Jump to content

4 cylinder Cummins into an IH tractor?


Recommended Posts

I can’t see any situation that would warrant swapping a Cummins in place of a dt. You’re dreaming if you think you’re paying for that swap with fuel savings.  I would also think you be dedicated to running a rack of weights all the time due to lower weight and the fact the engine is shorter so the weight is shifted more toward the back. (It would be very apparent particularly with a 4bt.)

 

I’ve swapped my fair share of engines into places they don’t belong and it usually starts with me trying to justify it somehow but at the end of the day the only way to really justify it is “because I want to”

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 206
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Love it. I'm not even involved. ?   I'd do a Cummins swap.  Think I can shoe horn a 4B into my 284?  If I thought I could and it wasn't overkill I would! Seriously looking at Kubota engines

But why?? The IH engines are much better than those sleeveless rattle trap cummins engines. 

I’m gonna start by saying I’ve never had the pleasure of owning a ih diesel we had 706 gas when I was a kid and I preferred it to other tractor s we had then because of how it drove straight on the ro

Posted Images

8 hours ago, bitty said:

 

They use less fuel than the IH engine did. This is the bigger attraction to them

what I was getting at was whats the down side? why swap out an engine and then it shows up at the dealer? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, ZG6E said:

I can’t see any situation that would warrant swapping a Cummins in place of a dt. You’re dreaming if you think you’re paying for that swap with fuel savings.  I would also think you be dedicated to running a rack of weights all the time due to lower weight and the fact the engine is shorter so the weight is shifted more toward the back. (It would be very apparent particularly with a 4bt.)

 

I’ve swapped my fair share of engines into places they don’t belong and it usually starts with me trying to justify it somehow but at the end of the day the only way to really justify it is “because I want to”

I don't know, we've only tested and replicated the fuel savings with 4 or 5 different tractors we've swapped with different operators doing different jobs and comparing against D/DT 414s, I forget if any of them were 436s. 

Usually see about a gallon per hour less fuel use, for these customers that is about 25%. One guy had cut it by nearly 40%.    Not talking calculated by one tank or one day, these were the findings as the guys were approaching 1000 hours a year on them. 

If you have a 414 needing an out of frame rebuild, or even an inframe rebuild that you are not capable of doing yourself and will spend 4 to 8 to get that done, the cost of putting a Cummins in is fairly competitive at that point, and if you save 1000 gallon of fuel a year at 1.50 a gal is 1500 bucks. 

So if its 5k to inframe your 1066 and put a clutch in it then and 8k to swap a Cummins in (should be on the high side there) is a difference of 3k that should be paid for in roughly 2 years by fuel savings. But it takes putting hours on.

Not many areas put hours on these old tractors like our area in PA.

An auger tractor getting 200 hours a year won't pay. 

I've done a couple swaps in my tractors to farm with as well, usually "because I want to" is a reason to do it, but they have also had marked goals and improvements that were made by the swap that justified doing the swap. (Start easier, more power available, better parts support, parts commonality with our other tractors, etc)

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, hillman said:

what I was getting at was whats the down side? why swap out an engine and then it shows up at the dealer? 

That tractor was not traded etc with the Cummins, the dealer put it in.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jacka said:

Just wondering what real life would be with 1066dt in the field with stock or rated factory HP alongside a 5.9 with the engine set to its SAME FACTORY HP.

P.S.

I wouldn't take a 414dt out of 1066 for NOTHING. So I  guess I am biased. 

An early 1066 rated at 116hp is exactly what I would call snappy...

That would compare to like an MX120 or 135, I've never ran them in the field so I can't say either. 

A 5.9 will make any power the 1066 should make. 150 is fine. Limiting factor usually is water temp/keeping it cool but a 66 has at least as big radiator as an MX. 

Pulling a good running one out does make me scratch my head, but then again you have a good motor to sell to offset the cost vs a big paperweight if you have one with a spun bearing and hole in the side, not much residual value there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Super A_sepa said:

Not many areas put hours on these old tractors like our area in PA.

