Deere 5045 2.9l performance?

[dntfxr]

I'm wondering what the differences are between the 5045, 5055, 5065, 5075? I know the 2.9 is basically the same but is it the same turbo and fuel pump that is just tuned differently? Does anyone know what it would take to get more reliable HP from a 5045 short of putting a bigger turbo on it?

 

[dntfxr]

Alright I've been researching and I found some technical manuals for previous model tractors with the 2.9 and best I can tell there seemed to be several different injector pumps with different dynamic timing for different HP applications for both turbo and NA versions. Could the fuel timing be adjusted slightly to bump the HP?

 

[Verticaltrx]

We have as 5045e and the first thing I'm going to do when the warranty is up is remove the turbo. The ONLY reason it was put on there was for emission reasons, IIRC the older models that used that setup were either 40 or 45pto hp. Once the turbo is off it'll probably have to be re-tuned to get the proper fuel ratio. As it is now, there is terrible turbo lag, low power at lower rpms, etc.

 

[dntfxr]

Yeah I know the previous models put out more power without a turbo. Seems like there has to be some other differences though for it to actually make LESS power. Another thing I can't understand is how the turbo manages less emissions, they must be really stingy with the fuel on these. I can see it being more efficient with one, but apparently they managed to decrease power by adding one! Score one for the EPA...

 

[Verticaltrx]

I suspect, (and this is just theory) that they just added a turbo and may not have done anything else to the fuel delivery. The turbo is actually acting as somewhat of an air restriction in this case, hence the lower power. I think they are getting the lower emissions by running the exhaust through the turbo to burn off the excess emissions. Again, I haven't studied much into this particular application, but those are my gut feelings. When the warranty is up on the 5045e and I have some time to tinker I'll see what is really going on.

 

[PoorPlowboy]

Running the exhaust through a turbo doesn't remove any harmful emissions. The EPA mandates are met in the injector pump, injectors, and related tuning starving the engine of fuel.

After turning the engine down so much to meet EPA, they had to add a turbo in an I'll attempt to get the lost power back. They advertise it by the wonderful fuel economy of the new engines.

A 2.9l is perfectly capable of burning 3gal an hour under a load seeing max volumetric efficiency. I would put my wager on the engine giving much more power if it wasn't starved of fuel. OEM tune is so lean you won't even get a puff of smoke under a heavy shock load in most cases.

 

[dntfxr]

That makes sense, so what is involved in getting more fuel to the engine? Is it possible to turn up the pump or must all components be replaced?

 

[Verticaltrx]

Running the exhaust through a turbo doesn't remove any harmful emissions. The EPA mandates are met in the injector pump, injectors, and related tuning starving the engine of fuel.

After turning the engine down so much to meet EPA, they had to add a turbo in an I'll attempt to get the lost power back. They advertise it by the wonderful fuel economy of the new engines.

A 2.9l is perfectly capable of burning 3gal an hour under a load seeing max volumetric efficiency. I would put my wager on the engine giving much more power if it wasn't starved of fuel. OEM tune is so lean you won't even get a puff of smoke under a heavy shock load in most cases.

Makes sense. But if one was going to re tune the fuel delivery anyways, would there be any reasons to not get rid of the turbo also? As far as I'm concerned having the turbo is just another nuisance, having to wait longer for it to warm up, letting it idle longer to cool down, etc.

 

[PoorPlowboy]

Makes sense. But if one was going to re tune the fuel delivery anyways, would there be any reasons to not get rid of the turbo also? As far as I'm concerned having the turbo is just another nuisance, having to wait longer for it to warm up, letting it idle longer to cool down, etc.

I think if you delete the turbo, you're not going to be able to gain back the lost power simply by turning the fuel up. The engine will be much louder without it, also.

 

[Bigfoot62]

I have a tendency to see things simply. (some would just say I'm a little slow) I'm not an engineer. I've just been around diesels all of my life.

Here's my "idiot's guide" to basic diesel engine dynamics: More fuel, more air, advance timing = more hp.

Fuel: Larger injectors, or "turn up" the injector pump. I'm not even sure that you can do that on these tractors.
Air: Larger turbo (on "wastegated turbos", if you can adjust how much it "dumps" that can help); or add an intercooler. (cooler air is denser, therefore when it burns, it produces more volume)
Timing: Mechanical pumps can be advanced. Electronically controlled engines can be re-programmed. (like the Hyper-Tech tuner did on my '03 F-350 7.3L Powerstroke)

As you can imagine, there are risks involved.

Take that for what it's worth. (my opinion and fifty cents will get you a half cup of coffee in some places)