[SheepSheep]

Does anyone have any experience with the various flashes claiming 20+hp gain or changing injectors/fuel pump to up the power of the 5055 or any of the 45-75 range?

There are at least two modules and one ecu flash that come up on a Google search but nothing looks particularly trustworthy.

I did find a post from 2015 suggesting that 5065 injectors and pump can be installed as the turbos are the same, but it wasn't exactly conclusive

 

[mo1]

Does anyone have any experience with the various flashes claiming 20+hp gain or changing injectors/fuel pump to up the power of the 5055 or any of the 45-75 range?

There are at least two modules and one ecu flash that come up on a Google search but nothing looks particularly trustworthy.

I did find a post from 2015 suggesting that 5065 injectors and pump can be installed as the turbos are the same, but it wasn't exactly conclusive

Deere made the 5055E for 14 years and there were several different generations of this tractor. The big dividing line came in 2015 when Deere went away from the previous mechanically-controlled engine to the Tier 4 common-rail EFI engine. The previous mechanically-controlled engines could be "turned up" by changing the usual mechanical things like pump fueling settings, the common-rail engines need to have different ECU tuning to adjust power production. Yours is a 2019 and would be a common-rail engine, so there's no pump or injector upgrade out there, you would have to modify your ECU. The third-party ECU flashes are illegal according to the EPA as they did not undergo emissions testing. Anything that could possibly let somebody run a diesel engine out of EPA compliance is something the EPA very much cracks down on, which is why all of the ECU flash websites are sketchy foreign websites, often in countries that the U.S. doesn't have strong ties to (else the EPA would lean on that country to punish the website operator or at the very least take the website offline.)

From what I have read, you can't just swap in an ECU from a 5065E or 5075E and have it work as the ECU can tell what the serial number of the engine it's connected to is and refuses to work if it is connected to a different engine than what it was originally paired with. You can apparently either connect the new ECU to your old one and it will reflash the new one with the old one's data (which you would not want) or you have to get a dealer to reflash the ECU. I would expect that Deere's flashing software would have some way to prevent a dealer from flashing a different ECU tune than the tractor is supposed to get.

The only way I can see to really upgrade the engine power would be to swap entire engines, which might also take the instrument panel from the higher-HP tractor in addition to its entire engine and ECU.

 

[SheepSheep]

Good lord they really have these things nailed down don't they.
I have a T3 common rail, you're right. I will have to see if the dealer is keen on anything besides a new tractor for more power.

I was honestly thinking this tractor was over kill when I got it, after the last week of extreme snow removal in this socal blizzard, I'm wishing for more mass and more power.

Thanks for your input.

 

[AKfish]

I have noticed in the past, that the Nebraska Test program has flashed the ECU for testing within the same family group; i.e. identical frame size, engine class, etc.
That saves them from having to ship in another tractor for testing when jumping up 10hp for the next tractor model. I'd guess, that Deere supplies the University with the appropriate software flash. Typically, they will note that fact in the discussion section at the end of the report. Have not seen that situation for tractor models that are 30-40-50hp increase in power but same model family and engine size, however. That large a Hp difference can involve increased cooling, injector and turbo differences. Not simply ECU programming.
Yes...this winter has been one for the record books! Lotta folk's are wishing for more "mass and more power"!

 

[Montana Dan]

Good lord they really have these things nailed down don't they.
I have a T3 common rail, you're right. I will have to see if the dealer is keen on anything besides a new tractor for more power.

I was honestly thinking this tractor was over kill when I got it, after the last week of extreme snow removal in this socal blizzard, I'm wishing for more mass and more power.

Thanks for your input.

If you were to find a way to give your tractor more juice, that won't give you more mass. If those are what you want (which is exactly what I'm doing, going back to a 5 series from the 4), you'll need to go to the next frame size up to say the 5090E. That'll take care of more power and mass and won't void any warranties or put you in EPA jail.

 

[mo1]

I have noticed in the past, that the Nebraska Test program has flashed the ECU for testing within the same family group; i.e. identical frame size, engine class, etc.
That saves them from having to ship in another tractor for testing when jumping up 10hp for the next tractor model. I'd guess, that Deere supplies the University with the appropriate software flash. Typically, they will note that fact in the discussion section at the end of the report. Have not seen that situation for tractor models that are 30-40-50hp increase in power but same model family and engine size, however. That large a Hp difference can involve increased cooling, injector and turbo differences. Not simply ECU programming.
Yes...this winter has been one for the record books! Lotta folk's are wishing for more "mass and more power"!

