JD - Turbo vs naturally aspirated engines
- Thread starter mikeware
- Start date
- Views: 15391
Joe1
Platinum Member
Generally speaking, a turbo charged engine will lose less power at higher altitudes than normally aspirated engines and in general turbocharged engines are more fuel efficient.
4710and110TLB
Silver Member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2004
- Messages
- 105
When in doubt go with the turbo /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif A turbo makes an engine much more effiecent by adding more oxygen in the cylinder and making more full burn fully. When at high elevations the little oxygen particles are scarce enough and the turbo will help to coral them up. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
cowboydoc
Super Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2000
- Messages
- 6,725
- Tractor
- JD 8320 MFWD, JD 6415 MFWD, FEL, and cab, John Deere MFWD 4600, John Deere 4020, John Deere 4430, John Deere 455 mower, Deutz, and Gehl 4610 perkins skidsteer
<font color="green"> When in doubt go with the turbo A turbo makes an engine much more effiecent by adding more oxygen in the cylinder and making more full burn fully </font>
I completely agree with this. Any day of the week if I can get a turbo over a non-turbo I'll take the turbo. Not only will you have better gph but you will increase your torque dramatically over the same hp engine. Also you will have a much bigger torque rise over a longer period of time. This helps when you are pulling something heavy either with in ground implements or pulling up hills. The turbo will kick in and give you the extra power to get through places that a similiar hp engine won't.
I completely agree with this. Any day of the week if I can get a turbo over a non-turbo I'll take the turbo. Not only will you have better gph but you will increase your torque dramatically over the same hp engine. Also you will have a much bigger torque rise over a longer period of time. This helps when you are pulling something heavy either with in ground implements or pulling up hills. The turbo will kick in and give you the extra power to get through places that a similiar hp engine won't.
JerryG
Super Member
<font color="blue"> Not only will you have better gph but you will increase your torque dramatically over the same hp engine. </font>
It is amazing how much the torque curve will level out with a turbo.
It is amazing how much the torque curve will level out with a turbo.
rockyridgefarm
Elite Member
Soo... the new machines come in normally aspirated and turbo... Is there any hope in adding a turbo to the older machines... Is there anyone offering them? I bet that even if there is, it will end up being a better deal to sell the older machine and buy a new turbo one...
JerryG
Super Member
It is better to get a factory one for several reasons. A few of the reasons are, the pump is set up different, the timing is retarded and the pistons may be different. I am not saying that all of these things are done by every manufacture, but some need to be and some may not, as well as other changes. If you were in contact with a good turbo shop they could and can put a turbo on any type of engine, but it may not be cost effective.
Kyle_in_Tex
Super Star Member
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Soo... the new machines come in normally aspirated and turbo... Is there any hope in adding a turbo to the older machines... )</font>
He's talking about the older machines. The new series would be 5425 and 5525, which, I think both have turbos 4 cyl. I think the smaller ones use a 3 cyl turbo.
Get the turbo for your altitude. Once you start working the tractor, you won't regret it...Kyle
He's talking about the older machines. The new series would be 5425 and 5525, which, I think both have turbos 4 cyl. I think the smaller ones use a 3 cyl turbo.
Get the turbo for your altitude. Once you start working the tractor, you won't regret it...Kyle
bam747
Silver Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2004
- Messages
- 209
- Tractor
- John Deere 4720 (2007)
According to John Deere's website, the new 5225 and 5325 are both 3.0L 5-cylinder turbos rated at 45 and 55 PTO HP respectively. The new 5425 and 5525 are both 4.5L 4-cylinder turbos at rated 65 and 75 HP respectively.
Just for reference, the 5220 was a naturally aspirated 2.9L 3-cylinder rated at 45 PTO HP. The 5320 was a turbo 2.9L 3-cylinder rated at 55 PTO HP. The 5420 was a naturally aspirated 4.5L 4-cylinder rated at 65 PTO HP. The 5520 was a turbo 4.5L 4-cylinder rated at 75 HP.
