301-426 vs others
Printed From: Unofficial Allis
Category: Allis Chalmers
Forum Name: Farm Equipment
Forum Description: everything about Allis-Chalmers farm equipment
URL: https://www.allischalmers.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=118633
Printed Date: 06 Jun 2025 at 3:04pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: 301-426 vs others
Posted By: acd21man
Subject: 301-426 vs others
Date Posted: 06 Feb 2016 at 6:36pm
|
iv thought about this alot. why did AC have 301 to 426 cubic inch gap i know a 301 is great on fuel but is that why they left the little motor in there. i mean a 200 was i think 80 hp and a 4020 was 83 but the 4020 had a 404 so its got more stroke and TQ and to get a 426 u had to jump to a 210 or 220 which was a large tractor for most ppl just needing a little more power when jd kept the same block so there is a 4020 4000 4320 4230 4430 4630 and pretty much all had the same engine and a 5020 and 6030 with a 531 AC had a 180 185 190 200 all with a 301 and a 210 220 /426 and then the 7000s with 301 and 426s even IH moved from a 361 to a 407,414, 436 and even a 466 iv just always thought this hurt them not having a larger motor then a 301 in a smaller tractor ------------- 2 wd 45,2 D-17 diesel/gas 3 pt, 220,d21, 4020,2 4430s used daily http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCudh8Xz9_rZHhUC3YNozupw |
Replies:
Posted By: PaulB
Date Posted: 06 Feb 2016 at 6:44pm
|
In the days of the first 190XTs they were coming from the factory with more HP than the D21s. This led to the D21 series II real fast. In what was then a 5 plow class only the 19Xt was a turbo engine. Without a turbo more cubes were needed for the required HP and torque and generally their HP hours per gallon were higher ------------- If it was fun to pull in LOW gear, I could have a John Deere. Real pullers don't have speed limits. If you can't make it GO... make it SHINY |
Posted By: DrAllis
Date Posted: 06 Feb 2016 at 6:49pm
| An AC 200 was 94 PTO HP as was a 4020 Deere. The 301 with a turbo would perform as well or BETTER than the 404 non-turbo Deere and use less fuel. I never had a problem with that choice. Even when the 301 was at 107 PTO HP in the A-C 7010 I was good with that, but when the 7020 (301 turbo intercooled) was placed against a 4430 Deere (404 turbo) that is where AC started losing out. That wasn't the engines fault, it was the Sales Depts choice in what they were trying to market. |
Posted By: DougG
Date Posted: 06 Feb 2016 at 6:57pm
| I luv those 301,s they are great enginges, the 7020 was too heavy of a tractor to make that engine cope |
Posted By: AC7060IL
Date Posted: 07 Feb 2016 at 7:34am
|
During 1973, OPEC placed an oil embargo on the U.S. and other foreign country that supported Israel during the Israel-Arab war. Consequently, the price per gallon of US gasoline went from $0.38 to $0.55 while it's national fuel reserves depleted. Fuel prices steadily increased thru 1979 and into the 1980s. The 55mph speed limit was established then also. During the 1973-74 oil embargo, my Dad bought a used semi 5000 gallon tanker trailer for on-farm diesel storage. Although AC had the ability to build & offer bigger diesel engines for its Ag division, it had to think about fuel economy. The already proven 301 & 426 turbo engines were a natural choice. The gasoline-LP engines went by the way side during the 1970s. |
Posted By: DrAllis
Date Posted: 07 Feb 2016 at 7:40am
| Also remember, the 301 and 426 were of A-C's design from the ground up. All other existing engines that they had, were inherited from Buda. |
Posted By: DrAllis
Date Posted: 07 Feb 2016 at 7:43am
| Also consider, the B-series 359 Cummins and the C- series Cummins....359 cubes and 505 cubes. They are 146 cubes apart in size versus A-C's 125 cubes from 301 to 426. |
Posted By: injpumpEd
Date Posted: 07 Feb 2016 at 8:52am
|
And, it's nothing to see a 175HP industrial 5.9L engine. There's been a few swapped in to 2-135/155 Whites around here, replacing the 478 Hercules lol! I've always thought those should get an 8.3L swap, but they are just chore tractors now, so don't need the reserve. ------------- 210 "too hot to farm" puller, part of the "insane pumpkin posse". Owner of Guenther Heritage Diesel, specializing in fuel injection systems on heritage era tractors. stock rebuilds to all out pullers! |
Posted By: bigal121892
Date Posted: 07 Feb 2016 at 9:52am
