025R, X590

  7. Top | #5

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 08:51 PM
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,268
    Thanks
    71
    Thanked 174 Times in 161 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by jgayman View Post
    That's doesn't seem like much of a difference. Since the turbo is basically just adding a few HP to the engine, it seems he would be better off with a tractor that has a larger engine with more HP increase. I've had turbo vehicles in the past and it always seemed like a bit of a "cheat" instead of adding displacement. The downside to the turbo is cost and complexity.
    The "cheat" is the whole idea of a turbo or super charger. Stuff more air(along with fuel) into the same size engine for more power. What could possibly go wrong?

    If you are not building boost then you are saving fuel. For small 4 cylinder engines it works fairly well. My 1.4L Cruze gets 34-36 MPG on the highway and around 30 in mixed driving. However, I have heard though from more than one Ford ecoboost V6 turbo truck owner that their mileage isn't any better than the V8 it replaced, so I guess it depends on what engine you stick a turbo onto and what your intended use is. GM is getting ready to do the same thing with a turbo 4 cylinder in the 1/2 ton trucks. Recent road tests by the magazine indicate it doesn't save any fuel compared to the 5.3 V8. I think that is because the engine is a large displacement for a 4 cylinder (2.7 liter) and the amount of weight it has to haul around. So you have to ask why do it?

    I agree, turbos add complexity and cost. I do like them on diesels as that is what makes the power on any modern diesel, to include my duramax. I just dread the day if it ever needs to be replaced. That will be a healthy bill.
    mike01, Herminator and trboxman like this.
    3025e, D160 loader, Artillian Grapple, Forks, Hoe Bucket, Frontier Land Plane, Rotomec PDH300, Redline Systems 54 inch rock bucket, Heavy Hitch
    400 Garden Tractor, 35a Tiller, 54 inch plow, 60 inch deck

  8. Top | #6
    Cutty72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 04:08 PM
    Location
    ND
    Posts
    1,270
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 113 Times in 101 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by 69project View Post
    The "cheat" is the whole idea of a turbo or super charger. Stuff more air(along with fuel) into the same size engine for more power. What could possibly go wrong?

    If you are not building boost then you are saving fuel. For small 4 cylinder engines it works fairly well. My 1.4L Cruze gets 34-36 MPG on the highway and around 30 in mixed driving. However, I have heard though from more than one Ford ecoboost V6 turbo truck owner that their mileage isn't any better than the V8 it replaced, so I guess it depends on what engine you stick a turbo onto and what your intended use is. GM is getting ready to do the same thing with a turbo 4 cylinder in the 1/2 ton trucks. Recent road tests by the magazine indicate it doesn't save any fuel compared to the 5.3 V8. I think that is because the engine is a large displacement for a 4 cylinder (2.7 liter) and the amount of weight it has to haul around. So you have to ask why do it?

    I agree, turbos add complexity and cost. I do like them on diesels as that is what makes the power on any modern diesel, to include my duramax. I just dread the day if it ever needs to be replaced. That will be a healthy bill.
    New turbo on my 01 7.3L was just shy of $1200. I replaced it myself. Figure 6 hours R&R for a shop.
    Duramax is a VGT turbo, so price will be more...
    mike01 likes this.
    2010 2320 with 200cx FEL
    54D MMM
    54" front mount blower
    Titan 42" forks w/ receiver hitch
    County Line 5' tiller
    6' JD rear blade (tree find)

  9. Top | #7
    trboxman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Last Online
    09-12-2019 @ 09:19 PM
    Location
    Central WA
    Posts
    766
    Thanks
    227
    Thanked 137 Times in 116 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by 69project View Post
    The "cheat" is the whole idea of a turbo or super charger. Stuff more air(along with fuel) into the same size engine for more power. What could possibly go wrong?

    If you are not building boost then you are saving fuel. For small 4 cylinder engines it works fairly well. My 1.4L Cruze gets 34-36 MPG on the highway and around 30 in mixed driving. However, I have heard though from more than one Ford ecoboost V6 turbo truck owner that their mileage isn't any better than the V8 it replaced, so I guess it depends on what engine you stick a turbo onto and what your intended use is. GM is getting ready to do the same thing with a turbo 4 cylinder in the 1/2 ton trucks. Recent road tests by the magazine indicate it doesn't save any fuel compared to the 5.3 V8. I think that is because the engine is a large displacement for a 4 cylinder (2.7 liter) and the amount of weight it has to haul around. So you have to ask why do it?