Often there is a frame size difference if you are going up 50 HP, and sometimes very significant engine changes. It may be the same basic engine block but have four-valve vs. two-valve heads, a variable-nozzle turbo vs. a fixed-geometry one, or sequential turbo instead of a single turbo, larger aftertreatment setup, etc. All of those things would not be able to be modified with just an ECU flash.

@Montana Dan
The four-cylinder 5E is a little larger than a 3 cylinder 5E, but it's a small step up in size. I have a 5075E and have spent some butt time on a couple of four-cylinder 5 series machines, they are not really very different in size. I'd really say to step up to a 6 series if a three-cylinder 5E is too small of a frame size. If it's mainly to get more PTO power, then a four-cylinder 5E or a 5M can certainly be a good step up from a 5055E.

 

[SheepSheep]

Cost notwithstanding, I really wish I had the facility for a 5090e or an m. The wheelbase is a foot longer, it's a foot wider, and all of my implements are based around the 3cyl width. I wouldn't have a dry space to do maintenance on the larger tractor due to height- as it is I had to chop the exhaust and drop the ROPS to bring it in.

So far deere hasn't been at all interested in reflashing which is not shocking. Mass I can't do much about, though properly filling the tires and wheel weights would help... but my 30hp pto feels anemic pushing a 7ft snow blower. I've got to basically bump the clutch to keep the tractor rolling slow enough to not bog the blower, even at half the augur in snow depth.

My answer seems to be a 5075e and run the pto at 540e in my lowest gear. It should cut my approach speed in half and the higher hp will keep me from bogging as easily. I could use my same loader, implements, etc, but have a little more guts on the hills and running the pto. I am living proof that one should buy as much tractor as is affordable; the jump in power would have cost me 7k up front in 2019, now it's going to cost me 15k or better.

That alone makes a $1200 ecu flash pretty tempting but I've no idea what real differences lie in the gap between my 5055 and the 5075; cooling, reliability, etc. I got a new tractor with a warranty for a reason and I'm unwilling to jeopardize that.

 

[mo1]

Cost notwithstanding, I really wish I had the facility for a 5090e or an m. The wheelbase is a foot longer, it's a foot wider, and all of my implements are based around the 3cyl width. I wouldn't have a dry space to do maintenance on the larger tractor due to height- as it is I had to chop the exhaust and drop the ROPS to bring it in.

So far deere hasn't been at all interested in reflashing which is not shocking. Mass I can't do much about, though properly filling the tires and wheel weights would help... but my 30hp pto feels anemic pushing a 7ft snow blower. I've got to basically bump the clutch to keep the tractor rolling slow enough to not bog the blower, even at half the augur in snow depth.

My answer seems to be a 5075e and run the pto at 540e in my lowest gear. It should cut my approach speed in half and the higher hp will keep me from bogging as easily. I could use my same loader, implements, etc, but have a little more guts on the hills and running the pto. I am living proof that one should buy as much tractor as is affordable; the jump in power would have cost me 7k up front in 2019, now it's going to cost me 15k or better.

That alone makes a $1200 ecu flash pretty tempting but I've no idea what real differences lie in the gap between my 5055 and the 5075; cooling, reliability, etc. I got a new tractor with a warranty for a reason and I'm unwilling to jeopardize that.

The 4 cylinder 5E and the 5M wheelbases are longer than the 3 cylinder 5Es, overall length on a 3 cylinder 5E is 143.3", a 5M is 149.5", and a 4 cylinder 5E is 159.1". The brochure for the 5M doesn't list width but the 5E brochure lists the exact same axle flange distance on the 3 and 4 cylinder 5Es so the width will only be different if different-sized tires are installed (at most, you'd end up with just under 3" wider on a regular 4 cylinder 5E with 18.4-30s vs. 16.9" wide tires on a 3 cylinder 5E.) The height on the regular open station 3 cylinder 5Es, 4 cylinder 5Es, and 5Ms are very similar as well with the ROPS up, they are 99" plus or minus three inches, although the 4 cylinder units are about 6" taller with the ROPS folded than the 3 cylinder units are (no information in the 5M brochure on this.)

Deere does make several narrow and low-profile 5 series tractors in the 75-130 engine HP range. The 5075EN is the low profile narrow version of the 5075E, it is only 61" to the top of the folded ROPS and can be narrowed up to only 51" wide. There are also the 5G narrow and low-profile tractors from 50-100 HP and the 5ML that are either low-profile or narrow low-profile and the top of the folded ROPS is only 40".

