This site is not affiliated with AGCO Inc., Duluth GA., Allis-Chalmers Co., Milwaukee, WI., or any surviving or related corporate entity. All trademarks remain the property of their respective owners. All information presented herein should be considered the result of an un-moderated public forum with no responsibility for its accuracy or usability assumed by the users and sponsors of this site or any corporate entity.
The Forum Parts and Services Unofficial Allis Store Tractor Shows Serial Numbers History
Forum Home Forum Home > Allis Chalmers > Farm Equipment
  New Posts New Posts
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


426/516 question

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
studer automotive View Drop Down
Orange Level Access
Orange Level Access


Joined: 10 Sep 2013
Location: jeromesville,oh
Points: 562
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote studer automotive Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: 426/516 question
    Posted: 15 Mar 2015 at 9:08pm
Was reading the post on the IH 466
Repower. Why didn't a-c use the 516 In the larger tractors? (8070, 4w305, 7080 etc.etc.) just
Wondering
a-c 185-d y/r cab turbo soon
99 f-250 7.3 4x4
86 mustang5.0 owned since 8/93              
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Lonn View Drop Down
Orange Level
Orange Level
Avatar

Joined: 16 Sep 2009
Location: Назарово,Russia
Points: 29817
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lonn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Mar 2015 at 7:06am
They'll tell you it was too old and heavy but IMO that engine was a better engine and got great fuel economy and was easy to start comparatively. 

Edited by Lonn - 16 Mar 2015 at 7:06am
-- --- .... .- -- -- .- -.. / .-- .- ... / .- / -- ..- .-. -.. . .-. .. -. --. / -.-. .... .. .-.. -.. / .-. .- .--. .. ... -
Wink
I am a Russian Bot
Back to Top
DrAllis View Drop Down
Orange Level Access
Orange Level Access


Joined: 12 Sep 2009
Points: 21905
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DrAllis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Mar 2015 at 7:20am
Too expensive......too heavy......too slow speed.........tooooo much torque for the existing transmission.
Back to Top
Lonn View Drop Down
Orange Level
Orange Level
Avatar

Joined: 16 Sep 2009
Location: Назарово,Russia
Points: 29817
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lonn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Mar 2015 at 8:11am
I think my question would be is why did AC develop a tractor to use that engine? I think I know the answer though which is the first doc gave above. Really the answer to me would have been to upgrade fuel and cam and cooling and starting issues and beef up the crank on the 426, although we have never broken a crank in any of ours.

Edited by Lonn - 16 Mar 2015 at 8:11am
-- --- .... .- -- -- .- -.. / .-- .- ... / .- / -- ..- .-. -.. . .-. .. -. --. / -.-. .... .. .-.. -.. / .-. .- .--. .. ... -
Wink
I am a Russian Bot
Back to Top
DrAllis View Drop Down
Orange Level Access
Orange Level Access


Joined: 12 Sep 2009
Points: 21905
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DrAllis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Mar 2015 at 8:22am
Technology has now given us engines that are very similar in size to the old 426 and are now 530 cubes or even more. The overall length is the same. The weight is close to the same. The fuel efficiency is better and they sure don't smoke like older engines. I'm referring to the DT466/DT530......Cummins C-8.3 and now newer 8.9 version. The use of that big old heavy A-C 516 just wasn't in the cards. A modern engine of that size/weight would now be 700 plus cubes....C12/C13.
Back to Top
TramwayGuy View Drop Down
Orange Level Access
Orange Level Access


Joined: 19 Jan 2010
Location: Northern NY
Points: 11753
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TramwayGuy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Mar 2015 at 9:13am
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 516 was a derivative of the old Buda 844 engine. Just too expensive, large and heavy to compete.
Back to Top
DrAllis View Drop Down
Orange Level Access
Orange Level Access


Joined: 12 Sep 2009
Points: 21905
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DrAllis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Mar 2015 at 9:35am
No.   844 and 731 were the same block family. The 516 was in-between the 426 and 844.
Back to Top
Pete from IL View Drop Down
Silver Level
Silver Level


