175 with 433 engine

[bv]

didn't somebody on here put a 433 engine in a 175 A-C tractor, maybe Dr. Allis? are there any pictures of this tractor?

 

[DrAllis]

Red Barn Machine works videos. There are 4 (I think ) videos of that tractor with the last one being a walk-around a day before it went to its new home. Google this exactly as I have typed it: AC 175XTD is SOLD !! This will take you to the AC website and you can see all the pics and information on this engine swap from gasoline power to turbo/intercooled diesel power.

 

[bv]

Red Barn Machine works videos. There are 4 (I think ) videos of that tractor with the last one being a walk-around a day before it went to its new home. Google this exactly as I have typed it: AC 175XTD is SOLD !! This will take you to the AC website and you can see all the pics and information on this engine swap from gasoline power to turbo/intercooled diesel power.

thank you sir, are you building any other projects? why didn't Allis put those engines in the 175 from the factory, cost maybe?

 

[DrAllis]

I've got a One-Eighty gas right now that I was thinking about doing another 433-TI engine transplant into. I need to get several things repaired on it this winter and maybe take it on a summer tractor ride or two and see what kind of shape the rest of the tractor is in. The 433-T and 433-TI engines were first used in the 1978 Gleaner K2 and F2 combines. Then, in 1980, the 6060 and 6080 tractors. The basic engine did exist in 1964-65 as the model G2200 gas or D2200 diesel engine without a turbo at only about 55 flywheel HP . It was used in the D-15/615 Industrial tractors at that HP level. Why they waited until 1978 to finally turbo-charge it and put a balancer in the bottom end, I don't know. Without a turbo the 55 flywheel HP would have only been about 45 to 47 PTO HP in a One-Seventy chassis. About 10 HP short or where it needed to be. Can you imagine a turbocharged One-Seventy in 1967 ?? Might have been too far ahead of its time for some customers.

 

[bv]

I've got a One-Eighty gas right now that I was thinking about doing another 433-TI engine transplant into. I need to get several things repaired on it this winter and maybe take it on a summer tractor ride or two and see what kind of shape the rest of the tractor is in. The 433-T and 433-TI engines were first used in the 1978 Gleaner K2 and F2 combines. Then, in 1980, the 6060 and 6080 tractors. The basic engine did exist in 1964-65 as the model G2200 gas or D2200 diesel engine without a turbo at only about 55 flywheel HP . It was used in the D-15/615 Industrial tractors at that HP level. Why they waited until 1978 to finally turbo-charge it and put a balancer in the bottom end, I don't know. Without a turbo the 55 flywheel HP would have only been about 45 to 47 PTO HP in a One-Seventy chassis. About 10 HP short or where it needed to be. Can you imagine a turbocharged One-Seventy in 1967 ?? Might have been too far ahead of its time for some customers.

keep up the good work my friend, how long did you work for A-C, I'm assuming you did with all of your knowledge and where are you located?

 

[Bob Bancroft]

I've got a One-Eighty gas right now that I was thinking about doing another 433-TI engine transplant into. I need to get several things repaired on it this winter and maybe take it on a summer tractor ride or two and see what kind of shape the rest of the tractor is in. The 433-T and 433-TI engines were first used in the 1978 Gleaner K2 and F2 combines. Then, in 1980, the 6060 and 6080 tractors. The basic engine did exist in 1964-65 as the model G2200 gas or D2200 diesel engine without a turbo at only about 55 flywheel HP . It was used in the D-15/615 Industrial tractors at that HP level. Why they waited until 1978 to finally turbo-charge it and put a balancer in the bottom end, I don't know. Without a turbo the 55 flywheel HP would have only been about 45 to 47 PTO HP in a One-Seventy chassis. About 10 HP short or where it needed to be. Can you imagine a turbocharged One-Seventy in 1967 ?? Might have been too far ahead of its time for some customers.

This is only a guess on my part. The 226 gas engine was a relatively slow speed engine. I assumed AC chose the Perkins diesel to go in the same tractor as the 226 gas because they could get the power needed out of that also relatively slow speed diesel engine.