Not saying BS, but this same fuel info probably comes from guys who claim they raise 250 bu+ corn in a 40 acre field on the side of mountain and haul it all to the elevator with a C65 Chevy straight truck and made 5 trips............What I am saying is I don't think the numbers would be as good as thought, to make power you have to burn fuel, its a law of nature, might there be a slight difference?  Yes, one that great, I highly doubt.  One thing I learned living in this state all my life, and having generations and generations here before me, reality here seems to be a bit off-kilter compared to elsewhere.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no damned way that that little 359cube is going to hang with a 414 or 436. And claiming better starting and better fuel? But how can you claim "better starting" when the IH ALWAYS starts? That's like saying one kettle is better than the other when the both boil water at the same rate.  And the IH engines have always been great on fuel. Both are excellent points against those crap green and yellow tractors. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Super A_sepa said:

 

Usually see about a gallon per hour less fuel use, for these customers that is about 25%. One guy had cut it by nearly 40%.    Not talking calculated by one tank or one day, these were the findings as the guys were approaching 1000 hours a year on them. 

 

I don't get your math. the 1 gallon an hr and 25% you are talking about an appr. 5 gallon an hr engine. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Super A_sepa said:

I don't know, we've only tested and replicated the fuel savings with 4 or 5 different tractors we've swapped with different operators doing different jobs and comparing against D/DT 414s, I forget if any of them were 436s. 

Usually see about a gallon per hour less fuel use, for these customers that is about 25%. One guy had cut it by nearly 40%.    Not talking calculated by one tank or one day, these were the findings as the guys were approaching 1000 hours a year on them. 

If you have a 414 needing an out of frame rebuild, or even an inframe rebuild that you are not capable of doing yourself and will spend 4 to 8 to get that done, the cost of putting a Cummins in is fairly competitive at that point, and if you save 1000 gallon of fuel a year at 1.50 a gal is 1500 bucks. 

So if its 5k to inframe your 1066 and put a clutch in it then and 8k to swap a Cummins in (should be on the high side there) is a difference of 3k that should be paid for in roughly 2 years by fuel savings. But it takes putting hours on.

Not many areas put hours on these old tractors like our area in PA.

An auger tractor getting 200 hours a year won't pay. 

I've done a couple swaps in my tractors to farm with as well, usually "because I want to" is a reason to do it, but they have also had marked goals and improvements that were made by the swap that justified doing the swap. (Start easier, more power available, better parts support, parts commonality with our other tractors, etc)

I can’t quite believe those numbers on fuel savings nor the cost. Why do the medium duty trucks and school buses with each engine get nearly identical mpg? Maybe those people are comparing clapped out IH engines against a tight Cummins. 
 

The plate alone for a Cummins swap is 2k from leamans. What’s a compete rebuilt 5.9 cost with an injection pump? How much to add a tach drive, exhaust manifold, fuel linkage brackets, water temp sender, alternator and a/c brackets.. etc. If someone isn’t capable to doing an inframe they probably aren’t capable of doing the swap either. How much does the labor run to do the swap? Either option should get a new clutch while it’s split. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Farmall Doctor said:

There's no damned way that that little 359cube is going to hang with a 414 or 436. And claiming better starting and better fuel? But how can you claim "better starting" when the IH ALWAYS starts? That's like saying one kettle is better than the other when the both boil water at the same rate.  And the IH engines have always been great on fuel. Both are excellent points against those crap green and yellow tractors. 

its not 

Case Ih 7110 8.3 ( 504 cubes) 132  PTO hp

IH 5088 7.1 ( 436 cubes) 135 PTO hp

swapping out bigger engines don't make sense to me. Tennaco used a bigger engine in a comparable tractor than IH did , Why didn't Tennaco use the 5.9 in the 7110

btw I think the Cummins is a good engine but the swap thing doesn't happen here . I think FD will agree

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I could see a 5.9 with a turbo being more efficient than a D360 in a 886 but that would be due to the turbo.  Same with the D436 in a 986 but it would be due to the turbo.

Set for factory horsepower the 5.9 and the dt414 should be very close to the same fuel usage.  Now if the dt414 was cranked up to 150+ Hp and the 5.9 is set to 120, then maybe.  The other situation would be used for light loads.  If they are only using 50 HP on an auger, I could also see the smaller engine saving fuel.

as others have pointed out, it takes fuel to make hp.  10% difference is plausible.  25% fuel saving doesn’t pass the sniff test and requires more background information to be believable.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Farmall Doctor said:

There's no damned way that that little 359cube is going to hang with a 414 or 436. And claiming better starting and better fuel? But how can you claim "better starting" when the IH ALWAYS starts? That's like saying one kettle is better than the other when the both boil water at the same rate.  And the IH engines have always been great on fuel. Both are excellent points against those crap green and yellow tractors. 

