Your book dosen't go back far enough for the rest of the tractors there should be several that used the same engine to burn the differen't fuels. The MM U's used the 283 for distillate, kerosene, gas, lp, and diesel that engine could also burn natural gas and butaine as a powerunit. I think the IH M should be the same way the diesels were the MD but the tractor was the same and I think the engines were still the same the MD's engine was the only diesel engine I know of that had spark plugs and a carburator along with the injector pump and injectors. I would think the 77 and 88 olivers and maybe the 400 case would have burned all those fuels. I think the JD 720 was the last tractor to be tested that used distillate fuel. There should be several engines that burned distlate in one tractor then when they made them burn diesel they droped the distlate and changed the model makeing it look like they had a new tractor. I should do some checking into this because I'm haveing a harder time comming up with tractors that burned all those fuels than I thought I would have.
Propane vs. Gasoline (Long)
- Thread starter Lazy JW
- Start date
Your book dosen't go back far enough for the rest of the tractors there should be several that used the same engine to burn the differen't fuels. The MM U's used the 283 for distillate, kerosene, gas, lp, and diesel that engine could also burn natural gas and butaine as a powerunit. I think the IH M should be the same way the diesels were the MD but the tractor was the same and I think the engines were still the same the MD's engine was the only diesel engine I know of that had spark plugs and a carburator along with the injector pump and injectors. I would think the 77 and 88 olivers and maybe the 400 case would have burned all those fuels. I think the JD 720 was the last tractor to be tested that used distillate fuel. There should be several engines that burned distlate in one tractor then when they made them burn diesel they droped the distlate and changed the model makeing it look like they had a new tractor. I should do some checking into this because I'm haveing a harder time comming up with tractors that burned all those fuels than I thought I would have.
Fiorelli":gxq6b4g1 said:
The book I have is called "Nebraska Tractor Tests Since 1920" by C.H Wendel. It does cover every tractor tested up to 1984 but it is actually just a SUMMARY of each test intended more for pleasure reading rather than scientific analysis. Mr. Wendel wrote little tidbits of interest about each machine and did include HP, RPM, and fuel consumption numbers at both rated power and max power, but each paragraph was written in varying order so the info is rather difficult to glean.
Fiorelli":gxq6b4g1 said:
International used that system on their entire series of TD crawlers up to at least the TD-24. They started on gasoline and when warmed up a bit it switched to diesel. Pretty nifty.
Fiorelli":gxq6b4g1 said:
Probably, but they changed the model designations enough that I cannot tell for certain if it was an identical engine. Sometimes the same engine was used in a different model tractor with a different transmission, wheelbase, etc. In my evaluation I only included those tractors that used the same model designation.
Fiorelli":gxq6b4g1 said:
The JD 720 was the last tractor tested using what was called "Tractor Fuel". I shall quote the explanation given by C.H. Wendel:
"For a short time following World War II, "tractor fuel" was offered by most of the major oil companies. It was about two notches above distillate, and fell somewhere between gasoline and kerosene. The idea caught on briefly, and several tractor builders tailored specific models to use this type fuel."
The last tractor tested using "Distillate" was the McCormick-Deering W-9 in 1941.
However, they were both considered to be low-octane, low-cost fuels and required similar low-compression ratios, so in my mind they were really about the same. Just a trivial detail, but they did make the distinction at the Tractor Test Station.
Fiorelli":gxq6b4g1 said:
I'm pretty sure this is why it appears that there weren't more machines in the four-fuel testing category but I have no way of knowing which ones were merely a model-year name change so I did not include them.
I guess you have a differen't book than what I have mine goes back to 1950. I have heard of the book you have but have never seen one. I'd probably own one if I found one for sell.
Thanks Joe!!! I've been gone a while. I started a new job last summer. I had to do something uncle sam stabed me in the back very hard last spring. I guess I'm just a hobby farmer now. Harvest went good! I just don't have much time with school, farming, and a full time job.
It took me awhile to find but here are the specifications. They are from a serviceletter dated april 19, 1971 for a new cam shaft for all power units and tractors. "The new shaft will be used in production, starting in July production of 425, 451 and 504 Diesel tractor engines as well as the LP gas tractors versions."
