JD 6320 - Underpowered

[Anonymous-0]

Has anyone experienced or heard of a problem with power on a new JD 6320?

 

[Anonymous-0]

I have never heard of any problems with them. What is really the problem. It could be dirty fuel filters. I dynoed a 6410 at 85hp when i changed the injection pump because of low power. I also dynoed a 6300 with 12000 hours at 95hp.

 

[buickddeere]

From the factory without ballast 99HP and weighing 10,000lb with M4WD.
That's 100lb per HP. It's not uncommon to ballast up to 125-135lb per HP depending on soil type, equipment and if loader equipped.
It sounds like JD hater is pulling your leg. I'll bet there is some CaseIH or Agco they want you to look at.

 

[Patrick Mosset]

Well I had a 6400 MFWD with a loader on it,had 8000 hrs on it,it was a good tractor with lots of power,Then I traded it off on a New 6420 MFWD and a new loader,unhappy with it,no power,I have changed fuel filters and talked to the JD dealer nothing better,have about 800 hrs on it now ,I have been told that the 20 series is not as good as the 6400 series,Thanks

 

[buickddeere]

What were the results from the dyno test?

 

[Anonymous-0]

Dyno test hasn"t been carried out as yet. Lugging power has been poor since new and dealer has said this will improve after 160 hrs. Other people advise as common-rail it should be at optimum at new.

 

[Tx Jim]

What's the cubic inch displacement of the engine? I think it's a lot less than 404.

 

[Tx Jim]

I looked up the size of the engine on Tratordata and it stated 276 cu inches displacement. I always thought more cubes meant more lugging ability. Did the manufacturer's built higher HP engines in smaller cubes for supposedly less fuel consumption/hr? I drove a new JD 6715 and I think it doesn't respond to the throttle as quickly as my '91 JD 4255.

Can this be from the difference between 466 vs 276 cubes?

 

[buickddeere]

A turbo engine is never as perky on the throttle response as a natural aspirated engine. That can make one 95 HP engine feel much more powerful than another 95HP engine.
You can take a 200HP 6-71 Detroit two stroke and compare it with the same truck with a 200HP Cummings. And wonder how there can be such a difference in 200HP.
The small displacement turbo/intercooled common rail diesel. Vs a large displacement mildly turboed diesel with a mechanical Bosch P pump is a mixed blessing at best.
Stack emissions will be less and fuel efficiency can be better or worse.
You can thank the well meaning but clueless environmental types who want an Utopian's society on earth. With all the modern features and comforts. Yet without industry, power plants, vehicles or factory farms.
There are aftermarket programmers that will take the lag out of the fuel delivery program when acceleration is called for.
Mother Deere and everybody else has to make equipment that passes the rules.

 

[HeyPigFarmer]

Buick hit it on the head, a lot of the newer tractors that meet the new tier of emissions won't have the lug or low end of the older ones. Stack emissions... no boost no fuel.

 

[Tx Jim]

b&d,
In your statement about turbo vs non turbo both tractors I referred to are turbo'd from the factory! I agree about the tree huggers as the newer tractors don't out perform some older ones on fuel economy that much. My JD 4255 uses 3 gal/hr to rd bale a tight 4X5 1/2 bale.

 

[Handsome Jim]

im not familar with that model