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

[buickanddeere]

jd110
buickanddeere mentioned a 3 cyl inter-cooled engine. Do you know if JD built that particular engine? I briefly searched but couldn't find a tractor model with one.
Thanks,Jim

Industrial

 

[Verticaltrx]

AKfish
Although I was chastised by a certain Canadian for starting this thread I think it has turned out to have some very valuable information. I'm with you on the larger cube engines. I liked to see if the 276 cid Tier lV has the same lugging ability as my 4255 with a 466 cid

I too agree on the larger displacement engines, they will have far better lugging ability and low end torque than the smaller motor, regardless of the hp the are 'tuned' to, always has always will.

Few examples, 2550 Deere with the 239ci (65 PTO hp) vs M9540 Kubota with 230ci turbo (82 PTO hp). On paper the Kubota makes a lot more power, but it comes at a real peak. When you start lugging it down the power really drops off. The Deere on the other hand which has about the same sized engine just keeps pulling strong until about 1400rpms.

'99 F-250 with 7.3L diesel vs '10 Dodge with 6.7L diesel. The Dodge makes a lot more torque and pulls great if you are between 2000-3000rpms. If you are not in that narrow powerband the power is pretty weak and off-idle torque is non-existent. The old 7.3L does have a bit of a peak in power when the turbo really spools up, but the power is over a much flatter curve and the low-end/off-idle torque is tremendous.

Same with gassers, I have a well-built 351w in a '79 F-150 that makes about 400lb-ft, but at 3000-3500rpms, also have a 460 in an '88 Ford that makes 400lb-ft, but peak torque is at 1800rpms.


A bit off topic, but as inconsequential as it may be, I much prefer the sound of a good big displacement 4cyl or 6cyl tractor engine over a 5cyl. Our 2550 sounds like a small dozer when you are working it hard, and we all know how good those big displacement sixes sound under a load. :thumbsup:

 

[Tx Jim]

Industrial

Industrial tractor,power unit or what??? What cid(L) engine?

 

[Tx Jim]

Verticaltrx
What testing source do you use to obtain the info on the Kubota engine? What in your opinion are the reasons a Kubota engine falls behind the JD in the tests?

 

[AKfish]

Verticaltrx
What testing source do you use to obtain the info on the Kubota engine? What in your opinion are the reasons a Kubota engine falls behind the JD in the tests?

The Nebraska tractor test lab has alot of that info... gotta pay to see the graphs for torque curve/hp, though. (Dagnabbit!!) Be interesting to note how "peaky" some engines are versus another.

AKfish

 

[Grateful11]

5065M
TractorData.com John Deere 5065M tractor tests information

This link automatically opens a PDF file:
NEBRASKA TRACTOR TEST 1958 JOHN DEERE 5065M DIESEL 12 SPEED
http://tractortestlab.unl.edu/deere/5065m.pdf

 

[Agent Blue]

If you read into their theory it is the best of both worlds between the four and the six ( 70-90 ) hp gap. It is a John Deere design engineered around the tier two emissions standards. For years they have relied on Yanmar for their small applications. It is looking like Deere is going back to the drawing board and design / build in their own back yard. GM has gone to the five cylinder engines in light trucks and suvs. By design it would not work well with a carburetor but with modern pressure fuel injection and counter balance shafts it hits the emissions goals.
Deere will be using them more extensively in the future.

 

[Tx Jim]

The Nebraska tractor test lab has alot of that info... gotta pay to see the graphs for torque curve/hp, though. (Dagnabbit!!) Be interesting to note how "peaky" some engines are versus another.
AKfish

I couldn't find a Nebraska test on a Kubota tractor nor do I think Kubota's are tested at Nebraska.

 

[Verticaltrx]

Verticaltrx
What testing source do you use to obtain the info on the Kubota engine? What in your opinion are the reasons a Kubota engine falls behind the JD in the tests?

Seat of the pants testing pulling the same 446 Deere round baler behind each tractor. (Kubota doesn't test at Nebraska so I don't know where you'd find any real info.)

Both tractors will pull the baler at a good clip in moderate to heavy hay. The Deere will pull down quicker in a tough spot since it has less HP, but often the torque rise will keep you going through if the rpms stay above 1500. With the Kubota it takes a bigger load of hay to pull it down initially, but once you get out of the peak power it really starts dropping RPMs quick forcing a downshift. With that said, the Kubota has to run at a bit less than rated RPM to get 540 on the pto. Nothing scientific about it at all, just some observations I've made.

I feel like there is just a certain amount of torque you can get out of a given displacement before the power gets 'peaky'. I have never run one, but I imagine the 179cu Deere tractors that are up to 75hp or so would feel similar. About 40-45 PTO hp is what I think the sweet spots is for those engines based on my 5203 and 2150's I've used in the past.

 

[AKfish]

I couldn't find a Nebraska test on a Kubota tractor nor do I think Kubota's are tested at Nebraska.

Yeah... there's a few on there. 8-9 different Kubota models. (Don't you have a wife that points out - to you, exactly - where that thing is that you can't find is...??)

AKfish

 

[buickanddeere]

If you read into their theory it is the best of both worlds between the four and the six ( 70-90 ) hp gap. It is a John Deere design engineered around the tier two emissions standards. For years they have relied on Yanmar for their small applications. It is looking like Deere is going back to the drawing board and design / build in their own back yard. GM has gone to the five cylinder engines in light trucks and suvs. By design it would not work well with a carburetor but with modern pressure fuel injection and counter balance shafts it hits the emissions goals.
Deere will be using them more extensively in the future.

