Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

CactusWest

236/282D Engine Reliability

Recommended Posts

This may be a rehash and if it has been discussed in detail on some other post please let me know.

This discussion at issue is the reliability of the IH 236/282 CID diesel engine. I have listed some of the models/applications which most viewing this are well aware. I just posted for convenience of viewing and realize I could be a few horsepower/RPM’s off depending where the data comes from. The are also other applications. I just listed the ones that I am familiar with.

It is known that early 282D’s and perhaps 236D engines were prone to head gasket failures. What I would like to know, what changed from the 560 to the 706 and 656 for improved reliability, especially when you see that RPM’s were increased in certain applications to deliver more horsepower?

Regarding the heads themselves there were different versions and it was summed up quite nicely on a previous post, that "Head PN323 771 R31, was used on all late TD9B and TD6-62 Series crawler, and also used on the D301 in the 403 Combine's and UD-282 Series. The PN 323 773 R31 was used on the D301 on all application with the exception of the 403 Combine. These have the larger intake and exhaust valves. The difference is in the valves.SN 5700 to 8277 takes head # 278368R61. SN 8278 and up takes 323771R31". In summary then it appears that early 236/282D applications had Head P/N 278368R1 and the later versions had P/N’s 323771R31. I am not sure what the 236D had or if it used the same head(s).

So what changed? One would think that if you had head gasket failures at 1800 RPM rated power, why increase RPM’s for more power. Was it an early quality escape issue in with the block and head or was it that the later head solved the problem?? With that I will end my intro to invite discussion from those with the expertise on this issue. Thanks.

Model CID Rated Horsepower RPM PTO HP

IH 460 NA 236D 1800 55

IH 560 NA 282 1800 66

IH 660 NA 282 2400 81

IH 706 NA 282 2300 72

IH 656Hyd NA 282 2300 66

TD9BAG Turbo 282 1850 66 Estimated

TD9BPW PWRSHIFT NA 282 2300

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Headbolt and head gasket failures went down when they eliminated the top thread or two in the block so the flex point for the headbolt was not at the deck of the block.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That engine , no matter the improvements , is still a little shaky on the head gasket issue. It actually has one less head bolt than the gasoline version so you can see that they are too few and far between. Most diesel engines have six bolts surrounding each cyl, two of them of course support next cyl as well. That adds up to 26 head bolts on a 6 cyl engine and these engines have 13 or 14. .Early models had various problems from sleeve flange protrusion to actually having greater protrusion on one side of the block than on the other side of the block. Those issues were ironed out. Latest engines have a heavy press sleeve and the head gasket does not seat and seal on the sleeve flange as the flange is very narrow. Gasket seal right on the block. That helps a lot but doesn't cure it. The higher rpm's has little if any effect as there is no more pressure in the cylinder with 72 horsepower at 2300 rpm on a 706 than there is with 62 horsepower of a 560 at 1800 rpm. The first head gasket I installed on one of those engines had been changed three times already and they later ended up with a R6 suffix that indicates 6 changes. Now days, who knows what gasket you get. There are some specialty ones on the market from what I hear but never saw one.

Give it more fuel, add a turbo, keep mechanics busy replacing more than just a head gasket just like a 4010 Deere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The increase in head bolt torque and different sleeves went a long way from what Ive read. Shame they didnt have more head bolts. Compared to VW diesels from the 80s, the 282 gasket issues aren't so bad :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised that it didn't become common practice to oring these engines. Is there a good reason not to oring them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not want to get too far off of the subject, but since it appears that the D301 may be latest and best of the 282 generation, can one take an early style 282D block with early heads and turn it into a 301, that is larger valves, bore, etc. And.. what about re-machining an existing head and block with more head bolts. Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with what Pete said. Not enough head bolts. I've even had a few 291 and 301 gas engines recently with head gaskets blown between 2 cylinders.

From what I remember the 301 diesel engines in the 715 combines didn't have a lot of trouble with the head gaskets. But they didn't get a lot of hours on them either.

post-328-0-71414300-1434207725_thumb.jpg

These are from 2 tractors in the shop at the same time this spring. 560 diesel (left) and a 706 gas (right) with the 301.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont need aggravation in my life so I stay away from them now.LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know nothing about the 236 but except for starting in cold weather in the winter I have yet to run across a more fuel efficient engine than the 282 in my 560 D.

