Do the new Kohler command engines have much torque as the K series?

[AHS 1,439]

Ok, my 2000 312 with the kohler command vs the 1970 K series 12 hp. It feels like the 1970 has more torque.. the ‘70 has much bigger flywheel, although the 2000 will roll over everything at idle! My vote I on the 70! 👍

[Guest 88vic]

This should be good, im going to go get some popcorn and wait for the comments !!!

[The Tuul Crib 7,336]

In my opinion the K series motor has a whole lot better torque than the command. 

Big Blocks Rule!!

[gwest_ca-(File Mod) 11,032]

Can not find where Kohler ever published the engine torque values for the K-Series and M-Series of engines.

 

Garry

[AHS 1,439]

Ok! Pretty decent for jut a little motor. 👍

[953 nut 55,059]

Torque is a function of Horse Power and RPMs. If the HP rating of both engines is honest they will have the same torque per HP at the same engine speed.            Torque (lb.in) = 63,025 x Power (HP) / Speed (RPM)

[Guest 88vic]

I personally like them both respectively.  If I had to choose, it would be the K series and Magnums all day long. One engine I would avoid would be the courage series. Never seen one in a horse as a repower, lets just hope no one wastes their time on these junk engines. 

[AHS 1,439]

10 hours ago, 953 nut said:

Torque is a function of Horse Power and RPMs. If the HP rating of both engines is honest they will have the same torque per HP at the same engine speed.            Torque (lb.in) = 63,025 x Power (HP) / Speed (RPM)

Oh ya! I remember that in high school/ college! 👍

[AHS 1,439]

6 hours ago, WHEELHORSEFAN*16 said:

I personally like them both respectively.  If I had to choose, it would be the K series and Magnums all day long. One engine I would avoid would be the courage series. Never seen one in a horse as a repower, lets just hope no one wastes their time on these junk engines. 

Ya! The only reason I got that 2000, I got it for $80 worth of work!! The K series, they just to be reliable and long lasting!

[bds1984 1,429]

I have had this same thought in my mind since I got my 315-8 a couple years ago and then stumbled across the same info above.  I have a C165 and have yet to have ANY single cylinder come close to it in low-end grunt.  However, I will give the nod to fuel efficiency to my 315-8 compared to my C165, that CH15 sips the fuel.  Both are great engines and respectable to this day and will serve one well provided they are maintained accordingly.  With the pressurized lubrication and ohv, I see no reason why the Command series wont enjoy a long run like the K-series!

[AHS 1,439]

12 hours ago, bds1984 said:

I have had this same thought in my mind since I got my 315-8 a couple years ago and then stumbled across the same info above.  I have a C165 and have yet to have ANY single cylinder come close to it in low-end grunt.  However, I will give the nod to fuel efficiency to my 315-8 compared to my C165, that CH15 sips the fuel.  Both are great engines and respectable to this day and will serve one well provided they are maintained accordingly.  With the pressurized lubrication and ohv, I see no reason why the Command series wont enjoy a long run like the K-series!

You hit the nail on the head!! The 2000 312-8 with the command; with pressurized lubrication and an oil filter! @bds1984. I can’t wait to build a C-160-8! Ahem.. @ebinmaine

[ebinmaine 67,264]

6 minutes ago, AHS said:

You hit the nail on the head!! The 2000 312-8 with the command; with pressurized lubrication and an oil filter! @bds1984. I can’t wait to build a C-160-8! Ahem.. @ebinmaine

You jump in the truck man.

 

You'll have to supply the engine but I've got most of the rest of the major parts.