A five cylinder engine has the fuel economy of a six with the noise and vibration of a four.

 

[Agent Blue]

QUOTE=buickanddeere;3174701]A five cylinder engine has the fuel economy of a six with the noise and vibration of a four.[/QUOTE]

Long story short..... If you don't find them positive to your situation then simply ignore the series. The next round of EPA specifications will greatly influence what will be in production.

Have you tested the above theory ? Which tractor was involved in the test ? I have two four cylinder and two three cylinder machines. In operating mode either has excessive vibration. I have a relative with four JD four wheel drive six cylinder tractors from 125 to 200 hp. Yes they do use fuel when pulling field attachments. The larger the cubic inch ... the more fuel required.
You really should be an engineer for Deere and save us from the vibrating fuel guzzlers.

 

[buickanddeere]

Perhapes I should have put a smilely face on that statement and identified it as a joke or humour? That bit of witt about five cylinders has been around for nearly a century.

 

[D7E]

Fiat had a wonderful 5 cyl decades ago in the 90-90 tractors but it did sound funny !

 

[Renze]

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 ?

Most what you mention isnt even built anymore. the 359, 239 and 179 are discontinued when TIER 3 emissions came around. They could make a 3 cylinder off their 4045 (making a 3033 or so) but the engine would be too high to mount under low hoods of compact equipment, and the basic design (built for high hp/displacement ratios, 4045 up to 175hp, 6068 up to 275hp) was too expensive for this class of engines anyways. So they chose to replace the 3029 with a 5 cylinder variant of the 4024 four cylinder to get to 3 liter displacement, to transplant their TIER 3 engine technology to the 3 liter class.

Its quite the opposite of what Deere was marketing in the 50's : they advertised their johnny poppers as having only 1/3 of the components of Ford, Case and IH's six pots, claiming there were less parts to fail.

 

[Renze]

Fiat had a wonderful 5 cyl decades ago in the 90-90 tractors but it did sound funny !

My Volvo has a Volkswagen 5 cylinder TDI, if i let it drop down to 1100rpm in 4th and then step on the gas again, it picks up smoothly without bouncing in the engine rubbers, like most 4's did.
Deutz built 5 cylinder engines in the DX90, Mercedes used to develop a high end 5 cylinder out of the high volume 4 cylinder model, and the Volvo gasoline engines in the 850/S70 were all five cylinders too: They were an inline 6 developed for the 960, minus one cylinder. The later engines in the entry level S/V40 line of cars were 4 cylinder variants of the same model family.
They had to drop a cylinder in the 850 because the engine was transverse mounted, instead of longitudinal like the 960.

Oh yes, and Scania has a 9 liter five, 12 liter 6 and a 16 liter V8, all based on a common design to cut costs on development of new emission standards.

 

[Tx Jim]

Perhapes I should have put a smilely face on that statement and identified it as a joke or humour? That bit of witt about five cylinders has been around for nearly a century.

I suppose your "smoke screen" about the 3 cyl with an inter-cooler will be referred by you as a joke seeing how you haven't produced a model #?? Are you stating that a company built a 5 cyl engine in 1920?

 

[Tx Jim]

(Don't you have a wife that points out - to you, exactly - where that thing is that you can't find is...??) AKfish

Nope divorced since 1980 :dance1:

 

[Tx Jim]

Seat of the pants testing pulling the same 446 Deere round baler behind each tractor. (Kubota doesn't test at Nebraska so I don't know where you'd find any real info.)

Both tractors will pull the baler at a good clip in moderate to heavy hay. The Deere will pull down quicker in a tough spot since it has less HP, but often the torque rise will keep you going through if the rpms stay above 1500. With the Kubota it takes a bigger load of hay to pull it down initially, but once you get out of the peak power it really starts dropping RPMs quick forcing a downshift. With that said, the Kubota has to run at a bit less than rated RPM to get 540 on the pto. Nothing scientific about it at all, just some observations I've made.

No offense intended but since I've been baling hay for a living since '87 I'll have to agree your testing isn't very scientific.

 

[Verticaltrx]

Most what you mention isnt even built anymore. the 359, 239 and 179 are discontinued when TIER 3 emissions came around. They could make a 3 cylinder off their 4045 (making a 3033 or so) but the engine would be too high to mount under low hoods of compact equipment, and the basic design (built for high hp/displacement ratios, 4045 up to 175hp, 6068 up to 275hp) was too expensive for this class of engines anyways. So they chose to replace the 3029 with a 5 cylinder variant of the 4024 four cylinder to get to 3 liter displacement, to transplant their TIER 3 engine technology to the 3 liter class.

Its quite the opposite of what Deere was marketing in the 50's : they advertised their johnny poppers as having only 1/3 of the components of Ford, Case and IH's six pots, claiming there were less parts to fail.

Better check your facts on the 179, last I checked all of the 2013 5D and most 5E series still used the 3029.

No offense intended but since I've been baling hay for a living since '87 I'll have to agree your testing isn't very scientific.

That's fine, like I said just some observations. I would be willing to bet that the M9540 wouldn't have the torque rise of a 2950 however. It's been years since I've run one but they really pulled good for an 85hp tractor.