Honest assesment of Deere vs Lugger

Can anyone give me hard concrete differences between a Marine 4045T John Deere and the Lugger 1064?

Is it worth the extra cost?* Deere can certainly afford to integrate whatever changes that Lugger does on more economical scale...*

Just curious..

I have thought of this. Just exactly what is the up charge?

Badger wrote:
Can anyone give me hard concrete differences between a Marine 4045T John Deere and the Lugger 1064?

Is it worth the extra cost?* Deere can certainly afford to integrate whatever changes that Lugger does on more economical scale...*

Just curious..

Click to expand...

I just repowered with the 4045T (just past 50 hours on the meter).* If you haven't already, talk to the folks at MER in Seattle.* They can certainly tell you about the Deere. I've only had one problem, that was an oil seal failure on the raw water pump.* MER quickly repaired that under warranty.**

It was expensive to repower, but I'm glad I went with new technology rather than rebuild the Lehman, or repower with an American Diesel.* I didn't think I wanted the electronics, for reliability reasons, but MER says the electronics haven't been a problem, and I must say the engine runs really well, without any smoke -- ever.* The electronic guages showing load and fuel burn are nice.

I'm not sure I needed the turbo, but I can't hear it and they're supposed to be reliable.* As is, I can't use all of the power until I add some more prop pitch.

Looking at the pictures of the Lugger, here are differences that stand out.*

1) On the Deere, the oil filter wasn't remote mounted and we had to modify the engine stringers to accomodate.**

2) On the Deere, the coolant plumbing is routed to allow access to the alternator belt. On the Lugger, it looks like changing a belt might require draining coolant, though I can't tell if the belt guard is in two pieces.* The Deere is wider at the front, so I had to modify the stringers a bit to clear the plumbing.*

3) From the Lugger pictures, (didn't look at the measurements), it looks like the Lugger might be slightly taller.

4) From the Lugger pictures, it looks like some of the electronics are mounted high on the engine --- where it's hot.* The electronics are low on the Deere.

5)* The Deere has two fuel filters.


-- Edited by bobc on Wednesday 14th of September 2011 08:08:14 AM

bobc wrote:
I just repowered with the 4045T (just past 50 hours on the meter).* If you haven't already, talk to the folks at MER in Seattle.* They can certainly tell you about the Deere. I've only had one problem, that was an oil seal failure on the raw water pump.* MER quickly repaired that under warranty.**

*

Click to expand...

*Have the exact same problem on my naturally-aspirated*4045D*(and ditto on the hours).* The small oil leak showed up on the starboard-side stringer between motor mounts.* Eventually traced the problem after judicious placement of "diapers."* JD is sending a replacement pump.



Dual fuel filters on the engine:



Before JD filters, the fuel passes through a Racor:



*


-- Edited by markpierce on Wednesday 14th of September 2011 09:02:04 AM

Do you get paid by the picture Mark?

bobc wrote:1) On the Deere, the oil filter wasn't remote mounted and we had to modify the engine stringers to accomodate.**

Click to expand...

Ouch! I wonder why no one there told you that NL sells a remote oil filter setup for the 4045 under their part description "Oil Filter Assembly L1064A" ?They probably had them in stock in Seattle.

I put one on a 4045T generator a couple of years ago to allow single side service and it works great.

RickB wrote:
Do you get paid by the picture Mark?

Click to expand...

*No, but sometimes I think I'm posting just to show my hopefully-relevant pictures.* I blame it on my GF who was a photo-journalist.

I like pictures

I am just trying to find a compelling reason to go with one or the other.

RickB wrote:
Do you get paid by the picture Mark?

Click to expand...

******* I'm very sure that Rick said that in jest.* :teevee:

****** I love the pictures, however!

RickB wrote:bobc wrote:1) On the Deere, the oil filter wasn't remote mounted and we had to modify the engine stringers to accomodate.**

Click to expand...

Ouch! I wonder why no one there told you that NL sells a remote oil filter setup for the 4045 under their part description "Oil Filter Assembly L1064A" ?They probably had them in stock in Seattle.

I put one on a 4045T generator a couple of years ago to allow single side service and it works great.

I had to modify the stringers to support the engine anyway.** The only thing we haven't tried is actually taking the filter off as we didn't want to drain the break-in oil. There should be enough room.

I did have MER move the dipstic to the starboard side, so pretty much all of the service is on one side.

When I repowered Willy I chose Klassen w a belt driven sea water pump off to the side of the engine. It's a typical bronze Jabsco pump and I can get parts practically anywhere in SE Alaska. At NAPA stores. I check the belt and it's tension once and a while and change the impeller once a year. By contrast I can do hardly anything w my high tech Suzuki 4 stroke OB. So when I got another OB I went 2-stroke e-tech Evinrude for simplicity.

nomadwilly wrote:
*So when I got another OB I went 2-stroke e-tech Evinrude for simplicity.

Click to expand...

.... and in my opinion, the best OB out there.

IF Deere and Lugger use the same block , which may come from an Asian earth moving machine, you might consider purchasing a Deere factory rebuilt engine ans simply doing the marinization yourself.

