| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
HudCo 
Orange Level
Joined: 29 Jan 2013
Location: Plymouth Utah
Points: 3542
|
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote  Reply
 Topic: why didnt the d17 get the 262 gas
Posted: 01 Nov 2024 at 9:36am |
|
why didnt the d17 get the 262 gas right along with the diesel when it first came out instead of the 226 ? that would have put them on top of the horse power war or close to it and the 226 in the d14 just wondering
|
 |
|
Sponsored Links
|
|
|
Kcgrain
Orange Level
Joined: 24 Sep 2009
Location: Wisconsin
Points: 769
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 Nov 2024 at 1:04pm |
Because then it would be a D19?
Fuel economy was horrible?
The 226 was probably the meanest small engine ever built, with a HUGE heart?
|
|
SteveM C/IL
Orange Level Access
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
Location: Shelbyville IL
Points: 8241
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 Nov 2024 at 1:41pm |
|
X2
|
|
AC7060IL
Orange Level
Joined: 19 Aug 2012
Location: central IL
Points: 3343
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 Nov 2024 at 1:47pm |
|
IMO, the AC G226 had become a proven design onto which, AC could easily add a plethora of other new tractor features into that era’s farming communities that trusted it’s power & performance.
AC began designing/testing the 1957 debuted D series tractor 13 yrs prior during 1944-45. During 1944-45, AC’s “Lacrosse equipment engineering had designed & built a complete line of matched front & rear-mounted implements for it.” (Quote, Norm’s AC 1914-85 book, page 72.)
The 1944 model D utilized the AC WC’s belt hp 30hp w201 engine 4” bore x 4” stroke. Which AC upgraded compression & rpms in the WD’s 34.6hp, and then again upgraded it in the WD45’s 4.5” stroked G226 43.2hp.
By 1957, the new D17’s G226 boasted 52.7 hp !!
Timing may also be another answer? Meanwhile, the 1953 Buda engine acquisition, was probably being utilized within limitations by AC diesel engineers? AC sold many more gas powered D17s than their Buda diesel versions during the late 1950s~early 1960s.
Yr. # / gas. # / diesels
1957, 2710 G226, 517 B262,
1958, 9725 G226, 2539 B262,
1959, 8927 G226, 2125 B262,
1960, 3276 G226, 1267 B262.
1961, 3970 G226, 994 B262.
Notice how both gas/diesel production numbers peaked in 1958-59, then plummeted. Bigger hp farm tractors had become the rage. Both the Buda gas & diesel engines were mostly eliminated by 1965 to make way for the new AC designed diesels - D21’s 426, 190’s 301, etc. Noteworthy, the G226 kept being produced & utilized in the One-Seventy, 170, 175, until 1976.
Edited by AC7060IL - 01 Nov 2024 at 1:54pm
|
|
HudCo
Orange Level
Joined: 29 Jan 2013
Location: Plymouth Utah
Points: 3542
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 Nov 2024 at 1:58pm |
|
d19 was not around in 1957
|
|
Kcgrain
Orange Level
Joined: 24 Sep 2009
Location: Wisconsin
Points: 769
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 Nov 2024 at 2:07pm |
|
Could have been easily in the pipeline, manufacturers knew the hp ratings were going up
|
|
Allis dave
Orange Level
Joined: 10 May 2012
Location: Northern IN
Points: 2917
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 Nov 2024 at 3:25pm |
|
I'm glad they didn't. The 226 is a reliable long lasting motor. The 262 doesn't seem to be.
|
|
HudCo
Orange Level
Joined: 29 Jan 2013
Location: Plymouth Utah
Points: 3542
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 Nov 2024 at 4:35pm |
|
262 gasser aint 16.1 pounding things apart not going to argue the reliability of the 226
|
|
DrAllis
Orange Level Access
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
Points: 20520
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 Nov 2024 at 5:24pm |
|
I guess they could have used the G-230 gas engine instead of the G-226, but I'm sure it would have been more expensive. The G-230 at 1650 RPM rated speed could have been carburated to make the same 53 PTO HP that the G-226 engine did. Using the G-226 in a D-14 chassis would have cost more to build and wouldn't have been as fuel efficient as the G-149 engine. I've always felt the D-14 and D-15 should have/could have both been introduced in 1957, using a very high percentage of the same parts. Almost the same thing could have been done making the D-17 and a little bit larger D-18 at 62 HP with different final drives and axle tubes, using 38 inch rear tires and G-262 at 1650 RPM.
|
|
Gary Burnett
Orange Level Access
Joined: 11 Sep 2009
Location: Virginia
Points: 2939
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 Nov 2024 at 11:40pm |
|
AC also could have used the Buda 273 motor fits the same hole as the 230 but more HP,same motor that was in a Cockshutt 50.Came in gas and diesel versions.
|
|
DrAllis
Orange Level Access
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
Points: 20520
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 Nov 2024 at 6:21am |
|
Could have, but never would have. That is what they should have used in the D-19 turbo diesel engine, but did not. Wet sleeves were a MUST for Allis dealers and their customers. They'd already enjoyed that benefit since 1934. Why would they even think about a bored block ??
|
|
wade89
Silver Level
Joined: 12 Feb 2018
Location: Northern MN
Points: 206
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 Nov 2024 at 7:14am |
|
Funny that sleeves were a must for the Ag side of business, but not for industrial. My bored block 273 came in a TL12 loader.