Camshafts, part # 20-0007763, 10A21831 and 10A30471
intake opens at 14deg BTDC Intake closes 34deg ABDC
Exhaust opens 39deg BBDC Exhaust closes 9 deg ATDC
Lift .340
Camshafts # 10A19798, 10A19776, and 10A30435
intake opens at 20deg BTDC Intake closes 40deg ABDC
Exhaust opens 40deg BBDC Exhaust closes 20 deg ATDC
Lift on 10A30435 10A19776 is .379
Lift on 10A19798 is .377
Camshafts # 10a24044
intake opens at 9deg BTDC Intake closes 39deg ABDC
Exhaust opens 39deg BBDC Exhaust closes 6 deg ATDC
Lift .379
Camshafts # 10A9032
intake opens at 4deg BTDC Intake closes 38deg ABDC
Exhaust opens 47deg BBDC Exhaust closes 7 deg ATDC
Lift .318
Camshafts # 10A25080
intake opens at 3deg BTDC Intake closes 37deg ABDC
Exhaust opens 53deg BBDC Exhaust closes 7 deg ATDC
Lift .320
Hope things have reated you all well. I'll have to figure out how to get pictures posted here. I put a turbo on the LP pulling tractor for the last two pulls this summer. When I get some pictures of it and a little time I'll post them and let you know how it worked.
Jeremy
Thanks Joe!!! I've been gone a while. I started a new job last summer. I had to do something uncle sam stabed me in the back very hard last spring. I guess I'm just a hobby farmer now. Harvest went good! I just don't have much time with school, farming, and a full time job.
It took me awhile to find but here are the specifications. They are from a serviceletter dated april 19, 1971 for a new cam shaft for all power units and tractors. "The new shaft will be used in production, starting in July production of 425, 451 and 504 Diesel tractor engines as well as the LP gas tractors versions."
Camshafts, part # 20-0007763, 10A21831 and 10A30471
intake opens at 14deg BTDC Intake closes 34deg ABDC
Exhaust opens 39deg BBDC Exhaust closes 9 deg ATDC
Lift .340
Camshafts # 10A19798, 10A19776, and 10A30435
intake opens at 20deg BTDC Intake closes 40deg ABDC
Exhaust opens 40deg BBDC Exhaust closes 20 deg ATDC
Lift on 10A30435 10A19776 is .379
Lift on 10A19798 is .377
Camshafts # 10a24044
intake opens at 9deg BTDC Intake closes 39deg ABDC
Exhaust opens 39deg BBDC Exhaust closes 6 deg ATDC
Lift .379
Camshafts # 10A9032
intake opens at 4deg BTDC Intake closes 38deg ABDC
Exhaust opens 47deg BBDC Exhaust closes 7 deg ATDC
Lift .318
Camshafts # 10A25080
intake opens at 3deg BTDC Intake closes 37deg ABDC
Exhaust opens 53deg BBDC Exhaust closes 7 deg ATDC
Lift .320
Hope things have reated you all well. I'll have to figure out how to get pictures posted here. I put a turbo on the LP pulling tractor for the last two pulls this summer. When I get some pictures of it and a little time I'll post them and let you know how it worked.
Jeremy
About the only thing I can weigh in with on this very interesting thread, regards the effects of propane on an engine.
I really appreciate lower emissions, and the lessened wear and tear running lpg. (except nox) Add to that the pressurized supply vs a mechanical pump in the carb setup, and I'm very happy. Oil changes every 7500km also pleasing.
I'm also able to purchase lpg for 10-50% less than gasoline currently, and that is also a major factor.
Thinking if the full weight of engineering ability had been thrust into the effort to make lpg a prudent choice - dedicated engine design and engine management, then it would have been the ideal choice at one point. (lower btu count acknowledged)
Very interested in the idea of 130 octane methane in a CNG-like configuration. Also very interested in the news out of Aus regarding Diesel engines running straight propane, with a "patented compression lowering" technology and retaining compression ignition.
http://www.worldlpgas.com/gain/docs/...pdates_N25.pdf
I really appreciate lower emissions, and the lessened wear and tear running lpg. (except nox) Add to that the pressurized supply vs a mechanical pump in the carb setup, and I'm very happy. Oil changes every 7500km also pleasing.
I'm also able to purchase lpg for 10-50% less than gasoline currently, and that is also a major factor.