Alllll the way back at the beginning of this thread, across the river and through the woods, 4 score and 7 years ago, when it was actually on topic, I believe my comment was that a 4BT (the original question) would be best fit in a 706 or 756. Surely I don't think you will argue that a 282 or 310 will start as well as the Cummins. 

It will certainly hang with those engines when you aren't using them for all they're worth. 

23 minutes ago, TP from Central PA said:

Not saying BS, but this same fuel info probably comes from guys who claim they raise 250 bu+ corn in a 40 acre field on the side of mountain and haul it all to the elevator with a C65 Chevy straight truck and made 5 trips............What I am saying is I don't think the numbers would be as good as thought, to make power you have to burn fuel, its a law of nature, might there be a slight difference?  Yes, one that great, I highly doubt.  One thing I learned living in this state all my life, and having generations and generations here before me, reality here seems to be a bit off-kilter compared to elsewhere.  

Definitely not those guys.   Actually mostly not even guys that drive, period. 

These are guys running the road, mostly custom wrapping and custom bagging, some just stay on the farm but not as many. Typically not high engine loads or high engine loads all the time. That is where the major difference is. Like I said, this is a unique area. 

12 minutes ago, ZG6E said:

 

The plate alone for a Cummins swap is 2k from leamans. What’s a compete rebuilt 5.9 cost with an injection pump? How much to add a tach drive, exhaust manifold, fuel linkage brackets, water temp sender, alternator and a/c brackets.. etc. If someone isn’t capable to doing an inframe they probably aren’t capable of doing the swap either. How much does the labor run to do the swap? Either option should get a new clutch while it’s split. 

If it isn't broke, how do you fix it? If the engine isn't doing anything wrong, what is to be gained by pulling it apart? There are no sleeve o rings that are drying out and no sleeves that are working on cavitating.  If its a truck motor you'll have the pan off anyway, check some bearings while you're there and go from there. 

What has worked better is find a motor with half the parts you need already on it (ie out of a tractor) you'll pay more, but less parts to swap and should have a nicer motor than one that was always ran in Salt even if the rest of the truck rusted away first. 

Don't have to change manifold, pump linkage doesn't cost anything, rebend your 66 rod or drill new holes in the mount and bolt your 86 cable on

Water temp sender isn't a big cost, your 86 one probably didn't work anyhow. If it did, you can pull it out of that. 

Alternator can quit anytime, run whats on there till it does. Pretty easy to see if it is functioning before leaving the shop.   The nicer way to do it and look factory is put the multi groove pulley on your alt off your 400 series when you swap and run the original style alternator, definitely helps the look of the swap.  Tach drive is a couple hundred dollars. Engine out of a tractor probably has ac brackets. If its going in a 66, most likely it doesn't need them anyhow. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Super A_sepa said:

Alllll the way back at the beginning of this thread, across the river and through the woods, 4 score and 7 years ago, when it was actually on topic, I believe my comment was that a 4BT (the original question) would be best fit in a 706 or 756. Surely I don't think you will argue that a 282 or 310 will start as well as the Cummins. 

It will certainly hang with those engines when you aren't using them for all they're worth. 

Definitely not those guys.   Actually mostly not even guys that drive, period. 

These are guys running the road, mostly custom wrapping and custom bagging, some just stay on the farm but not as many. Typically not high engine loads or high engine loads all the time. That is where the major difference is. Like I said, this is a unique area. 

If it isn't broke, how do you fix it? If the engine isn't doing anything wrong, what is to be gained by pulling it apart? There are no sleeve o rings that are drying out and no sleeves that are working on cavitating.  If its a truck motor you'll have the pan off anyway, check some bearings while you're there and go from there. 

What has worked better is find a motor with half the parts you need already on it (ie out of a tractor) you'll pay more, but less parts to swap and should have a nicer motor than one that was always ran in Salt even if the rest of the truck rusted away first. 

Don't have to change manifold, pump linkage doesn't cost anything, rebend your 66 rod or drill new holes in the mount and bolt your 86 cable on

Water temp sender isn't a big cost, your 86 one probably didn't work anyhow. If it did, you can pull it out of that. 

