4 cyl engines

[north puller]

Lets compare a few engines. Lets take a Farmall M, a Massey 44, A Mini UB, and a Case DC. Any other 4 cyl examples are welcome too.

Now lets build them all exactly the same size. 4.5" bore by 6.5" stroke. 414 cubes.

Lets make them all 10:1 compression.

Lets give them all a pulling cam, designed to make power at rated speed with a high idle limit of stock. The Farmall has the advantage of having the most RPM, while the Case has the least.

Next we have heads. Lets compare both stock gas heads, and any replacement or aftermarket head available.

I would assume that at this point, cylinder head air flow will determine the strongest engine.

Or is there something else that makes a difference? Manifold, carb, ignition???

Cost of the build aside, whice one has the advantage and why? Which can make the most power on the same number of cubes?

Just a little conversation. Not meant to be a brand war.

 

[PlowboyWD9]

it would be nice to build all 4 listed to experiment with and see the results

 

[Massey44]

I got the Massey at those demintions but at 11 to 1 if you can find a u and an m I would run mine next to them to see the difference

 

[mEl]

NP, interesting debate.

It would be interesting to see the same builder with the same equipment available develope each of these engines. I ran a 437 for a few years, 1/8th bigger bore than your suggested engine. It worked well as far as power was concerned but crank durability was an issue on that particular build.

The rpm factor should shift the advantage to the Farmall engine and the fact that there are many builders doing R&D on that brand and some aftermarket stuff designed with performance enhancements in mind can't hurt. Equalizing the rpm just for testing purposes might make the discussion more meaningful as far as any advantages mechanically one may have over the other.

Carb, induction, for purposes of this discussion, stock out of the parts book would be my ideal with internal mods to optimize the fuel/ air flow without increasing the acual carb casting throat diameter. Ignition, because I don't feel there is big gains to be had with MSD or similar boxes at the rpm you are stating to keep it simple all use pertronics, Just my two cents
mEl

 

[Anonymous-0]

M farmall with a 450 head. Clear winner. MM with 4232 heads close second. Stock to stock the mm has a bettrr carb and intake I think, but the m just has a better head.

 

[Anonymous-0]

I would like to weigh in on this. If you build four engine of the same brand identical one will be better than the other three . Why is this it has to do with a couple of things . One and the foremost the original machining aka lifter bores true cam bearings etc. The other is core shift from a life time of operation. Now with that out of the way lets say we made all the engines flow the same cfm . The manufacturer with the smallest bearings,piston rings etc would make the most power

 

[mightymolinekid]

Just a question for this debate: how does the fact that MM's have connecting rods that are about a mile long enter into it? MM engines may not put up the HP numbers on the high rpm side, but where does the stroke:rod ratio fit in for torque numbers?

 

[gtx1967jewison]

Longest rod will win. All other factors equal- meaning air flow. Then there's the driveline design. This makes a difference.

 

[gtx1967jewison]

The longer rod creates torque in at least two ways. The piston dwell time is longer at bdc & tdc so this gives more burn time where the expansion is exerting force on the piston. An effectively lower piston speed. Second, the push is straighter. Less cylinder wall loading/friction & mechanically a more direct push.

 

[Anonymous-0]

it cant dwell longer at both top aqnd bottom in 360 degrees .it dwells longer at tdc and shorter at bdc if its longer

 

[BushogPapa]

How does it do that..??

 

[BushogPapa]

I see NO reason to assign anything but the SAME RPM to all these engines and let them show their stuff..!!

Are these engines allowed to have Head Mods..??

If not, why allow cam changes..?

Ron..

 

[Anonymous-0]

its been covered go back and reread old posts.rod moves linear

 

[Anonymous-0]

its been covered go back and reread old posts.rod moves linear

 

[mEl]

I agree with you BHpapa, as far as an evaluation of each engines capabilities a single rpm should be chosen and all engines optomised at that point so all are equal in every respect.

In reality however I see that NP is looking at the situation as NATPA would when teching at the pulls. I for one however would like to see the engines use heads that are model specific as from the OEM parts book as that would keep one from updating to a later head, an advantage that Farmall or maybe MM would have that Case or maybe others would not have.

Of course to get to the magical 414 inch mark all would be running custom sleeves, pistons and rods. I believe with the experiences that I have had you would be surprised how well each engine would do.

Good discussion, we all look from our own experiences and brand loyalty, Lets hear some more ideas. mEl

 

[MMZAck]

What weight class and speed would these be running? Gearing across all four of these tractors is vastly different and would have a dramatic effect on the results, even if all engines were running at the same rpm.

Good thread and conversation, I like it!

Zack

 

[mEl]

I believe that this discussion was simply a comparisom of engine potential when originated with the engine rpm hi idle thrown in as it pertains to each engine. As I and BH papa threw in as a strictly even comparison of equal CID and Compression ratio builds it would seem as if a common rpm would be agreed upon and all engines tested at that rpm the build results would be more meaningful.

