I've heard the 2320 will share the same TNV76 engine as the 2305. When looking on the John Deere website under manuals, it says the x595 also uses this engine. Does the x595 really have the same engine as the larger 2320 cousin, or is this a misprint?
2320 engine
- Thread starter 73jeep
- Start date
- Views: 2902
awlchu
Gold Member
It is the same engine.
JDFANATIC
Veteran Member
Hp's rated at different speeds. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
BluRidgDav
Member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2005
- Messages
- 37
JDFan,
That was true with the 2210 (23hp @ 3000rpm) and 4110 (20hp @ 2650rpm).
But, the new 2320 is supposed to be rated at the same (24hp @ 3000rpm) as the smaller 2305 & X-595 models.
Some call it "HP Hype" or "RPM Creep", but it probably helps JD's marketing, by not having to explain why the bigger tractor, with the same engine, produces less HP than it's smaller cousins.
BRD
That was true with the 2210 (23hp @ 3000rpm) and 4110 (20hp @ 2650rpm).
But, the new 2320 is supposed to be rated at the same (24hp @ 3000rpm) as the smaller 2305 & X-595 models.
Some call it "HP Hype" or "RPM Creep", but it probably helps JD's marketing, by not having to explain why the bigger tractor, with the same engine, produces less HP than it's smaller cousins.
BRD
orangebluegreen
Gold Member
I’m wondering what’s up with the hydraulic pump output on the 2320.
The following are relatively comparable units.
NH-TC21-24D 4.9 gpm
NH-TC23-26DA 5.4 gpm higher due to increased rpm?
Kubota-B7510-7610 4.4 gpm
Mahindra-2015 5.8 gpm
MF-1523 5.4 gpm
Challenger-MT225B 5.5 gpm
JD-4110-4115 5.1 gpm
JD2320 3.4 gpm ???
What’s up with that? I read this in the online brochure. They mentioned hydro pump being separate from the main hydraulic pump, wonder if this is correct and if it has anything to do with the low number?
Everything looks pretty nice on the 2320 except maybe the longer comparative wheelbase, but it still appears to turn about as sharp as the others, and perhaps 33” tires would be smoother riding than the 31’s. I would like to see 26” on the fronts of these machines (for smoother ride) but I see no one doing that.
The following are relatively comparable units.
NH-TC21-24D 4.9 gpm
NH-TC23-26DA 5.4 gpm higher due to increased rpm?
Kubota-B7510-7610 4.4 gpm
Mahindra-2015 5.8 gpm
MF-1523 5.4 gpm
Challenger-MT225B 5.5 gpm
JD-4110-4115 5.1 gpm
JD2320 3.4 gpm ???
What’s up with that? I read this in the online brochure. They mentioned hydro pump being separate from the main hydraulic pump, wonder if this is correct and if it has anything to do with the low number?
Everything looks pretty nice on the 2320 except maybe the longer comparative wheelbase, but it still appears to turn about as sharp as the others, and perhaps 33” tires would be smoother riding than the 31’s. I would like to see 26” on the fronts of these machines (for smoother ride) but I see no one doing that.
Cliff_Johns
Elite Member
Do those pump numbers include the power steering pump or not? Are the pumps combined on some numbers and seperate on others?
Cliff
Cliff
orangebluegreen
Gold Member
The numbers for all of the above machines were main hydraulic pump only not including the power steering. The power steering added another 2+ to 3+ gpm.
Added:
What I do not know is if there is a separate number for the hydro? Could it be if the hydro pump is separate from the main pump then it is not a comparable number to the above machines?
I have read some TBN posts that claim to get diminished performance when using the hydro and loader at the same time due to hydro and loader pumps being the same (if this is correct I don’t know). The JD brochure claims the pumps are separate on the 2320 and they make it sound unique to the industry, could this be the reason the main pump appears low? I am new to how hydro pumps vs. main pumps are set up on these machines so I am not sure, and I have never seen a hydro pump spec separate from any other pump.
Added:
What I do not know is if there is a separate number for the hydro? Could it be if the hydro pump is separate from the main pump then it is not a comparable number to the above machines?
I have read some TBN posts that claim to get diminished performance when using the hydro and loader at the same time due to hydro and loader pumps being the same (if this is correct I don’t know). The JD brochure claims the pumps are separate on the 2320 and they make it sound unique to the industry, could this be the reason the main pump appears low? I am new to how hydro pumps vs. main pumps are set up on these machines so I am not sure, and I have never seen a hydro pump spec separate from any other pump.
