Michael Halsall

560 vs 660 engines

Recommended Posts

I am asking about the difference of the engines used in the 560 & 660 tractors. 

The C-263 & D-282 engines as used in the 560 tractors were rated at 1,800 RPM

The same engines in the 660 tractors were rated at 2,400 RPM.

How was this achieved?   I assume the 660 Diesel had a differently rated injection pump.

How did the gasoline and LPG engines achieve this?  A different cam grind?

 

 

Regards from Michael H.B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they just cranked up the governor on the gas and lpg tractors. The diesels had a different pump.Most 560's around here were turning well over 2 grand, our 660 diesel ran at 3000 RPM for 20 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, R Pope said:

I think they just cranked up the governor on the gas and lpg tractors. The diesels had a different pump.Most 560's around here were turning well over 2 grand, our 660 diesel ran at 3000 RPM for 20 years.

Huh ? 3000 rpm you sure ? ours was 2400 rpm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ksfarmdude said:

Huh ? 3000 rpm you sure ? ours was 2400 rpm

Off the showroom floor the 660 was rated at 2,400 RPM. I assume yours was "tweaked up" by the dealer or yourself to get a bit of extra power. By squeezing extra power out of a 660 it could be used to pull even heavier implements, an advantage with a wheat land tractor!

Regards from Michael H.😎

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Michael Halsall said:

Off the showroom floor the 660 was rated at 2,400 RPM. I assume yours was "tweaked up" by the dealer or yourself to get a bit of extra power. By squeezing extra power out of a 660 it could be used to pull even heavier implements, an advantage with a wheat land tractor!

Regards from Michael H.😎

that's a gutsy call rev'ing them 282's up like that considering their history of head gasket failure let alone getting 20 yrs out of it amazing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

282's in trucks were running up to 3200 at the time according to our IH guy so we figured what the heck and cranked her up! Every other one around here ran hot and blew up, ours kept cool and never missed a beat. Took the hard surfacing off third gear pulling 30 feet of discer for ten seasons before demoting her to second tractor after we got a 125 Versatile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, R Pope said:

282's in trucks were running up to 3200 at the time according to our IH guy so we figured what the heck and cranked her up! Every other one around here ran hot and blew up, ours kept cool and never missed a beat. Took the hard surfacing off third gear pulling 30 feet of discer for ten seasons before demoting her to second tractor after we got a 125 Versatile.

in the trucks high rpms were short periods on a farm tractor full throddle rpm for long hard pulling really is pushing the limits I would have opted to install a turbo an kept the factory engine speeds 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ksfarmdude said:

in the trucks high rpms were short periods on a farm tractor full throddle rpm for long hard pulling really is pushing the limits I would have opted to install a turbo an kept the factory engine speeds 

I assume the turbo adds mid range power rather than raising the RPM range. Having said that turbochargers generate heat and add pressure to head gaskets etc.

There was a turbo version of the D-282 diesel (DT-282) used in the TD-9B crawler tractor. I know nothing about it but I assume there were some internal modifications made to this engine to cope with the turbocharging.

Regards from Michael H.😎

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael,   there is no difference in the internal parts of the DT282 and the D282.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the things you have to remember about the C263 and D282 is they have a hugely overdesigned crankshaft and connecting rods. I have seen a D282 come out of an 8500 hour model Farmall 706 and when checked out we were able to use standard rod and main bearings. The originals were still ok and only starting to get into the copper. You could say, "how can that be?". What you should remember is that this engine was originally designed for ungoverned motor trucks and people would often rev them up to or over 5000 RPM before shifting into the next higher gear. Above that you start to get valve float. That is also why they were one of the preferred engines for tractor pulling. As a six cylinder engine they were balanced for both primary and secondary forces and couples. That was one of the attractions for IH using them as tractor engines in that they run smoothly. The block was also fully skirted which added rigidity to the lower crank case area. The weakness was the number of bolts used to clamp the cylinder head and that is because it was originally designed as a gasoline engine. The lack of sufficient cylinder head bolts was the problem the designers encountered when they first tried to dieselize this engine back in 1954. It took considerable ingenuity to overcome this problem through redesigned cylinder head gaskets and other changes they made later.

The same logic was successfully used later in the design of the 300 and 400 engines. While they were not used in trucks right away back in 1971 they were soon adapted to trucks in 1975. The earlier 361 and 407 engines were not used in trucks. Similarly the Neuss six cylinder engines were used in a few truck applications in Australia but as noted on this forum they were not very successful. Even the Cummins 8.3 doesn't have high reving capability built into it.          

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original BD264 truck engine, BD meaning Black Diamond, were **** for tough all right. Their only weakness was dropping valve heads. A combination of over revving and heating would break the weld between the valve stem and the valve head with catastrophic results. The 220 and the 240 shared the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2018 at 7:33 PM, R Pope said:

The original BD264 truck engine, BD meaning Black Diamond, were **** for tough all right. Their only weakness was dropping valve heads. A combination of over revving and heating would break the weld between the valve stem and the valve head with catastrophic results. The 220 and the 240 shared the problem.

My uncle said ' .... for stout'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2018 at 1:12 PM, George 2 said:

One of the things you have to remember about the C263 and D282 is they have a hugely overdesigned crankshaft and connecting rods. I have seen a D282 come out of an 8500 hour model Farmall 706 and when checked out we were able to use standard rod and main bearings. The originals were still ok and only starting to get into the copper. You could say, "how can that be?". What you should remember is that this engine was originally designed for ungoverned motor trucks and people would often rev them up to or over 5000 RPM before shifting into the next higher gear. Above that you start to get valve float. That is also why they were one of the preferred engines for tractor pulling. As a six cylinder engine they were balanced for both primary and secondary forces and couples. That was one of the attractions for IH using them as tractor engines in that they run smoothly. The block was also fully skirted which added rigidity to the lower crank case area. The weakness was the number of bolts used to clamp the cylinder head and that is because it was originally designed as a gasoline engine. The lack of sufficient cylinder head bolts was the problem the designers encountered when they first tried to dieselize this engine back in 1954. It took considerable ingenuity to overcome this problem through redesigned cylinder head gaskets and other changes they made later.

The same logic was successfully used later in the design of the 300 and 400 engines. While they were not used in trucks right away back in 1971 they were soon adapted to trucks in 1975. The earlier 361 and 407 engines were not used in trucks. Similarly the Neuss six cylinder engines were used in a few truck applications in Australia but as noted on this forum they were not very successful. Even the Cummins 8.3 doesn't have high reving capability built into it.          

That just blows my mind that you could Rev them to 5000 RPM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now