I believe that in the interest of fairness that strictly stock castings should be used model for model so one mfg does not have an advantage of aftermarket or later interchangable parts.

Of course you are correct about the difference in drivelines, gearing and such and some are better suited than others for pulling. My builds are built for the rules here in NC Pa. where speed limits rather than RPM rules are the norm.

BTW, Zack, My wife was going though the answering machine notes and she found a VM from you that Idid not get. Do you still need me? if so would you please call back, I'm sorry for missing your call.

mEl

 

[north puller]

Good food for thought. Now let's mix it up a little. As mei and papa said, let's equalize the rpm accross the board, require stock head castings, but allow any work to be done to the heads.

Now it seems to be all about head potential.

Just a thought. Way over my knowledge level, but a thought:

Would one piston design, or piston/chamber combination be able to either move air more efficiently, or mix and then burn the mixture more efficiently?

I know Farmall has half a flat head and half a chamber. I can't say what the others have, but wonder about this head design vs a flat head or a fully chambered head? Pistons with dishes, domes, half domes?

How does the natural piston and head combination compare with each?

 

[Anonymous-0]

wakeshau crossflow . then next would be ford

 

[BushogPapa]

In Mine, Rod goes UP & Down AND Round & Round...
Stops at top AND Bottom for the SAME length of time...

Shorter rods can potentially produce MORE Torque..

Ron..

 

[Anonymous-0]

(quoted from post at 08:38:58 12/29/11)
In Mine, Rod goes UP & Down AND Round & Round...
Stops at top AND Bottom for the SAME length of time...

Shorter rods can potentially produce MORE Torque..

Ron..

hen you never have run a degree. Wheel thru a untied 360degree crank rotation. Rods move faster away from one than they. Do the other.

 

[buickanddeere]

It's all about how many cfm of air can be pumped by those various different engines of the same cu inches.
Four,five,six,eight,ten and twelve cylinder engines offer more port/valve area per cu". Which allows better breathing at higher rpms. Higher rpms = more cfm per cu " displacement.
An engine with long small diameter heated manifolds and ports designed to burn cheap distillate fuels. And large/long/heavy low rpm components. They are handicapped vs. automotive style high rpm engines.
Lets not forget way back in the 1920,1930, & 1940's when the foundations of today's pulling engines were laid down. The engineers, accountants, management and salespeople.
They were thinking about getting Bubba to sell the horses and use a tractor to pull the plough.
If you had mentioned boring, stroking, porting, high performance cams, 110 octane fuel, 3000+ rpm, parades and weight transfer sleds in 1930. You would have either been laughed at, fired or given time in a rubber room while wearing a straight jacket.

 

[MMZAck]

Must have been a message from when I was trying to get a hold of you before. I don't have any burning Case questions for you right now, but may give you a shout sometime to chat.

Zack

 

[mEl]

(quoted from post at 11:42:34 12/29/11) Must have been a message from when I was trying to get a hold of you before. I don't have any burning Case questions for you right now, but may give you a shout sometime to chat.

Zack

Tnx Zack, If you call again I will give my cell # so I am more easily reached.

Happy new year.

 

[mEl]

NP, I think we all look at things from our own perspective and knowledge base. So lets discuss, The 5576 DC head I would use to build for my base 414 would be a medium compression very open head. I would Bridgeport the Intake runners to enhance the flow and replace the 7/16 stemmed 1 3/4 Intakes with Chevy 202s. Ex ports worked but other than small stems and removal of all the guide in both In and Ex ports the Ex would remain stock diameter. With these mods the intakes which share a common intake runner are partially visible through the intake runner. Not the best head but seems to work well. About 215 CC chamber volume before planing, the compression is built into the piston crown, without going any deeper.

It is hard for me to say that an M head is better or worse than what I am running and the other gent said that the MM head was close to the M head. I do not know if anyone else is familiar with all four heads as mentioned to give a reasonable evaluation, I am not admittedly. I do know that my 5576 will run circles arounnd a 5505 Hi compression head with the valves up in a straight walled chamber where they are shrouded on three sides. I have put more info up here than maybe I should but we're having a nice discussion which I enjoy.

 

[Anonymous-0]

(quoted from post at 18:09:12 12/28/11)

I agree with you BHpapa, as far as an evaluation of each engines capabilities a single rpm should be chosen and all engines optomised at that point so all are equal in every respect.

In reality however I see that NP is looking at the situation as NATPA would when teching at the pulls. I for one however would like to see the engines use heads that are model specific as from the OEM parts book as that would keep one from updating to a later head, an advantage that Farmall or maybe MM would have that Case or maybe others would not have.

Of course to get to the magical 414 inch mark all would be running custom sleeves, pistons and rods. I believe with the experiences that I have had you would be surprised how well each engine would do.

Good discussion, we all look from our own experiences and brand loyalty, Lets hear some more ideas. mEl

have no experience with either of the mentioned engines but cannot get why he is limiting torque and cam duration on 414the inches by such a low compression on ratio.