 

[Dieseltech]

I'd rather turbo the Perkins 236 or 248 engines that the 170/175 models had.

 

[DrAllis]

The 170 was rated at 1800 RPM, so it took more than 200 diesel cubic inches to make 54 PTO HP at that speed. That's where the Perkins had the edge over the AC model D-2200 engine. From my spectators view, why they didn't make the 2000 series engines line a 4 inch bore and 4.50" stroke, I don't understand. That would have given them 226 cubes and just been enough to create 53-54 HP at the PTO with rated speed of 1800 RPM. Turbocharging was a pretty new thing at this point in time. So, I imagine to have a small turbo made for that D-2200 engine (like a TO-3) may have been expensive and kept them from trying that avenue of engine building until 1978. When they did come with a turbo, the first couple of years of the 433 engines, they had Holset turbos on them. By 1980 they had TO-3 Air Research turbos.

 

[Dieseltech]

The five inch long stroke the Perkins 236/248 diesels have probably helped the decision.

 

[Bob Bancroft]

The five inch long stroke the Perkins 236/248 diesels have probably helped the decision.

I've owned a 236 in an AC One Seventy, and a 248 in a 175. Both good engines. The 236 was under powered. The 248 was not. I've owned three of the AC 200 cu in turbo'd engines. Two in combines and one in a 6060. They were also good engines, which had astounding power. The 4 cylinder in the 6060 outperformed the 6 cylinder 301 in the 185 both in power and economy.

 

[gatz271]

Anyone got a 433T they'd part with?
Preferably SE Nebraska

 

[Dieseltech]

I've owned a 236 in an AC One Seventy, and a 248 in a 175. Both good engines. The 236 was under powered. The 248 was not. I've owned three of the AC 200 cu in turbo'd engines. Two in combines and one in a 6060. They were also good engines, which had astounding power. The 4 cylinder in the 6060 outperformed the 6 cylinder 301 in the 185 both in power and economy.

Reason for the lower 170 power is the Max fuel setting was de-rated a bit, other Perkins 4.236 engines used a higher fuel setting than AC did.

 

[Bob Bancroft]

Reason for the lower 170 power is the Max fuel setting was de-rated a bit, other Perkins 4.236 engines used a higher fuel setting than AC did.

Poor thing was really anemic. It's interesting that the first 175 tractors used the 236. They must have been set a lot different than the 170. My 175 had the 248 and was a totally different machine.

 

[Powered By IH]

Reason for the lower 170 power is the Max fuel setting was de-rated a bit, other Perkins 4.236 engines used a higher fuel setting than AC did.

Yes, I was interested and so I looked at the Tractordata info.
170 diesel was about 10 horse lower than a 175.
Very interesting though that in a Massey 180 diesel (same engine as 170) horsepower was roughly 10-15 horse higher than a 170 (roughly same time period). I'd almost say that a Massey 180 feels more evenly matched to a later 175.
10 horse is quite a difference, and as to why Allis didn't turn that pump up I don't know, maybe you guys know?

 

[Dieseltech]

Yes, I was interested and so I looked at the Tractordata info.
170 diesel was about 10 horse lower than a 175.
Very interesting though that in a Massey 180 diesel (same engine as 170) horsepower was roughly 10-15 horse higher than a 170 (roughly same time period). I'd almost say that a Massey 180 feels more evenly matched to a later 175.
10 horse is quite a difference, and as to why Allis didn't turn that pump up I don't know, maybe you guys know?

MF did the de-rate on the 4.236 also on the late 255, the 265 had the same engine with a higher max fuel setting. The MF 275 has the 4.248 with an even higher setting. The early 255 had the Perkins AD4.203 engine that started/ran well BUT it vibrated as it DID NOT have the balancer in the oil pan like the 236/248 models have. My guess is MF de-rated the late 255 to match the power closer to the earlier AD4.203. All three engines have a five inch stroke.