Thinking if the full weight of engineering ability had been thrust into the effort to make lpg a prudent choice - dedicated engine design and engine management, then it would have been the ideal choice at one point. (lower btu count acknowledged)
Very interested in the idea of 130 octane methane in a CNG-like configuration. Also very interested in the news out of Aus regarding Diesel engines running straight propane, with a "patented compression lowering" technology and retaining compression ignition.
http://www.worldlpgas.com/gain/docs/...pdates_N25.pdf
aussie7mains
Famous Member
Thought Id weigh in here, I work for a company called AEC which does CNG LNG conversions of compresssion ignition engines to spark ignition, they run extremely lean lamdba, 1.55 to 1.65, which is almost at the limit of flamability for methane (our main area). Methane indeed has an octane of around 130, but not all natuaral gas is methane of course, ours here in Perth is about 95% so its slightly lower, but to give you an idea we can run 12:1 with 200kpa MAP and about 25degrees ignition advance with complete safety. We use an exhaust temp probe and special software to limit exhaust temps. Recently we have been working on a straight butane engine which is turbo and has 10:1 comp. unfortunately this has already damaged itself due to detonation, butane is only 95 octane, QED.
I have a lpg fueled OHC ford 4 litre six which runs very nicely on our local LPG (about 80% propane) it has 9.65 to one compression and a simple OMVL mixer system, so far its getting within 10% of the original petrol consumption, power and responsiness is down slightly but not enough to worry about. LPG is an excellent fuel and in Australian its generally half the price of petrol, so there is quite a savings. We have a quite extensive network of outlets, almost very garage (gas station to you guys) has a lpg pump.
Now CNG LNG to diesel dual fuel using the compression ignition, Ive seen some of these and my comment is "run away quickly" almost every one has blown up cat C15s in heavy trucks and they were not overly succesfull at substition and is still giving trouble to the local company fitting them.
As to LPG in diesel cycle, single fuel, much the same only worse, its done on light duty dual fuel engines like toyota land snoozers, but not heavy duty. Heavily worked engines like the CAt c15 would blow the tops of the pistons quicktime, without being decompressed down to something around 9 to one, dont forget these engines run anything up to 300kPa MAP.
Never heard of the compression lower stuff to me, sounds like BS to me, the only way I can think of is to throttle the engine to lower cyclinder filling which would lower effective CR but why? You need to get rid of an awfull lot of air to do it and then it wouldnt be very efficient use of the 15 odd litres or the turbo system.
Spark ignition seems to be the best option yet found, and even when the costs are taken up Ii still believe its the most cost effective for heavy truck use. The only really succesfull widely used CNG LNG systems for heavy vehicles use spark ignition. MAN Mercedes Cummins etc.
BTW LNG is starting to get interesting in Perth, we now have a 175 tonne/ day LNG plant and a local pump here now, We just handed over our first spark ignited Isuzu 7.1 litre 255BHP LNG fuel truck. Its got a brother on CNG which has done over 100000km so far with only minor periferal problems.
seeya
A7M
I have a lpg fueled OHC ford 4 litre six which runs very nicely on our local LPG (about 80% propane) it has 9.65 to one compression and a simple OMVL mixer system, so far its getting within 10% of the original petrol consumption, power and responsiness is down slightly but not enough to worry about. LPG is an excellent fuel and in Australian its generally half the price of petrol, so there is quite a savings. We have a quite extensive network of outlets, almost very garage (gas station to you guys) has a lpg pump.
Now CNG LNG to diesel dual fuel using the compression ignition, Ive seen some of these and my comment is "run away quickly" almost every one has blown up cat C15s in heavy trucks and they were not overly succesfull at substition and is still giving trouble to the local company fitting them.
As to LPG in diesel cycle, single fuel, much the same only worse, its done on light duty dual fuel engines like toyota land snoozers, but not heavy duty. Heavily worked engines like the CAt c15 would blow the tops of the pistons quicktime, without being decompressed down to something around 9 to one, dont forget these engines run anything up to 300kPa MAP.
Never heard of the compression lower stuff to me, sounds like BS to me, the only way I can think of is to throttle the engine to lower cyclinder filling which would lower effective CR but why? You need to get rid of an awfull lot of air to do it and then it wouldnt be very efficient use of the 15 odd litres or the turbo system.