An open station 5055E makes a lot more than 30 PTO HP. Nebraska tested an open station final Tier 4 unit like yours and it made 51 PTO HP. An open station 5075E made 64 in their testing.

Deere separated out the 5045E, 5055E, 5065E, and 5075E into different parts books for the Final Tier 4 models (they were in the same book for the Tier 2 units) but the major engine parts such as the turbocharger share the same part numbers so it appears the engines are identical except for ECU tuning. This is not surprising since the 3029 engine is pretty lightly tuned even in the 5075E, it only makes a little over 25 HP/L. Deere offers stock tractor engines making over 40 HP/L.

 

[SheepSheep]

The 4 cylinder 5E and the 5M wheelbases are longer than the 3 cylinder 5Es, overall length on a 3 cylinder 5E is 143.3", a 5M is 149.5", and a 4 cylinder 5E is 159.1". The brochure for the 5M doesn't list width but the 5E brochure lists the exact same axle flange distance on the 3 and 4 cylinder 5Es so the width will only be different if different-sized tires are installed (at most, you'd end up with just under 3" wider on a regular 4 cylinder 5E with 18.4-30s vs. 16.9" wide tires on a 3 cylinder 5E.) The height on the regular open station 3 cylinder 5Es, 4 cylinder 5Es, and 5Ms are very similar as well with the ROPS up, they are 99" plus or minus three inches, although the 4 cylinder units are about 6" taller with the ROPS folded than the 3 cylinder units are (no information in the 5M brochure on this.)

Deere does make several narrow and low-profile 5 series tractors in the 75-130 engine HP range. The 5075EN is the low profile narrow version of the 5075E, it is only 61" to the top of the folded ROPS and can be narrowed up to only 51" wide. There are also the 5G narrow and low-profile tractors from 50-100 HP and the 5ML that are either low-profile or narrow low-profile and the top of the folded ROPS is only 40".

An open station 5055E makes a lot more than 30 PTO HP. Nebraska tested an open station final Tier 4 unit like yours and it made 51 PTO HP. An open station 5075E made 64 in their testing.

Deere separated out the 5045E, 5055E, 5065E, and 5075E into different parts books for the Final Tier 4 models (they were in the same book for the Tier 2 units) but the major engine parts such as the turbocharger share the same part numbers so it appears the engines are identical except for ECU tuning. This is not surprising since the 3029 engine is pretty lightly tuned even in the 5075E, it only makes a little over 25 HP/L. Deere offers stock tractor engines making over 40 HP/L.

This really only adds to my conundrum. The size of the 3cyl (wheelbase and width) is near perfect around here. Having to bump the clutch on my 12/12 to keep a slow enough speed to not bog on the snow blower is going to become a problem down the road. I'm not really sure where I got 30PTO hp from, but I had openly wondered why a 59hp tractor would have a 30hp pto when a 73hp tractor had a 60hp pto in the same model/series; it has to be a mechanical reduction and it doesn't make financial sense to differ between 3cyl models. In any case, I'm not at all convinced now that just going up 14 pto hp is going to alleviate my concerns blowing snow and doing heavy pto labor. A 5090e is a whole foot longer, and, depending on where I look, nearly a foot wider. The width would be entirely disqualifying given my working area and my existing 72" implements. if it's the same height and width as the 3cyl as you stated.. then maybe it's time to look at these 4cyl 5 series. Because I'm in the mountains, balancing stability and width is an ongoing struggle. A 5m with a front PTO would be a dream come true, but it's just too stinking big for my property, not to mention prohibitively expensive.

I sent an email to a dealer for clarification. If I can swing a 5090, maybe that's the road I'll go down. Who wouldn't want more hydraulic gpm anyway?

 

[hosspuller]

Wait .. You're running the PTO as PTOe ? And you want more PTO power ? The PTOe setting gears up the PTO from the Engine. (While limiting the max engine rpm) Better run the PTO as standard, then the engine can make more RPM & power while the PTO runs at 540 RPM.

 

[SheepSheep]

Wait .. You're running the PTO as PTOe ? And you want more PTO power ? The PTOe setting gears up the PTO from the Engine. (While limiting the max engine rpm) Better run the PTO as standard, then the engine can make more RPM & power while the PTO runs at 540 RPM.

No, I've been running at 2100rpm with my PTO. When I thought I had 30hp on my pto and knew the 5075 had 60, I thought I might save some fuel running the 5075 at 540e and still be able to take advantage of the higher hp.

I've really only been in this world for two years and the curve is steep.

