PDA

View Full Version : TL150 291ft/lbs trque, TL250 240 ft/lbs?


trailmaker
08-04-2008, 12:50 PM
Anyone have any thoughts on why TK would drop torque down so much on the new model? I know they have a new Kubota engine in this model but what aspect of the new Kubota warrants the big drop in torque? :confused:

northmiss
08-04-2008, 01:20 PM
I notice the 250 is tier 3 compliant. Emissions requirements often lead to engine changes in heavy equipment. The difference in engine operating torque is substantial in these two models--198 foot-lbs at 2600 rpm on the newer model, 232 foot-lbs at 2200 on the older one, both figures being gross torque before accessory power loss is substracted. I didn't calculate net torque since that number isn't supplied on the 150 brochure.

AWJ Services
08-04-2008, 05:27 PM
The engine lost 39 cubic engines so what did you expect?
Torque is 100% percent related too engine size.
Hp is a derivative of torque and rpm.
It acheives equal hp but needs more rpm too acheive it.

trailmaker
08-04-2008, 10:50 PM
AWJ, my question wasn't why does a smaller engine have less torque, it was why would TK go with an engine that has less torque when usually you see new models trying to up all the specs slightly. Thanks Northmiss, it sounds like they made the change to get tier 3 compliance.

AWJ Services
08-05-2008, 06:05 AM
Unfortunatley engineers build skid steers and that was what they felt was the best match.
Bobcat uses the same engine in there 330 series as well.

Yanmar supplies all of the engines(Tier III) across the board so not sure why they did not step up on the big engine.
Maybe it was not ready for production?
On there website they no longer have that series engine listed.

BIGBEN2004
08-05-2008, 08:18 PM
Maybe the Torque rise is higher which sometimes makes up for a lower number. I know the torque rise is a rating that is never displayed in earthmoving equipment but is bragged about in the agriculture market.

DUSTYCEDAR
08-05-2008, 08:29 PM
i want more power

northmiss
08-07-2008, 01:07 AM
Torque rise appears to be 25% in the old model, about 21% in the new so there would appear to be no advantage here for the new machine. Hard to know how important torque rise is for the machines these days. My dozer will only lug down about 100 - 120 rpm under a heavy load so it really doesn't back very far up the torque curve, and it never ever lugs down to peak torque rpm, so these peak numbers don't seem very meaningful to me. Since there appears to be no difference in these two loaders' fuel consumption, the only thing I can guess at is emissions difference warranting the engine change.
As far as AWJ's idea that torque is 100% related to engine size, that really isn't true. Many if not most manufacturers of heavy equipment will equip a given machine series with the same displacement engine and simply vary the turbo boost pressure (along with fuel delivery) to increase torque at a given rpm. The Deere 450J - 650J series dozers would be a good example of the idea. All have the same sized engines, but very different torque numbers.

AWJ Services
08-07-2008, 07:11 AM
As far as AWJ's idea that torque is 100% related to engine size, that really isn't true.

Well of course not when you are comparing a non turbo too a turbo engine.
Torque is 100% related too engine size.The larger the engine the more torque.
Engines will make a certain ft/lbs per cubic inch and there is a maximum that they will make.Thats why we have bigger engines and not just bigger turbos.
On the other hand Hp is a derivitive of torque and rpm so you can make the same torque but not the same hp or vice versa as in the case of the smaller Kubota engine.

Nelson M Martin
08-07-2008, 07:39 AM
Most engines will max out the torque in the 1500rpm range. The higher the rpm the more H.P. but not exactly more torque. But depending on the fuel ratio vs cubic inch the engine will spec better on the torque curve. The difference in torque specs per cubic inch is when one engine has ...example 80 hp @2500 rpm or another engine will have 80 hp @ 2000 rpm ......

northmiss
08-07-2008, 10:01 AM
AWJ,
I think you prove my point by saying that a given engine will have different torque characteristics based on whether it is turbocharged or not. Torque is therefore not just related to displacement, but also to fuel and air flow (a turbocharger increasing the oxygen density in the cylinder) and to compression ratio. Obviously there is a limit to the turbocharging process, so that past a certain point a larger displacement is needed. Torque is not 100% related to engine size or displacement. Komatsu's latest 22 class dozers have REDUCED engine size to produce more torque, at least in the D37-EX22. You may want to examine their specs as an interesting lesson in mechanical engineering.

