| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Zyta 
Orange Level
Joined: 19 Jan 2010
Location: Ontario
Points: 238
|
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote  Reply
 Topic: Gleaner E Engine Adice
Posted: 05 Feb 2010 at 1:34pm |
I have a nice Gleaner engine I would like to tweek a little and really be competitive in the local antique pulls here in Ontario. Without stroking the engine what are some resonable cost effective modifications. Is there a certain flat top piston WD or Chevy that works better than the others to increase compression? We already have one fellow around this area with flat top pistons and he's tough to beat. Is there anything you can do to the head, valves, cam and carboration you fellows wouldn't mind sharing.
Thanks, Jim
|
 |
|
Sponsored Links
|
|
|
mark/indiana
Silver Level
Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Location: Central Indiana
Points: 129
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Feb 2010 at 1:40pm |
|
On a budget, be sure to use the combine exhaust system and make sure it fits properly...change the governor spring to a later one for higher RPM....hopefully your engine will run smooth at a higher speed...Mark
|
|
mark/indiana..."My favorite Allis Tractor or Crawler is the one I'm sitting on at the time!!..
|
|
Allis Fields
Orange Level
Joined: 17 Sep 2009
Location: Reedsburg,Wisc.
Points: 332
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Feb 2010 at 1:50pm |
|
I have a "e" and was thinking of roller rockers but don't know if the stock vavle springs can take the extra lift fron a pulling can and a ratio increase.
|
|
mlpankey
Orange Level
Joined: 13 Sep 2009
Location: Vols country
Points: 4580
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Feb 2010 at 2:47pm |
I think the cheapest way to make hp is to use the wd 45 dished piston and a 8 inch long rod like a h farmall rod makes 12.1 compression . I have a head ready to go with flow numbers for $800 Ferra comp. valves 5 angle valve job springs and retainers good for .550 lift. also have other goodies . 6 inch crank camshafts forged pistons to make a 321 cubic inch engine and if your pockets are really deep i would sell the big motor tractor both rearends and the 321 motor makings.
|
|
farmer_rob
Silver Level
Joined: 11 Sep 2009
Location: N.Lancaster ont
Points: 362
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Feb 2010 at 4:07pm |
|
zyta what part of ontario r u in?2nd question is for mlpankey . i thought by using the H rod you were only able to increase stroke by 1/2 plus your offset grind adding another 1/4".. with those numbers it should be 264 cubes @5.25"stroke if im doing the math right.changing the stroke that little change the compression that much?
|
|
if farming was easy everybody would be doing it
|
|
Brian Jasper co. Ia
Orange Level
Joined: 11 Sep 2009
Location: Prairie City Ia
Points: 10508
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Feb 2010 at 4:11pm |
Yeah Mitch, got any dyno numbers from that mountain motor yet?
|
|
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian." Henry Ford
|
|
mlpankey
Orange Level
Joined: 13 Sep 2009
Location: Vols country
Points: 4580
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Feb 2010 at 4:18pm |
|
you dont gain any stroke by using the h rod. you gain compression by using the rod because its a half inch longer. the only way you increase stroke is to offset grind the crank to a smaller rod journal or add weld to the crank and offset grind it . the h rod has a slightly smaller journal but not enough to gain much from offset grinding. I thought we had covered this previously. 2.375 allis journal offste ground to the 2.250 h rod journal is .125 X90=.1125+4.500=4.6125 stroke 4.125bore x4.125boreX4.6125stroke times numberof cylinders (4) x.7854=246.5 cubic inches
Edited by mlpankey - 05 Feb 2010 at 4:28pm
|
|
farmer_rob
Silver Level
Joined: 11 Sep 2009
Location: N.Lancaster ont
Points: 362
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Feb 2010 at 4:25pm |
|
yes i was trying to figure out how you were able to almost get too 12 compression. the increase in compression would net how much hp alone?
|
|
if farming was easy everybody would be doing it
|
|
mlpankey
Orange Level
Joined: 13 Sep 2009
Location: Vols country
Points: 4580
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Feb 2010 at 4:29pm |
|
still setting on the engine stand. just bought a new old stock rocker arm shaft 178.dollars
|
|
Zyta
Orange Level
Joined: 19 Jan 2010
Location: Ontario
Points: 238
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Feb 2010 at 4:38pm |
Rob, I am located outside of Milverton Listowel area close to Kitchener Waterloo. (South Wetern Ontario). Today when I was out and about I came across a Leroy 226 cubic in engine power unit of a Bean Picker. Engine has low hours runs and is in excellent condition kept inside. Are these engines any good? the combustion chamber is in the head like most engines.
