Anyone running a tractor with the 540/540E PTO?

[mcmxi]

And if so, what are your thoughts, and is it worth the price of admission.

 

[North Idaho Wolfman]

Have in the past and Nope!
That is unless your running a 100+ HP monster then you'll see some noticeable gains.

 

[mcfarmall]

Yes. It was worth it to me. No sense revving the engine at 2200 when 1800 will get the job done. Added at the time of purchase and it changed my payment by a whopping $10...that's less than the cost of lunch.

 

[D2Cat]

A study of it's use on three tractors. https://www.researchgate.net/public...erations_in_tractors_through_laboratory_tests

 

[mcmxi]

Yes. It was worth it to me. No sense revving the engine at 2200 when 1800 will get the job done. Added at the time of purchase and it changed my payment by a whopping $10...that's less than the cost of lunch.

The 540E option isn't cheap and I don't know what the reduction in fuel and cab noise would be running the engine at 1,828 rpm vs. 2,160 rpm. It seems to me that it might be worth it for the noise reduction alone and any fuel savings is just icing on the cake.

 

[mcmxi]

A study of it's use on three tractors. https://www.researchgate.net/public...erations_in_tractors_through_laboratory_tests

That's an interesting paper and would suggest that significant fuel savings might be realized. Even the lowest measured at almost 16% is significant. It would have good if they'd added a dB meter in the cab and monitored the noise reduction in addition to the other variables measured. I'm not sure about the use of the word "coercions" ... weird.



Abstract:
Measurements were made of tractor PTO torque, engine fuel consumption, specific fuel consumption, and engine exhaust gas and cooling water temperatures on the basis of load (power kW) steps applied at a constant PTO revolution of 540 rpm. Data analysis showed an average fuel saving was performed with the 540E PTO of 27.18%, 18.62% and 15.88% for the JD 5625, MF 3085, and NH TD85 tractors, respectively. Fuel savings decreased with the increase in PTO load. Engine-PTO speed rates were also found to be effective in fuel saving. The torque values for the three tractors varied directly proportionally to the increase in the PTO load steps. Exhaust gas temperature data showed that coercions had occurred in the tractor engines when certain load values were exceeded when using the 540E operation (35 kW, 20 kW, and 30 kW, respectively for JD 5625, MF 3085, and NH TD85 tractors). In conclusion, the economical PTO operation was shown to have important advantages, particularly in terms of fuel and specific fuel consumptions for many power-driven machines.

 

[mcmxi]

Have in the past and Nope!
That is unless your running a 100+ HP monster then you'll see some noticeable gains.

I'm not familiar with the tractors mentioned in the paper that @D2Cat provided a link to, but I assume that they're "100+ HP monsters". I'll have to think about this some more. There's no rush to add 540E to the M6060 but it's something I'll look into for sure.

 

[North Idaho Wolfman]

Well I guess this is a case where I'm not well versed in the use or advantages.
The one thing I noticed was when using the option with a smaller HP tractor was that every time you hit any heavy patches it dropped the PTO speed significantly and bogged the motor down quickly.
It was some pretty wicked grass/weeds and a small JD that were were using so all of that might have added up to an unfair/biased conclusion.

 

[mcfarmall]

Is ePTO an option on tractors under 50 hp?

 

[North Idaho Wolfman]

Is ePTO an option on tractors under 50 hp?

I know it is on JD's, I don't know about Kubota's.

 

[hedgerow]

Here's my take on the 540E. Back in 2004 or so I bought a new 6603 JD around 100 Hp. It had the 540E factory. It didn't work well for what I was doing with that tractor which was running a 14 FT bat wing mower. It would pull the mower in 540E but it was like the engine was out of its torque curve and when you hit a tough spot mowing you were going to be clutching to let the engine catch its breath. In the heat of summer the tractor would like to run warm while using the 540E. JD said it should handle that load in 540E. I quite mowing in 540E and the tractor pulled better and ran cooler. I wouldn't spent extra for a 540E. Years ago I had my version of 540E on a JD 4840 which only had a 1000 shaft in it. We would run the 4840 on a 540 generator put a 540 adp on the 1000 shaft on the tractor and throttle the tractor back until we had 230 volt coming out of the generator.