Spark ignition seems to be the best option yet found, and even when the costs are taken up Ii still believe its the most cost effective for heavy truck use. The only really succesfull widely used CNG LNG systems for heavy vehicles use spark ignition. MAN Mercedes Cummins etc.
BTW LNG is starting to get interesting in Perth, we now have a 175 tonne/ day LNG plant and a local pump here now, We just handed over our first spark ignited Isuzu 7.1 litre 255BHP LNG fuel truck. Its got a brother on CNG which has done over 100000km so far with only minor periferal problems.
seeya
A7M
Thanks for the input A7M,
Sounds like someone needs to put a really big inline six back into production just for the CNG. Maybe something like the old GMC units that went up to 707 cubic inches. A modern quench design in the combustion chamber with modern ignition and a proper camshaft could make for a sweet running, economical powerplant 8) 8)
Joe
Sounds like someone needs to put a really big inline six back into production just for the CNG. Maybe something like the old GMC units that went up to 707 cubic inches. A modern quench design in the combustion chamber with modern ignition and a proper camshaft could make for a sweet running, economical powerplant 8) 8)
Joe
interestingly enough, i see the link no longer works. Nor can I find any mention of it again after some time searching the web about it again.
I do know it regarded a Volvo Diesel engine.. Will continue to look for the article. Sorry for the broken link.
I do know it regarded a Volvo Diesel engine.. Will continue to look for the article. Sorry for the broken link.
ok here we go.
fleet effect is the company.
Here is the blurb:
"...Fleet Effect has
recently introduced a “holistic engine
conversion approach†to convert heavy-duty
diesel engines to 100% autogas. The
third generation engine design is based
on a 2006 Mercedes Benz Actros 460HP
12 V6 engine. Employing a patented
compression ratio reduction and fuel
swirl plate technologies, the company
has been able to reduce compression
ratios to less than 10:1, improve cylinder
head cooling and eliminate diesel fuel injectors and pump.
The result is a 100% autogas engine that
increases torque and power and improves
engine efficiency - all while delivering the fuel
costs savings and reduced emissions
associated with autogas."
This is what happens when i try to remember a link I read three months ago! Benz, not Volvo. Sorry!
http://www.fleeteffect.com/Technologies ... Trucks.htm
fleet effect is the company.
Here is the blurb:
"...Fleet Effect has
recently introduced a “holistic engine
conversion approach†to convert heavy-duty
diesel engines to 100% autogas. The
third generation engine design is based
on a 2006 Mercedes Benz Actros 460HP
12 V6 engine. Employing a patented
compression ratio reduction and fuel
swirl plate technologies, the company
has been able to reduce compression
ratios to less than 10:1, improve cylinder
head cooling and eliminate diesel fuel injectors and pump.
The result is a 100% autogas engine that
increases torque and power and improves
engine efficiency - all while delivering the fuel
costs savings and reduced emissions
associated with autogas."
This is what happens when i try to remember a link I read three months ago! Benz, not Volvo. Sorry!
http://www.fleeteffect.com/Technologies ... Trucks.htm
aussie7mains
Famous Member
Thanks for that, Ive looked at the site, and I have to say Im a bit doubtfull. There are no technical staff listed, only MBA types, it seems the company mainly does transport optimisation work.
Id love to see how the patented compression reduction works!
LNG would be a better proposition but as far as I know there isnt any fuel distribution system in Melbourne so that severly limits what can be done. Here in Western Australia the trucks Ive seen have about 900litres of lng storage as well as about 1200l of diesel fuel, they are CAPS systems on Caterpillar C15 engines that does not lower engine compression and bleeeds off some boost on gas operation. All the trucks are Kenworths with 3 rear axles and they pull double semi trailers 3 axle each, hauling crude oil,(all up mass about 90tonnes) they run up and down about a 600-700km round trip continuosly in all weathers including ambient temps to 44degrees C, its hard work especially with our winds.
All of they have blown up engines at least once, some a couple of times, usually in the same place hauling up a long grade. (usual fialure is siezure due to melting the top of the piston)
The engines Ive dealt with dont do that as we can control air and fuel flow into the engine and limit cylinder temps so we dont have problems, we can give equeal performance with Euro 3 compliance and thermal effiencies within a few percent of the diesel, with similar operating characteristics.