Joined: 29 Dec 2009
Location: Beecher IL.
Points: 311
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pete from IL Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Mar 2015 at 6:24pm
What was the 516 engine used in?  I don't think I ever saw one.
Back to Top
grinder220 View Drop Down
Orange Level
Orange Level


Joined: 11 Jan 2012
Location: Clinton Iowa
Points: 2370
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote grinder220 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Mar 2015 at 6:34pm
Originally posted by Pete from IL Pete from IL wrote:

What was the 516 engine used in?  I don't think I ever saw one.
end loaders, pan scrapers, gen sets, N7 gleaner and water pumps that I know of.
Back to Top
Jwmac7060 View Drop Down
Orange Level
Orange Level
Avatar

Joined: 04 Jan 2014
Location: Indiana
Points: 929
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jwmac7060 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Mar 2015 at 6:38pm
Wasn't the 8550 and 4w305 powered by the 516....better question is why didn't AC sub out the engines in the larger tractors...Can you imagine how popular those tractors would have been with a Cummins in them
Back to Top
grinder220 View Drop Down
Orange Level
Orange Level


Joined: 11 Jan 2012
Location: Clinton Iowa
Points: 2370
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote grinder220 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Mar 2015 at 6:47pm
No they had the 731 in them. I just repowered my 8550 with the 844 engine. I personally have never been impressed with a Cummins. Not in a truck, not in a tractor and not in a semi. If I hadn't found an 844 allis I would have gone with a 3406 cat.
Back to Top
DougG View Drop Down
Orange Level
Orange Level


Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Location: Mo
Points: 8355
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DougG Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Mar 2015 at 6:49pm
They had that in mind with the Kamotsu ; but you have to remember they brought these tractors out in very bad AG price times , nobody was buying new stuff and id say Allis lost their a** on most of them
Back to Top
Jwmac7060 View Drop Down
Orange Level
Orange Level
Avatar

Joined: 04 Jan 2014
Location: Indiana
Points: 929
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jwmac7060 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Mar 2015 at 6:51pm
Grinder I'll respectfully disagree...Ive run both in semis and I'll take the Cummins fuel efficiency over the cat anyday...we have 2 850 verstiles with the 855 Cummins in them and they are pulling SOBs...if I can't pull it at 1200 rpms...you ain't gonna pull it...Cat is almost like a Deere 466...Gotta wind it out to take off..no low end torque..imo
Back to Top
injpumpEd View Drop Down
Orange Level Access
Orange Level Access
Avatar

Joined: 13 Sep 2009
Location: Walnut IL
Points: 5097
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote injpumpEd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Mar 2015 at 7:35pm
I'd take an 855 Cummins over a 3406 any day as well. The most popular application for the 516 I'd say is the HD11. 
210 "too hot to farm" puller, part of the "insane pumpkin posse". Owner of Guenther Heritage Diesel, specializing in fuel injection systems on heritage era tractors. stock rebuilds to all out pullers!
Back to Top
ILGLEANER View Drop Down
Orange Level Access
Orange Level Access


Joined: 13 Sep 2009
Location: Willow Hill,ILL
Points: 6448
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ILGLEANER Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Mar 2015 at 9:50pm
I would take a hot blonde over an 855 or 3406


AC would have been a lot better off if they would have used the 516 in the N6 . I was told that the 516 would hold up to constant rims. But when tested in tractors, wouldn't hold up to the up and down of the rpms in a tractor usage. I would still liked for them to have tried it.
           IG
Education doesn't make you smart, it makes you educated.
Back to Top
Mactractor View Drop Down
Orange Level Access
Orange Level Access
Avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2011
Location: New Zealand
Points: 652
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mactractor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Mar 2015 at 10:07pm
With you there Ed. I got 20,000 hours on a 855 Big Cam 4 and it aint been apart. I remember the misery the 3406 caused me.
The 516 would have made a great wheeled tractor engine if gearing was matched to the lower revs, and driveline was solid enough for the torque. As for weight, why would you want a lighter engine, then hang thousands of pounds of ballast on the tractor?
As with any engine, with a torque converter behind them, they get through fuel alright, but in direct drive crawlers they are very easy on fuel for their power
Back to Top
BPM75 View Drop Down
Orange Level
Orange Level
Avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Location: Greenup IL
Points: 1050
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BPM75 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Mar 2015 at 10:07pm
Originally posted by Jwmac7060 Jwmac7060 wrote:

Grinder I'll respectfully disagree...Ive run both in semis and I'll take the Cummins fuel efficiency over the cat anyday...we have 2 850 verstiles with the 855 Cummins in them and they are pulling SOBs...if I can't pull it at 1200 rpms...you ain't gonna pull it...Cat is almost like a Deere 466...Gotta wind it out to take off..no low end torque..imo



I'm not quite sure what cat you have driven but 3406 cats were always more of a low end eng usually done its best pulling from 12-1600 I've driven countless trucks in last 20 year's as a heavy duty truck mech and never had a cat that had to be wound out to take off as you say. This is especially true with newer electronic engines. The only cats that didn't have a lot of low end in my opinion is the 3176 which became the C10 and C12.

Edited by BPM75 - 16 Mar 2015 at 10:08pm
59 D17 gas nf, 66 XT 190, 69 220.
Back to Top
DrAllis View Drop Down
Orange Level Access
Orange Level Access


Joined: 12 Sep 2009
Points: 21905
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DrAllis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Mar 2015 at 7:05am
The 3176 (629 cubes)became the C-10......the 3196 (731 cubes)became the C-12.
Back to Top
BPM75 View Drop Down
Orange Level
Orange Level
Avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Location: Greenup IL
Points: 1050
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BPM75 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Mar 2015 at 9:13am
Hate to sound dumb but I never heard of a 3196, I do know other than bore and stroke there is no physical difference between C-10 and C-12. We used to have a bunch of Frt. Condos with C12 and several single axle flds with C10s I overhauled a bunch of them. I'd much rather work on them than the ISX we have now in the IH ProStars lol.
59 D17 gas nf, 66 XT 190, 69 220.
Back to Top
DrAllis View Drop Down
Orange Level Access
Orange Level Access


Joined: 12 Sep 2009
Points: 21905
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DrAllis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Mar 2015 at 9:24am
3196 was never in a truck that I am aware of. Only construction and AG. C-10-11-12-13 are all the same block/head configuration and are different bores & strokes....not much different, but different.
Back to Top
BPM75 View Drop Down
Orange Level
Orange Level
Avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Location: Greenup IL
Points: 1050
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BPM75 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Mar 2015 at 12:47pm
That's probably why I've never seen one, never worked on construction equipment much, and my ag exp is with CaseIH and what's been on our farm.
59 D17 gas nf, 66 XT 190, 69 220.
Back to Top
Dkienzle View Drop Down
Bronze Level
Bronze Level


Joined: 22 Feb 2013
Location: Central IA
Points: 192
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dkienzle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Mar 2015 at 8:08pm
Bingo! I'm guessing he hasn't been around a 3406E model. Before the old man sold the trucks he had a w9 with a 3406E model set at 550 and then a t6 with a isx Cummins set at 525. He was not impressed with the Cummins. It never got the fuel milage it was supposed to and didn't have the power he thought it should have. And that it never really ran as smooth as the cat did. I love our 8.3 Cummins in our 7080 but as far as big truck engines go cat ruled the roost here.
Back to Top
Jwmac7060 View Drop Down
Orange Level
Orange Level
Avatar

Joined: 04 Jan 2014
Location: Indiana
Points: 929
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jwmac7060 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Mar 2015 at 8:23pm
Had a W-9 with a 3406e in it...it was much better than the Mechanical 3406...Now have a 389 with an Isx set at 525 and I'm getting 7.3 mpg....never got better than 6.6 with the old cat
Back to Top
Dkienzle View Drop Down
Bronze Level
Bronze Level


Joined: 22 Feb 2013
Location: Central IA
Points: 192
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dkienzle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Mar 2015 at 8:34pm
Dad could never get much above 6.8 with the Cummins. Bout the same with the cat. 6.6 or so. Cat was a 2000 year model. Cummins was an 07. He was just never really impressed with it.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.074 seconds.


Help Support the
Unofficial Allis Forum