Hi to all, new to this forum, I am located in the Cadillac Mi area and get considerable snow to deal with in my 1/4 mile long driveway. so far my JD 210 with a 37A snow-thrower has handled this job, but the k241 is underpowered in heavy snow, I am looking at case 400 and 4000 series tractors with much interest. I have kinda ruled out the 444 as I believe it would have the same problem as my JD 210, so I am looking at the 446 and the 448 but have found a couple of 4016 Ingersoll tractors. My question is what is the difference between the 446 and the 4016? any other insight or suggestions would be greatly appreciated, thanks milkman
Hello from Northern Michigan
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Joined
·
568 Posts
Hi, Milkman,
I wouldn't be afraid to buy a 444, as it has 32 cubes vs. 24 on your JD, so torque will be noticeably better. The 446 uses a 16 HP Onan mounted flywheel-forward with a mechanical attachment drive clutch. The 4016 has the engine mounted with the flywheel facing rearward and an electric clutch. Ingy used an Onan 16 on earlier models and a Briggs Vangaurd 16 on later models. Both are excellent engines and each has its own merits. For longevity and pure grunt it's hard to beat the old Onans. The Vanguard is a modern engine and will likely be cheaper to work on as the years go by, in comparison with the Onans.
John
I wouldn't be afraid to buy a 444, as it has 32 cubes vs. 24 on your JD, so torque will be noticeably better. The 446 uses a 16 HP Onan mounted flywheel-forward with a mechanical attachment drive clutch. The 4016 has the engine mounted with the flywheel facing rearward and an electric clutch. Ingy used an Onan 16 on earlier models and a Briggs Vangaurd 16 on later models. Both are excellent engines and each has its own merits. For longevity and pure grunt it's hard to beat the old Onans. The Vanguard is a modern engine and will likely be cheaper to work on as the years go by, in comparison with the Onans.
John
Three digit models (444, 446, 448) were built until 1988. They had the flywheel of the engine facing the front of the tractor. In 1989, the four digit models were introduced and the engines were turned 180 degrees in the frame. That's the major difference.
The 444 uses a 14 hp K-321 Kohler and if it is in good repair, it has plenty of power. HP means nothing. Torque and where that torque is delivered is what really matters. l wouldn't rule out a 444. They have torque that rivals the Onan twin 16 hp engine. If you want more power, then find a Ingersoll 4020 or 4020PS if you'd like power steering. Onan power with the Linamar name on it but 20 hp nonetheless. Arguably, one of the best tractors ever produced by Ingersoll.
The 444 uses a 14 hp K-321 Kohler and if it is in good repair, it has plenty of power. HP means nothing. Torque and where that torque is delivered is what really matters. l wouldn't rule out a 444. They have torque that rivals the Onan twin 16 hp engine. If you want more power, then find a Ingersoll 4020 or 4020PS if you'd like power steering. Onan power with the Linamar name on it but 20 hp nonetheless. Arguably, one of the best tractors ever produced by Ingersoll.
Ok, what I have heard in the past as a rule of thumb a single stage snowthrower should have at least 4 hp per foot of auger, so my JD is 10 hp with a 3 foot blower witch is 3.3 hp per foot of blower and the 444 is 14 hp with a 4 foot blower that is 3.5 hp per foot of blower, but if the Kohler single will produce more torque than the Onan twins would the 444 really be the better choice for the snowcaster?Hydriv said:
Horsepower vs torque discussions rapidly end up in shouting matches.
Anyway, if your engine maintains a constant rpm under load, then indeed horsepower is where it is at-after all, horsepower just measures how fast an engine can deliver its torque.
When the revs drop, the amount of horsepower, OR torque, will change, and there is the where folk talk about different engine performance in ways not easily explained din straight horsepower numbers.
I don't know if I've seen graphs of HP or torque vs RPM for Onan engines, let alone Kohler or Vanguard. My guess is that the Onan, either 16 0r 18 HP version, is putting out more power AND torque at, say, 2600 RPM than a 14 HP Kohler. I'm prepared to be corrected.
By the way, my BCS blower has a 28" auger with a 13HP Honda engine, it fires the snow farther than ANY snow blower I've see, but it bogs faster than the 448 when the snow gets heavy.
Anyway, if your engine maintains a constant rpm under load, then indeed horsepower is where it is at-after all, horsepower just measures how fast an engine can deliver its torque.
When the revs drop, the amount of horsepower, OR torque, will change, and there is the where folk talk about different engine performance in ways not easily explained din straight horsepower numbers.
I don't know if I've seen graphs of HP or torque vs RPM for Onan engines, let alone Kohler or Vanguard. My guess is that the Onan, either 16 0r 18 HP version, is putting out more power AND torque at, say, 2600 RPM than a 14 HP Kohler. I'm prepared to be corrected.
By the way, my BCS blower has a 28" auger with a 13HP Honda engine, it fires the snow farther than ANY snow blower I've see, but it bogs faster than the 448 when the snow gets heavy.
You could use 38" blower and add "wings" to get it as wide as wheels.....less auger, less hp/torque needed. I'm in GR and have cottage near you.....when I relocate there, plan on doing that w/my 446, thou my 224(14hp) might be used.....which ever one finds a CAB by then. Guy I know in HART uses 446 and 48" w/o issue and get as much or more than you do. So, find one and enjoy. The 4 digit whether 3000 or 4000 are same basic tractor with engine turned around and use an electric clutch over proven manual clutch to allow a blade brake to be added to comply w/newer regulations. You have a dealer east of you in FALMOUTH. Good luck in your search. Bob M
We don't shout on this forum....... we discuss.
The problem with HP is that it cannot be clearly defined.
Go and read this from top to bottom and then come back and tell me what it is to have one HP available to perform work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower
Torque is somewhat easier to define because we can measure that in foot pounds or inch pounds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque
And then you have the proverbial discussion about torque vs HP.... which is more important?
http://ezinearticles.com/?Torque-Vs-Hor ... id=1794731
http://trucks.about.com/od/autobuying/a/torque.htm
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/torque-v ... power.html
By now, you should be totally confused and who can blame you. No one can truly argue this to a happy resolution. What I can tell you is that there are people who have owned 224 and 444 Case tractors which are both Kohler K-321 powered and then they have tried out some of the modern V-twin engines with HP ratings over 20 in fairly new LT's. When it comes to powering through thick, long grass that is damp, the old K engine will drop a few RPM and then chug right on through. The shiny new LT drops RPM rapidly and continues to drop RPM unless the operator backs off on the travel speed to lighten the load on the motor.
The same reports have come in while blowing heavy snow. The old Kohlers and Onans will often outperform the newer Vanguard engines. Perhaps the 23HP Vanguards are equal but the older 16 and 18 HP Vanguards are nowhere near the torque-monsters the Onan 16 and 18 HP engines are.
I've been involved with heavy trucks for some time now and companies that build transmissions, rear ends and driveshafts etc rate their product in torque, not HP.
If HP was the real way to judge an engine, then one would think that those companies would choose HP as the benchmark.
This is going to be an interesting thread before it's done. :sidelaugh: :sidelaugh:
The problem with HP is that it cannot be clearly defined.
Go and read this from top to bottom and then come back and tell me what it is to have one HP available to perform work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower
Torque is somewhat easier to define because we can measure that in foot pounds or inch pounds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque
And then you have the proverbial discussion about torque vs HP.... which is more important?
http://ezinearticles.com/?Torque-Vs-Hor ... id=1794731
http://trucks.about.com/od/autobuying/a/torque.htm
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/torque-v ... power.html
By now, you should be totally confused and who can blame you. No one can truly argue this to a happy resolution. What I can tell you is that there are people who have owned 224 and 444 Case tractors which are both Kohler K-321 powered and then they have tried out some of the modern V-twin engines with HP ratings over 20 in fairly new LT's. When it comes to powering through thick, long grass that is damp, the old K engine will drop a few RPM and then chug right on through. The shiny new LT drops RPM rapidly and continues to drop RPM unless the operator backs off on the travel speed to lighten the load on the motor.
The same reports have come in while blowing heavy snow. The old Kohlers and Onans will often outperform the newer Vanguard engines. Perhaps the 23HP Vanguards are equal but the older 16 and 18 HP Vanguards are nowhere near the torque-monsters the Onan 16 and 18 HP engines are.
I've been involved with heavy trucks for some time now and companies that build transmissions, rear ends and driveshafts etc rate their product in torque, not HP.
If HP was the real way to judge an engine, then one would think that those companies would choose HP as the benchmark.
This is going to be an interesting thread before it's done. :sidelaugh: :sidelaugh:
Well, er, uh-I was an engineer in mechanical power transmission once upon a time. Wrote a few applications manuals. So anyway.
I never thought of horsepower, or kilowatts, or whatever, to be hard to define, but most motor journalists have proven me wrong. So here is my attempt, in a few short minutes, as it is Valentine's Day.
1) Torque by itself doesn't imply rotation. You can put a 2 foot wrench on a frozen nut and stand on it, generating (forgive the assumption) about 400 lb. ft of torque, and the nut may not move.
2) Once the nut moves, you are now performing work. Work is the product of force (torque) and distance. No distance, no work.
3) Assuming the nut is stuck so that it needs the same torque to keep moving it as it comes off, and your wife is timing you-well, if you juggle all three together, you have power. You can call it horsepower.
So I submit that power-I'll call it horsepower-is the ONLY measure that makes real sense in our world of tractors.
I never thought of horsepower, or kilowatts, or whatever, to be hard to define, but most motor journalists have proven me wrong. So here is my attempt, in a few short minutes, as it is Valentine's Day.
1) Torque by itself doesn't imply rotation. You can put a 2 foot wrench on a frozen nut and stand on it, generating (forgive the assumption) about 400 lb. ft of torque, and the nut may not move.
2) Once the nut moves, you are now performing work. Work is the product of force (torque) and distance. No distance, no work.
3) Assuming the nut is stuck so that it needs the same torque to keep moving it as it comes off, and your wife is timing you-well, if you juggle all three together, you have power. You can call it horsepower.
So I submit that power-I'll call it horsepower-is the ONLY measure that makes real sense in our world of tractors.
:sidelaugh: :sidelaugh: :sidelaugh: :sidelaugh: :sidelaugh: :sidelaugh:
I understand the points you are making. Should I now haul out some report from the internet about how engine manufacturers were in big trouble over misleading HP ratings on their engines a few years back and began to put torque ratings on them instead or they just declared displacement in CC's or Cubic Inches?
I'd much rather examine the torque curves of two engines under consideration than to just choose the motor based on the manufacturer's declared HP on some decal.
Every tractor manufacturer has a caveat posted in their sales literature, whether it's in print form or on the internet, that states they can't guarantee that the engine will produce the rated HP. They point at the manufacturer and say that they rely on what they say.
Now.... we both know that we can take an engine and slap it on an engine dyno and come up with a HP rating that looks pretty exciting but it's an engine's ability to develop consistent torque over a wide RPM range that really matters.
I understand the points you are making. Should I now haul out some report from the internet about how engine manufacturers were in big trouble over misleading HP ratings on their engines a few years back and began to put torque ratings on them instead or they just declared displacement in CC's or Cubic Inches?
I'd much rather examine the torque curves of two engines under consideration than to just choose the motor based on the manufacturer's declared HP on some decal.
Every tractor manufacturer has a caveat posted in their sales literature, whether it's in print form or on the internet, that states they can't guarantee that the engine will produce the rated HP. They point at the manufacturer and say that they rely on what they say.
Now.... we both know that we can take an engine and slap it on an engine dyno and come up with a HP rating that looks pretty exciting but it's an engine's ability to develop consistent torque over a wide RPM range that really matters.
Yes, the torque curve is the real story, and the best tool to assist in engine selection.
And... a torque curve plots torque output vs RPM, each point on the graph showing torque at a given RPM, which is-horsepower. Or watts. But power.
I know about the class action suit over misleading horsepower claims. I think there was actually a kernel of reason involved. I think somewhat more money than reason.
And... a torque curve plots torque output vs RPM, each point on the graph showing torque at a given RPM, which is-horsepower. Or watts. But power.
I know about the class action suit over misleading horsepower claims. I think there was actually a kernel of reason involved. I think somewhat more money than reason.
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