AWJ Services
08-07-2008, 11:02 AM
Trust me I need no education in this field.
The laws of physics can not be re written because of dozer specs.

Lawnworks
08-07-2008, 06:22 PM
AWJ,
I think you prove my point by saying that a given engine will have different torque characteristics based on whether it is turbocharged or not. Torque is therefore not just related to displacement, but also to fuel and air flow (a turbocharger increasing the oxygen density in the cylinder) and to compression ratio. Obviously there is a limit to the turbocharging process, so that past a certain point a larger displacement is needed. Torque is not 100% related to engine size or displacement. Komatsu's latest 22 class dozers have REDUCED engine size to produce more torque, at least in the D37-EX22. You may want to examine their specs as an interesting lesson in mechanical engineering.

I agree... torque is not necesarily related to engine size when you have a turbo. I had a dodge cummins w/ factory 500ft tq... added another turbo... and 1400ft tq on the dyno.

northmiss
08-07-2008, 07:57 PM
Lawnworks, you provide an excellent example of the concept. Here is another interesting twist. Around about 2003 Cat added a turbocharger to the D3G 6 cylinder 5 liter diesel to aid with emissions compliance. It appeared there was no change to the engine specs at first glance: 70 net HP before and after. Yet the naturally aspirated engine produced the power at 2400 rpm, and the lightly turbocharged version at 2200 rpm for 153 ft-lbs and 167 ft-lbs operating torque respectively, almost a 10% jump in torque with turbocharging. Now here's the interesting part: the newly-released D3K produces 74 net HP at only 1900 rpm and a whopping 204.5 ft-lbs of operating torque, almost a 22% jump over the prior year's model, but yet with a 4 cylinder diesel with 12% less displacement (4.4L) than its 6 cylinder predecessor. This is about the clearest example I can cite of why the notion that "Torque is 100% related to engine size" is wrong. It is interesting that we use these machines every day but sometimes do not appreciate the mystery going on under the hood.

AWJ Services
08-07-2008, 08:57 PM
You guys read sales literature and drive heavy equipment.
I actually build race engines and have a engine dyno, a cylinder head flow bench and a fully equipped shop.

Don't patronize me.

Lawnworks
08-07-2008, 09:05 PM
You guys read sales literature and drive heavy equipment.
I actually build race engines and have a engine dyno, a cylinder head flow bench and a fully equipped shop.

Don't patronize me.

I don't have any literature to back up what I am saying just a dyno. I had a stock cummins 5.9 that put MAYBE 500 ft tq stock... then added injectors, fuel pump, other goodies, and compound turbos. Torque went from 500 to 1400 to the wheels.

Don't you think the amount of air you can cram into a cylinder via turbo(s) has something to w/ output? With your thinking a turbo is waste of metal.

Turbos are gooooood!!!

AWJ Services
08-07-2008, 09:07 PM
So you are suggesting that you can use a smaller engine and just add a bigger turbo?
Do you not think that if you done the same thing with a larger engine then there would not be an increase in torque?

AWJ Services
08-07-2008, 09:09 PM
Plus I will add that if you stuck that engine in a steady state application it would burn up pretty darn quick.
There is way more too this than you think.
I am in no way trying too be argumentative just that I really understand this stuff.

Lawnworks
08-07-2008, 09:12 PM
So you are suggesting that you can use a smaller engine and just add a bigger turbo?
Do you not think that if you done the same thing with a larger engine then there would not be an increase in torque?

Yeah I see your point. Might the smaller one be more efficient... (just a question not being a smartazz). Also, I can see the advantage of having a smaller turboed engine in a skid.

But back to the original point when you throw turbos into the mix... cubic inches and torque don't always correlate.