|
|
farmer_rob
Silver Level
Joined: 11 Sep 2009
Location: N.Lancaster ont
Points: 362
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Feb 2010 at 4:41pm |
|
im in north lancaster which is as far east as u get in ontario. i havent heard much about those type of engines
|
|
if farming was easy everybody would be doing it
|
|
mlpankey
Orange Level
Joined: 13 Sep 2009
Location: Vols country
Points: 4580
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Feb 2010 at 4:55pm |
 farmer_rob wrote:
yes i was trying to figure out how you were able to almost get too 12 compression. the increase in compression would net how much hp alone? |
going from 6.1 to 12.1 should yeild 15.1 percent increase in horsepower if nothing else is done.
Edited by mlpankey - 05 Feb 2010 at 5:34pm
|
|
MikeB (SD)
Silver Level
Joined: 13 Sep 2009
Location: NE South Dakota
Points: 80
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Feb 2010 at 6:02pm |
Check your engine first. The serial number has a letter prefex attached
for example 17 42985M the "M" is 7.25:1. If it has 17 72985Z the "Z" indicates
8:00:1. The biggest holdback is the .260 cam lift and the out of tolerance rocker arms
and pushrods getting worn. One real easy way if you have the "Z" code engine is to purchase a set of roller rockers. Murphy's make a set in a 1.850" ratio and the
stock rockers measure 1.488 at best. With the Murphy's rocker you actually get more
lift than the 175 cam made, however the critical cam timing events are not as good as
the 175 cam. I think Mitch measured a bunch of his rockers and found some as
bad as 1.42. I've got a set of high compression WC/WD pistons but they will require
a flycut for the valve reliefs unless your rockers measure 1.44 or worse then they just
might clear. They would be around 10:5:1 with your crank. What are you guys using
for a compressed head gasket thickness when figuring compression?
|
|
mlpankey
Orange Level
Joined: 13 Sep 2009
Location: Vols country
Points: 4580
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Feb 2010 at 6:21pm |
Hello Mike , youre telling to much. hahaha. most people dont want to spend the$ 400 for the rockers and then $178 for a new rocker shaft when they can have a cam ground for $150. No sense in wearing out a 400 dollars set of cast aluminum rockers prematurely caused by skimping on a rocker shaft in my opinion. I also dont think a small cubic inch motor unless you turn the thing 5 grand would be helped with the roller rockers more like it would hindered on the low end torque side . For the record murphys rockers are nice i own a set and are going to use them along with a new shaft on the engine I am building but its 400 plus cubes at 15.1 compression for methanol
|
|
MikeB (SD)
Silver Level
Joined: 13 Sep 2009
Location: NE South Dakota
Points: 80
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Feb 2010 at 8:05pm |
Ouch big bucks for the rocker shaft Mitch. Murphy probably could have made a chrome moly one for that price. That shaft has the same part number 70225893 started at engine #289000 which occured in the style WC engine's era and was used until the last 175 gas engines were made in 1976.
I flowed some of my 4" heads a few years ago and I thought they flowed suprisingly well. Seems like the numbers were good enough to make power to 4500 RPM's on 226 cu inches and that was with the stock valves. That and the Nebraska test results for the
226 engine. The 1957 D17 with the "M" code 7.25:1 engine made 52.70 horsepower. It had a 1" size carb and ran at 1650RPM's. 10 years later they test the 170 gas tractor with the "Z" code 8.00:1 engine, increase the carb to 1-1/8" and raise the RPM's 150 to 1800 and only make 54.12 horsepower. Eight years later the bring the 175 with the "V" code engine @ 8.25:1 compression or only 1/4 point more than the 170, and it makes 60.88 horsepower. Now how did they find all of that increase when the kept the same RPM, 1800? They found it in the camshaft the 1/4 point of compression gain isn't going to be worth 1/2 a horsepower gain over the 170. Granted they increased the carb another 1/8" to 1-1/4" but most of the gain was in the cam. The .260" lift cam was probably a great choice for the WD45 with it 6:5:1 compression ratio running at 1400RPM's. So why didn't they put the good cam in the 170 and make 60 horsepower with it? The answer is the Perkins diesel was only able to develop 52 horsepower and I'm sure marketing wanted to keep them the same. Actually when you look at the tests even further the 170 gas was set really conservatively as it with the bigger carb burned less fuel than the D17 gas. The D17 burned 4.535 gal per hour at max rated load and the 170 burned 4.348 gal per hour @ max load and only 3.986 gal per hour @ the 1650 RPM's the D17 engine was turning. One other thing is the "Z" code gleaner engines actually use an even larger 1-3/16" carb and it's a Schebler not a Zenith like they used on the 170's.