 

[mo1]

This really only adds to my conundrum. The size of the 3cyl (wheelbase and width) is near perfect around here. Having to bump the clutch on my 12/12 to keep a slow enough speed to not bog on the snow blower is going to become a problem down the road. I'm not really sure where I got 30PTO hp from, but I had openly wondered why a 59hp tractor would have a 30hp pto when a 73hp tractor had a 60hp pto in the same model/series; it has to be a mechanical reduction and it doesn't make financial sense to differ between 3cyl models. In any case, I'm not at all convinced now that just going up 14 pto hp is going to alleviate my concerns blowing snow and doing heavy pto labor. A 5090e is a whole foot longer, and, depending on where I look, nearly a foot wider. The width would be entirely disqualifying given my working area and my existing 72" implements. if it's the same height and width as the 3cyl as you stated.. then maybe it's time to look at these 4cyl 5 series. Because I'm in the mountains, balancing stability and width is an ongoing struggle. A 5m with a front PTO would be a dream come true, but it's just too stinking big for my property, not to mention prohibitively expensive.

I sent an email to a dealer for clarification. If I can swing a 5090, maybe that's the road I'll go down. Who wouldn't want more hydraulic gpm anyway?

You could get a 5075E with the TSS transmission and get the optional creeper to slow down a lot slower than what you would go in first gear. That may be enough to run your snow blower well as from what people say, load is proportional to travel speed. I can't give you any input about a snow blower as it doesn't snow much here so I've never used one. The creeper is not an option on the PowrReverser transmission so unfortunately you cannot just put a creeper on your existing 5055E.

A 3 cylinder 5E is about 6 1/2' wide with the wheels at their narrowest settings. They can be spread out another foot by setting them at their widest settings, and you can also get spacers to space them out further than that if you want, but if you have 6' implements, you probably want to keep them at their narrowest setting as you are a little wider than that already.

You want to run a heavy PTO load at the full PTO RPM, not economy PTO. I would consider it to be a heavy load if you are bogging down a 5055E in first gear. The PTO actually makes pretty close to as much power in 540E mode as it does regular mode according to Nebraska, but it's hard on the engine to put a real heavy load on it when it's running at that slower engine speed as you are putting a lot more torque through the crank. The fact that you are running pretty close to peak engine torque RPM in economy PTO means if you load the engine up, you won't get the torque rise when RPMs drop a little like you would if you started at a higher RPM, you just bog down. You are correct, the PTO is a mechanical reduction, and it is the exact same on all 3 cylinder 5Es with the same transmission, and losses are about 12% or so compared to engine power on an open station tractor.

 

[SheepSheep]

You could get a 5075E with the TSS transmission and get the optional creeper to slow down a lot slower than what you would go in first gear. That may be enough to run your snow blower well as from what people say, load is proportional to travel speed. I can't give you any input about a snow blower as it doesn't snow much here so I've never used one. The creeper is not an option on the PowrReverser transmission so unfortunately you cannot just put a creeper on your existing 5055E.

A 3 cylinder 5E is about 6 1/2' wide with the wheels at their narrowest settings. They can be spread out another foot by setting them at their widest settings, and you can also get spacers to space them out further than that if you want, but if you have 6' implements, you probably want to keep them at their narrowest setting as you are a little wider than that already.

You want to run a heavy PTO load at the full PTO RPM, not economy PTO. I would consider it to be a heavy load if you are bogging down a 5055E in first gear. The PTO actually makes pretty close to as much power in 540E mode as it does regular mode according to Nebraska, but it's hard on the engine to put a real heavy load on it when it's running at that slower engine speed as you are putting a lot more torque through the crank. The fact that you are running pretty close to peak engine torque RPM in economy PTO means if you load the engine up, you won't get the torque rise when RPMs drop a little like you would if you started at a higher RPM, you just bog down. You are correct, the PTO is a mechanical reduction, and it is the exact same on all 3 cylinder 5Es with the same transmission, and losses are about 12% or so compared to engine power on an open station tractor.

My understanding is that the creep is not selectable and I'll be stuck with that reduction permanently. Otherwise that would be a great option

 

[mo1]

My understanding is that the creep is not selectable and I'll be stuck with that reduction permanently. Otherwise that would be a great option

The creeper is basically a fourth range in the transmission, so you can shift into and out of it like you would any other range.

 

[SheepSheep]

The creeper is basically a fourth range in the transmission, so you can shift into and out of it like you would any other range.

Is it for reverse and forward gears?

 

[mo1]

Yes, you would get reverse and the three forward gears in creep range just like you would in A range, B range, or C range.