Turbo
- Thread starter chief36chevy
- Start date
armylifer
Well-known member
Lifetime Member
Equipment
BX1860, FEL, RCK54P MMM, BB1548 Box Scraper, Quick Hitch, Piranha Bar, BX6315
I have not seen any posts concerning adding a turbo your model tractor but here is a link to someone adding a turbo to an L185
Add turbo
The little L185DT struggles a little in the thin air here. That 18hp you get at sea level is more like 14hp here. I have a VW K03 turbo and a saab intercooler collecting dust. The K03 is pretty big, but I'm sure it could develop a few pounds of boost while running the PTO. The stock K03 is waste...
www.orangetractortalks.com
85Hokie
Moderator
Staff member
Lifetime Member
Equipment
BX-25D ,PTB. Under Armor, '90&'92-B7100HST's, '06 BX1850 FEL
I am no turbo expert - but giving that 23 HP engine a turbo would be like giving a prostitute a 2 carat diamond ring!
Even if you could tune the injector pump, I think it would only gain a HP or two.
But hell - I would love to see it work!
There is a guy on the y'tube that stuck a kubota tractor engine with a turbo in a little ford ranger and made it work.
Last edited:
You might want to check out gardentractortalk dot com
I`ve been in there a few times and they turbo the smaller kubota engines often.
They might be able to assist you better. Its actually a garden tractor pulling forum.
Personally, i think you`d be wasting money an time on it. You wont likely get much more power out of it.
Last edited:
the only real benefit is with altitude, assuming the turbo is properly sized, has a properly sized surge tank, and properly sized and well thought out intercooler. Hardly worth it unless you are at 5000 foot altitude or more.
to do it properly you will play with the injection pump and injection timing, compression ratio, and a bunch of other things some of which I listed above
I did it on a G1900 (D722) and it was barely noticeable power difference. The biggest difference was clearing up some high load exhaust smoke and that was it. In the middle of summer it might have made 0.1 more hp at the most, and even then only until the turbo's discharge gets hot, then it's back to what it was making without it. Hence the need for an intercooler. BTW that was using an OEM military D722 manifold and turbocharger not aftermarket stuff that is sized all wrong. Sizing a tiny turbocharger to a tiny engine is tough because there aren't a lot of options like there is with bigger stuff.
to do it properly you will play with the injection pump and injection timing, compression ratio, and a bunch of other things some of which I listed above
I did it on a G1900 (D722) and it was barely noticeable power difference. The biggest difference was clearing up some high load exhaust smoke and that was it. In the middle of summer it might have made 0.1 more hp at the most, and even then only until the turbo's discharge gets hot, then it's back to what it was making without it. Hence the need for an intercooler. BTW that was using an OEM military D722 manifold and turbocharger not aftermarket stuff that is sized all wrong. Sizing a tiny turbocharger to a tiny engine is tough because there aren't a lot of options like there is with bigger stuff.
D902 comes in a turbo variation. So yes, you can. It will make more power if done correctly, whether you can use that or not. Get looking at parts diagrams and start researching. People here are anti-turbo, so you may need to fly them the bird and just do your thing.
Everything is about just get a new bigger one and finance it and get another payment when the warranty expires.
You can turbo whatever you want for any or no reason at all.
Everything is about just get a new bigger one and finance it and get another payment when the warranty expires.
You can turbo whatever you want for any or no reason at all.
I don't see the point of putting a turbo on that one. It's already pretty light for its power so you can't put much more power through the wheels without slipping. You've already got a decent amount of power for the PTO for most implements that you can lift with the 3 point. Not to mention the question of whether the drive train will handle it.
There is a thread on a guy putting a turbo on an L2501. This one makes a lot more sense to me. It's relatively heavy for its power and the drivetrain is used on a more powerful tractor.
There is a thread on a guy putting a turbo on an L2501. This one makes a lot more sense to me. It's relatively heavy for its power and the drivetrain is used on a more powerful tractor.