Personally I think LPG is fine for light duty engiens but LNG CNG is better for heavy duty, mainly due to storage issues, CNG is a problem here, LNG much better but still not without issues, LPG is easy. this is why LPG is big here in Australia and CNG LNG hasnt yet caught on, although its starting to now.
keep thinking!
A7M
Id love to see how the patented compression reduction works!
LNG would be a better proposition but as far as I know there isnt any fuel distribution system in Melbourne so that severly limits what can be done. Here in Western Australia the trucks Ive seen have about 900litres of lng storage as well as about 1200l of diesel fuel, they are CAPS systems on Caterpillar C15 engines that does not lower engine compression and bleeeds off some boost on gas operation. All the trucks are Kenworths with 3 rear axles and they pull double semi trailers 3 axle each, hauling crude oil,(all up mass about 90tonnes) they run up and down about a 600-700km round trip continuosly in all weathers including ambient temps to 44degrees C, its hard work especially with our winds.
All of they have blown up engines at least once, some a couple of times, usually in the same place hauling up a long grade. (usual fialure is siezure due to melting the top of the piston)
The engines Ive dealt with dont do that as we can control air and fuel flow into the engine and limit cylinder temps so we dont have problems, we can give equeal performance with Euro 3 compliance and thermal effiencies within a few percent of the diesel, with similar operating characteristics.
Personally I think LPG is fine for light duty engiens but LNG CNG is better for heavy duty, mainly due to storage issues, CNG is a problem here, LNG much better but still not without issues, LPG is easy. this is why LPG is big here in Australia and CNG LNG hasnt yet caught on, although its starting to now.
keep thinking!
A7M
If you want a engine that will run LP or Natural gas you want a Minneapolis Moline. There are a lots of MM's still out on irrigation wells. They quit makeing them in the early 70's, I've seen them that go back to the fortys still running on wells. They went to 800 cid with rod journal dias bigger than an 855 cummins. And did a 1600 CID 12 cylinder.
I was intrigued by the Minneapolis-Moline, something I'd never heard of.
Here's a link.
http://www.tractorshop.com/articles/mm.html
Regarding Fleet-Effect, I wasn't quite satisfied with the information I found either. Hopefully some more news will come out of it.
It seems WorldLPG has removed reference from it's GAIN newsletter regarding it, unless I can't find it for some reason - maybe it is all tenous. We'll see.
My 300 - LPG has some rod bearing / wrist pin slop currently. When the truck is idling as I grab a coffee or similar on, people ask me if I'm running a Diesel in my F250.. heheh. While it may sound like I run a Diesel on Propane, no such luck yet.
Here's a link.
http://www.tractorshop.com/articles/mm.html
Regarding Fleet-Effect, I wasn't quite satisfied with the information I found either. Hopefully some more news will come out of it.
It seems WorldLPG has removed reference from it's GAIN newsletter regarding it, unless I can't find it for some reason - maybe it is all tenous. We'll see.
My 300 - LPG has some rod bearing / wrist pin slop currently. When the truck is idling as I grab a coffee or similar on, people ask me if I'm running a Diesel in my F250.. heheh. While it may sound like I run a Diesel on Propane, no such luck yet.
Yeah I was pretty impressed. I'd like to have a good look at one or several of those beauties. Low RPM power on Propane is music to my ears.
http://minneapolismoline.com/tractors_-_mm.htm
the only g1000 I see is a Diesel
http://minneapolismoline.com/tractors_-_mm.htm
the only g1000 I see is a Diesel
Alfred Lord Tenniscourt
Active member
Has anyone ever thought of building a flex fuel engine that switches between Ethanol and Propane? It seems like the compression ratios are more compatable than ethanol and gas or propane and gas...
Also, I am surprised that no one has mentioned combustion temperature yet. Propane tends to burn much cooler than gasoline. This tends allow for a much longer lasting engine.
It is also worth noting that propane is pretty much C3 H8, while gasoline is a blend of a lot of hydrocarbons which varies a lot (as was previously noted in a discussion of the diferences between Aussie gas and others in this thread). Gasoline blends must be varied to match climate (it must be more volatile in colder climates to avoid hard starting, and less volatile in warmer climates to avoid vapor lock). It seems like one could tune a propane engine in a little more tightly because of this consistency.
