426/516 question
Printed From: Unofficial Allis
Category: Allis Chalmers
Forum Name: Farm Equipment
Forum Description: everything about Allis-Chalmers farm equipment
URL: https://www.allischalmers.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=103312
Printed Date: 09 Sep 2025 at 3:27pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: 426/516 question
Posted By: studer automotive
Subject: 426/516 question
Date 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 |
Replies:
Posted By: Lonn
Date 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.
------------- -- --- .... .- -- -- .- -.. / .-- .- ... / .- / -- ..- .-. -.. . .-. .. -. --. / -.-. .... .. .-.. -.. / .-. .- .--. .. ... - Wink I am a Russian Bot |
Posted By: DrAllis
Date Posted: 16 Mar 2015 at 7:20am
| Too expensive......too heavy......too slow speed.........tooooo much torque for the existing transmission. |
Posted By: Lonn
Date 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.
------------- -- --- .... .- -- -- .- -.. / .-- .- ... / .- / -- ..- .-. -.. . .-. .. -. --. / -.-. .... .. .-.. -.. / .-. .- .--. .. ... - Wink I am a Russian Bot |
Posted By: DrAllis
Date 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. |
Posted By: TramwayGuy
Date 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. |
Posted By: DrAllis
Date 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. |
Posted By: Pete from IL
Date Posted: 16 Mar 2015 at 6:24pm
| What was the 516 engine used in? I don't think I ever saw one. |
Posted By: grinder220
Date Posted: 16 Mar 2015 at 6:34pm
|
Pete from IL wrote:Posted By: Jwmac7060
Date 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 |
Posted By: grinder220
Date 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. |
Posted By: DougG
Date 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 |
Posted By: Jwmac7060
Date 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 |
Posted By: injpumpEd
Date 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! |
Posted By: ILGLEANER
Date 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. |
Posted By: Mactractor
Date 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 |
Posted By: BPM75
Date Posted: 16 Mar 2015 at 10:07pm
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. ------------- 59 D17 gas nf, 66 XT 190, 69 220. |
Posted By: DrAllis
Date Posted: 17 Mar 2015 at 7:05am
| The 3176 (629 cubes)became the C-10......the 3196 (731 cubes)became the C-12. |
Posted By: BPM75
Date 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. |
Posted By: DrAllis
Date 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. |
Posted By: BPM75
Date 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. |
Posted By: Dkienzle
Date 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. |
Posted By: Jwmac7060
Date 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 |
Posted By: Dkienzle
Date 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. |