D902T makes a max 24.8hp
The BX2360 makes 23hp
that is 1.8hp difference
hardly worth the expense
I got into an arguement with a guy once that said a D902T will make more torque than a D902. Truth, but the difference is negligible
if kubota wanted a turbo on it they would have put one on it from the factory. They didn't. Why? Expense vs cost. Adds roughly $1000 to the cost of the engine. Creates more packaging constraints (intake/exhaust and discharge tube). Requires different muffler, air filter housing, tubing, etc
I love playing with forced induction and would in a new york second add a turbo to a BX if I had one, assuming it makes any difference in power/torque but it really doesn't do much. 1.8hp. Not worth the trouble, exactly the same as my G1800. D722 makes about 20hp or so without a turbo. D722T makes 21.8 as I remember. Less than 2hp difference. Again not even noticable
guys I have done this stuff so I have experience. I ain't anti turbo at all, if everything COULD have a turbo by all means I'm all for it but sometimes there is no use.
I had a yamaha 225 3 wheeler, turbocharged
wizard lawn mower with 12.5hp briggs, turbocharged
yamaha 200 3 wheeler, turbo and on methanol
Many Ford 2.3 turbo's merkurs, svo's a thunderchicken and now a Mustang fox body swapped with a merkur engine
74 maverick 302, diy turbo and through a carburetor that nobody said could be done
if I could find a turbo small enough I'd put one on my zuma scooter
my truck is factory turbocharged (7.3L)
had a 64 fairlane, mocked up a 351w based engine, single 88mm. Scrapped the project when someone offered me $22K for the entire car, and I had under 10k invested. Couldn't say no
87 yamaha warrior 350 turbo (couldn't keep the head from lifting)
I'd like to do a raptor 660 turbo but ain't got no time
76 ford maverick 250 6 cylinder, turbo. Kept blowing the discharge pipes off (no intercooler). Still a turd but again everyone said it wouldn't work and they were partially right but it was my fault.
then I did the G1900 and it was a waste. It doesn't have an intercooler. It ain't got no way to vary the injection pump pressure, volume, and most importantly timing to take advantage. A non intercooled turbo is a waste because the intercooler COOLS the air, allows more boost should the engine be able to handle it. A D902 cylinder head (as most of the kubota d series engines) does not flow very well so boost just backs up, you can make 50 psi if you want but if the head won't flow all you're doing is making hot air back up in the manifold. Just look close at the head next time you have one off, it is a mess as far as airflow goes. Intake AND exhaust AND piston crown shape AND the prechambers. Everything about it is not designed for turbocharging which is why they don't make much more power than an atmospherically aspirated kubota does.
why do road cars benefit so well? Cause the cylinder heads actually flow, the turbo's can be sized properly, they are bigger (much bigger) displacement, more R&D goes into them, etc etc the list just goes on and on and on and on and on. And on.
The BX2360 makes 23hp
that is 1.8hp difference
hardly worth the expense
I got into an arguement with a guy once that said a D902T will make more torque than a D902. Truth, but the difference is negligible
if kubota wanted a turbo on it they would have put one on it from the factory. They didn't. Why? Expense vs cost. Adds roughly $1000 to the cost of the engine. Creates more packaging constraints (intake/exhaust and discharge tube). Requires different muffler, air filter housing, tubing, etc
I love playing with forced induction and would in a new york second add a turbo to a BX if I had one, assuming it makes any difference in power/torque but it really doesn't do much. 1.8hp. Not worth the trouble, exactly the same as my G1800. D722 makes about 20hp or so without a turbo. D722T makes 21.8 as I remember. Less than 2hp difference. Again not even noticable
guys I have done this stuff so I have experience. I ain't anti turbo at all, if everything COULD have a turbo by all means I'm all for it but sometimes there is no use.
