# Perkins 6L diesel



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Anybody have one in a tractor?

Should one fear the Perkins 6L diesel?

I remember they were leakers back in the day-fuel lines especially.

What about newer ones? under 15 yrs old?

Good? Bad? Ugly?


----------



## cornshucker (Aug 22, 2011)

Excellent engine easy on fuel for the amount of HP, lots of low end torque.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

cornshucker said:


> Excellent engine easy on fuel for the amount of HP, lots of low end torque.


What piece of equipment do you have a Perkins 6L in?


----------



## Farmineer95 (Aug 11, 2014)

354c.i? Whites and masseys ran them. Easy on fuel and. Decent power. There are tons of 354s out there. Good support too, just yesterday called the number on a 4 cylinder perkins. They actually emailed the technical information we needed to time fuel injection pump.


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

Not sure what a 6L is. The early 354's were bad for oil leaks, the 354.4's usually don't leak a drop.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

mlappin said:


> Not sure what a 6L is. The early 354's were bad for oil leaks, the 354.4's usually don't leak a drop.


6 Litre 365 cubes

http://www.tractordata.com/farm-tractors/003/8/5/3852-mccormick-intl-mtx155.html

http://www.tractorhouse.com/listingsdetail/detail.aspx?OHID=10110001


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

Its the generation older motor to whats in my MF with 2 extra cylinders and intercooling. The lucas/delphi DPS pump on them had trouble with the turbo boost aneroids failing which made them feel flat because it wouldn't open more fuel on boost. Common problem in that era but I think there was an updated part and it can be replaced easily without removing pump from engine. The DPS pump is very simple very much like a Lucas CAV used for years on old tractors.

Its only interim Tier 2 or completely pre tier 2. The later 1104/1106 are the Tier 2 emissions models that start being a little less fuel efficient and less power as they trimmed the max advance on the pump back.


----------



## clowers (Feb 11, 2011)

JD, you got a new ride on your mind?


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

clowers said:


> JD, you got a new ride on your mind?


Yeah....for like 2 years now. lol

Currently have 2 tractors (95 & 126)

First I thought I'd replace 95HP tractor with a 170HP tractor, but it's too nice and useful. The 126 isnt going anywhere.

Decided to start looking for a 3rd tractor instead of replacing my smaller tractor, but cut the budget way back. Costs too much $$ for me to keep 3.

Looking at G-170, McCormick MX 155 and NH 8670.

(Biggest I can find and still have a 540/1000 PTO 4WD & cab.)


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

I don't know if it matters but that hp is as far as the Perkins 6 goes, there is no turning it up.


----------



## somedevildawg (Jun 20, 2011)

Inevitably that's what hurt Perkins the most in the Ag business isn't it.....they seemed to lag behind the others in HP availability.


----------



## carcajou (Jan 28, 2011)

I never really liked purchasing an engine that was at the top of it's HP rating, Seems if there is to be a problem, it shows up more often in that model. Cooling issues etc.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

*Guy who's selling it *claims he can turn it up 10-15HP.

I'm skeptical because it has a small fuel system to begin with.


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

You can turn it up but it was at the highest end of what that engine can do already, hence the intercooler. If you stick a pyrometer in the exhaust you'd see hammering it hard and long is gonna be getting close to meltdown numbers.

Baler or some fine but don't stick it on a chopper and run it full tilt all day.



JD3430 said:


> *Guy who's selling it *claims he can turn it up 10-15HP.
> 
> I'm skeptical because it has a small fuel system to begin with.


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

Its just they use the Cat motors for over this size. Below this the small cats are all rebadged Perkins.



somedevildawg said:


> Inevitably that's what hurt Perkins the most in the Ag business isn't it.....they seemed to lag behind the others in HP availability.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

So if it puts out 141-145 at the stub, is that enough for a 3x4 baler on moderately sloped ground?

Or would I be looking at a 3x3?

Its in a McCormick 155 4WD & cab with euro tires.


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

I'd stick to 3x3's anyways, seem most popular around here, a little less prone to heating than larger bales.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Cheaper baler than a 3x4, too.

I don't even want to start thinking about the cost.

3rd tractor is bad enough. Changing from a 4x5 round baler to a good 3x3 big baler will be like upgrading from a bicycle to a Harley.....

