1. #1
    Yes, the Deutz was an extremely powerful, fuel efficient engine. Best in the world. I have a customer who had a Deutz eng. in his R50 and when he bought a 62 w_cummins, he was not a happy camper with fuel consumption. 12 gallons an hour is what his burns now. We had to send his pump off after he first bought it to get it "set up" because govenors weren't working right and low power. It has plenty of power now, but it "drinks" the fuel. He made the comment that he had heard when he bought the first 50 that the engine parts were expensive, but he said the diff in cost of fuel would make up the diff if anything went wrong.


  3. #2
    don't complain to Cummins or AGCO Gleaner--- write Al GORE aka Captain Ozone. Seems these new "green" (nasal friendly) engine specs are ok in trucks cause they are using 450 hp to replace the old 350 cummins for example, but the off road applications suffer greatly. We won't tell the veep about you-alls engine mods .. We NEVER tamper with oem fuel settings cause we luv all the tree huggers and respect them. A combine running out in a 120 acre field might cause some of those city fellers to have to park one of those SUV's parked in the 4 car garages.... on second thought,,,psst HEY Al!!!!!!

  4. #3
    Nothing a bigger turbo, liquid cooled intercooler, and a greater injection of diesel wouldn't cure.

  5. #4
    I read on Ag Onlines Machinery Talk one guy thought the Detroit performs much better than the Cummins in the White. The Detroit in the 8425 AGCOSTAR would work quite nice in the R72, of course it would have to be turned down 100hp for that. I always thought the V8 Deutz out of the R70-72 would make a good tractor motor too.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in