Lawnworks
08-07-2008, 09:14 PM
Plus I will add that if you stuck that engine in a steady state application it would burn up pretty darn quick.
There is way more too this than you think.
I am in no way trying too be argumentative just that I really understand this stuff.

Well I think there is a balance... don't you think turbos create an efficiency factor? I guess the larger engines won't have to work as hard as the smaller one and the life span will be more. They say there is no replacement for displacement. I guess it also really depends on how well the bottom end is built... some motors can expect more of a lifespan than others.

AWJ Services
08-07-2008, 09:21 PM
But back to the original point when you throw turbos into the mix... cubic inches and torque don't always correlate

If you compare apples too apples they do.
But if you compare apples too oranges they do not.:)


If you pull up the engine specs from the engine manufacturer you will find a term called"BSFC".Brake specific fuel consumption.Basically it is the amount of power that an engine makes per quanity of fuel.The lower the better.
It determines the engines efficiency.
Remember that a turbo has too be turned by the exhaust flow which in turn is dictated by piston speed.
What that means is if 2 engines of different sizes are at the same rpm the one with the larger ci will have more piston speed so in a sense it will move more air which in turn will actually allow the turbo too spin faster which results in a higher volumetric efficiency hence my statement that torque is directly related too engine size.
Now some manufacturers will do a better job of getting more power out of a similar engine.Also dyno's are not an industry standard so no 2 may not read alike.

northmiss
08-07-2008, 11:57 PM
AWJ,
Your original statement was "torque is 100% related to engine size." It is not. It may be proportional to engine size, but there are clearly other parameters. It is also untrue that one need have a larger cubic inch engine to have efficient spool through of air through the turbocharger, since one may modify parameters of the turbo to get efficient pressure delivery. This is critically important in an age of $5 diesel, since the end user will profit from having the smallest engine possible which will produce sufficient torque for the job at hand. This is why Komatsu has reduced its small dozer engine size to 3.3L from 3.9L, why Cat has reduced its 5 liter 6 cyl to a smaller 4 cylinder 4.4L in its finish dozers. The goal is producing fewer emissions, more power, less fuel consumption, and in dozers a smaller engine which sits lower in the machine frame to lessen center of gravity, hood obstruction of the blade etc. The benefits of optimized smaller engines here ought to be obvious. If you can't see this then just smile as you pay for all that red diesel.

AWJ Services
08-08-2008, 12:13 AM
Well then why does a smaller Tier III engine( The Kubota) make less torque than the (in your words) less efficient larger Yanmar engine.
Since the Yanmar meets none of your criteria for an efficient engine yet the Kubota does?:confused:

northmiss
08-08-2008, 12:33 AM
AWJ, I have to hand it to you: if stubborness is a virtue, you're a saint. I have just shown you that other manufacturers are producing small, high-efficiency tier 3 diesels TODAY. Why Yanmar's is not as efficient I can't say. Perhaps it is a cost saving move. But the Yanmar technology isn't the best available. Just compare the numbers as to what's possible: a) Takeuchi TL250, 3.8 liter Yanmar, 2600 operating rpm, 92 net hp (24 hp/liter displacement), 186 ft-lbs operating torque (49 ft-lbs/ liter); b) Komatsu D37-EX22 dozer: 3.26 Liter Komatsu, 89 net hp at 2200 operating rpm (27 hp/liter), 212 ft-lbs op torque (65 ft-lbs/l). THere is little question as to which engine produces more horsepower and torque, and little question as to the efficiencies that are now possible. If I could order the TL250 with the Komatsu engine in it, I would! But you can get the Komatsu dozer for the very cheap price of $96,000 as of last month when I checked. Smaller engine, more torque. How many examples do I have to give you?

ksss
08-08-2008, 02:37 AM
It is an interesting discussion if nothing else. I don't claim to know the how and why of torque as it relates to displacement. There are some interesting comparisons to be made however

CAT 201 cubic inches somewhere around 215 foot/pounds I think. Hard to find the data as CAT is not very proud of it I assume. It might actually be somewhat less than that.