I had a yamaha 225 3 wheeler, turbocharged
wizard lawn mower with 12.5hp briggs, turbocharged
yamaha 200 3 wheeler, turbo and on methanol
Many Ford 2.3 turbo's merkurs, svo's a thunderchicken and now a Mustang fox body swapped with a merkur engine
74 maverick 302, diy turbo and through a carburetor that nobody said could be done
if I could find a turbo small enough I'd put one on my zuma scooter
my truck is factory turbocharged (7.3L)
had a 64 fairlane, mocked up a 351w based engine, single 88mm. Scrapped the project when someone offered me $22K for the entire car, and I had under 10k invested. Couldn't say no
87 yamaha warrior 350 turbo (couldn't keep the head from lifting)
I'd like to do a raptor 660 turbo but ain't got no time
76 ford maverick 250 6 cylinder, turbo. Kept blowing the discharge pipes off (no intercooler). Still a turd but again everyone said it wouldn't work and they were partially right but it was my fault.
then I did the G1900 and it was a waste. It doesn't have an intercooler. It ain't got no way to vary the injection pump pressure, volume, and most importantly timing to take advantage. A non intercooled turbo is a waste because the intercooler COOLS the air, allows more boost should the engine be able to handle it. A D902 cylinder head (as most of the kubota d series engines) does not flow very well so boost just backs up, you can make 50 psi if you want but if the head won't flow all you're doing is making hot air back up in the manifold. Just look close at the head next time you have one off, it is a mess as far as airflow goes. Intake AND exhaust AND piston crown shape AND the prechambers. Everything about it is not designed for turbocharging which is why they don't make much more power than an atmospherically aspirated kubota does.
why do road cars benefit so well? Cause the cylinder heads actually flow, the turbo's can be sized properly, they are bigger (much bigger) displacement, more R&D goes into them, etc etc the list just goes on and on and on and on and on. And on.
crippler
New member
Equipment
KUBOTA Bx23s, KUBOTA B6200, KUBOTA B7400, KUBOTA B7800, Mitsubishi D1500 II
To make a little more since than the guy who is anti turbo on a D722. First the D722 is 16hp. So you added a factory setup that gave you 21.8hp. Which would be 6hp at 6lbs of boost. These little kubota diesels like 10 to 15lbs of boost and a little rpm bump to get 10 to 15hp depending on turbo and setup.
crippler
New member
Equipment
KUBOTA Bx23s, KUBOTA B6200, KUBOTA B7400, KUBOTA B7800, Mitsubishi D1500 II
there is more than one vesion of the d722. Many in fact. Some make more power than others with the exact same displacement.
some of the normally aspirated 722's make more than 16hp. The turbo versions made a little more but nothing worth talking about, we're not talking about doubling or tripling the power, thus to me, it's a waste of money.
there are different sized turbo's too and they are sized per application so you can't take a TB0344 and toss it on a D662 and expect to make power. It probably won't even turn the wheels. Similarly, you can put a RHB31 on a V3800DI and it will make boost, likely right off idle, and will overspeed, overheat, and eventually destroy itself from heat, rpm, or a combination-and possibly take the engine with it.
There ain't many turbos small enough to be effective on a tiny 722 engine. Again the head doesn't flow the compression ratio is a little on the high side, etc. The cost of the turbo and then plumbing is prohibitive. A 782 fits where a 722 was, so if you need more power, and have access to a 782, put it on there...be more reliable, less complex, and could be less expensive.
when i said the compression is on the high side, I meant that if you look at the engine's design on the 722 and 782, really any of the 02 series, the combustion chamber is such that it was originally designed for atmospheric aspiration. It could have seen some benefit from a dish in the piston to allow some space for the additional air, as well as increase the surface area of the piston which combined would generally show an improvement in torque, and possibly some noise reduction. That cylinder head, though, not much one can do with it. It flows poorly in and out. It looks like it was designed by a 4th grade english student. Drill hole one way and intersect it the other way 90 degrees and toss a valve through it. Oh and make sure it's made of a material that cracks easily. It doesn't flow worth a flip. Just enough to make torque at 2000 rpm at atmospheric pressure, but that's about it. If one could open up the head without hitting water, then massage the bowls and finally the seats, there could stand to be a big benefit, but the way it's designed, there's not a whole lot you can do with it. Try porting one and you'll see what I mean, it's a mess but I bet it's not real expensive to mass-manufacture. Also remember that they are indirect injection meaning they have a prechamber. The prechamber hurts efficiency when it comes to turbocharging, particularly with elevated RPM (above about 2500-ish). That's one of many reasons why almost all dedicated turbodiesels are direct injected. No prechambers, and a nicely shaped crown in the piston which helps.