|
|
mlpankey
Orange Level
Joined: 13 Sep 2009
Location: Vols country
Points: 4580
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Feb 2010 at 8:55pm |
|
I wasnt disagreeing with you . Go back to youre flowbench testing and look closely at the percentages. It will tell you how you could loose lowend torque quickly at and above .400 lift. please when you figure it out dont post it . i like to think i have a advantage over others.
|
|
Allis Fields
Orange Level
Joined: 17 Sep 2009
Location: Reedsburg,Wisc.
Points: 332
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Feb 2010 at 11:00pm |
|
I have a z code gleaner and it has a barney cam. Otherwise it is compleatly stock. I was wondering ifthe murffys rockers will make the valves hit or the springs bind. Just looking for another advantage.
|
|
DrAllis
Orange Level Access
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
Points: 20479
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 Feb 2010 at 6:26am |
|
Not a fair HP comparison from a D17 to 170. The hydraulic system on the 170 and 175 took about 3 to 4 more hp to operate, so make the D17 around 49 hp for fair numbers. Other than that, you are right on. One other note....peak torque on a 170 was at 900 rpm (as per Nebraska test).....pretty slow, don't you think??? I don't know where the 175 peak was??
|
|
MikeB (SD)
Silver Level
Joined: 13 Sep 2009
Location: NE South Dakota
Points: 80
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 Feb 2010 at 8:08am |
Thanks Dr. Allis I've often wondered if that wasn't the case on 170 vs. D17.
Bob I would check with Barney on that, more than likely it's not going to help to
increase lift a bunch more without increasing your compression ratio. I think your
next step would be to pull the heads and do at least a 3 angle or 5 angle valve job
and use some good undercut stem stainless steel valves. I would go to the 11/32"
stems also we have 3/8" stock. While your in there measure your stock rockers and
make sure they are up to spec. Years ago my best frend and I raced NHRA stock eliminator and we used to go thru two (5) gallon pails of rocker arms just to find (16)
good ones to run in that engine. How much power do you think you have today with
just the Barney cam?
|
|
mlpankey
Orange Level
Joined: 13 Sep 2009
Location: Vols country
Points: 4580
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 Feb 2010 at 8:47am |
|
Mike I consider Barney a good friend we talk at least once a week. The 11/32 vlave stems idea came from him . I can sell you bronze guides for that valve size at 12.00 a piece to get rid of the cast iron allis ones. They is alot to be picked up from just knowing the best valve angles to start flowing air with minimal movement off the seat. A engine is nothing more than a air pump it has to get alot of fuel and air into it to produce the btus to be converted to mechanical energy hp and tq. Youre question about the cam if you didnt change anything but the cam and you didnt degree it in on a stock engine for a tight centerline you probably wouldnt pick up much. Barneys cams are popular and the people that purchase them like them . Thats as good of advertisement you can get and they must work too. If you want a solid time proven cam his is the one . I am still trying to push the hp envelope . I have two cam ideas in the works just have to get some hard data from a pulling season .1 cam design is simple and can be done for the same price as a 175 regrinds are being done. The other takes a billet cam and 1500 dollars but theys no doubt in my mind hp could be as high as 300 horses on a 400 cubic inch motor with the airflow numbers it would be capable of producing
Edited by mlpankey - 06 Feb 2010 at 8:59am
|
|
Zyta
Orange Level
Joined: 19 Jan 2010
Location: Ontario
Points: 238
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 Feb 2010 at 6:14pm |
Well guy's thats alot of infomation! from what I get out of it if I want to strengthen up my Gleaner E ...I should get a Barney cam and 8'' rods to make some good compression.
Jim
|
|