Bobcat 202 cubic inches 217 foot/pounds as rated for S300

Deere 187 cubic inches out of a 5 cylinder and around 251 foot pounds. The Deere is interesting in that it is a very small motor that runs a 5 cylinder, but gets a very respectable torque rating.

CASE 274 cubic inches and 288 foot/pounds. It would seem to follow the big displacement big torque numbers theory.

CASE 195 cubic inches (445, 430) and 229 foot pounds. More torque from less cubes.

I could not get the torque for the S250 or the CAT equivilent but I would guess they would be less than 217 as they are smaller machines. The same Deere power plant that runs the 325 as the 332 makes only 195 foot pounds in the 325. I would guess it must be in the fuel metering.

Like I said I don't know enough to comment on why they are all over the map, but they are.

AWJ Services
08-08-2008, 07:41 AM
The TL250 Has a Kubota engine not a Yanmar.

I am not stubborn just comfortable in my knowledge.

You have too be careful as well when comparing different manufacturers specs due too difference in correction factors.
When they dyno the engine they correct it too a standard.
Gas engine stuff is usually done too an SAE 607 or SAE 1349
These are just 2 and some foreign manufacturers may not Follow SAE practices plus coupled with the Net and Gross ratings as well it can be confusing and deceiving.
No different than bucket breakout ratings.

Essentially an engine is just an air pump so the larger it is the more air it will move and without air fuel will not burn.There are ways too increase volumetric efficiency ,like turbos,more valves,better injectors etc but anytime you take the same engine and make it larger it will lower the torque curve in the rpm range and increase it.

This very same discussion was brought about a Truck I was looking at too buy with a 5.9L Cummings in it and I was instructed it was too small?

northmiss
08-08-2008, 11:49 AM
AWJ, the comparison I made was with SAE 1349 specs for both, Kubota engine notwithstanding. Our debate is NOT what you seem to contend, that a larger displacement engine with the same turbocharging apparatus will outperform a smaller one. There is no debate about that. The issue is how most efficiently to produce the requisite torque for a given machine application. This is the original question asked by Trailmaker: why did Takeuchi opt for a less efficient engine? If a 10,000# machine requires 200 ft-lbs of torque at operating rpm to perform its task, then producing that torque with the smallest possible engine delivers the best efficiency for the end user. Since torque is NOT 100% related to engine size as you originally asserted, we can move--and manufacturers are moving-- to the smaller engines. By your logic we could simply install a D8 Caterpillar engine in the little Takeuchi loader and produce more torque, but I sure wouldn't want to pay that fuel bill on that monster, nor try to transport it with a small trailer! If you can't see this what this debate is really about in these days of $5 diesel, then I wish you the best as you remain comfortable in your knowledge.

Digdeep
08-08-2008, 01:49 PM
Takeuchi switched to the Kubota 3.8L engine because Yanmar's engine was not ready for tier III.

AWJ Services
08-08-2008, 04:54 PM
You are confusing efficiency with torque output.
Both engines have the same fuel consumption as rated by Takeuchi and the larger engine has more torque and the same HP.
And torque is and always will be 100% related too the size of the engine.
So the Kubota is smaller with less torque and the same Fuel consumption but is better?:hammerhead:


By your logic we could simply install a D8 Caterpillar engine in the little Takeuchi loader and produce more torque, but I sure wouldn't want to pay that fuel bill on that monster, nor try to transport it with a small trailer! If you can't see this what this debate is really about in these days of $5 diesel, then I wish you the best as you remain comfortable in your knowledge.

I thought this was a discussion about 2 engines used by Takeuchi but I guess I was wrong.
:drinkup:

Takeuchi switched to the Kubota 3.8L engine because Yanmar's engine was not ready for tier III.

