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?
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Lawn Care Forum
7M posts
202.7K members
Since 1999
A forum community dedicated to lawn care and landscaping professionals and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!