Had a 715 with the D 301 just a 282 without sleeves but that thing high idled at 2800 rpms and it beat the oil to death and would use oil after 50 hours. I blamed it on trying to get 20 more hp with rpms and no more oil in the engine.

They are still a heck of a good engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting point by "hagan" above. I would tend to agree. The turbo 282D in my dozer seems to almost make gas, well not quite, but extremely fuel efficient. Many talk about hard starting, but I would rather place my bet on getting an unplugged start on a 10 degrees, F+ day on my 282D versus my 1466. I can hold the glow plug in for a minute plus++ if needed and and when it starts continue to hold it another 90 to 120 seconds or however long needed to hear all cylinders running smooth, and then sit there and warm it up before opening the throttle. I have a hard time accomplishing that with my 1466 without grinding the starter and battery to death. If both are heated, they both start like champs. I have a hard time buying the alleged hard starting (diesel) syndrome of the 282D.

Another observation regarding the 282D, I just wonder how much of the blown head gaskets issues have to do with how the engine is operated and the settings of the injection pump. The engine is docile, no doubt about that, but like any engine there are procedures that if adhere to can make a significant difference in longevity. For example I have heard some operators brag about how they can start this engine on a hot day without energizing the glow plugs. Not a good thing. I think the engine needs ample time to warm up after started and also needs an ample cool down period to minimize thermo transients. Perhaps more so than other diesel engines. I also think that once the engine is running it needs to stay running as long as feasible to avoid restarts/thermo transients as much as possible. I know of some operators that have had 560 diesels with 7000 plus hours without a head gasket issue. I also know operators that have replaced head gaskets extensively. I just wonder if there is standard procedure that if followed consistently will secure secure more life out of this engine and prevent/reduce head gaskets failures.

Now here is another observation. It is pretty much a given that the engine needs more head bolts and so earlier engines quality issues as well. This appears to be a little like the 560 rear-end fiasco. Why would Harvester engineering/management release a made over gasoline engine into production without incorporating adequate structural integrity. This should not have been rocket science back then as Harvester and other industry leaders were building diesel engines that were structurally sound. If there is an IH power-plant design engineer on the forum it would be interesting to know Harvester's rational at the time.

Good comments and info from all above. Great history/learning experience. Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I've often wondered about for the D282, is why no one, like M&W, made a deeper oil pan for them? M&W had the turbo kit for the 282, IH even offered a turbo for them for the 560 based off of the crawlers, but the oil capacity remained the same. M&W made a bigger pan for the 361/407, and we know the 404 Deere needed that M&W pan if it wanted to live with a turbo, but the D282 just seemed to be overlooked on that part. One thing that's nice about the 282's oil pan design, is that if a fellow has adequate skills, one could add a strip of steel to the pan & increase the sump. But why the aftermarket didn't do it kinda puzzles me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cactuswest. Well said !

My father farmed his whole life with two 560D's without a single head gasket problem.

I wasen't even aware of this issue before becoming a member of this forum and reading about it here.

I also remember dad pushing snow with one so the school bus could turn around in our driveway so I guess he was able to get it started during inclement weather.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say an engine that needed 30 seconds of glow plugs to start on a 90 degree day after being shut off for ten minutes is a hard starter

that said, once you got them running they did run cheap, and you could leave them in the field away from electricity when it got cold. I suppose a good 282 is a good engine, but Dad bought a bad one (secondhand 706) that ate head gaskets. We got by with it for a long time but a lot of people would have gone green after the experience we had with that tractor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting point by "hagan" above. I would tend to agree. The turbo 282D in my dozer seems to almost make gas, well not quite, but extremely fuel efficient. Many talk about hard starting, but I would rather place my bet on getting an unplugged start on a 10 degrees, F+ day on my 282D versus my 1466. I can hold the glow plug in for a minute plus++ if needed and and when it starts continue to hold it another 90 to 120 seconds or however long needed to hear all cylinders running smooth, and then sit there and warm it up before opening the throttle. I have a hard time accomplishing that with my 1466 without grinding the starter and battery to death. If both are heated, they both start like champs. I have a hard time buying the alleged hard starting (diesel) syndrome of the 282D.