........with a sidecar.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Few more question about the 6L Perkins:

In terms of value, cost to maintain and average longevity, which is better 6L Perkins or 5.9L Cummins?

I know Cummins is way more well received in diesel community and power is easily turned up, so those are big pluses. But what about longevity, cost for repairs, rebuilding, etc.?


----------



## somedevildawg (Jun 20, 2011)

JD3430 said:


> Cheaper baler than a 3x4, too.
> I don't even want to start thinking about the cost.
> 3rd tractor is bad enough. Changing from a 4x5 round baler to a good 3x3 big baler will be like upgrading from a bicycle to a Harley.....
> ........with a sidecar.


Explain why upgrading from a 4x5 round to a 3x3 square will be like the analogy you described.....


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

I like Perkins but I think the 5.9 comes out on top here. The Perkins I think is easier to rebuild but parts are more expensive on this side of the ocean.


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

I've yet to have to rebuild a Cummins 5.9 but I've also only had Perkins in my tractors for less than ten years as well.

We had a 5.9 Cummins in our little Massey 8560 rotary, was turned up to about 230-240 from the factory 190, would run the snot out of that little combine, full load for all day long, and rolling some coal here and there, of course some claim (and I tend to believe it) that running wide open is easier on em than revving up and slowing down like in a truck application.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

I know you guys know this, but Im basically down to 4 tractors in my search. JCB eliminated-just cant afford it and I think the turn radius IS a negative factor.

1. Case-IH MX150 5.9L Cummins unknown hours, but guess ~7,000. New BKT tires. Trailer air brakes.

2. Case-IH MX170 5.9L Cummins 8,000 hours 30% tires. New flex plate being installed.

3. McCormick MTX-155 6L Perkins 6,500 hours. 50% tires

4. McCormick MTX-175 6L Perkins 8,900 hours 60% tires.

All 18 speed powershifts. All have front 3pt & PTO. All have "road speed". First 3 are low-mid 30's price.

#4 is 29K.

I like the MX-170. I dont have to turn motor up and it's probably the cheapest, but it has most hours and lowest tires. However, I found out that NEW tires are kid of rough on hay fields that I farm. 30% tires are kind of nice.

If given average care is a 5.9L on its last legs with 8,000 hours?


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

Even at MX170 power levels the 5.9 should be a 15,000 hour engine, provided nothing "happens". My MX170 is at 6500ish hours and running like a champ. Fuel economy seems to be better than the lower hp MX135 that I have also. BTW, the CIHs you have listed are partial power shift 16 speeds. I would assume the MCs are likewise.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Gearclash said:


> Even at MX170 power levels the 5.9 should be a 15,000 hour engine, provided nothing "happens". My MX170 is at 6500ish hours and running like a champ. Fuel economy seems to be better than the lower hp MX135 that I have also. BTW, the CIHs you have listed are partial power shift 16 speeds. I would assume the MCs are likewise.


These are all 18 speed "European" versions with 18's in them and 26MPH "road speed".


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

Never heard of an 18 spd trans in an MX Maxxum. Can I see some pictures somewhere of the console? My MX170 has the fast gearing and has a 16 spd. Not a Euro tractor though.


----------



## TORCH (Jan 7, 2012)

JD3430 said:


> I know you guys know this, but Im basically down to 4 tractors in my search. JCB eliminated-just cant afford it and I think the turn radius IS a negative factor.
> 
> 1. Case-IH MX150 5.9L Cummins unknown hours, but guess ~7,000. New BKT tires. Trailer air brakes.
> 2. Case-IH MX170 5.9L Cummins 8,000 hours 30% tires. New flex plate being installed.
> ...


I took off rear tires that had 90% tread and put on about 10% tread back on hay tractor. The only down fall is when I was cutting at 8 MPH turned scarp around down tree. Discbine pushed the rearend around pushed me through fence and almost went bahaing down hill. Now I know not to rip along to fast in turns. I do not have fluid in tires. Tractor White 2-105 1976. Would not put back better tires for hay field. Don't leave marks in fields if softer after rain. Just my .02 !


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Many of my fields have weeds at the ends where I made turns with new tires.


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

Yeah, the deep treads tear the sod layer up then it dries and dies. If the ground is wet it doesn't seem to bother it as badly, sort of reseals and keeps water moving to the roots.


----------



## LukeS (Feb 24, 2015)

Isn't a MX170 a little small on a big baler?


----------