 

[mcmxi]

Here's my take on the 540E. Back in 2004 or so I bought a new 6603 JD around 100 Hp. It had the 540E factory. It didn't work well for what I was doing with that tractor which was running a 14 FT bat wing mower. It would pull the mower in 540E but it was like the engine was out of its torque curve and when you hit a tough spot mowing you were going to be clutching to let the engine catch its breath. In the heat of summer the tractor would like to run warm while using the 540E. JD said it should handle that load in 540E. I quite mowing in 540E and the tractor pulled better and ran cooler. I wouldn't spent extra for a 540E. Years ago I had my version of 540E on a JD 4840 which only had a 1000 shaft in it. We would run the 4840 on a 540 generator put a 540 adp on the 1000 shaft on the tractor and throttle the tractor back until we had 230 volt coming out of the generator.

My interest with 540E is the possibility of reducing fuel consumption and reducing noise while running the Del Morino Centurion Super 158 flail mower and a Land Pride RCR1884 rotary cutter. The flail mower doesn't require much in the way of hp and nothing close to the rated 50 or so from either the MX or M, so I very much doubt that 540E would be an issue with that implement. The RCR1884 doesn't give the MX6000 any trouble, even on steep hills so maybe that will run on 540E just fine too. The 540/540E PTO kit is $1,487 installed at the local dealer with $300 of that for 3 hours of labor. I don't know if it'd take 3 hours to install being a cassette type but who knows.

 

[hedgerow]

mcmx When I bought the JD it was built into the tractor but the dealer kept saying you love it and save a bunch of fuel. I never saw any fuel saving. I burned the same amount of fuel per hour of mowing running regular 540 as in 540E. Noise wise I didn't notice it being quieter in the cab running 540E. Sure outside you might but I don't get out of the cab with the tractor running wide open. Its like every thing its your money and spent it how you like I would never have 540E again. I am sure they have there place. As far as engine wear goes we would have to take two like tractors with same loads run one 540 and one 540E and see what engine lasts the longest. I have seen more diesel tractor engines get ruined from lugging and idling around than ever running them wide open rated speed.

 

[mcmxi]

mcmx When I bought the JD it was built into the tractor but the dealer kept saying you love it and save a bunch of fuel. I never saw any fuel saving. I burned the same amount of fuel per hour of mowing running regular 540 as in 540E. Noise wise I didn't notice it being quieter in the cab running 540E. Sure outside you might but I don't get out of the cab with the tractor running wide open. Its like every thing its your money and spent it how you like I would never have 540E again. I am sure they have there place. As far as engine wear goes we would have to take two like tractors with same loads run one 540 and one 540E and see what engine lasts the longest. I have seen more diesel tractor engines get ruined from lugging and idling around than ever running them wide open rated speed.

Thanks very much. I have plenty of time to think about this and will mull it over some more. I'm not mowing every day during the spring/summer and not even every week, but I like getting first hand experience with such things and am often a sucker for options, even if I don't use them.

I added draft control to the new MX and will try that feature out soon when I start tearing up the ground for a new driveway. Some may think that draft control on an MX is ridiculous but what the heck, I wanted it because I don't like empty slots or spaces where things could go so I added it.

 

[hedgerow]

mcmxi Its funny how things have changed on my farm over the years. I was a kid when I bought my first farm in 1979 and all my equipment was pull type. Then over the years lots of things went three point and we used the draft control on tractors a lot. Then equipment got bigger and I went back to pull type equipment. The three point on my big tractor hasn't ever been used. My mid sized tractor that is 150 HP has a trailer mover on the three point quick hitch that stays on that tractor all the time for moving trailers and equipment. The MX-6000 gets its three point used the most on this farm. I don't even have a three point blade on the farm any more. Do all my blading with the skid loader.

 

[JP_Austin]

I've got eh 540/540E on my M4D. Seems to be nice when mowing and the bat wing isn't loading the unit up badly I toss it in the 540E and lower the RPM. Seems to be saving some fuel but it's marginal at best.

 

[mcmxi]

I've got eh 540/540E on my M4D. Seems to be nice when mowing and the bat wing isn't loading the unit up badly I toss it in the 540E and lower the RPM. Seems to be saving some fuel but it's marginal at best.