I have a D17 diesel converted to a 262 gas before I bought her. The 170 I own will outwork it and gets close to double the fuel economy from what I figure.
|
|
Gary Burnett
Orange Level Access
Joined: 11 Sep 2009
Location: Virginia
Points: 2939
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 Nov 2024 at 8:29am |
 DrAllis wrote:
Could have, but never would have. That is what they should have used in the D-19 turbo diesel engine, but did not. Wet sleeves were a MUST for Allis dealers and their customers. They'd already enjoyed that benefit since 1934. Why would they even think about a bored block ?? |
No O rings to leak for one thing,no sleeves to to get out of whack like the D19 diesels.I've had several Cockshutt 50 tractors with the 273,I'll take one over the wet sleeve engines.They are a very long life motor.
|
|
DaveKamp
Orange Level Access
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Location: LeClaire, Ia
Points: 5754
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 Nov 2024 at 5:21pm |
The other option would have been to cut two sets of G226 casting patterns, reassemble the pieces to make a 339ci six... but they didn't.
I'll admit, I'm a big fan of the inline six layout. I've had my hands into the Chevy Stovebolt, the Hudson Hornet, Willys 226 'super hurricane', the Jeep Tornado 230 OHC six, the Chev 230/250/292, the AMC 4.0L/HO... and the Honda CBX...
But in this case, I don't think that going to the inline six in a 230 or 262ci displacement would be a beneficial result.
Look at the G226's power curve. it's bore, stroke, and speed range yields really good characteristics for the service duty, fuel quality, and environment... and it does it in a generally compact and easily serviceable platform.
Going to a 230ci six means your cylinder displacement goes down. That means less piston surface area, smaller runners to maintain higher velocity. For a slow-speed application, that puts the six at a disadvantage. It's 'smoother' (firing at 120 rather than 180 degree intervals), but the smaller piston surface, and reduced port velocity (and inherently greater variation of runner lengths to GET to the ports) means the added weight of two more cylinders doesn't come with a proportional benefit.
What would be cooler than a G226 four, or a 339 six-cylinder...
Would be a G452... a pair of G226's at 90 degrees... V8...
Or cooler yet... A G678 V-12... 
Mebbie it's time to call Allen Millyard? I DO have a buddy at the foundry over west of me, if I carve him up a foam pattern set, I might be able to get a block poured... Then saw up some heads, mebbie go with four castings of three cylinders each... one carb per three... nah, EFI it... while I'm at it, cross-flow heads with exhaust in the valley, intakes/injectors on the outside, a large gear pump for oil, dual water pumps...
Hmmm... if I'm doing that... turbos? Flow forward to an intercooler, then out the sides to the throttle bodies?
Yeah, that'd be a fun thing to build, but I'm just to darned busy.
I love my D17. Grandpa was right- they're great machines.
And put THAT into a D-17, right?
|
|
Ten Amendments, Ten Commandments, and one Golden Rule solve most every problem. Citrus hand-cleaner with Pumice does the rest.
|
|
tbran
Orange Level
Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Location: Paris Tn
Points: 3296
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 06 Nov 2024 at 6:30pm |
|
Talking to Terry Wood many decads ago - the budda didn't have the block strength to hold the sleeves, the bottom end to hold any increased HP, a head that couldn't be kept from cracking and the engine was expensive to build. They did run a couple of experimental direct injection heads and the issues really showed up. The 226 was cheap to build and had no warranty cost. It was cost prohibitive to build so many engines so the 200/301 and 426 became the standard to the end for AG.
|
|
When told "it's not the money,it's the principle", remember, it's always the money..
|
|
DonDittmar
Orange Level
Joined: 15 Sep 2009
Location: MIllersburg, MI
Points: 2484
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 08 Nov 2024 at 7:00am |
My D19d Is currently sitting torn apart with a cracked block. I have a replacement block I purchased a few years ago. Need to get back on that one of these days-just need to get gasket kits and rods/mains so if anyone has some let me know.
If I could find a D273 Id put that in there or use the block and build a 290 out of 262/273 parts
|
|
Experience is a fancy name for past mistakes. "Great moments are born from great opportunity"
1968 D15D,1962 D19D
Also 1965 Cub Loboy and 1958 JD 720 Diesel Pony Start
|
|
