Not really better combustion in this application. Avg gas is 100-110 low lead which is most common by far. Its not really better at combustion or has more energy content one vs the other, it depends on the use IE what motor it is burned in that's the difference.. Gas burns either way. The lead has a higher octane rating which is more resistance to detonation on high compression or boosted engines of which aircraft have. This higher CR or boost give more performance no really the gas persay.

The by product of the lead is it created a layer of lead on the valve seats to cushion the valves and it retains its octane for years IE it doesn't go bad. I have left avg as in a motor unstarted for 2 years and it started right up.

The bad is avg gas is expensive now $5-7 a gal normally some times cheaper. Oh and lead will kill you well over time.


EDIT: Any one ever put some spray or a small turbo on one of these motors? I guess it wouldn't matter on a hydrostat as it only spins x speed to get X pressure?

Beside bigging up the rears, more pressure in front tires if handling is not factor. Reason...less roll resistance.

The purpose of lead wasn't to cushion the valves..... it was to lubricate them.

When you say "spray" I assume you mean nitrous? No.... it would blow it apart. A turbo? No, it would blow it apart... motor is not meant for boost unless you beef it up.

I'm not sure you understand the principals of the hydro trans. It would matter, as in X speed. Pressure is regulated, so it won't change with speed. Run the hydro faster, the output will be faster, just like any other trans. Pressure doesn't really affect speed. It's just a hydraulic pump driving a hydraulic motor.... faster input = more flow. More flow= more speed.

Exactly the lead formed a barrier that protected the valve seat. But lube or cushion same thing with the aspect of valve seat protection and what I was specifically talking about. It forms a protective layer to protect the head valve seat area or it would recede (or whatever your specific term you want to post for it lol) into the head over time casing several issue. Hence the use of hardened valve seats on all non-leaded cars in later years because they lacked the lead in gas. And the seat area





Well duh yes beef it up or else it wouldn't be worth the effort to run a few psi or small shot of N2O and not gain noticeable power.

Quick google search brings up some performance parts and even billet head and decent looking bottom end parts for K motors.

And surprisingly a blow err supercharged K motor. :biggrin2:

http://www.ihcubcadet.com/forum/messages/106/13924.jpg


Oh and If money is an issue then neither of the power adders is recommend. lol






Correct haven't ever messed with one. Hence the question mark at the end of the sentence. How else to learn then as to ask questions and research. Point was if motor makes more HP can the Hydro trans actually put that to the ground in the form of speed given the topic at hand.

As stated numerous times here, several different ways, the governed engine speed is the determining factor in how fast that tractor will run under NO LOAD.

If you're running a steep hill, pulling a load or otherwise can't bump the governor, twice the horsepower will not make you run any faster.

Whatever you say. It's not worth a debate.


There are a few people who have done some "different" mods. But it isn't worth it or the pullers would all be doing it. For the most part, no. It won't handle it. I'm aware of all the performance parts available.


A hydro is about 80% efficient. So.... yeah, if you increase power it will increase power out. But only at the rate in which the hydro is efficient. No, if your next question is can you make them more efficient. That's just how it is. Oh sure, you might be able to increase it a couple percentage points, but not anything like the switch to a gear drive which is about 97% efficient.

I'm a little late getting here and this would be difficult to do with the fender pan on your 129...

I saw some pictures one time several years ago of a fellow at a similar race who put the big diamond tread wheels and tires from a lo boy on an Original to increase his ground speed.

It looked kinda dangerous to me.

Bingo!:NailHead: It amazes me how many misunderstand this. The partially burnt fuel stays behind as carbon build up, thus increasing compression, making it ping when don't use high octane.

It costs more, it must be better.:biggrin2:

Edit: I didn't see the second page. Need more :coffee:

The way they used to explain it to us was:
Low octane fuel burns fast in the combustion chamber and it is possible to have 2 flame fronts in the combustion chamber due to heat/compression, and when they meet/collide during compression, it produces knock and piston destruction
( BTDT)
Higher octane burns slower allowing for more controlled burn with no knock or engine damage.
Tetraethyl lead increased octane and lubricated the valves/seats for longer life.
@ least that is what they taught us back in the day.

-------But lead caused Cancer in the state of Mexifornia so it was a removed:biggrin2:

I agree 100% with this statement, I learnt it well in my intro to internal combustion engines class while I got a degree I don't use... In modern cars, higher octane could actually lessen performance because the computers will adjust things improve emissions.

HOWEVER

Why does the owners manual say to use 89 Octane or above? Was much lower octane available back in the ole days that someone may have used TOO low octane?

I'm not arguing against the uselessness of higher octane in a low combustion engine, just curious why IH would say to use 89 Octane?