| I never had a problem, with the 301/426, but Allis should have stopped the 426 at the 7045/8030 horsepower level, the 426 was just to small for the 7060/8050, 7080/8070, and 7580/4W220 tractors. We had a 7010 at one time, added an intercooler, and had the injection pumped reworked for 7020 specs. Pulled an 8 row 36 IH 900 series planter for several years with that combination. The planter had liquid fertilizer, and the tractor, had 2 250 gallon saddle tanks on it. This was a load for the stock 7010, but the reworked 7010, pulled it without problems, and quite economically as well, if I remember correctly. |
Posted By: ILGLEANER
Date Posted: 08 Feb 2016 at 8:16pm
|
The 301 turbo never took a back seat to any 100 hp tractor. All the other cubes mentioned were non turbo engines. I agree in the 426. 150 hp that motor will live as long as any other motor out there. They needed a 550 -600 cube engine to take the place of the 426 in the 7080/8070 and 7580/4w220. I have been told the 516 worked well in the construction equipment, and combine, because they required constant rpms. But didn't hold up well in the tractor app. With the variable rpms. Couldn't have been any worse then what the 426 did over 200 hp. In my opinion. IG ------------- Education doesn't make you smart, it makes you educated. |
Posted By: AC7060IL
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2016 at 6:49pm
|
Today, I noticed in Norm Swinford's book - "Allis-Chalmers Farm Equipment 1914-1985" that the 301 was only turbo-charger in the 7010 & 8010. What problems happened to the 301 when it became turbo-Intercooled, like in the 7020? The smaller 200 - 433I in the 6080, F2, & F3 (301's with 2 less cyl) seemed to take well to being turbo-Intercooled. Why were 433Is ok? Until I saw the book spec for the 7010 & 8010, I just figured they were fuel derated turbo-Intercooled versions. |
Posted By: DrAllis
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2016 at 7:02pm
| Cost. That intercooler wasn't without a price, and not needed at 107 PTO HP. |
Posted By: 427435
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2016 at 8:36pm
The 190 Xt's were also turbo'd 301's. ------------- Mark B10 Allis, 917 Allis, 7116 Simplicity, 7790 Simplicity Diesel, GTH-L Simplicity Ignorance is curable-----stupidity is not. |
AC7060IL wrote:Posted By: victoryallis
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2016 at 9:52pm
Huh???? The 426 in a 7060 is pretty sweet even liked it in my 7080. Never had it on a dyno but my 7080 made my uncles NH 8870 look like a child's toy. I do agree they should have done something different for the articulated tractors. ------------- 8030 and 8050MFWD, 7580, 3 6080's, 160, 7060, 175, heirloom D17, Deere 8760 |
Posted By: 7060
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2016 at 10:12pm
| I agree there wasn't anything wrong with the 426 in a 7060 maybe even the 7080. My 7060 acted like a bigger tractor pulling a Phoenix harrow in our hills than our NH 8970 because it's lighter, but the NH/Genisis tractors are quite a bit bigger and stouter tractor. They are capable of 300hp pto and have around 10,000lbs on the 7000 series. |
Posted By: tbran
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2016 at 10:30pm
|
as a tractor salesman for AC when the 7020 came out, I along with the rest of the sales force let out an 'awh sheeeittt' when we got the 'word' . But we had to sell them. Head to head with IH 1086 and Deere 4240 we could hold our own with a power shift.. The power director was miserable on the road trying to start a load and the absence of syncros in the tranny .... however very few 1086's and deere's were stock - they had a lot of upward potential, and we did as well... several 7020's turned close to 145hp - issue was cavitational erosion,, pinholes in the sleeves, plagued us at higher hp long term at about half the hours others lasted ... also the copper sleeve head did not lend itself to any overheating.... it was just a bridge too far for the day and competition. Curse Harvey for the $$$$ it would have taken to make the 426 available .... a 426 7020 set at "125 hp, wink" would have kicked butt.... if we could have sold them and not gone broke in the process,,,, but then we did anyway,,,, duh.... ------------- When told "it's not the money,it's the principle", remember, it's always the money.. |
Posted By: ACjack
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2016 at 8:37am
|
Curse Harvey for the $$$$ it would have taken to make the 426 available
I think the Harvey plant would have been more than happy to sell more 3500 series engines and that the issue was with West Allis.
|
Posted By: Lonn
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2016 at 9:28am
|
I can't figure out why AC ever let Harvey plant be so independent of the main company. Who owned who for sake's alive! They should have combined the operations.