Its a lot more complicated than just tossing a hairdryer on it. I can go into it more if you like, but the simple answer is, it doesn't make a huge difference given the costs and complexities. Maybe at altitude but I can't speak on that since I'm only about 270' above sea level, at the house, and I think the highest hill is 2400'. Big deal. Reminds me of when I had the F150 Lightning. Drove to Colorado. Leaving Colorado on I25s, at the bottom of the series of hills called Raton Pass, pulling the trailer to pass someone I could make 8 psi which was 1 or 2 lower than stock at sea level. By time I get to the top of the hill, I'm down to TWO psi. Lot less air to compress. Turbocharging is somewhat similar but different. LOL! The wheels have to turn faster to maintain boost at altitude which means the turbo is close to or out of it's efficiency range, makes more heat which means the engine makes a little less power than it would at the same boost pressure at sea level. We think that 10 psi is 10 psi and it is, but the combustion areas in the engine see 10 psi at 250 degrees completely differently than 10 psi at 75 degrees
And--boost is restriction to airflow. Meaning, if you put a boost gauge on the intake manifold, you can be putting 50 psi into the intake side, but how much of that is going INTO the cylinder if the head doesn't flow? So crank up the pressure some more. Sure. now you have, say, 60 psi pushing on the back of the intake valve. A 1" dia valve now has (OTOH) approx 58lb of force trying to push it open against the springs. So now you have a situation where boost pressure is starting to force the valves open, so u need to put stiffer springs on. Have you seen the pushrods? They're tiny. The tappets? Tiny. Will they hold up to more spring pressure? I dunno--try it and see. Just usting the pressure as an example. There's a lot more to it.
I ain't anti-turbo at all, as you've seen...I'd throw a turbo on everything I own if I could justify it. Actually come to think of it everything I own is already turbocharged including the tractor (Iseki/MF 1145). Well the lawn mower isn't (ZG127) but it's a Kohler, it needs no help to self-destruct.
some of the normally aspirated 722's make more than 16hp. The turbo versions made a little more but nothing worth talking about, we're not talking about doubling or tripling the power, thus to me, it's a waste of money.
there are different sized turbo's too and they are sized per application so you can't take a TB0344 and toss it on a D662 and expect to make power. It probably won't even turn the wheels. Similarly, you can put a RHB31 on a V3800DI and it will make boost, likely right off idle, and will overspeed, overheat, and eventually destroy itself from heat, rpm, or a combination-and possibly take the engine with it.
There ain't many turbos small enough to be effective on a tiny 722 engine. Again the head doesn't flow the compression ratio is a little on the high side, etc. The cost of the turbo and then plumbing is prohibitive. A 782 fits where a 722 was, so if you need more power, and have access to a 782, put it on there...be more reliable, less complex, and could be less expensive.