Deere_parts
Silver Member
I got curious today about this question and started digging through the parts catalogs.
The 2320 uses the exact same hydraulic pump as the 2305 but the 2520 uses a different pump.
The 2320 uses the exact same hydraulic pump as the 2305 but the 2520 uses a different pump.
orangebluegreen
Gold Member
Were you able to draw any conclusions?
This is the quote I’m referencing from page 7 of the 2320 brochure:
“4) Charge pump used to deliver oil to transmission (some
competitive tractors use one pump for transmission and
hydraulics).”
As apposed to page 6 of the 2305 brochure:
“4) One pump to supply charge pressure and implement
flow. A flow divider splits the flow to various circuits
throughout the tractor.“
Reading those quotes it would appear to me the 2320 hydro is powered by a different pump than implements but I do not see any separate pump in the brochure unless it is built into the transmission itself automotive style. If so the 3.4 gpm number might not be comparable to other machines and may be quite satisfactory. If JD is just using tricky wording then 3.4 would be a comparatively low number to competitors. Considering the wheelbase is longer than the competition, you would think that would create more usable leverage against lifting the rear tires therefore perhaps create more potential usable loader performance with less rear ballast. But if the hydraulic flow is not there to use it I would assume loader performance would suffer.
Here are the numbers from the brochures I have, obviously subject to change as stated:
2305:
Pump (type) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gear
Flow available to rockshaft and SCV@ rated engine speed
(based on 95% pump efficiency) (gpm/lpm) . . . . . . . . 2.9 gpm (10.8 lpm)
Power steering flow@ rated engine speed(gpm/lpm)
(based on 95% pump efficiency) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 gpm (8.9 lpm)
Total hydraulic capacity@ rated engine speed (gpm/lpm)
(based on 95% pump efficiency) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2gpm (19.7 lpm)
2320:
Pump (type) (all transmissions) . . . . . . . . . . . . Dual gear
Pump capacity (main) - gpm (L/min.) at rated
engine rpm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 (12.7)
Pump capacity (power steering) - gpm (L/min.)
at rated engine rpm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 (8.5)
Total flow of pumps - gpm (L/min.) at rated
engine rpm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6 (21.2)
2520:
Pump (type) (all transmissions) . . . . . . . . . . . . Dual gear
Pump capacity (main) - gpm (L/min.) at rated
engine rpm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0 (18.8)
Pump capacity (power steering) - gpm (L/min.)
at rated engine rpm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 (20.8)
Total flow of pumps - gpm (L/min.) at rated
engine rpm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5 (39.6)
This is the quote I’m referencing from page 7 of the 2320 brochure:
“4) Charge pump used to deliver oil to transmission (some
competitive tractors use one pump for transmission and
hydraulics).”
As apposed to page 6 of the 2305 brochure:
“4) One pump to supply charge pressure and implement
flow. A flow divider splits the flow to various circuits
throughout the tractor.“
Reading those quotes it would appear to me the 2320 hydro is powered by a different pump than implements but I do not see any separate pump in the brochure unless it is built into the transmission itself automotive style. If so the 3.4 gpm number might not be comparable to other machines and may be quite satisfactory. If JD is just using tricky wording then 3.4 would be a comparatively low number to competitors. Considering the wheelbase is longer than the competition, you would think that would create more usable leverage against lifting the rear tires therefore perhaps create more potential usable loader performance with less rear ballast. But if the hydraulic flow is not there to use it I would assume loader performance would suffer.
Here are the numbers from the brochures I have, obviously subject to change as stated:
2305:
Pump (type) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gear
Flow available to rockshaft and SCV@ rated engine speed
(based on 95% pump efficiency) (gpm/lpm) . . . . . . . . 2.9 gpm (10.8 lpm)
Power steering flow@ rated engine speed(gpm/lpm)
(based on 95% pump efficiency) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 gpm (8.9 lpm)
Total hydraulic capacity@ rated engine speed (gpm/lpm)
(based on 95% pump efficiency) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2gpm (19.7 lpm)
2320:
Pump (type) (all transmissions) . . . . . . . . . . . . Dual gear
Pump capacity (main) - gpm (L/min.) at rated
engine rpm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 (12.7)
Pump capacity (power steering) - gpm (L/min.)