Thanks. I think I'll be adding the 540/540E option and will try to give an honest evaluation of its merits or lack thereof once I've had a chance to contrast and compare.

 

[SDT]

And if so, what are your thoughts, and is it worth the price of admission.

Caveat: Have not yet read earlier responses.

I elected to have optional EPTO installed on my M9960 ROPS before taking delivery. It was not inexpensive.

Mixed results depending upon conditions and equipment.

My 9960 replaced a 60 PTO HP tractor that was used mostly with a 7' mounted rough-cut mower in varying conditions. The 60 PTO HP tractor handled the 7' mower well in most conditions, but, with its 4/2 synchronized transmission, I found myself frequently needing to stop to change ranges in order to optimize ground speed for varying conditions. I will avoid this issue, herein.

Before replacing the undesirable 7' mounted mower with a BW, I used it on the 9960 for a couple of years, again in varying conditions. When doing so, I usually engaged EPTO so as to operate the engine at around 1750 RPM rather than rated speed to maintain 540 PTO RPM. Of course, this saved revolutions and fuel but at 1750 engine RPM, the 9960 engine is likely making somewhere around 60 PTO HP, about the same as the replaced tractor.

After buying the 15' BW, I have not again used EPTO. Indeed, the 9960 will not start the BW at idle in 540 PTO. There is no possibility that it would start it in EPTO at anything near idle, which would result in severe drive line shock.

EPTO is efficient in situations where an otherwise "oversized" tractor is loafing along with an otherwise "undersized" PTO driven implement. Yes, this can be both useful and efficient in situations where implements are not optimally sized for whatever reason.

For higher HP tractors, a better alternative is usually 540/1000 PTO.

SDT

 

[mcmxi]

Caveat: Have not yet read earlier responses.

I elected to have optional EPTO installed on my M9960 ROPS before taking delivery. It was not inexpensive.

Mixed results depending upon conditions and equipment.

My 9960 replaced a 60 PTO HP tractor that was used mostly with a 7' mounted rough-cut mower in varying conditions. The 60 PTO HP tractor handled the 7' mower well in most conditions, but, with its 4/2 synchronized transmission, I found myself frequently needing to stop to change ranges in order to optimize ground speed for varying conditions. I will avoid this issue, herein.

Before replacing the undesirable 7' mounted mower with a BW, I used it on the 9960 for a couple of years, again in varying conditions. When doing so, I usually engaged EPTO so as to operate the engine at around 1750 RPM rather than rated speed to maintain 540 PTO RPM. Of course, this saved revolutions and fuel but at 1750 engine RPM, the 9960 engine is likely making somewhere around 60 PTO HP, about the same as the replaced tractor.

After buying the 15' BW, I have not again used EPTO. Indeed, the 9960 will not start the BW at idle in 540 PTO. There is no possibility that it would start it in EPTO at anything near idle, which would result in severe drive line shock.

EPTO is efficient in situations where an otherwise "oversized" tractor is loafing along with an otherwise "undersized" PTO driven implement. Yes, this can be both useful and efficient in situations where implements are not optimally sized for whatever reason.

For higher HP tractors, a better alternative is usually 540/1000 PTO.

SDT

Thanks for the input. I'm going to have the dealer install the 540E option and will forgo the addition of wheel weights at this time and just have them add the 1,500lb of ballast to the rear tires.

 

[mcmxi]

EPTO is efficient in situations where an otherwise "oversized" tractor is loafing along with an otherwise "undersized" PTO driven implement. Yes, this can be both useful and efficient in situations where implements are not optimally sized for whatever reason.

Thanks for your post. I was able to try out the 540E option yesterday pulling the RCR1884. I was in L3 and pulling up a steep hill (don't remember the mph) and noticed a fair amount of soot coming out of the exhaust. I didn't try dropping down to L2 but instead stopped the tractor, got out and moved the lever to 540 and then continued with mowing at 2,150 rpm (2.7 mph) without any smoke. I'll try a lower gear next time, and if I use the M to cut my friend's 12 acres which is flat I might not have the same issue in L3.