As I said several pages back.:)
They also dropped that engine series from there product page on there web site.

northmiss
08-09-2008, 12:07 AM
AWJ, once again it is you who are confused. I have given up on trying to convince you, but for anyone else who may have interest in this topic I would suggest reading Nichols and Day's classic Civil Engineering Text "Moving The Earth: The Workbook of Excavation." Though there are many ways of defining the efficiency of an engine, this bible of excavation defines the efficiency of an engine based on its torque output, and in fact it suggest that an efficient engine will produce at least .625 ft-lbs torque per cubic inch, or approx 38 ft-lbs per liter (4th edition, page 12.114). Some engines produce more, some less but regardless of what size the engine is, efficiency can be standardized per unit of displacement. Notice that the definition does not depend on the size of the engine. This is why I compared the Komatsu 3.26 liter diesel to the 3.8 Kubota in the Takeuchi trackloader to show that the smaller Komatsu engine produces more torque per unit of displacement. Per Day and Nichols, it would be more efficient than the Kubota and in fact the Komatsu example produces MUCH more torque per liter than their minimum criterion. And it is interesting to see how much more efficient the newer engines are today compared to the criterion set forth by Day and Nichols as recently as 1999: 65 ft-lbs per liter of the Komatsu is some 70% more efficient than their minimum standard. Given the capability of the newer turbocharging and aftercooling technology, it is no mystery why the manufacturers are moving to smaller engines, and no mystery either why skid-steer and compact track loaders have become so popular in the last 15 years. Landscapers and excavators can do so much with these highly capable machines built around smaller high-tech diesel engines.

AWJ Services
08-09-2008, 01:18 AM
Wow you read a book.
Did you also stay at the Holiday Inn Express as well?

Though there are many ways of defining the efficiency of an engine, this bible of excavation defines the efficiency of an engine based on its torque output, and in fact it suggest that an efficient engine will produce at least .625 ft-lbs torque per cubic inch, or approx 38 ft-lbs per liter (4th edition, page 12.114).

Wow you finally agree with me.
The larger the engine the more torque it will make.
Your words not mine.:clapping:

The constant .625ft-lbs
The variable cubic inch.

Wow where did I hear mentioned.:cry:

mverick
08-09-2008, 11:46 PM
What happens if you use a more efficient designed turbo and free flowing header with less turns that's size is optimized to the turbo housing? And also use a flowed housing? Fewer turns means less restrictions. Although, it's not as big a problem as on non turbo cars. Increased size to be able to dump all the air is a big concern.

Do you increase torque then?

You get more torque from a larger engine. Without question. But, when you throw turbo's in. The manufacturers can specify different housings for different boost. Boost isn't limited by the exhaust flow of the engine. It's limited by what the engine will stand. Most will go up to a 70 to 100psi boost. Yet very few engines would be able to stand that.

When you get to turbo's there is a lot more to it then engine.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Porsche's first inclination was to develop a 750 hp straight-16. However, they decided to go with a bored out 5.4-liter twin-turbo 12-cylinder that was good for 1,100 horsepower — in engine-saving racing trim. For the qualifiers, boost was cranked up to 39 psi and the 917/30s were developing 1500 horses, making them the most powerful racecars ever. Performance was double stupid, with 0-60 happening in 1.9 seconds, 0-200 in 10.9 seconds and top speeds in the 250 mph neighborhood. In 1973, with Mark Donahue behind the wheel, the 917/30 lost exactly one race. It won all the rest. Forced to act, Can-Am implemented the only rule it could to slow down the ultimate 917: for 1974 Group 7 cars had to achieve better than three miles per gallon, which effectively killed both the 917 and Cam-Am. Also, didn't Steve McQueen make a movie about the 917? Happy voting.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

5.4liter with 1500hp. I'd imagine around 1300ft/lb of torque since it could do the 0-60 in 1.9 seconds.

And, that was OLD technology.

