5075M with the 2.9L 3 cylinder?

[AKfish]

Thought I saw some recent information that the 2015 model 5075M is now offered with the old, reliable 2.9L. Has Deere phased out the 5030 engine?

AKfish

 

[Edward. S]

Thought I saw some recent information that the 2015 model 5075M is now offered with the old, reliable 2.9L. Has Deere phased out the 5030 engine?

AKfish

Wow, I never knew they brought back the 2.9L for this. I never really liked the 5030 engine, I don't know if its just mine or everyones tractor that the 5030 engine is sluggish and pukes out a white cloud of smoke upon start up no matter what kind of weather it is outside.

 

[AKfish]

Wow, I never knew they brought back the 2.9L for this. I never really liked the 5030 engine, I don't know if its just mine or everyones tractor that the 5030 engine is sluggish and pukes out a white cloud of smoke upon start up no matter what kind of weather it is outside.

Yeah, it does that... The smaller brother engine 4024T does it as well. Deere uses a fast idle advance on startup to reduce initial emissions. The plume of smoke makes me wonder how well that really worked out..

But, I like the torque and fuel efficiency. The 5030 generates more torque at lower rpms than the 2.9L.

AKfish

 

[Edward. S]

I have a Berkeley Pump mounted onto a 4024 Engine but I never notice it that much. There is some, but its not as hard to start as a 5030. Still very close, but not as bad as a 5030.

 

[AKfish]

I have a Berkeley Pump mounted onto a 4024 Engine but I never notice it that much. There is some, but its not as hard to start as a 5030. Still very close, but not as bad as a 5030.

I've only got 450hrs on the 5075M. It puffs on startup - sometimes white - mostly black. I've only had the cab, 4720 for about 4 months and 50hrs. It puffs on startup - almost always black - but not nearly as much smoke as the 5075.

They both startup harder than my Yanmar, JD110 and it's getting close to 1,500hrs.

Nonetheless, that's a smaller concern. I'm not impressed that Deere decided to offer the 75M with a less efficient and lower performing engine platform. The 2.9L has to run fully 200rpm's, faster to achieve the rated Hp that the 3.0L 5030 generates. Of course, no matter how hard you "twist the tail" on the 3029 engine, it won't crank out the same operating response we buy tractors for -- torque! Have a look - http://tractortestlab.unl.edu/c/doc...e-4908-92eb-67955f2d7664&groupId=4805395&.pdf.

Having an available E machine with a 12x12 Powereverser transmission and cab with an identical engine makes the M machine a "deadend" lawn ornament on dealer lots - IMO.

Bore x stroke on the 2.9L is identical to the 3.9L, 4-cylinder found in the German powered, JD 2140. So, the template for the engines has been around for decades. Another "tried and true" 4-cylinder is the 3.6L from the JD 2440.
The JD 2440 is a naturally, aspirated engine that's 60hp@pto.

If I was a "marketing genius" at John Deere; I would configure the M series as a 4-cylinder lineup and leave the E series as the 3-cylinder lineup. I would also believe that the engineer "brain trust" at Deere would be able to come up with a 3.6L turbo-charged engine @ 2,100rpm that would be fuel efficient and meet Tier IV with DPF, etc.

AKfish