when i said the compression is on the high side, I meant that if you look at the engine's design on the 722 and 782, really any of the 02 series, the combustion chamber is such that it was originally designed for atmospheric aspiration. It could have seen some benefit from a dish in the piston to allow some space for the additional air, as well as increase the surface area of the piston which combined would generally show an improvement in torque, and possibly some noise reduction. That cylinder head, though, not much one can do with it. It flows poorly in and out. It looks like it was designed by a 4th grade english student. Drill hole one way and intersect it the other way 90 degrees and toss a valve through it. Oh and make sure it's made of a material that cracks easily. It doesn't flow worth a flip. Just enough to make torque at 2000 rpm at atmospheric pressure, but that's about it. If one could open up the head without hitting water, then massage the bowls and finally the seats, there could stand to be a big benefit, but the way it's designed, there's not a whole lot you can do with it. Try porting one and you'll see what I mean, it's a mess but I bet it's not real expensive to mass-manufacture. Also remember that they are indirect injection meaning they have a prechamber. The prechamber hurts efficiency when it comes to turbocharging, particularly with elevated RPM (above about 2500-ish). That's one of many reasons why almost all dedicated turbodiesels are direct injected. No prechambers, and a nicely shaped crown in the piston which helps.
Its a lot more complicated than just tossing a hairdryer on it. I can go into it more if you like, but the simple answer is, it doesn't make a huge difference given the costs and complexities. Maybe at altitude but I can't speak on that since I'm only about 270' above sea level, at the house, and I think the highest hill is 2400'. Big deal. Reminds me of when I had the F150 Lightning. Drove to Colorado. Leaving Colorado on I25s, at the bottom of the series of hills called Raton Pass, pulling the trailer to pass someone I could make 8 psi which was 1 or 2 lower than stock at sea level. By time I get to the top of the hill, I'm down to TWO psi. Lot less air to compress. Turbocharging is somewhat similar but different. LOL! The wheels have to turn faster to maintain boost at altitude which means the turbo is close to or out of it's efficiency range, makes more heat which means the engine makes a little less power than it would at the same boost pressure at sea level. We think that 10 psi is 10 psi and it is, but the combustion areas in the engine see 10 psi at 250 degrees completely differently than 10 psi at 75 degrees
And--boost is restriction to airflow. Meaning, if you put a boost gauge on the intake manifold, you can be putting 50 psi into the intake side, but how much of that is going INTO the cylinder if the head doesn't flow? So crank up the pressure some more. Sure. now you have, say, 60 psi pushing on the back of the intake valve. A 1" dia valve now has (OTOH) approx 58lb of force trying to push it open against the springs. So now you have a situation where boost pressure is starting to force the valves open, so u need to put stiffer springs on. Have you seen the pushrods? They're tiny. The tappets? Tiny. Will they hold up to more spring pressure? I dunno--try it and see. Just usting the pressure as an example. There's a lot more to it.
I ain't anti-turbo at all, as you've seen...I'd throw a turbo on everything I own if I could justify it. Actually come to think of it everything I own is already turbocharged including the tractor (Iseki/MF 1145). Well the lawn mower isn't (ZG127) but it's a Kohler, it needs no help to self-destruct.
Lil Foot
Well-known member
Lifetime Member
Equipment
1979 B7100DT Gear, Nissan Hanix N150-2 Excavator
Every piece of diesel powered equipment I own has a hairdryer on it. Love the sound of a spooled up turbo and they make a dandy muffler too.
I added the rhb31 turbo with a big intercooler on my L185DT, the ancient kubota with a 700cc engine.
I think it was definitely worth it. It's hit high enough boost to open the wastegate (between 7 and 10psi)
The rhb31 has been used on engines as small as 200cc gas and diesels, still makes boost.
It 100% makes more power. I can my custom 54 inch brush shredder on there and push through 5 feet tall weeds and grass and never come down from 2,800rpm. I'm burning a lot more fuel now and I'm doing a lot more work.
I think it was definitely worth it. It's hit high enough boost to open the wastegate (between 7 and 10psi)
The rhb31 has been used on engines as small as 200cc gas and diesels, still makes boost.
It 100% makes more power. I can my custom 54 inch brush shredder on there and push through 5 feet tall weeds and grass and never come down from 2,800rpm. I'm burning a lot more fuel now and I'm doing a lot more work.
85Hokie
Moderator
Staff member
Lifetime Member
Equipment
BX-25D ,PTB. Under Armor, '90&'92-B7100HST's, '06 BX1850 FEL