BIGBEN2004
08-10-2008, 09:44 AM
I will tell you soon how well these new TL250's are. The company I am working for part time wright now just signed the papers on two new TL250's. They would have bought TL150's but the dealer sold the last 9 they had last week so this company will get the first TL250's in Maryland. My dealer likes me even more now since I made all the phone calls to get one on the job site for them to demo, other wise they would have never even looked at the Takeuchi's. Now my dealer is making a sale of almost $100,000 so they said they would take care of me even better in the future.

northmiss
08-10-2008, 06:12 PM
MVERICK, you are right to say there is a lot more to this than engine size. More to the problem than just turbocharging, too. Volkswagen, Cummins, CAT and others have been steadily increasing the diesel fuel injection pressures to allow better atomization of the injected fuel the last few years. Greater fuel surface area in the combustion chamber means more horsepower and torque without increasing engine size. Same too with valve timing. Manufacturers of gasoline engines have been experimenting with variable valve (or cam) timing for several years to try to optimize air intake and exhaust outflow across the rpm band, with a goal of increasing low-rpm "grunt." A newer idea that has not yet made it to commercial-scale release is using a camless system of solenoids to actuate the valves electronically, to even more precisely calibrate airflow to the engine based on rpm. I first read about this as a Navistar proposal for its diesel engines. This too would increase power and torque output without increasing engine size. The more expensive fuel gets, the more we need to get beyond the big cubic inch mentality we've had about engines, and the technology is here to do it. All OTHER factors being equal in the past, more engine size meant more torque, but design engineers have been steadily varying those other factors to reduce engine size the last few years. That trend will continue.

mverick
08-10-2008, 08:41 PM
All OTHER factors being equal in the past, more engine size meant more torque, but design engineers have been steadily varying those other factors to reduce engine size the last few years. That trend will continue.

Chrysler learned it with there cars and mini vans.

There 80's models had small engines with turbo's. So, decent fuel economy and when you needed it the turbo would kick in for passing.

They got away from it when gas came back down a little. Now, it's back up. And they are talking about big motors dropping cylinders. Hmmm.. A small motor with a turbo is a better option. It's been done. With the H beam connecting rods and other tech. It is an easy motor to build.

Remember. A honda civic was getting 50mpg in the 80's. And they brag about the prius now????

Only way this all relates to our cat's is that the tech is out there to build them to withstand more energy per liter. Which is what this is actually all about. It is up to the manufacturers to implement it. And, us to pay for it.

AWJ Services
08-10-2008, 08:49 PM
I will agree that engines make more power now than ever but the fact remains using equivalent technology bigger is always better.

Please do not even try too compare the K cars too anything worthwhile.
I was an auto tech for a long time and those where about the worst cars ever built.Too say the turbo engines had power is like saying a 8n tractor is an efficient grading machine.:)

mverick
08-10-2008, 11:53 PM
I will agree that engines make more power now than ever but the fact remains using equivalent technology bigger is always better.

Please do not even try too compare the K cars too anything worthwhile.
I was an auto tech for a long time and those where about the worst cars ever built.Too say the turbo engines had power is like saying a 8n tractor is an efficient grading machine.:)

With the K cars, like you said, apples to apples. Compared to what was put in other vehicles of the same style. They were pretty powerfull. Compared to a 69 GTO. They weren't.

But, Put the 426 hemi against the 2002 Trans Am. Which one wins down the track? That would be the lil 350. LOL... Displacement lost.

And the equivalent technology is the kicker. If it was that way, of course. But, none of them are equivelent. One needs to meet a new spec so a motor is built around that spec. So, comparing the old to new is in your own words, not comparing equivalent technology.

And, the tech is there. One manufacturer uses it and the other doesn't. Whose fault is that?

You said displacement wins every time. It doesn't. If the engines are built exactly the same other then displacement, Displacement will win. But, no motor is built like that today. So, displacement has a effect. But in no way shape or form is it considered the Winner.

New cummins 6.7 over a old 5.9. Read the paper and the new 6.7 wins. See it on a rear wheel dyno and the 5.9 spanks it. Hmmm.... Old technology and smaller displacement has a greater torque and HP. Funny that.

AWJ Services
08-11-2008, 06:38 AM
The funny thing is a rear wheel dyno only measures HP and are notoriously inaccurate.They also are crippled from engine inertia so the heavier the engines rotating assembly and the heavier the drive train the more parasitic loses they will see which will more than skew data recieved.
Torque is a calculation from this hp on a chassis dyno.



And no a K car was not powerful.
Unless it was compared too a beetle.