Why did JD put a 5 cyl engine in only 2 tractor models?

[Tx Jim]

A diesel, a gas turbine or a non throttled boiler has lousy part load fuel efficiency. Too much unused air swept throught the combustion chamber and out the stack without participating in combustion.
As posted on the "other" site. A five cylinder provides the vibration and noise of a four cylinder with the fuel efficiency of a six.

Glen
FYI I concluded I get a broader set of replies by posting my question on more than one forum. Answer your question: Which is more fuel efficient performing the same task the 4 or 5 cyl engine?? BTW I thought 5 cyl didn't vibrate therefore required no balancer shafts similar to a 4 cyl.

 

[Tx Jim]

Here's one of the replies on the "other forum" that b&d was referring to that I copied & pasted.

Jim, I don't know why they went to 5 cyl. in those models. The same engine is also used in some of the bigger frame skid steer loaders. I can't tell you if they changed anything or not from the engines in the 5020 and 5025 series tractors or not. The 5 cylinders that were in them were junk. Those same motors were also used in a few of the 300 series skid steer loaders. All of them would leak water around the water pump( can't replace just the pump, its built into the front cover), Leak at the intake/valve cover, melting pistons, injectors cracking etc. I just can't see what was suppose to be better about these engines????

 

[cowski]

seems like i read that engine is made in australia. it must have been cheaper to make than the older ones.one benefit to that engine is the tractors have a longer wheelbase.

 

[AKfish]

Deere has used that engine in some of their excavators as well. It's been around for a number of years. I'd have to say that if Deere experienced the level of "problems" that the poster from the "other" forum indicated -- I would have little doubt that Deere would have moved pretty quickly to another powerplant...

AKfish

 

[AKfish]

If you're really interested to know "why" Deere would go with the 5-cylinder engine vs the older, 3-cyl and 4-cyl models... take a look at these -- http://tractortestlab.unl.edu/deere/5075e.pdf

http://tractortestlab.unl.edu/deere/5075m.pdf

http://tractortestlab.unl.edu/deere/5085m.pdf

The 5-cylinder generates considerably more torque than the equivalent 3-cylinder at a lower rpm and less fuel. As well, the 5-cylinder 75hp engine generates as much torque as the 85hp 279 cu. in. 4-cylinder used in the 85hp M.

It's an efficient powerplant. High torque with a very high torque rise. With less fuel.

AKfish

 

[Edward. S]

If you're really interested to know "why" Deere would go with the 5-cylinder engine vs the older, 3-cyl and 4-cyl models... take a look at these -- http://tractortestlab.unl.edu/deere/5075e.pdf

http://tractortestlab.unl.edu/deere/5075m.pdf

http://tractortestlab.unl.edu/deere/5085m.pdf

The 5-cylinder generates considerably more torque than the equivalent 3-cylinder at a lower rpm and less fuel. As well, the 5-cylinder 75hp engine generates as much torque as the 85hp 279 cu. in. 4-cylinder used in the 85hp M.

It's an efficient powerplant. High torque with a very high torque rise. With less fuel.

AKfish

I don't find that my 5225 makes much more torque with the 5030 engine, when both are at neutral or in gear the 5085M will always accelerate faster and climb hills better but the 5085M does like its fuel.

 

[AKfish]

Well... if that 85hp engine didn't leave the 55hp tractorin a cloud of black smoke - I'd bet you'd have traded it off a long time ago; and probably upgraded to something altogether different!!

You have any problems with your 5225? How many hours?

AKfish

 

[Tx Jim]

If you're really interested to know "why" Deere would go with the 5-cylinder engine vs the older, 3-cyl and 4-cyl models... take a look at these
The 5-cylinder generates considerably more torque than the equivalent 3-cylinder at a lower rpm and less fuel. As well, the 5-cylinder 75hp engine generates as much torque as the 85hp 279 cu. in. 4-cylinder used in the 85hp M.It's an efficient powerplant. High torque with a very high torque rise. With less fuel.
AKfish

AKfish
The title of my original post was "Why so few models had a 5 cyl engine?". But this is interesting information. Note which tractor has the higher HP hrs per gal and it's not the 5 cyl engine.
5075E
Rated Engine Speed—(PTO speed—545 rpm)
62.16 2401 4.08 0.462 15.24

5075M
Rated Engine Speed—(PTO speed—566 rpm)
60.12 2201 4.21 0.493 14.27

5085M
Rated Engine Speed—(PTO speed—566 rpm)
70.37 2200 4.68 0.468 15.03

 

[buickanddeere]

Can't say I'm a fan of a five cylinder. They are kind of a niche market novelty item looking for an application. There is a gap between the three cylinder and the six cylinder that is a compromise to fill. Do we use a vibration inherent four banger and balance shafts? A small natural aspirated six that is too long? Or compromise with a five?
That little three cylinder 179cu inch Dubuque/Saran turbo is nifty. With an intercooler they can squeeze 80-90HP out of those . 45-50HP natural aspirated. A natural aspirated 359 Dubuque/Saran will do 90HP easy enough at only 1800rpm.
So what do you do in that 50-100HP range ?

 

[Verticaltrx]

Can't say I'm a fan of a five cylinder. They are kind of a niche market novelty item looking for an application. There is a gap between the three cylinder and the six cylinder that is a compromise to fill. Do we use a vibration inherent four banger and balance shafts? A small natural aspirated six that is too long? Or compromise with a five?
That little three cylinder 179cu inch Dubuque/Saran turbo is nifty. With an intercooler they can squeeze 80-90HP out of those . 45-50HP natural aspirated. A natural aspirated 359 Dubuque/Saran will do 90HP easy enough at only 1800rpm.
So what do you do in that 50-100HP range ?

In sticking with your theme of engines (Saran), how about using the 239cu. in. four cylinder Deere used for many years. We have one in a 2550, zero vibration, plenty of torque rise and very good longevity.