Also for reference, a basic assumption can be made that naturally aspirated engines will loose 3% of their sea level rated HP per 1000 feet of elevation gain while turbo charged engines will loose none to 1% of their sea level rated HP per 1000 feet of elevation gain depending on how "smart" the electronic engine controller is at compensating for altitude.
Just for reference, the 5220 was a naturally aspirated 2.9L 3-cylinder rated at 45 PTO HP. The 5320 was a turbo 2.9L 3-cylinder rated at 55 PTO HP. The 5420 was a naturally aspirated 4.5L 4-cylinder rated at 65 PTO HP. The 5520 was a turbo 4.5L 4-cylinder rated at 75 HP.
Also for reference, a basic assumption can be made that naturally aspirated engines will loose 3% of their sea level rated HP per 1000 feet of elevation gain while turbo charged engines will loose none to 1% of their sea level rated HP per 1000 feet of elevation gain depending on how "smart" the electronic engine controller is at compensating for altitude.
burnetma
Gold Member
I had the same exact question. I have the opportunity to buy a 5420 MFD power reverser, but I really want a turbo charged engine for all of the reasons list. So I am doing more research. According to the Nebraska tests:
5520
rated HP = 76.24
Peak Torque = 236 @ 1289
Max Torque Rise = 41.5%
Torque Rise @ 1900 = 35%
Fuel consumption at rated HP = 4.61 GPH or 0.428 lb/HP-hr
5420
rated HP = 65.44
Peak Torque = 204 @ 1094 RPM
Max Torque Rise = 42.5
Torque Rise @ 1900 = 23%
Fuel consumption at rated HP = 4.28 GPH or 0.445 lb/HP-hr
My calculations show 5520 vs. 5420:
HP difference = 16.5%
Torque difference = 15.7%
Fuel economy = -3.8%
Based on this data, at ~ 1200 feet above sea level, the machines seem to be very equal performs when normalized against peak output. It looks to me that you are getting what you pay for when you step up to the 5520, 15% more tractor.
All that said, I still want the turbo, but....
Can anybody else out there shed some light on this subject???
5520
rated HP = 76.24
Peak Torque = 236 @ 1289
Max Torque Rise = 41.5%
Torque Rise @ 1900 = 35%
Fuel consumption at rated HP = 4.61 GPH or 0.428 lb/HP-hr
5420
rated HP = 65.44
Peak Torque = 204 @ 1094 RPM
Max Torque Rise = 42.5
Torque Rise @ 1900 = 23%
Fuel consumption at rated HP = 4.28 GPH or 0.445 lb/HP-hr
My calculations show 5520 vs. 5420:
HP difference = 16.5%
Torque difference = 15.7%
Fuel economy = -3.8%
Based on this data, at ~ 1200 feet above sea level, the machines seem to be very equal performs when normalized against peak output. It looks to me that you are getting what you pay for when you step up to the 5520, 15% more tractor.
All that said, I still want the turbo, but....
Can anybody else out there shed some light on this subject???
BarryinMN
Platinum Member
Previous posters are spot on.
One thing that was not discussed was that 5420 depending on age & warranty may have a mechanical pump that can be turned up 5-10HP. It is still not a turbo but may be enough to get you over the hill without reducing power train reliability.
The Tier II engines have EGR systems with more sensors to reduce NOX and turbos to bring the power back.
Another point to consider is in 18 months low sulphur fuel shows up which has slightly less BTU content. If your operations use all the power of the tractor you may notice a peak performance drop. Our local refinery in Hastings, MN has stated when they switch over the high sulphur wil be NLA. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
One thing that was not discussed was that 5420 depending on age & warranty may have a mechanical pump that can be turned up 5-10HP. It is still not a turbo but may be enough to get you over the hill without reducing power train reliability.
The Tier II engines have EGR systems with more sensors to reduce NOX and turbos to bring the power back.
Another point to consider is in 18 months low sulphur fuel shows up which has slightly less BTU content. If your operations use all the power of the tractor you may notice a peak performance drop. Our local refinery in Hastings, MN has stated when they switch over the high sulphur wil be NLA. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
