440 motor

Why did these engines perform so poorly in these tractors? 

According to Tractor Data, the Steiger Bearcat, had a Cat 3160. I would think you could put in 3160, or a 3208.

They have a SAE bell housing so most any industrial motor will work. The 3208 would not be my choice.      MACK

Is it turboed and did the crankshaft get turned down at all?

Have a v504 in our versatile and it’s been a tough little engine.

Heard if you grind the cranks at all they will break easier in the 555 and that the 555 liked to break cranks when turboed. I would maybe look at a IH 466 truck engine. Bell housing looks similar and the 466 is tough as nails, and the truck engines are cheap and dime a dozen.

I also do like the 444e idea. Would be cool and they are indestructible. Reliable power. Not sure how you would turn it down being it’s computerized, but I think our ih 4700 is only rated at 210 I think, might even be 190, would hold up to that just fine I would think it you treated it correctly.

Edited by Carl(NWWI) - 15 Jan 2019 at 12:01am

I like the 6V92 idea. They also have low end torque.

Why not a Cummins BTA 5.9??

That 555 Cummins was rated at 218 flywheel HP @ 2800 RPM, so high idle was probably 2900 to 3000 RPM's no load.

The 3208 I had started as soon as you hit the starter but when it saw a hill it would start slowing down. No balls.     MACK

SteveM C/IL wrote: I like the 6V92 idea. They also have low end torque.

A Dogtroit with low end torque, now that’s a fantasy 😸

I'd guess the 516 is physically too long to fit where a 555 was.

Two things wrong with the 516 length and rpm don't think the 516 would like 3,000 RPMs very well

Everyone dogs a 3208 but in reality they are a small engine that was slways overworked in big trucks. 3208's are excellent in medium duty trucks.
In a stieger bearcat 2 they made 225hp.
Steiger didnt regear the high rpm v8 tractors. Thats why our bear cat will run 30+ mph down the road

We had a 3160, and a 3208 in Field Queen choppers, I always thought they were good luggers, but they were always run at full throttle. Truck application might be quite different.

SteveM C/IL wrote: So Paul,you ever been around the turboed 92 series? Don't appear so.

Steve: just the idea that you think a 2cycle like the 6V92 or if you want a do-over even the 6v92T can have low end torque is halarious and tells me you are easily impressed. I have been driving trucks for the past 45 years now and just the fact that most all of the 2 cycle Dogtriots were mated to 13 speeds or more whereas an engine with GENUINE torque may only have a 9 or 10 has a lot to say. How about those 300+ Macks with a 5 speed, now that’s torque. I have also operated many FieldQueens with the 6v92 and it is a good engine within it’s capabilities and running at top governed RPM. However any 2cycle will fall faster than a barrel over a waterfall when it sees a hill. The only time you can let up on a Dogtriot is when you need to downshift, then it’s right back on the floor. I have driven many large CID gas engines back in the day that could be considered to have torque, such as a Hall-Scott big Walkashaw and even those V12 GMCs , they where fun with the 5X4 and for their time impressive.
   Now the idea of replacing a 555 rated at around 200HP with any engine of 300 or so is just asking for drivetrain issues. If you want to suggest a 2cycle to replace rge 555 just so you can listen to that annoying 2cycle wine, a 6v53 or derated 6v71 would be more suitable.