Horse Power ..???

[Tonyp 278]

RMCIII    yes ! OK..I get it !  Being a fan of the big blocks..my former 69 /427 was supposedly a 390 HP but it rocked like 425 or more..it certainly did not have a stock cam in it by the time I got it in 2000 !  My last  rocket ship was a year or two back , a 2001/ Z06 , LS6, which was rated at 385 . In between I had several 185  HP and 240 HP rated "8's" which fell victim to what you correctly stated. 1969 to 2001..it took 32 years to get back to where we were ! But I do have to say..that little LS6/385HP  is an enginnering masterpiece..EPA or not !

 

More HP just to cut grass..does this mean we have arrived ? And don't forget the cup holder....

[RMCIII 838]

I think I'll borrow a line from a friend of mine "Chuck Yeager" < yes friend, personally. "The good-ol days were not as good as what some people would like to think". True, we learned a-lot between the era of late 60's to early 90's. Within that 30 years everything changed several times over. Compare those 30 years to say 1920's to 1950's.< That era did see change, but not like, the 60's to the 90's. HP & torque were terms auto makers, cringed to think about, because of government and insurance. Much can go into those 2 areas, I'll leave it alone. Regardless, consumers were driven by "gas mileage" cleaner burns, less waste, and safety. Then, sometime in the early 90's something happened again. Anyone remember the first "Firehawks" If not, here is an article: http://www.autoblog.com/2005/02/16/time-warp-1992-pontiac-firebird-firehawk/ . This is what really started the auto war again and showed GM, Ford, Chrysler that engines could be built to produce serious HP, while meeting EPA standards, and meeting safety requirements. That little bird went head to head with a ZR-1 Corvette, and won. Now, the problem was, pricing of that car. Who wants to pay $40k for a Firehawk in 1992? Well, try and find one today, a 1992, for less than $40k and you have a steal of a deal. Since auto industries help to regulate everything else with engines, hence we come full circle, in our discussion. Oh-yeah, and the car, did not come with a cup holder, that was optional. LOL.

[papaglide 541]

I think I'll borrow a line from a friend of mine "Chuck Yeager" < yes friend, personally.

 

Now THAT is more AWESOME than ANY of these tractors!!! Thanks to you BOTH for your outstanding service to our country!

[Hodge71 663]

It all comes down to one thing that I think everyone is forgetting. "Horsepower sells, cars, but torque wins races" ....All these high dollar, high horsepower tractors mean nothing if they dont have the "twist" to do the job. Torque is truly all that matters when it comes to doing work.... If HP mattered then all of the tractor trailers and locomotives would be running enormous gas engines with 1000 hp instead of diesels that make 400 hp but have 1000+ ft/lbs of torque and 10/12/18 speed gearboxes to utilize that torque curve to motivate the load 

[RMCIII 838]

"Horsepower sells, cars, but torque wins races" I challenge that statement. I'll show up with my 4 cylinder Honda putting out 500hp, and I promise I will thump some big block that is putting down 500lb/ft. of torque. Yes torque begins to move a load, and when under "exertion" takes over for HP, but, if you look at the specs in a race, torque drops off and HP takes over. NASCAR is not about torque, it's about longevity of an engine putting out 725hp, and making around 450lb/ft.of torque. It really boils down to the application of the need. Do you need to continually be "exerting" torque to move a load, or do you require HP keep the load moving once you get it started. How much torque, in each application differs. Hence, where the tractors are today. Most tractors are produced to keep the load moving, blade speed, in grass. Not some ground engauging attachment, that continually exerts constant "grunt" from the engine. So, to circle back to the original question why more HP on the models today? Becasue the torque curve has changed within the expectations of what "brute force" is required on many of the Lowe's, Home Depot, typical Ace Hardware lawn tractor. If you want a combination of both, better go to your local Impliment dealer and check the line of equipment he sells.

[RMCIII 838]

Forgot to mention thanks for the compliment "papa".

[Tonyp 278]

But still..in the box stores , 22HP and a cup holder  for $1600  wins hands down over the big brother machines at $4500 from the dealer...

[RMCIII 838]

No doubt tonyp. Agree. Especially when the need is just cuttng grass.

[RMCIII 838]

Sorry folks, made a mistake on the reference. It was Motor Trend. Here is the article. #8 on the list was the '69 ZL-1 Corvette.

 

http://www.motortrend.com/features/consumer/112_1002_six_decades_of_supercars/viewall.html

[boovuc 1,090]

I had a couple quick machines in the past. The best and baddest was my Plymouth 340 6-pack. Just keep it going in a straight line and you were fine)!

Torque verses top-speed. Cruise verses grunt?

1.This whole topic was nailed early on. EPA changed their ratings and the ISO testing on HP ratings.

2. Envy drives marketing! More horsepower stickers on a tractor equals more sales.

Combine the two points above and you get where we basically are today. 2 cylinders are better than 1! More horsepower makes my tractor better than yours!

This of course is bullshit but when you have a whole generation spoon fed info from a light-emitting box their smart phones and a PC connected to the internet, then it must be true!

 

The sentence below sums up just about anything you can say about this topic.

 

The older tractors with the older HP ratings churn out more torque and power than modern engines turning comparable RPM's at their PTO regardless of single or twin.

 

Combine this statement with the known quality and heavy build of all older tractors from the established manufacturers and we know why we own them.

[RMCIII 838]

Well put

[123GO 78]

Sorry guys but I have bad news for hot rodders, after selling my 425hp 69 Super Bee to buy my ol' lady a car {ya' its that love cr^p} we ended up with an Infiniti. While looking into cars I ran across todays hot rods. Since I cant hock the kids and house, needless to say, Nissan still has my dream car {Always will}. But since the HP issue got out of hand here I felt I must join the madness..

  Its not going to matter what your in today if you see one of these Nissans just hope its 6 cyl is in stock form so you might have a bit of a chance, unless your in one yourself, {read aftermarket tuning= wiki}...

   

  Just put your turn signal on like people done my Bee for yrs and drive off into the sunset. Your ego will never be the same if you fail to do as I say and all this with around 23mpg....Times they are a changin..Just not changing for me. This blast of fun cost more $$$$$$$ more $$$$$$$$ and more $$$$$$..... 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_GT-R

 

 

Buy one here also see articles/awards:

http://www.nissan-global.com/EN/NISSAN/GT-R/

Edited July 22, 2013 by 123GO

[Charger12Custom 1]

Sorry to bring up an old thread but I saw that the onan 20 made 28hp on the dyno.. STOCK, uh what?! I want to know how much my 12hp Kohler really makes then because I bet that these old engines' HP were measure a lot less accurately so compared to newer aluminum block engines.. Would there be a safe number to multiply old HP to match new HP?? Or some dyno figures on these old engines would be nice too..

Sent from my Inspire 4G using Tapatalk

[shorts 182]

HP is a mathematical computation, it can not be measured.  HP= torque x rpm / 5252

Early engines were developed with the available materials and technology available, crude by todays standards but still engineering marvels designed to make life easier, the K series Kohlers  are 1940's state of the art cast iron long stroke flat head designs with high tech aluminum pistons that develop lots of torque and medium speed, anything over 4K rpm and it's a bomb with a short fuse. They transformed from magneto ignition to12v points ignition to electronic ignition to solid state electronics and plastic fuel tanks on the Magnums. In the mean time technology kept moving along and the standard today is a spun cast iron sleeve cast into an aluminum block with overhead valves and high tech alloy pistons and other internal components that are computer designed, formed, and machined to tolerances that used to be impossible with production equipment. The EPA and CARB keep pushing for cleaner, the bean counters and general public want cheaper parts to keep end costs down

 

 Give my horses with K series Kohlers 'cause that's what I grew up with and they are still kool, but don't even think that the new state of the art computer controlled and designed engines and vehicles aren't way kool also.

 

750 hp NASCAR engine life to rebuild about 800 miles of practice, qualifying and a 500 mile race, probably 50 grand to rebuild it

 

750 HP diesel semi engine life 750,000 to 1 million miles on oil and filter changes, probably 20 grand to swap it out with an updated to new factory rebuild.

[RMCIII 838]

Shorts - just pointing out the very obvious..... 750hp in a NASCAR vs. 750hp in a Tractor have 2 completely different uses. (1) turns close to 10,000 rpms for 5 to 6 hours. The other, at the most, turns 3,500 rpms < that is pushing a diesel engine. The rest of the time it is right around 1,800 to 2,400. Each is developed to do something completely different. One being to sustained a constant speed of whatever the track will allow that Sunday, the other is designed to continually be under "torque" or constant strain. Referring back to the "original" question, why the difference. Again because the demand on the GT has changed significantly. It is only designed to keep blade speed at a constant.... If you want both go to your local implement dealer....

 

Oh, sorry to be so anal about this, but HP can measured. But within each application HP/torque are not relevant to engine size or cubic inches. Oh yeah, 1hp = 746 watts. < Very first way HP was measured. < Again that changed drastically.

Edited November 1, 2013 by RMCIII

[Ken B 3,116]

"Horsepower sells, cars, but torque wins races" I challenge that statement. I'll show up with my 4 cylinder Honda putting out 500hp, and I promise I will thump some big block that is putting down 500lb/ft. of torque. Yes torque begins to move a load, and when under "exertion" takes over for HP, but, if you look at the specs in a race, torque drops off and HP takes over. NASCAR is not about torque, it's about longevity of an engine putting out 725hp, and making around 450lb/ft.of torque. It really boils down to the application of the need. Do you need to continually be "exerting" torque to move a load, or do you require HP keep the load moving once you get it started. How much torque, in each application differs. Hence, where the tractors are today. Most tractors are produced to keep the load moving, blade speed, in grass. Not some ground engauging attachment, that continually exerts constant "grunt" from the engine. So, to circle back to the original question why more HP on the models today? Becasue the torque curve has changed within the expectations of what "brute force" is required on many of the Lowe's, Home Depot, typical Ace Hardware lawn tractor. If you want a combination of both, better go to your local Impliment dealer and check the line of equipment he sells.

If I still had my Built 69 SS Big Block Chevelle (with all the hidden goodies and setup proper.) I'd take that bet. Sold it a few years ago so you won't be seein my tail lights anytime soon...   I know there are some wicked fast new cars, I owned a Shelby and a Subaru WRX Turbo and it is true, many of these new cars will lay a spankin on the cars of yesteryear. As an old school guy there ain't nothing cooler than an old car from the 60's that is setup proper showin a new car whats up, and from time to time it does happen. I know its an old thread and my comment is totally non related to tractors but I couldn't resist!

[kaiser 100]

when i look at the box store mowers with their 20hp vertical shaft motors they make me chcukle a bit. they are so tiny.

 

my fater in law (same great man that gave me my 48 cub) loves his 20hp 100 series deere. i refrain from picking on it just to be nice.

he asked me how much hp my horse has and when i answered 16 he chuckeld, "well my little deere makes 20". good for you pops, wanna have a pull off? lol i didn't think so.

the 16hp opposed twin is enormous compared to that little 20hp in the deere.

[SousaKerry 500]

Well once upon a time when you bought a farm tractor and you went down to the library or Ag Extension Office to look up reviews of farm machinery there were several more ratings then just HP of the engine.  You had Draw-bar HP(how hard it could pull) Belt HP(later PTO HP) and the HP of the engine.  So depending on your need you bought for the HP you needed, for instance your big plow tractor probobly wouldn't work very wheel or efficiently to run the thresher.  

 

Another industry that rates machines on pulling power are Railroads.  Steam engines were almost never rated in Horse Power they were rated in Tractive Effort or the amount of force the engine would exert on the pulling faces of the coupler.  This measurement is still used on Diesel Electric Locomotives.  And in recent years traction control advancements have dramatically changed these numbers.  While the HP of the Diesel Prime Movers has stayed constant at about 4,200 HP the tractive effort has almost doubled in the last 20 years.  Basically the electrical transmission systems used in these engines has changed, where D.C. traction motors were the norm 20 years ago now A.C. traction motors have taken over.  With modern electronics the power systems have becoming much more efficient  producing more power at the wheel to move heavier trains with less units. 

 

Even the Locomotives are built for different purposes.  GE produces both passenger and freight units that look almost identical on paper and in person.  The HP is the same the electrical wizardry inside is the same the traction motors are the same but the gearing between the motors and the gears are different.  Maximum speed for a freight engine is usually 79 MPH but typically does not get much over 45 MPH so they will drag a heavy coal train up a mountain at 10 MPH all day with no problem.  However a passenger locomotive of the same HP will have a maximum speed of say 120 MPH but typically will not operate over 79 MPH.  It won't drag the coal train at 10 MPH over the hill but once you got it moving on level track it would drag it to 79MPH no problem and keep it there all day.

 

 

Wait a minute where was I going with this again???

[JackC 616]

When you want to cut your large lawn with a 60" deck at over 7 mph and clear snow with the 44" two stage snow blower in order to blow the snow over to the next street block, then you need the horses.  The big motor on my 520HC just sounds good to me.  I also drove Corvettes back in the day.  My VW got me where I wanted to go but the Corvettes got me there with a smile on my face.  Same kind of thing with the horses.  Speed, power, sound, and with a few chrome touches makes the chores all the more fun.

[shorts 182]

RMCIII, I'm glad to see that you understand that 750HP is 750HP and that for SAE rating purposes that it is all measured the same way and all date is corrected to standard temps, altitude,  humidity, barometric pressure, etc.  I also agree that their are many different applications for a given HP rating and that with modern technology power plants can be designed to fit a specific application efficiently. The available materials and manufacturing processes open op so many different design options and then the electronic management systems that can monitor and change the fuel and ignition systems based on feedback from the operating environment are absolutely amazing, I still prefer the Kohlers and old B&S engines that I cut my teeth on, but I also appreciate the newfangled engines of today and tomorrow and have a pretty good understanding of how we got to where we are today and it is not all bad.

[RMCIII 838]

RMCIII, I'm glad to see that you understand that 750HP is 750HP and that for SAE rating purposes that it is all measured the same way and all date is corrected to standard temps, altitude,  humidity, barometric pressure, etc.  I also agree that their are many different applications for a given HP rating and that with modern technology power plants can be designed to fit a specific application efficiently. The available materials and manufacturing processes open op so many different design options and then the electronic management systems that can monitor and change the fuel and ignition systems based on feedback from the operating environment are absolutely amazing, I still prefer the Kohlers and old B&S engines that I cut my teeth on, but I also appreciate the newfangled engines of today and tomorrow and have a pretty good understanding of how we got to where we are today and it is not all bad.

You forgot fuel grade....

[shorts 182]

Fuel grade is included in the etc.

 

HP is a calculated number, watts are a mathematical computation of 2 measurable items, amps times volts, then that computed number is used in another computation, watts X 746 = HP. 

 

lets go drink a beer and discuss where the real difference in the new and old engines and why the evolution came about which is what the OP is all about, the early engines were large bore long stroke low speed engines that develop their torque at relatively low speed, the newer engines are a product of modern technology, light weight materials, better manufacturing technology and a short stroke small bore design that lends itself to peak torque at higher rpm's.

 

Cutting grass is all about maintaining blade tip speed be it measured in mph or feet per second, the newer lawn tractors are spinning the same rpm as the old engines but their torque peak/power band is at a higher rpm and they can recover from a load change at that speed easier than the older engines.

 

Likewise with the advent of efficient hydrostatic transmissions the newer engines will pull hard and slow like the old machines because you can keep the engine up in it's designed power band, with the old school engines that made their peak torque at lower rpms you had to work with what you had so they underated them and then left a ton of throttle available in the governors.

 

Lets also be sure to give CARB and the EPA due credit for changing available fuels and adding emission controls to include sealed crankcases and limited carburetor adjustments.  Finally there is the media/advertising people that only tell you what they want you to know.