Another observation regarding the 282D, I just wonder how much of the blown head gaskets issues have to do with how the engine is operated and the settings of the injection pump. The engine is docile, no doubt about that, but like any engine there are procedures that if adhere to can make a significant difference in longevity. For example I have heard some operators brag about how they can start this engine on a hot day without energizing the glow plugs. Not a good thing. I think the engine needs ample time to warm up after started and also needs an ample cool down period to minimize thermo transients. Perhaps more so than other diesel engines. I also think that once the engine is running it needs to stay running as long as feasible to avoid restarts/thermo transients as much as possible. I know of some operators that have had 560 diesels with 7000 plus hours without a head gasket issue. I also know operators that have replaced head gaskets extensively. I just wonder if there is standard procedure that if followed consistently will secure secure more life out of this engine and prevent/reduce head gaskets failures.

Now here is another observation. It is pretty much a given that the engine needs more head bolts and so earlier engines quality issues as well. This appears to be a little like the 560 rear-end fiasco. Why would Harvester engineering/management release a made over gasoline engine into production without incorporating adequate structural integrity. This should not have been rocket science back then as Harvester and other industry leaders were building diesel engines that were structurally sound. If there is an IH power-plant design engineer on the forum it would be interesting to know Harvester's rational at the time.

Good comments and info from all above. Great history/learning experience. Thanks

According to everything I've read, engineering took a backseat to sales throughout the farm equipment division during this time. They had limited engineering resources, and those resources were spread thin to cover all of the diverse projects that were being developed. Laboratory tests began to replace field testing as the preferred design verification to save on time and cost. (one IH engineer mentioned in an SAE paper that field durability testing on some iterations of the 236, 252, 282, and 301 engines still hadn't been completed in Oct.1959...) So, it makes sense that the engines exhibited the same weaknesses as the rear-ends, given they were created under the same management team. The engines were first and foremost a compromise to reduce cost while still generating adequate performance.

The engineers who designed the 236, 252, 282, and 301 presented the design data at an SAE meeting in 1959. I have read the excerpt of the meeting. A quick summary is that their project was to design a lightweight, high speed, low-cost diesel engine that could be used across multiple industries. They based it off of an existing gasoline engine (IH black diamond) because it allowed them to re-use existing production tooling with only modifications. They had considered a clean-sheet design, but the cost was too great for management to sign off on. The indirect injection with glow plugs was specifically chosen because the crankcase and crankshaft wouldn't have sufficient strength or load capacity to handle direct injection pressures. They made numerous changes to the engine to stiffen it, add webbing where needed, and upgraded the bearing cap materials to handle the increased cylinder pressures, while still sharing blocks between gasoline and diesel versions. The piston pin OD's remained the same, but the ID was decreased to prevent pin fractures (original gasoline engine pins were accidentally put in a test engine and disintegrated during testing, which proved the math). They specifically mention that head gasket problems plagued the test program The final design was a steel core with prongs pressed into asbestos Steel overlaps were used around the cylinders with copper grommets around water and oil holes. Two water holes required rubber inserts. The gasoline and diesel engines both used the same camshaft, which is a definite nod to cost cutting vs. performance. An engine oil cooler was required, so they adapted an automotive automatic transmission cooler to save cost. Testing revealed that the gasoline engine tolerances for deck height were not accurate enough; they were forced to add a grinder to the line to grind the deck for all diesel engines.

Several engineers from other manufacturers asked questions about the design. An engineer from Cat stated that he didn't understand the reason between making so many displacements that were so close in power, especially with the part throttle efficiency of the diesel engine. He also mentions that the 282 should be the highest performance engine of the family, based their testing of bore-stroke ratio (1.25-1.35 being best). He also specifically questioned the pressures generated with a turbo (1800psi) on these engines and the lack of headbolts, their wide spacing, and the narrow lands between cylinders. He also mentioned that the diesel engine gained 200lb from its gasoline counterpart, which was an increase of over 30%, which is a pretty significant increase for a vehicle application.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