at rated engine rpm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 (8.5)
Total flow of pumps - gpm (L/min.) at rated
engine rpm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6 (21.2)
2520:
Pump (type) (all transmissions) . . . . . . . . . . . . Dual gear
Pump capacity (main) - gpm (L/min.) at rated
engine rpm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0 (18.8)
Pump capacity (power steering) - gpm (L/min.)
at rated engine rpm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 (20.8)
Total flow of pumps - gpm (L/min.) at rated
engine rpm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5 (39.6)
Cliff_Johns
Elite Member
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Considering the wheelbase is longer than the competition, you would think that would create more usable leverage against lifting the rear tires therefore perhaps create more potential usable loader performance with less rear ballast. But if the hydraulic flow is not there to use it I would assume loader performance would suffer.)</font>
The loader speed would suffer, but not the other specs. Lift and breakout force are dependant on the loader itself and pressure. Speed is dependant on gpm. This is assuming the Hy. pressure is the same.
Cliff
The loader speed would suffer, but not the other specs. Lift and breakout force are dependant on the loader itself and pressure. Speed is dependant on gpm. This is assuming the Hy. pressure is the same.
Cliff
Deere_parts
Silver Member
Couldn't draw any conclusions on it. The transmissions, frames and other items were different. I was just trying to see if the 2320 was an over grown 2305 but couldn't tel much just by the part numbers.
Unless you need the higher speed associated with higher GPM flow, It really doesn't affect the strength of the hydraulics, just the speed.
For what I need to do the 2320 would be fine as it's still faster and easier than using a shovel around the house.
I'm waiting to see prices on the 2320 and find out if the 62d deck will go on the 2305 before I make my final decision
Unless you need the higher speed associated with higher GPM flow, It really doesn't affect the strength of the hydraulics, just the speed.
For what I need to do the 2320 would be fine as it's still faster and easier than using a shovel around the house.
I'm waiting to see prices on the 2320 and find out if the 62d deck will go on the 2305 before I make my final decision
orangebluegreen
Gold Member
CJ & DP,
I was wondering about the number because of some posts here on TBN that claimed loader and hydro performance was diminished while using both at the same time. Those posts seemed to point toward marginal available pump performance to be able to push both systems to the limits. I believe some of the comments said the hydro didn’t have enough power when pushing into a pile and operating the loader at the same time. That’s going to happen regardless of manual or hydro however and could have been limited experience or over expectations on whatever particular machine. I don't remember what brands or machines were being mentioned. I assumed (perhaps incorrectly?) if needed gpm is exceeded then pressure would drop affecting weight capacity and hydro performance, but I find it hard to believe in this day anyone would design inadequacy, at least I hope. Lift height is actually more important to me than weight abilities for homeowner use. Would be nice to be able to throw ripped off shingles in the loader from the roof, that probably rules out an OEM loader. They had mentioned a rear discharge deck also, but I’m not seeing mention of it now. A suspended rear discharge MMM is of major interest to me.
Still curious what pump is driving the hydro if not the main. In the age of bigger numbers are viewed as better, you wouldn’t think JD would want their numbers to appear wimpy. If the hydro is actually driven by a different pump than main hydraulics, they should educate us what the norm for driving implements alone is.
I was wondering about the number because of some posts here on TBN that claimed loader and hydro performance was diminished while using both at the same time. Those posts seemed to point toward marginal available pump performance to be able to push both systems to the limits. I believe some of the comments said the hydro didn’t have enough power when pushing into a pile and operating the loader at the same time. That’s going to happen regardless of manual or hydro however and could have been limited experience or over expectations on whatever particular machine. I don't remember what brands or machines were being mentioned. I assumed (perhaps incorrectly?) if needed gpm is exceeded then pressure would drop affecting weight capacity and hydro performance, but I find it hard to believe in this day anyone would design inadequacy, at least I hope. Lift height is actually more important to me than weight abilities for homeowner use. Would be nice to be able to throw ripped off shingles in the loader from the roof, that probably rules out an OEM loader. They had mentioned a rear discharge deck also, but I’m not seeing mention of it now. A suspended rear discharge MMM is of major interest to me.
Still curious what pump is driving the hydro if not the main. In the age of bigger numbers are viewed as better, you wouldn’t think JD would want their numbers to appear wimpy. If the hydro is actually driven by a different pump than main hydraulics, they should educate us what the norm for driving implements alone is.