------------- -- --- .... .- -- -- .- -.. / .-- .- ... / .- / -- ..- .-. -.. . .-. .. -. --. / -.-. .... .. .-.. -.. / .-. .- .--. .. ... - Wink I am a Russian Bot |
Posted By: ACjack
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2016 at 9:44am
| I don't think it was a question of who owned who. While I worked there West Allis was who called all the shots and getting capital from West Allis to make improvements was for all practical purposes was impossible. The improvements whether for engine updates, facilities or production machines/processes just didn't happen like it should have or needed. |
Posted By: ACjack
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2016 at 9:49am
| I don't think it was a question of who owned who. While I worked there West Allis was who called all the shots and getting capital from West Allis to make improvements was for all practical purposes was impossible. The improvements whether for engine updates, facilities or production machines/processes just didn't happen like it should have or needed. |
Posted By: TREVMAN
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2016 at 1:28pm
| My Dad had two 7020's, neither was no slouch, take either of them over a 1086 any day. We also had an L3 greenstripe standard with a 301, never had any power issues, jmho, Trev. |
Posted By: DrAllis
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2016 at 1:55pm
| Proper tractor HP sizing should have been the 7020 (301 turbo-intercooled) at 115 HP.......7040 with 426 turbo at 135 HP......7055 with 426 turbo intercooled..........7070 with counter balanced 426 at 170 HP.......7090 with a bigger engine at 190 HP. That would have been a competitive tractor line. Deere and IH moved their 4440 and 1086 HP's up to match the 7040 and then we drop the 7040 model...DUH !! |
Posted By: tbran
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2016 at 4:15pm
|
I promise there were a lot of DUH's - and AC and the folks in the 70's /80's did not have a monopoly on duhs,,,,, they still live among us today ----- and still build farm equipment in many brands,,,,
------------- When told "it's not the money,it's the principle", remember, it's always the money.. |
Posted By: Jwmac7060
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2016 at 5:22pm
| Should have out sourced the motors in the 7080,7580 8070,4w220 4w305 and the 8550 to Cummins....Allis might still be around had those come with bigger motors |
Posted By: Lonn
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2016 at 7:35pm
|
I think the demise of Allis goes much deeper than the engines ------------- -- --- .... .- -- -- .- -.. / .-- .- ... / .- / -- ..- .-. -.. . .-. .. -. --. / -.-. .... .. .-.. -.. / .-. .- .--. .. ... - Wink I am a Russian Bot |
Posted By: ACjack
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2016 at 7:38pm
Couldn't agree with you more!
 |
Posted By: Lonn
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2016 at 7:53pm
|
Deere had duds for engines and it wasn't necessarily because they were under cubed. The 531 and the 619 for starters. The 1010 and 2010 engines. The engines in the earlier 9400 combines. And it continues today............ here is part of a discussion from new ag talk from back in 2010. "All I know is this. We have owned over 30 JD combines from the 00 series through the 70 series. We had one 9600 that had over 5k engine hours and never any engine problems. We have had several power issues through the years, most of them were resolved. We used to run 3 combines and trade every year for many years and now just own 1-9770, an '08 model, with 550 engine hours and it is being rebuilt right now. They brought another 9770 out, a '09 model, for us to finish wheat harvest with and we were the first to run it after a complete O/H. It had around 650 engine hours. I don't believe it is a operator/ maintenance problem at all. I don't believe it is a tier IV problem either as the mfgs. have known since 1990 that these new low sulphur mandates were coming and have had plenty time to get it right. I know of a new '10 model 9770 that when they were backing it off of the truck from the factory it was knocking. They had to put a new crate engine in it and yes they do have new crate engines. Most crate engines are factory rebuilt, but they can pull a new engine off of the assembly line. I know of another 9 litre in a 8530 w/1800 hours that broke a crank.
We have had in the neighborhood of 60 of the 8.1 engines in tractors and combines and have NEVER had an engine failure. So, this tells me that JD has a problem with the 9 and 13 litre engines. I don't need any statistical data to know this, pretty simple." ------------- -- --- .... .- -- -- .- -.. / .-- .- ... / .- / -- ..- .-. -.. . .-. .. -. --. / -.-. .... .. .-.. -.. / .-. .- .--. .. ... - Wink I am a Russian Bot |
Posted By: Lonn
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2016 at 8:02pm
Just to be sure I nail my case closed, here is more from that same website
------------- -- --- .... .- -- -- .- -.. / .-- .- ... / .- / -- ..- .-. -.. . .-. .. -. --. / -.-. .... .. .-.. -.. / .-. .- .--. .. ... - Wink I am a Russian Bot |
http://talk.newagtalk.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=181272&DisplayType=nested#bottom" rel="nofollow">
Posted By: Jwmac7060
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2016 at 9:21pm
| Lonn Im no Deere engine fan at all. I prefer Cummins over any of them. The Allis 301 and 426 were great motors in the right tractor...the 7080,7580,8070 and 4w220 should have never had the 426 in them. I wish Allis would have merged with Case...that 504 in an 8070 with the Allis transmission be it power director or powershift would have been a beast. Oh what could have been |
Posted By: Lonn
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2016 at 9:52pm
|
I'm just saying that Allis wasn't broken because of their engine problems in a few tractors. ------------- -- --- .... .- -- -- .- -.. / .-- .- ... / .- / -- ..- .-. -.. . .-. .. -. --. / -.-. .... .. .-.. -.. / .-. .- .--. .. ... - Wink I am a Russian Bot |
Posted By: 7060
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2016 at 10:07pm
| I know it wouldn't have been likely for Allis to use a cat engine since they were competitors at the time, but I would much prefer a cat over a cummins any day. I'm a little bit of a hater on cummins, but I've never had much luck with them. Cats start way better and the low end torque and lugging recovery would have been a nice substitute for the 3750 series engines. |
Posted By: 427435
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2016 at 10:51pm
There was a lot of bickering by the general managers of the two plants (their bonus money depended on many of the decisions). In the early 80's, they were made to switch places.  ------------- Mark B10 Allis, 917 Allis, 7116 Simplicity, 7790 Simplicity Diesel, GTH-L Simplicity Ignorance is curable-----stupidity is not. |
Posted By: 427435
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2016 at 10:57pm
West Allis basically paid so much per hp regardless of engine displacement. For needed production volume of the 301, a second model beyond the 7000 was wanted by Harvey. I also suspect the 649TI engine was cheaper to build than the 670T engine. ------------- Mark B10 Allis, 917 Allis, 7116 Simplicity, 7790 Simplicity Diesel, GTH-L Simplicity Ignorance is curable-----stupidity is not. |
Posted By: 427435
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2016 at 11:02pm
If by West Allis, you meant the corporate types on the West side of 70th st, then you would be right--------------that's where those decisions got made. However, the West Allis Tractor Plant had little to do with that. ------------- Mark B10 Allis, 917 Allis, 7116 Simplicity, 7790 Simplicity Diesel, GTH-L Simplicity Ignorance is curable-----stupidity is not. |
Posted By: 427435
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2016 at 11:08pm
Not really. The corporation was losing money in areas outside of farm equipment and had big bank loans to pay. The farm equipment was the one entity that they could sell for a good price and pay some of those loans off. Actually, the banks were likely the ones that forced the sale to Deutz. But yes, a modern engine of around 500-550 cu. in. was needed to keep up in the hp race. ------------- Mark B10 Allis, 917 Allis, 7116 Simplicity, 7790 Simplicity Diesel, GTH-L Simplicity Ignorance is curable-----stupidity is not. |
Posted By: ACjack
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2016 at 9:07am
The 301 (D2900 series) was "high" volume for the Harvey engine plant. During my years there production would vary from 30 or so on up to 60 per day. That engine was also sold to commercial customers. I do believe you're right about the 649TI was cheaper to produce vs the 670T.
|
Posted By: ACjack
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2016 at 9:10am
Yes, I was referring to corporate and not the tractor plant.
|
Posted By: Calvin Schmidt
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2016 at 10:22am
|
JD is not perfect by any means. I just rebuilt an 8.1L in a 7820 tractor because of a piston failure that may have started by a faulty injector. The piston started to come apart above the top ring. The tractor has more than 10,000 hrs but the other five holes showed very little wear. The 8.1L has 1/4" of material above the top ring to aid in better starting an lower emisions. My D-21 has 3/4" above the top ring. I'm told that the current JD engines are using a two peice piston. ------------- Nothing is impossible if it is properly financed |