    I agree, turbos add complexity and cost. I do like them on diesels as that is what makes the power on any modern diesel, to include my duramax. I just dread the day if it ever needs to be replaced. That will be a healthy bill.
    Very good points about turbo vs. no turbo. I'll share a personal experience: I have two cars, one for use in summer and one for use in winter. The summer car has a naturally aspirated 6.2L V8 and averages 25mpg. The winter car has a 2.5L 4cyl turbo charged engine and averages 24mpg.

    Lot of other factors involved that are different, manual vs. auto, 2 years old vs. 14 years old, 455hp vs. 360hp etc. The summer car is fast, the winter car is quick....
    mike01 likes this.
    2038R
    72" MMM, iMatch Quick Hitch, RB2072 rear blade, BB2072 box blade, PHD200 w/9" auger, AF10F front blade, AP12F pallet forks, ballast box, Heavy Hitch, Titan 68" flail mower, Fit Rite TnT
    Z930M, 60" MOD, adjustable suspension seat
    The ranch has:
    1 flaming redheaded wife, 2 semi-feral children, 4 barn cats, 3 pups, 3 horses, 1 donkey, 1 duck and a dozen chickens

  10. Top | #8
    mike01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 08:18 PM
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,251
    Thanks
    34
    Thanked 158 Times in 104 Posts
    When you add DPFs to the mix, it gets even more complex. A failing/malfunctioning (or maybe just old!) DPF can take out your turbo, and vice versa. They are seeing this quite often on road trucks, but of course those get a lot more hours put on them than any utility tractor.

    https://autotechnician.co.uk/can-a-d...arger-failure/

    Another thing I wonder about as I consider my next tractor purchase (something I will do for the rest of my life! ) is, are tractor turbo engines built like commercial truck engines?

    So in a tractor trailer, turbo engines often outlast NA engines because they are built stronger to cope with all the extra stresses of a turbo. They get hardened steel parts and other improvements, and those parts are so much better than the parts they put in non-turbo truck engines that they end up lasting longer despite turbo stresses.

    So I'm wondering, does Yanmar do that with non-industrial or non-agricultural tractor engines? (e.g. CUTs) Because they have no reason to. Considering the low hours the average owner puts on a tractor engine, what would be their incentive? The commercial truck engine people have real incentives...driving those things to engine failure and rebuild is quite common considering how much they are used, so failures due to turbo stress have real costs in terms of reputation hit (which affects sales) and warranty claims. But tractors? Nah. If a tractor's turbo engine had 50% of the lifespan of an NA engine, maybe what, 1% of them would ever get there?
    Last edited by mike01; 02-15-2019 at 08:14 AM.
    trboxman likes this.
    2019 X758, 54" Autoconnect deck
    2018 2032R, 220R Loader, dual rear SCV, hydraulic top link, SB1164 Snow Blower, RC2072 rotary cutter, BB5048L box blade, 42" Titan forks, BB2060L back blade

    Owned in the past:
    X570, X758 (2015), 1025R, X590

  11. Remove Advertisements
    GreenTractorTalk.com
    Advertisements
     

Similar Threads

  1. 4044 or 4052 (turbo or no turbo) - is turbo worth it?
    By dhacker in forum Large Frame Compact Utility Tractors (LCUT)
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 07-20-2017, 09:13 PM
  2. could someone do a cold start vid
    By jd1023epro in forum Sub Compact Utility Tractors (SCUT)
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 01-27-2013, 11:14 AM
  3. 1026r Vid question?
    By Brians2032R in forum Sub Compact Utility Tractors (SCUT)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-15-2012, 10:24 AM
  4. is a 300 the same as a 318? or in the same family?
    By firedude26 in forum Vintage Lawn & Garden Tractors
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-07-2012, 06:08 AM
  5. Weather.com vid w/ John Deere
    By 636mullet in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-03-2012, 08:10 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •