300hp john deere motor

[dj89]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=11754&item=3849637474&rd=1
:eek: :wow:

[TransMan]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=11754&item=3849637474&rd=1
:eek: :wow:
:confused: whats so amazing about that im sure John Deere makes a lot bigger engines then that.......

[dj89]

o they do but look at it. is that not sweet?

[TransMan]

no this (http://jdpsesc.deere.com/ESComp/servlet/com.deere.enginedb.servlet.model2.FeaturesBenefits Servlet?engineType=IND&engineId=DSWDI60) is sweet ;)

[FragTek]

Quite an engine indeed! If my harvester needed a new engine I'd definately be picking this one up! ;)

[dj89]

the johnny poper still wins in my book love that sound

Johnny Popper sound (http://www.homestead.com/TKNichols/Sound.html)

[HoppysMag]

tourqe out the *** too!

[BlackVCG]

John Deere makes all of their engines from I think about 50hp and beyond. Below that HP they use Yanmar diesel engines and Kohler gas engines. Some Kawasaki gas motors too.

What's amazing is that engine is 619ci and produces 300hp when you can buy a 359ci "5.9L" Cummins in a Dodge Heavy-Duty truck that produces 305hp and 610ft-lb of torque. Just shows how much of an amazing effect electronic controls can have on a motor over a 100% mechanically controlled motor.

[TransMan]

Black that john deere engines gonna put out about 1000+ft-lb of torque and would pull that cummins anywhere it wanted to go ;)

*EDIT* Oh and JD's Engines are computer controled and VERY hightech.

[dj89]

now they do

back in they day they made every thing.


i bet the Cummins wont last as long :p

[dj89]

Black that john deere engines gonna put out about 1000+ft-lb of torque and would pull that cummins anywhere it wanted to go ;)

here here

:cheers:

[dj89]

2 cylinder Diesel

John Deere Model 830

General Specification:
Years Produced: 1958-1960
First Serial Number: 8300000
Last Serial Number: 8306891
Total Built: 6,892
Price, New: ?

Horsepower (Max.) Drawbar PTO/Belt
6.12"x8.0" (diesel) 69.7 75.6

Engine Displacement:
6.12"x8" Engine 470.7ci

Engine Rated rpm: 1125

Wheels/Tires, Standard
Rear: 15x34
Front: 7.50x18

Length (inches): 142.75
Height to Radiator (inches): 81
Weight (pounds): 7,850

Transmission
Speeds Forward 6

http://johnnypopper.com/jdgifs/830i98.jpg
http://johnnypopper.com/jdgifs/830norm.jpg
so maybe its 3 of them...........
http://johnnypopper.com/jdgifs/expo/830trio.jpg
just x every thing buy 3 :D

[Mister Sinister]

What's amazing is that engine is 619ci and produces 300hp when you can buy a 359ci "5.9L" Cummins in a Dodge Heavy-Duty truck that produces 305hp and 610ft-lb of torque. Just shows how much of an amazing effect electronic controls can have on a motor over a 100% mechanically controlled motor.

Here the difference isnt how much hp they make but where they make it. I bet the john deer makes peak torque around 1200-1400 rpm where that cummins will make it around 2500 rpm. Last week I dynoed a 310ci engine that made 656hp with peak torque appearing 7200rpm. The difference between an electronically controlled engine and a mechanical actually arent that great IF the mechanical is tuned right. Thats where the electronics make the difference.

[Bigcountry]

The other big difference is that the two engines are dynoed differently. The truck is measured at the wheels, while a tractor is measured at the PTO shaft or flywheel. That engine is a hell of a lot more powerfull than any pickup.

[warthog2t0]

*drool*

[B.A.M.]

well i have a john deere lawn tractor which may not be as big as yours but its still very cool

[Mister Sinister]

The other big difference is that the two engines are dynoed differently. The truck is measured at the wheels, while a tractor is measured at the PTO shaft or flywheel. That engine is a hell of a lot more powerfull than any pickup.

I dont know where the figures for the truck are taken alot of the manufacters quote flywheel also. Though if this is true and it is wheel hp that would actually be an advantage to the truck losses through transmissions, transfer cases, drive lines and differentials can be upwards 30%

Even then the Cummins still comes out on the short end of the stick.

[BlackVCG]

Black that john deere engines gonna put out about 1000+ft-lb of torque and would pull that cummins anywhere it wanted to go ;)

*EDIT* Oh and JD's Engines are computer controled and VERY hightech.

Umm... okay. First of all, read my reply again and look at the stats again. That engine is 619 Cubic Inches. The Cummins I am refering to is 359 Cubic Inches. To make it easier to understand, that makes the Cummins 60% of the displacement of the JD engine and making the same HP. Yes, that JD engine might be pushing up around 1000ft-lb with a stroke close to 5 inches. That's what it's designed for, where as the Cummins in the Dodge truck is designed to have get up and go and also tow 26,000 lbs. But the Cummins off the assembly line makes 610hp and there are plenty of guys out there with slightly modified Dodge Cummins trucks pushing over 1000 ft-lb of torque and 500hp. The 359ci Cummins is very detuned from the factory.

Also, that JD engine is 100% mechanical. Other than pressure and temperature sending units and an alternator, there isn't a single electronic component on that engine. Do you see an ECM? Do you see a HPCR injection system? Nope, I don't either. That engine is about as mechanical as it gets. About the only thing JD has in any of their products that is electronically controlled is their garden tractors that use a Kawasaki EFI gas motor.




Here the difference isnt how much hp they make but where they make it. I bet the john deer makes peak torque around 1200-1400 rpm where that cummins will make it around 2500 rpm. Last week I dynoed a 310ci engine that made 656hp with peak torque appearing 7200rpm. The difference between an electronically controlled engine and a mechanical actually arent that great IF the mechanical is tuned right. Thats where the electronics make the difference.

Yeah, where you get your torque is critical. That's why the Cummins is at 90% torque at 1200rpm and builds peak torque from 1600rpm and flat-lines to 2800rpm. No such thing as a torque "curve" on a Cummins. That engine builds peak torque all the way through the usuable rpm range.

That engine you dynoed sounds like it was a gas motor, because you would be pulling pieces of connecting rod out of your body if you spun a diesel up to 7200rpm. You're really talking two different worlds when comparing gas motors to diesel. Other than the 4-stroke process, there aren't much more similarities.

The level of control you have over an engine that was analyzed and designed to run off of electronic controls is a world of a difference. That's why they have the Cummins engine making 325hp and 610ft-lb of torque with electronic controls, when the first design had the same displacement, was 100% mechanically controlled and made 160hp and 400ft-lb of torque.


And guys, please don't tell me how JD engines can outlast Cummins engines. If anything they both can get the same relative service life. Tractors go by hours and trucks go by miles. But, there are plenty of Cummins engines out there in heavy equipment that use hour meters. If you looked on a construction site, you'll find Cummins outnumbering JD about 10 to 1.

Anyone else want to argue with me on what I know about diesel engines? :nono:

[Bigcountry]

Trust me any new JD engine is computer controlled. Have you ever seen one of these engines? If not come to my place and I will show you one, the computer, and the machine it is attatched to. Then I will dare you to replace the engine with a Cummins from a Dodge and have the same performance. I don't want to be an *** but you do not know what you are talking about. That JD is not even in the same league as a pickup motor. They are not making the same HP. It may look like it, but you are comparing apples and oranges.

[BlackVCG]

Well, amazingly enough JD does have some engines that are using HPCR and electronically controlled pumps. I did some research and I stand corrected on that. That 6619 pictured is a 100% mechanically controlled motor.

However, not to be an ***, but read my post again. I didn't say you could just drop that Cummins in a JD and you have an engine that will perform exactly the same. I'm saying that in terms of performance numbers, the Cummins comes pretty damn close to an engine that is almost twice the displacement.

And no, the 5.9L Cummins isn't in the same league as a 10L JD Diesel engine. That JD engine is going to have a much longer stroke to produce more torque at lower RPMs where a tractor needs it. A Cummins in a Dodge needs to work from idle to about 3000rpm, so the stroke is shorter, thus a lower torque rating. However, like I said, it's pretty simple to push one of those motors to and beyond 1000 ft-lb of torque.

Go get a Cummins QSC 8.3L motor and you'll have a agricultural built motor for use in the same kind of application as that JD motor and you'll have a 340hp - 1050 ft-lb motor that is still less displacement than that JD 6619. There, hopefully that suffices to compare apples to apples. You can get a QSC motor in Case tractors, which IMO, outperform any comparable JD.

If you still think I was trying to say the Cummins in the Dodge can just substitute for that JD motor in its application, then I'm sorry you looked at it that way.

[Gtask8]

John Deere makes all of their engines from I think about 50hp and beyond. Below that HP they use Yanmar diesel engines and Kohler gas engines. Some Kawasaki gas motors too.

What's amazing is that engine is 619ci and produces 300hp when you can buy a 359ci "5.9L" Cummins in a Dodge Heavy-Duty truck that produces 305hp and 610ft-lb of torque. Just shows how much of an amazing effect electronic controls can have on a motor over a 100% mechanically controlled motor.

Well, A semi engine can only produce 1000lbs of torque, and 300-500hp. The whole point is "TORQUE". The object is darn huge, it needs massive amounts of torque to support the weight issues.

[HoppysMag]

Well, A semi engine can only produce 1000lbs of torque, and 300-500hp. The whole point is "TORQUE". The object is darn huge, it needs massive amounts of torque to support the weight issues.


semi engines produce more around 2500 ftlbs of torque ( atleast some of the big frieght liners)