Once or twice a year Deere sells rebuilt engines with NO CORE CHARGE !

The proper rebuilt Twin Disc , and you would be almost bulletproof at a low cost (1/2 price or less ?)

I heard the Deere started building marine engines because the Lugger engine is Deere engine modified for Marine.**Deere decided to sell direct rather than through Lugger.* I would probable buy a Deere engine as it should be cheaper.


-- Edited by Phil Fill on Thursday 15th of September 2011 03:49:50 PM

I saw a presentation at a Trawlerfest from the marine John Deere guys. I would spec one in a heartbeat if I ever got the chance. Nothing runs like a Deere! I even got a cool blue and silver marine JD hat.

I had a JD in Volunteer, 9 years of my ownership and not a thing done to her except a water pump rebuild and a exhaust riser elbow.. and if course impellers every year. I am totally sold on John Deere in a trawler.* The engine had 2900 trouble free hours on it when I sold Volunteer.* Fuel consumption was 2.3 GPH @ 1750 rpm @ 7.9 kts.. she tipped the scales @ 58,000 lbs

HOLLYWOOD

Good Hull!

58,000 lbs divided by 2240 is 25.9 tons.

2,3 gph times (max) 20 is 46 hp.

That's nice economical cruising on about 1.8 hp per ton. (46 divided by 25.9)

What was the cruise SL? And the hull designer?

I have twin Deere 4045T's and couldn't speak higher of them, no smoke start right up and have been working on my port engine this past week as I had an over heat issue and ended up servicing the water pump, heat exchanger with the two thermostats behind the HE and it all went very smoothly.

Alot easier than other engines I have worked upon and I was rather pleased overall after the on water load test.

I would like to add the electronic display as I have had that on my last boat and used it alot in addition to the analogue gauges.

We also own a farm in CO and have had John Deere tractors for a long time and one had over 10,000 hours on it when I traded it in and received more for it than what I paid.

Only negative is that when buying parts etc John Deere does receive top dollar.

"Only negative is that when buying parts etc John Deere does receive top dollar."



For most parts try the farm parts guy rather than the "marine" shoppe.

markpierce wrote:RickB wrote:
Do you get paid by the picture Mark?

Click to expand...

*No, but sometimes I think I'm posting just to show my hopefully-relevant pictures.* I blame it on my GF who was a photo-journalist.

*Off topic here but one thing you might consider, Mark, is posting your pictures as "thumbnails" which is what most of us do.* That way they don't take up much space on the page and they don't kick the thread over to a wider format if the photo is larger than the page width, which means you have to scroll back and forth to read the posts on that page. The reader can click on the thumbnail(s) in a post to blow the photo(s) up if they want to see it better.

Marin wrote:...*Mark, is posting your pictures as "thumbnails" ...

Click to expand...

*That takes extra mousey-moves and*clicks for me as well as for*the viewer.* Rarely seems to cause page-width issues, at least for me.

Extra-sensory (engine) perception:



*

Maybe it's more a question of relevance. Your pictures rarely have any connection to the topic and seem to be posted just because you have one handy and need to be part of the conversation.

Are you trying to set a record for the greatest number of irrelevant posts and the greatest number of pixels posted per week or what?

RickB, "get over it."* Come on!* Rarely?* No wonder many find you ... well, you know.

If you don't see the relevance, I suppose it's because our brains are*"wired" differently.* Nevertheless, your sniping*is tiresome.


-- Edited by markpierce on Monday 10th of October 2011 08:58:32 PM

I will second Marin's suggestion re the thumbnails. They take up much less space on the page and allow the viewer to decide whether to view them or not, so relevance is determined by the viewer.

Although I don't know for sure, I suspect that the thumbnail approach is less of a resource hog and I'm sure the moderators/owners of the site would appreciate any load reduction on the system.

Although I agree (techically) with Conrad & Marin's post, I also think that Mark has the best photos on this Forum and I really enjoy them!

Thanks, Walt.

Thumbnails only work for me if the pictures are in my computer.* Almost all my photos, however, are on others' servers, such as Snapfish, which don't work with this site's thumbnails.* (Address won't paste.)

markpierce wrote:Almost all my photos, however, are on others' servers, such as Snapfish, which don't work with this site's thumbnails.

Click to expand...

Do a "Save As" on the photo on the other server, save it to your desktop, and load it to you TF post from there.

That works, but it is twice the work, and half the fun.

markpierce wrote:
That works, but it is twice the work, and half the fun.

Click to expand...

I didn't realize a mouse was such a labor-intensive, difficult device to use.* In any event I can speak only for myself, but I find the large photos in posts to be very annoying and space-wasting, particularly when they force me to scroll back and forth to read everyone else's posts on the page.* And no, I'm not looking at the web on a small monitor but on a large, stand-alone monitor.* But your photos still often force the page width out beyond the boundaries and scrolling back and forth becomes necessary to read the other posts on the page.* THAT is twice the work and half the fun.

"I didn't realize a mouse was such a labor-intensive, difficult device to use."

Depends on the brain wiring I guess.

What I find so offensive is the near total lack of relevance to the subject. The size and frequency just compounds the offence.