Alternator can quit anytime, run whats on there till it does. Pretty easy to see if it is functioning before leaving the shop.   The nicer way to do it and look factory is put the multi groove pulley on your alt off your 400 series when you swap and run the original style alternator, definitely helps the look of the swap.  Tach drive is a couple hundred dollars. Engine out of a tractor probably has ac brackets. If its going in a 66, most likely it doesn't need them anyhow. 

So this comes back to when finished you have a who knows how worn-in Cummins vs. a rebuilt IH engine and you’re spending more money on the Cummins- and if someone is putting over 1000 hours a year on their tractor I would surely think they would want to start with a rebuilt engine. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ZG6E said:

So this comes back to when finished you have a who knows how worn-in Cummins vs. a rebuilt IH engine and you’re spending more money on the Cummins- and if someone is putting over 1000 hours a year on their tractor I would surely think they would want to start with a rebuilt engine. 

Buy a burnt case with 4k hours on it but a good engine. Or one with a toasted PS. The engine didn't do anything wrong there.    If your IH has a window in it and you are swapping anyhow, and the used complete engines are in the same ball park in price, then what? If you're rebuilding the IH before it goes back in then your running similar numbers on up through but they keep getting bigger.   A lot of these guys if they have the money to spend, they don't mind spending a little more, but they don't want to spend it needlessly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, ZG6E said:

So this comes back to when finished you have a who knows how worn-in Cummins vs. a rebuilt IH engine and you’re spending more money on the Cummins- and if someone is putting over 1000 hours a year on their tractor I would surely think they would want to start with a rebuilt engine. 

Its PA...........What makes no sense to the rest of the country is logical here.  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, TP from Central PA said:

Its PA...........What makes no sense to the rest of the country is logical here.  

Exactly. 

 Its their tractor and their money and if thats how they want it set up, it can be done.  There is nearly always a more proper way to do things but the odd thing is they usually get away without it. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I too am from the old school thought of "no replacement for displacement". But, after seeing a White 2-155 with a 175hp59L swapped in to replace the fuel thirsty 478 Hercules, I was impressed. It was VE pump with liquid intercooler. That engine had that tractor making 175hp on the PTO! The 5.9 is the little engine that could. The thing we old timers forget about is modern day advancements in combustion chamber design as well as cylinder head flow. There is no doubt the DT is a very good design, but for some applications the newer, smaller engine will do the same jobs on less fuel. Rarely are we putting our tractors under 100% load 100% of the time. Engine efficiency is a big factor.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Super A_sepa said:

Surely I don't think you will argue that a 282 or 310 will start as well as the Cummins. 

282, totally agree with. A German 310? Never heard of starting problems with them. We have its big brother and it's good cold weather starter and it's getting some age on it now.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mudfly said:

I could see a 5.9 with a turbo being more efficient than a D360 in a 886 but that would be due to the turbo.  Same with the D436 in a 986 but it would be due to the turbo.

Set for factory horsepower the 5.9 and the dt414 should be very close to the same fuel usage.  Now if the dt414 was cranked up to 150+ Hp and the 5.9 is set to 120, then maybe.  The other situation would be used for light loads.  If they are only using 50 HP on an auger, I could also see the smaller engine saving fuel.

as others have pointed out, it takes fuel to make hp.  10% difference is plausible.  25% fuel saving doesn’t pass the sniff test and requires more background information to be believable.

 

My one owner 1066 with factory setting with fuel pump never taken off and lead factory seal still intact put out 149 hp at a IH dealer in the 80's when the trans got some work.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my Canadian buddies has a 4BT twin charger in a early Ford Bronco.   Near 400 hp and great fuel use.

 We have to remember the CIH Maxxum tractors with the 6 and 6BT engines in them.   More than a few made it to 20000 hours without an overhaul. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love this thread ! for the most part no one is flippin out and we are going from apples to oranges to bananas 

 

 

Nothing like apple pie and IH ! America's Best?..never had orange pie or banana pie:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hillman said:

I love this thread ! for the most part no one is flippin out and we are going from apples to oranges to bananas 

 

 

Nothing like apple pie and IH ! America's Best?

It has been a super interesting thread with a lot of interesting discussion.  

I've enjoyed it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...