| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
BuckSkin 
Silver Level
Joined: 12 Sep 2019
Location: Poor Farm
Points: 292
|
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote  Reply
 Topic: WD-45 Question ???
Posted: 21 Mar 2020 at 10:51am |
|
Why do some of the WD-45 that I see have a "front porch" and others do not ?
At first, I thought they were completely different models; but, both styles are listed as WD-45.
I see this on both, tricycles and wide-fronts.
On some, the grill is flush with the frame; and on others, quite a bit of frame extends forward of the grill.
Thanks for reading and all help is appreciated.
|
 |
|
Sponsored Links
|
|
|
SteveM C/IL
Orange Level Access
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
Location: Shelbyville IL
Points: 8030
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 21 Mar 2020 at 10:52am |
|
diesel engines were longer and moved the radiator foward
|
|
BuckSkin
Silver Level
Joined: 12 Sep 2019
Location: Poor Farm
Points: 292
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 21 Mar 2020 at 12:12pm |
 SteveM C/IL wrote:
diesel engines were longer and moved the radiator foward |
Thanks; makes perfect sense. I should have caught that myself.
|
|
CTuckerNWIL
Orange Level
Joined: 11 Sep 2009
Location: NW Illinois
Points: 22810
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 21 Mar 2020 at 12:52pm |
|
Yes, the 45 diesel engine is a 6 cylinder. Just needed the room up front.
|
|
|
|
Ranse
Orange Level
Joined: 11 Mar 2016
Location: Tennessee
Points: 773
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 21 Mar 2020 at 7:55pm |
|
I often wondered, are they the same horsepower? I've wondered that about all the AC gas vs. diesel engines. I once had a guy tell me his D-17 diesel was 80 hp. I didn't believe him, but if he's right, that's quite a bit more than a gas D-17.
|
|
DSeries4
Orange Level
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
Location: Ontario, Canada
Points: 7205
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 21 Mar 2020 at 8:59pm |
No such thing as an 80 hp D17 diesel. The D17 diesel is actually 1 hp less than the gas.
D19 turbo diesel is only 67 hp. Still a far cry from 80!
|
|
'49 G, '54 WD45, '55 CA, '56 WD45D, '57 WD45, '58 D14, '59 D14, '60 D14, '61 D15D, '66 D15II, '66 D21II, '67 D17IV, '67 D17IVD, '67 190XTD, '73 620, '76 185, '77 175, '84 8030, '85 6080
|
|
DrAllis
Orange Level Access
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
Points: 19573
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 21 Mar 2020 at 9:07pm |
|
All diesel engines ( until turbochargers came along) must have more cubic inches, or more RPM's, to develop the same HP as a gasoline engine. For example, the D-17 gas was 226 cubic inches and the diesel was 262 cubes, both at 1650 RPM's. The WD45 gas was 226 cubes at 1400 RPM and diesel was 230 cubes at 1625 RPM's. A gas 190 was 265 cubes and diesel was 301 cubes, both at 2,200 RPM's.
|
|
SteveM C/IL
Orange Level Access
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
Location: Shelbyville IL
Points: 8030
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 21 Mar 2020 at 10:39pm |
|
Uncle demoed a gas and diesel with the same 4 bttm snap coupler(WD45). They left the plow and gasser and hauled the diesel back. Tractor is still on the farm. Don't know the inside story and no one left to tell it.
|
|
DrAllis
Orange Level Access
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
Points: 19573
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 22 Mar 2020 at 7:19am |
|
If you think about it, money was probably the determining factor. The diesel was 20% more money, and then you had to buy a new fuel barrel and be very clean with fuel handling, etc. Safer to go with what was proven.
|
|
SteveM C/IL
Orange Level Access
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
Location: Shelbyville IL
Points: 8030
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 22 Mar 2020 at 11:15am |
|
That makes sense
|
|
ac fleet
Orange Level
Joined: 12 Jan 2014
Location: Arrowsmith, ILL
Points: 2215
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 22 Mar 2020 at 12:05pm |
|
Same was true for the IH tractors! SM, W-series, etc.! --- Gas power always tested way higher than diesel. Gas engines of the time were much easier to work on by most guys with common tools and knowledge , so were more popular for most guys.
|
|
http://machinebuildersnetwork.com/
|
|
BuckSkin
Silver Level
Joined: 12 Sep 2019
Location: Poor Farm
Points: 292
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 22 Mar 2020 at 12:07pm |
DrAllis wrote:
If you think about it, money was probably the determining factor. The diesel was 20% more money, and then you had to buy a new fuel barrel and be very clean with fuel handling, etc. Safer to go with what was proven. |
Way back when I was a kid, dirt-poor farmers justified their budget-forced decisions to stay with gas-burners (not that any of them were ever going to buy anything new anyway) by claiming that "you can't start one of them diesels with a stick of dynamite" and "if one of them diesels ever gives trouble, you had better have a big pocket-book" Contrary to country-store loafer knowledge, I have found every diesel I have ever owned to be much more reliable and quicker to start, and far less expensive to maintain.
|
|
VAfarmboy
Silver Level
Joined: 06 Dec 2013
Location: Virginia
Points: 468
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 22 Mar 2020 at 3:45pm |
BuckSkin wrote:
DrAllis wrote:
If you think about it, money was probably the determining factor. The diesel was 20% more money, and then you had to buy a new fuel barrel and be very clean with fuel handling, etc. Safer to go with what was proven. |
Way back when I was a kid, dirt-poor farmers justified their budget-forced decisions to stay with gas-burners (not that any of them were ever going to buy anything new anyway) by claiming that "you can't start one of them diesels with a stick of dynamite" and "if one of them diesels ever gives trouble, you had better have a big pocket-book"
Contrary to country-store loafer knowledge, I have found every diesel I have ever owned to be much more reliable and quicker to start, and far less expensive to maintain.
|
Actually they were about right about needing a stick of dynamite to start the early diesels. We had a Massey 44 diesel that my uncle bought new in 1953 and the only way to get that tractor going if it was under 50 degrees was to pull start it with a pickup or another tractor because the starter just wasn't up to the task.
We also had a 1977 Deere 4230 that was about the hardest starting tractor I have ever been around.
|
|
BuckSkin
Silver Level
Joined: 12 Sep 2019
Location: Poor Farm
Points: 292
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 22 Mar 2020 at 11:18pm |
VAfarmboy wrote:
We also had a 1977 Deere 4230 that was about the hardest starting tractor I have ever been around.
|
We had a 4230 that was also hard to start when we first got it; likewise the 1971 990 David Brown that we bought new. After a bit of thoughtful observation, I decided that the 990 was not so much hard to start as it was under battery-powered. I ditched the factory generator for a GM alternator and installed two Group 31s batteries; and, from that day forward, that tractor would start on cold mornings when some of the gas-burner pickups would not. When we first got the 4230, even with two brand-new 6-volt batteries, it was very hard starting, often having to be jumped from a pickup. This caused quite a bit of problems, especially when some of the idiots my father hired, who had no idea how to jump-start two sixes in series, would short out alternators and worse. I replaced the series-connected 6-volt batteries with a pair of parallel-connected 12-volt Group 31s and then it would fire off as quick as a 6BT Cummins. To fire a diesel, it must have enough battery power to whirl it over with authority.
Edited by BuckSkin - 22 Mar 2020 at 11:20pm
|
|
DrAllis
Orange Level Access
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
Points: 19573
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 23 Mar 2020 at 6:34am |
|
Deere 4230's are world renowned to be hard starters !! They had lower compression pistons to help with cab noise. When they got overhauled, the compression was raised and then started better.
|
|
