8050 N7 engine swap

Plates are at machine shop.he said max of 6 weeks, but more than likely it will be sooner. Should be 400 bucks or less for the plate too. I'll keep y'all updated.

Crank flange, yes. Rear engine bolt pattern, no.

bigal121892 wrote: Unit3 wrote: Is it just me or does it seem odd that AC never tried using the 516 in a tractor. I would love to see it in a 7080, mine. Keep us up to date with pictures. Sure would love to see her run. What I have read, was told, that the 516 was expensive to manufacture, thereby making it to expensive to put in a tractor.

Why did they put it in a combine from 1979 thru 1987?

Lonn wrote: AC7060IL wrote: [QUOTE=exSW] I’ve seen many stock tractors wrecked by someone who turned up its fuel, weighted it to max, & pulled a size bigger disk/FC or whatever, and bumped it up another gear higher. Point is - just because it’s got more horses, doesn’t mean you got to use them all, all the time. Definitely bump the gear higher because that is actually better for the drive train than pulling in a low gear. Higher gear means less torque for the drive train to deal with.  With that engine at low gear the torque will be quite high and something is going to break and it won't be the engine.

Drivetrain will not last three years if he racks any hours up. But hey he knows all.   

I asked my local dealer about parts availability. He said mostly everything was no problem to get. That was one thing I wanted to know before I bought the engine.

GregStremel wrote: Your project is intriguing. I understand that you have an N7 engine ready to install. We have an an N7 that we would like to overhaul. It runs strong but uses some oil. We have not found a rebuild kit. We could not get a new water pump last summer, we had to put a salvage unit in. Have you found a source for parts to rebuild that engine?

I know of 2 8070's with C series Cummins swaps, and they both have had geartrain failure. Randy on here is one. I think his took a tooth off a range gear? My buddy the Agco parts dealer/repair shop is working on one now, again, this time has a need for a trans main shaft, and also has gear teeth issues. While great drivetrains, adding that much torque to them after all these years of who knows what kind of life, there's bound to be trouble. Tyler only plans to use on pto chopper, so he may be fine. 

Probably my engine choice ( no $$$ limit) would be a 6.7 Cummins or even an older 5.9 Cummins, both set at 220 to 240 HP flywheel @ 2550 RPM's. Both are capable of 2700 RPM's all day long and the torque would be better than a 426 but not killer torque as the extra RPM's would increase the transmissions ability to live. If you read the design/development paper on the 7080 tractor, that was one of their arguments for increasing the rated RPM's to 2550 instead of 2300, was to help keep the transmission together. That's also why the 8550/4W305 had a much bigger transmission, the other tranny was maxxed out.

Not sure if the old posts still exist but I believe Mark (427435) shared that the Harvey plant 'charged' the tractor division by the cubic inch. Therefore, in order to save cost, the sales department seemed to demand  smaller cubed engines to be turned up in order to meet the price point.  Long story short, the 516 was too expensive and outdated for the tractor division to use so they were looking to suppliers like Cummins, Perkins, Komatsu (8095)for other options.

Industrial Cummins ??... so, the governor would be the right type??  What year do you think it is and what was the rated HP @ what RPM's ??

Lonn wrote: bigal121892 wrote: Unit3 wrote: Is it just me or does it seem odd that AC never tried using the 516 in a tractor. I would love to see it in a 7080, mine. Keep us up to date with pictures. Sure would love to see her run. What I have read, was told, that the 516 was expensive to manufacture, thereby making it to expensive to put in a tractor. Why did they put it in a combine from 1979 thru 1987?

Were the teeth knocked off the input gears in the front of the transmission?

Caterpillar would have been using an engine of 630 cubes or more in their dozer of that HD11 size, also rated at what seems to be very low HP. That's the way construction equipment is/was. Farm equipment doesn't shoot for 20,000+ hrs of engine life like construction equipment does and seems like 10K life is even high for hrs. At the time the 8000 series was being built, Deere had already been at the 466 platform size and IH was too, and Ford/NH was at 474. The 426 was the same physical size as that, but AC refused to make needed design changes to increase bore or stroke to gain 40 cubes. ( For the record, I know that an IH DT-466 crankshaft can be installed in a 426 with enough machine work, but the point is the engines were identical in physical size).The 516 was too heavy and cost too much and was NOT as fuel efficient and could not run in the RPM range that was needed for the driveline. As far as the claim Harvey charged the Ag Division by the cubic inch, that would be incorrect I believe. I can assure you that a non-turbo 301 (84 flywheel HP) cost less that a 4 cyl 200/433-T-I (95 flywheel HP) and probably cost less than a 200/433-T (85 flywheel HP).

randy wrote: If i remember right, the bottom shaft gear in the front of the tranny was the one that lost the teeth and the top shaft gears teeth were damaged, both were replaced. It is an early 8070 with the bigger final drives and 2 wheel drive.

Lonn wrote: bigal121892 wrote: Lonn wrote: bigal121892 wrote: Unit3 wrote: Is it just me or does it seem odd that AC never tried using the 516 in a tractor. I would love to see it in a 7080, mine. Keep us up to date with pictures. Sure would love to see her run. What I have read, was told, that the 516 was expensive to manufacture, thereby making it to expensive to put in a tractor. Why did they put it in a combine from 1979 thru 1987? The 426 barely  holds together at 210Hp. The 516 in the N7 is 270Hp, probably their only choice, if they wanted to stay in house. I would have applied the same logic to using it in the tractors. Dad's HD11 uses the 516 at 120 or 130 flywheel HP. What I don't understand is how a company can be so disjointed that the engine plant works against using its own engines by treating the West Allis plant like an outside customer. It's all the same company!

Edited by ACjack - 04 May 2019 at 9:19am

Not to hijack the thread, but its been my experience that people are really quick and comfortable  to point out what someone else is doing to them, but pretty slow to look in their own back yard at what difficulties their own decisions have created.