Safety should also be mentioned. Especialy in marine aplications, propane is a much safer fuel.
Also, I am surprised that no one has mentioned combustion temperature yet. Propane tends to burn much cooler than gasoline. This tends allow for a much longer lasting engine.
It is also worth noting that propane is pretty much C3 H8, while gasoline is a blend of a lot of hydrocarbons which varies a lot (as was previously noted in a discussion of the diferences between Aussie gas and others in this thread). Gasoline blends must be varied to match climate (it must be more volatile in colder climates to avoid hard starting, and less volatile in warmer climates to avoid vapor lock). It seems like one could tune a propane engine in a little more tightly because of this consistency.
Safety should also be mentioned. Especialy in marine aplications, propane is a much safer fuel.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Keep in mind about tractors, a model is sold for the HP is supposed to make, if you need more hp you buy a bigger tractor. A higher hp motor may create driveline reliability proablems and nothing will hurt sales of new tractor models than stories of expensive breakdowns of tractors bought that year. Fixing the tractor might be the cheap part, not getting a crop in on time could easily cost a farmer ten times that much.
If you get a chance look at a gasoline tractor carb, most lawnmower carbs are more complicated, if it wern't for the hot spot in the intake manafold they would waste even more fuel. I keep looking for somebody to bolt up a megasquirt on a tractor someday.
If you get a chance look at a gasoline tractor carb, most lawnmower carbs are more complicated, if it wern't for the hot spot in the intake manafold they would waste even more fuel. I keep looking for somebody to bolt up a megasquirt on a tractor someday.
i was able to cold start in temperatures approaching 0 fahrenheit with my propane rig this winter past. This was occasionally without using the block heater. (If I forgot, or if the temperature got colder than I expected overnight)
I didn't have any trouble running in any temperature; though I've heard stories of propane mixers / regulators icing up.
I use OHG gear, X450 mixer and X1 Regulator.
I didn't have any trouble running in any temperature; though I've heard stories of propane mixers / regulators icing up.
I use OHG gear, X450 mixer and X1 Regulator.
actually, i miscalculated on my conversion.
My coldest starts this winter were in the -25 celcius range. (-13*f)
I was thinking mistakenly that -32 celcius was zero Fahrenheit.. when of course, 0 celcius is 32 Fahrenheit blame it on my canuck/metric abomination.
I also do not have a fast idle. While I do not have to do anything whatsoever to get my truck to start in that cold, (although plugging it in is nice, for the engine's overall health of course) I do have to open the throttle slightly to keep the engine running for the first 15 or so seconds.
It would be nice to fab something up to deal with that, but it doesnt bother me too much.
I think It all comes down to the combination of hardware and engine. Some aren't ideal. Other's don't optimize their engine's timing, plugs, compression, ignition system, and coolant temperature regulation (tstat) for propane. This is why a lot of propane conversions were not received well back during the peak-era in Canada. This seems to be true in many parts of the states.
A lot of "conversion shops" were literally trying to crank out as many as they could when the getting was good, as they say. No timing curve changes, no plugs heat range changes, sometimes not even upgraded valve seats / hardened valves.
A lot of conversions, even some factory ones.. quite frankly, sucked.
My coldest starts this winter were in the -25 celcius range. (-13*f)
I was thinking mistakenly that -32 celcius was zero Fahrenheit.. when of course, 0 celcius is 32 Fahrenheit
blame it on my canuck/metric abomination. I also do not have a fast idle. While I do not have to do anything whatsoever to get my truck to start in that cold, (although plugging it in is nice, for the engine's overall health of course) I do have to open the throttle slightly to keep the engine running for the first 15 or so seconds.
It would be nice to fab something up to deal with that, but it doesnt bother me too much.
I think It all comes down to the combination of hardware and engine. Some aren't ideal. Other's don't optimize their engine's timing, plugs, compression, ignition system, and coolant temperature regulation (tstat) for propane. This is why a lot of propane conversions were not received well back during the peak-era in Canada. This seems to be true in many parts of the states.
A lot of "conversion shops" were literally trying to crank out as many as they could when the getting was good, as they say. No timing curve changes, no plugs heat range changes, sometimes not even upgraded valve seats / hardened valves.
A lot of conversions, even some factory ones.. quite frankly, sucked.
Similar threads