chadd: that kind of confirms the suspicion I've had for a long time that the 282 is the Harvester version of the GM 5.7 diesel: underbuilt. It takes a good operator to get good service out of them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess this engine series got them by until they came out with the 361. In my opinion the best engine IH ever had. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My grandpa bought a new leftover '62 560 diesel in '64 from the IH dealer in Muscatine IA. -at 1100 hours the IH dealer installed the IH turbo kit an today has over 9000 hours an the only thing that's been done to it is the rear main seal an clutch have been replaced -it did break the center main bolts twice an then after we put Chevrolet bolts in they never broke again. it always had good care -warmed up slow an cooled down before shutting it off. -and it still has its original working TA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Chad for sharing this precious historical overview. Absolutely amazing. Senior leadership indeed must have had an epidemic case of the too-big-to fail disease. One could understand the concept design phase of this engine, but preliminary and final design discoveries based on testing and risk data should have been enough to prompt the necessary design modifications. It is hard to comprehend a final design review and sign-off based on what was known. The only thing I can think of would be that schedule/market entry was such a driver, IH perhaps baked in a risk assessment of X amount of failures at perhaps a 60 to 70% (return of all failures) warranty reimbursement rate. The 30 to 40% in un-applied for warranty would cover the cost of completing an aggressive schedule. Interestingly, no matter how you look at these programs, it always boils down to the "triple constraint" factor. Time, Cost, Quality. Whenever you move one constraint that is outside the original program plan parameters, the other two will fluctuate as well, i.e, shorten the time, quality suffers, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 560D has spent all it's life with an M&W turbo, never babied, worked as hard as any tractor of that horsepower.

Still going strong at just under 8000 hrs.

Never had the head off, and has never failed to start, no matter how cold it is.

We had a pair of these tractors with turbos, and never had any trouble with either one when they were our main farming tractors.

We must be in that group of operators that know how to handle the 560D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really interesting comments coming in. It would be interesting to know the above operators' tractors' mfg dates and head serial numbers. If some of these tractors and heads are early serial numbers, that would lead one to believe that the engine just needs to be operated with a more sensitive procedure to obtain the desired reliability. If these are late tractors and heads, perhaps the machining quality escapes were rectified and contributed to the enhance reliability, or it could be a combination of design improvements and appropriate operating procedures consistent with sensitivities to this particular engine design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never had to do anything to our engine , I don;t know serial number like it's 59 . Got alot of hours. if the drawbar is eggshpe that say es something . Keep clean fuel , and the battery charged and it starts, 24/7 365 , i like the tractor only thing major was the clutch .

Oh one ofthe preinjectors leaks , new seal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I ponder the comments above, I get the feeling that a key element to long life with this engine regardless of the mfg date, is managing reduced thermo transients of this engine. You have operators reporting excellent reliability even with installed M&W turbos. If you are running an M&W set up versus the IH add-on kit, The M&W requires an injection pump adjustment to get the couple of hundred extra RPM to make the M&W turbo work with the .57/.58 A/R turbine housing versus the .38 A/R/1850 RPM IH unit. This engine may take half an hour,each for warm up and cool down, but it appears to me based on the shoe string (minimum bolts) attachment of the head, if you let it equalized enough it will settle back to its cold spec. I wonder how many of the head failures occurred after the engine was shut down hot and the the gasket failures were notice on the next start up cycle. I would be interest in reading what the rest of the forum thinks. Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The picture I showed earlier of the 560 head gasket, the owner had been using it on a manure pump to fill his honey wagon when the gasket went. Lost all the cool;ant out of the radiator. It had about 700 hours on it since the last time the gasket was replaced. He has 2 560 diesels and he says they have always been like that, every so often they need a head gasket. And the one has been overhauled several times, and the sleeve height is correct. It probably does have something to do with heat. I had a 706 diesel with a 282 at one time, 750 hours on an overhaul and I had it on a 4 row stalk chopper and the gasket went. put in a new one with new head bolts and got another 500 hours before I sold the tractor. A few years back I had a 656 diesel. One day on the sprayer the head gasket went. Took it apart and the head was so badly cracked I found a good one to replace it with, replaced the head bolts as well. About 200 hours later my dad had it on a 15' rotary hoe on a 90 degree day. He noticed it starting to get warm on the water temp, then the gasket went and it started missing like the time before. I sold the tractor the way it was. The guy that bought it said he just replaced the gasket and put it back together, since the head was in good shape. I now the radiator wasn't in very good condition and had several rows of tubes pinched off. I guess with a decent radiator it probably wouldn't have failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting "FarerFixEmpEM". Did you notice an abnormal/higher then usual temperature on the water temp gauge. In other words was running consistently above the normal range. Thanks for sharing your information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites