I'm going to haul a Deutz-Fahr-Dx-6.05 tractor home in the next four days. It will become the future host for my future snow-blower replacing the current 'powered' blower powered by a Cummins 12-valve. This Cummins delivers around 440 ft-lbs of torque which is about minimal for my needs (and for snow blowing I have no interest in anything that takes place above 1800 rpm) but the Deutz F6L912 in this upcoming next tractor is good for only about 300 ft-lbs. I don't really understand how come two 6L engines with 17:1 compression can deliver torque at the same rpm that is so different but that's probably an education issue I have to work on. There ARE other similar size Deutz engines that may or may-not be *bolt-in* replacement candidates, such as a 6.4 liter F6L914 but I'm running into specification fogbanks even before the bolt-in question would come into focus. For example, a document "913. The Engine for construction equipment" shows the (attached) specs table with a 6.12 liter edition up to 500 ft-lbs of torque. Not only that but the same engine with 19:1 compression instead of 17:1 putting out far less torque. I'm confused! The 500 ft-lbs would be right up my alley if it were a bolt-in but I think I need to maybe get into this a little deeper. Any Deutz gurus around with some experience and wisdom to spread? TIA
The B is turbo charged. The C is charge cooled as far as i know. Factory turbo engines often have a lower compression ratio but putting a turbo on the 912 in your tractor might be an option
I’m not sure why you would buy a tractor knowing it is is underpowered and then try to boost the factory rating. Why not just look for a tractor that has the power you need?
Where's the fun in that ?
I want the smallest possible tractor with the torque that is closest to what I want for my snow-blower. Just did 1800 kilometers to bring the tractor home, the engine needs to be redone any way so I'm trying to figure out how to get its approximately 395 nm of torque upgraded to 609nm torque at minimum cost.
Thanks I just heard the bit about lower compression ratios on turbo engines from someone else as well, I didn't know this. Deutz do use B for the turbo models so I guess one could call them 'B_lown' engines. Speaking of which, I also thought, perhaps mistakenly, that turbo's have very little effect at 1800 rpm, hence on torque delivered to implements via PTO with engine rpm around 1800.
It all depends on how they size the turbo, a tractor puller with huge turbos will be made for top end power. A stock turbo that comes on a tractor will be sized to spool up and provide lots of boost at 1800 RPM, with heavy load. Fuel makes boost and boost makes more boost with enough fuel. That stock turbo won't be big enough to pump twice the HP, you'd have to put a bigger turbo on, and then you'd lose your low end boost, UNLESS you go crazy and do variable turbo. I don't know if it would fit, but a 913 or 914 will be built better to put out the power you want. Then you have to figure out if the PTO can take that power. On the other hand, the 130-06 would be close in power, and you're not likely to overheat a Deutz blowing snow, so maybe boosting the 912 would work.
This machine has no turbo and unless I get something of what I want for a turbo at a resources cost equal to or less than what I think that is worth I like to leave it that way. I have never been a fan of turbos, mostly thinking that for more power more displacement was the answer. As for the PTO, I definitely would have to validate that it can take more torque before any mods. I suspect one or both of two possibilities here: either it can because they use mostly the same PTO parts or that beefier PTO parts from other models can be used to compensate. As I brought the machine home yesterday I also realised that it has only one rear PTO shaft actually protruding so that's another thing I have to investigate, it's probably the standard 540 rpm one and the the front one is 1000. This topic is gonna be the center of my attention until resolved, it was a total AND PLEASANT surprise for me to discover that by the looks of things I can get a lot more torque out of these engines at 1800 rpm, even more than out of my Cummins 12-valves, which I never sought to boost being satisfied with what they gave in stock dress. For now it's an information jungle though, one sheet in front of me says the 6.12L 913 (c) turbo can dish out 690 nm while while a 6.2L 913C can do 620 nm. Mind you, either one of those is good news, I just have to figure out each time how many ft-lbs the nm's are! Fit remains another prime research target.
Deutz invented the eco mode 540 PTO, back to the 60's the same shaft would switch between 540 and 1,000 RPM. Don't leave the PTO clutch disengaged for longer than a couple minutes on the dry clutches.
If you work on a deutz tractor you will use a lot of swear words and also invent some new ones. I once worked at a deutz dealer for a couple years and even we did not have good service information. The factory manuals left a lot to be desired and most of the information was in german. I recall a transmission warranty update on the DX130A tractors where they sent out a big crate of gears,etc with no instructions. I was told by deutz to take it all apart and if there was a gear in the crate that closely matched one in the trans, then replace it and so on. What a friggin nightmare. Warranty would only pay about 40 hrs but the first one took about 80. The second one only took about 60hrs . It was a good thing we only sold 2 of those tractors
Thanks, I saw the 540/1000 lever after posting.
I think really very little of any manufacturer that doesn't keep free and available copy of all manuals for everything it ever made, ESPECIALLY in the online age when the cost is next to zero. That said, most of them do exactly what Deuitz-Fahr does. I won't touch anything until I have both the operating and service manuals. Oh, the swear words? I can hold my own ...rebuilt an F4L about 12 years ago
Well, good luck finding a service manual for the old DX series tractors. I never had any luck when i needed one but maybe nowadays you can find one on the web
Been reading up and it looks like a BF6L913C (blown and charge-cooled) will be the article, subject to fit which looks promising. I have found no data for any BF6L912 or BF6L912C and even if such might exist modifying it toward either 912 version would NOT be cheaper than to 913's. Nor do I see much point in trying to just add a turbo or charge cooling since these each work with different compression ratios and surely different pumps/injectors. My currently used Cummins 12-valve puts out some 400 ft-lbs of torque @ 1500 rpm. The snow-blower is operated in the 1500-1800 regime and significantly less than 400 ft-lbs would NOT do. I could get about 390@1600 with a BF6L913 or 500@1500 with a BF6L913C.
Is the cummins engine in a tractor or on the snow blower?
It's powering the powered snow-blower: which at first had been powered by an F4L912 the torque of which just couldn't handle it. Funny thing is that I had ANOTHER Cummins I was keeping up my sleeve on stby in case I buy a CiH-5130 instead of the Deutz-Fahr-Dx-6.05, a decision I almost made only last week. One of my sons had been eyeballing this other 12-valve for YEARS! So when I asked him if he could help out with hauling the Deutz-Fahr that I ended up buying instead of the CiH he saw the opportunity and immediately negotiated for the 12-valve which I gave him in return ....and all of THAT resulted in this: So if you're wondering about my torque needs, I could be full of hsit seeing that I never blew snow with a PTO before. The current blower belting is 2.5:1 and the engine needs to operate around 1800 where the 12-valve puts out over 400 ft-lbs, becoming 1000 ft-lbs at 720 rpm at the blower's 1:1 gearbox (I could not reduce more because of a lack of room for a bigger sprocket). The F6L912 in the Deutz-Fahr puts out only around 280 ft-lbs which will be dished to the front PTO reduced to around at 1000 rpm AND to a 'conventional' blower with or without a 1000 rpm gearbox (calculations/decisions yet to be made). I could live with this torque but I'll take more if I can. Any extra torque I come by will be used only via the front PTO and only with the blower in winter. In summer if and when I do anything else with the tractor I'll have to refrain from thinking myself on a tractor-pull and hold back the power for operations putting torque all the way to the wheels or PTO's (torque doesn't really exist that is over the resistance).
Interesting project. The last big blower i worked on was a VOHL about 25 years ago powered by a 466 deere at about 175hp mounted on 644 deere wheel loader mostly used for blowing into trucks
There's a lot of PTO math here with which I have no experience, starting to get dizzy too I just found out that the front 1000rpm PTO which I want to use with a conventional 3-point blower gets to 1000rpm at an engine speed of roughly 2100rpm (more or less a 2:1). With this I can take a few more steps. Running at in its case 440 ft-lbs peak 1600 engine rpm the current Cummins 'powered-blower' geared 2.5:1 gets about 1100 ft-lbs to the otherwise ungeared impeller shaft turning at 640 rpm. If I try to compare the Deutz F6L912 output to the above at 2100 the existing F6L912 puts out 330nm or 245 ft-lbs via the 2:1 (1000rpm) front PTO which doubles it into 490 ft-lbs at half the rotation speed of 1000 rpm. In theory if this PTO reduced to 640 rpm for comparison then it would become 800 ft-lbs which as I already had a feel for is quite a bit less.. 300 less. If I make the same comparison with a BF6L913C (or a similarly doctored-up 912) then a raw 600nm or 440 ft-lbs (almost exactly the Cummins torque peak) end as 1400 ft-lbs which is 300 more than the Cummins' 1100. A less brilliantly upgraded 912, say a blown/intercooled 912 could give me results comparable to the 12-valve Cummins but I have seen no such engine and even if one existed it would be a rare find around here. On the plus side IF such a mod were possible I could just mod the existing 912 to get there. Finding a good-runner 913 is easy, the build would be simple and no more expensive then my 912, ditto for a plain-jane 913 (neither of which seem otherwise salivating). The torque curve says it all, so to amuse myself and now by extension anyone else reading this here's a combined one for the possible engine variations. torque-curves.png
How bad is the current engine? Before you spend on an overhaul (deutz engines cost a lot more than average to overhaul than average over here anyway) and then over pimping and blowing it up would it be better doing it the other way round if you have good oil pressure. Has the 912 and 913 the same crankshaft ?
Current is the stock F6L912 in the tractor. Other than some exhaust pops it's at least what I'd call a good runner supposed to have '4000 and change' hours. Swapping out the crank for one with the throw of a 913 is not excluded but then the pump and injectors may need to go also. This route risks being more expensive than finding a half-alive BF9L13C (trade for this 912 plus a beer) and building it with its stock parts. I have done some swaps in my life and the old stroke & bore sure seems familiar too, but for now it's parked out in the yard until spring. I have to determine it's true hours (the digital COMPUKE system is mostly dead), get documented up (just printed me a 900 page Service-Manual), and maybe see to a few chickenhsit issues but generally the major ops will wait for snow to melt at least until plan-A overnight becomes plan-B
You're right, these engines have their merits but the Deutz attitude is not conductive to hot-rodding. For example if they make the same engine in a dozen different power configs they are like to have a dozen different cranks, rods and all. When I was rodding such engines would all have the same block, the same crank that you could maybe stroke and different cams or carb barrels. Them days are gone. A lot of people have called me names for these ideas but hey, I "tried" It looks like I'll be swapping out the whole engine for one a little more in line with my needs but LATER, before then I'll see what this stock F6L912 can do. I'm a little surprised by some of the torque curve profiles. The F4L912 that I first put in my snow-blower in 2008 had a relatively flat curve and it WAS underperforming but NOT THAT BAD. I had to run it a little faster then the nominal 1600-1800, right up to 2000-2100. What really floors me is the curve of the F6L912 in this tractor which, with 50% more dispalacement from 4 to 6 jugs, has its curve drop right down to meet the F4L912 around 2100 which is the front PTO (1000) engine rpm.
torquers.png I thought I had upped this before. Added a couple more curves to my doodle-board ....
Very colourful. I see there is a turbo version of the 912. The torque curve you have here for the F6L912 is tailing off from 2000rpm way too much as if it were for a special industrial application or something with a strange governor. Try get a torque curve for the tractor as apposed to the engine. I know nothing about hot rodding and not much about deutz engines but they tend to be well built, made of good stuff and good for 20k hours if half minded. Some people are by the book and manufacturers spec. I have had the screwdriver to the fuel pumps of half the gear we run, mostly tractors. Considering that your engine is part worn (good clearance) and your low ambient temperature and an air cooled engine ,I would be going for a nice tainted exhaust .
I don't know where I ripped THAT curve off from, got a new one in its stead. I have curves all over my desk and coming out my ears, being at the very early stages of discovery much will depend on what I find. For example the engine is popping exhaust every now and then on acceleration and I see signs of a mechanic having struggled with something near cyls 5 & 6 ...fresh paint and shiny new nuts on exhaust manifold there So today I'm gonna check valve lash though I don't expect to find much but just to be sure BEFORE doing compression tests tomorrow. After that I will likely need to pull a head and see about the pops and valves, also a good time to eyeball cylinder ridge for an idea of hours since the digital-horror in the machine is dead and I have no idea how I'd get it to cough up the total hours.
Been busy researching and I never had anything to do with PTO's or clutches before. Could you expand on this warning a little? Why would a dry clutch burn if disengaged for more than a couple of minutes? I thought my rig had a Sauter front PTO because Sauiter document FZW 1_006-0500 DX 3-6.17 D-E_05.22.pdf clearly lists the Dx-6.05 but when I checked today outside in the blowing snow I discovered that mine is actually a Dutch box insnow-top-1000.png plate-frmlft-1000.png
Valve lash was double to triple all around .014-020 thou, except cyl-1 which g=had zero exhaust and zero intake. Reset all to .007 not much change noted. Never did compression because my test kit doesn't have a freakin deutz fitting and I don't even have an old injector to 're-task'! Meanwhile the first blizzard came around along with the first clearing ops (2 light ones already). Arose the question, seeing that temperature is down to -10c, how would valve lash vary with temperature, what temperature are specs for , is it the standard 15c? What will the .007's I set at -10c becoem at +30c? I could calculate it but am too wiped out right now
I said dry clutches because I don't know if that DX is the same as the previous models that had a dry clutch release lever on the left side of the console that was too convenient to leave pulled back. That was for short time use, more than that and the PTO should be taken out of gear and the PTO clutch released. I don't know if it wore out the clutch, would definitely wear the pressure plate and release bearing. I've only ever seen specs for hot or cold, and figure they worked all the expansion into the safety margin.
As Delmer said , release bearing, sometimes pilot bearing and some engines would not have super thrust bearings which will wear faster with the clutch disenguaged for unnecessary time. Is 7 thou inlet and exhaust correct. It sounds small but then the push rods probably dont get too hot.
Most mechanically operated pto clutches with a dry disc and pressure plate on the flywheel need to be disengaged, then the pto shift lever shifted to neutral and then re-engaged to prevent release bearing wear and crankshaft thrust bearing wear. These systems had 2 pto levers. One for release/engagement of the clutch assy and one for the pto gears in the transmission. Think of it as sitting in a truck with your foot on the clutch to engage or disengage a pto for a hoist or winch. What happens is the shaft coming from the engine runs full time and the pto clutch is only used to disengage it to be able to shift the gears in or out. That style of tractor pto was primarily a europeon design on older tractors. The hydraulically actuated pto’s on tractors are usually multiple disc wet clutches which are left disengaged until needed. They usually only have one lever or a switch to engage/disengage. These style pto clutches are usually inside the trans differential housing somewhere. I hope i worded this so it is understandable. The operators manual for any tractor will detail the procedure/procedures but some original operators manuals can be hard or impossible to find. As a further note, i worked on an old Fiat tractor once that had been run with the pto(2 lever, dry clutch system)disengaged for a few hours and it took out the crankshaft thrust washer and damaged the main bearing web in the block. All because the correct pto operating procedure was not used.
I found that graph and I also found some ads for selling a blown 912. I don't know where I got the curve for the blown and intercooled 912, I cannot find any trace of that at all. I 'could' use a blown 912 but they're virtually inexistant around here, as are the Blown and intercooled 913's. Any F6L912 would however be a garanteed bolt-in fit. Which made me think a bit. I need torque comparable to the Cummins 440 ft-lbs, the blown only BF6L913 gives me less than that BUT since I need that torque ONLY for snow-blowing the temperatures around -10c to -25c actually give me the equivalent of intercooling. The short of the long being that I'll likely be looking for a local BF6L913 'decent-runner' ..no importing, not even from other provinces, so this is also going to take a bit of time.
The bellhousing from your 912 may fit a 913 but I am just thinking aloud and dont know much about them.
Just wanna clarify that the front PTO on my machine has a disengage lever controlling some sort of separation but is is no way connected to the tranny clutch. It's connected to the front crank pulley with a u-joint. This is why I don't ubderstand how it could burn, unless soemone left it 'half-disengaged' or such..
It may require periodic adjustment otherwise it could slip and burn out
Re-reading all this a bit later, little did I know at the time the outright calvary waiting down the road! Nothing has changed, today I'm searching for torque specs for the engine to transmission 1cm panhead bolts and the bigger bolts securing the front PTO cradle and front axle support to the engine. Still havent found a manual* for the tractor even though the cost of keeping all legacy manuals on line as totally free downloadable PDF is negligible, any kind of info is still next to impossible to locate, and then I haven't repeated here the absolute nightmare with engine sleeve kits detailed in other postings. The tractor may be good or bad, I'll find out next year, but the outfit decidedly SUCKS! Anyway here's some eye candy, I put the original but rebuilt engine on yesterday: * One online seller has just advised me that THIS is as close as I will ever get to a dx-6.05 shop manual, the file is a sample only. When I asked DEUTZ early in the game, they told me "no manual", period, seems that suggesting the next best thing was just too much for them.