Massey Ferguson 1835M Hydrostat is a fuel hog

[idaho farm boy]

Hey everyone,

Earlier this year I traded in my 1966 John Deere 1020 for a Massey Ferguson 1835M compact with a hydrostat transmission. I have been blindsided, so to speak, on how much more fuel a hydrostat consumes when compared to a gear drive. Best example:

Mowing hay with a sickle, frontier sb3106 (6 foot), took 21 gallons to do 5 acres. 4 gallons raking. 10 gallons baling. We have an Ibex TX31 mini round baler that does 50 pound round bales. This Massey is perfect match up with the baler. Basically 31 gallons for 5 acres. 2nd cutting hay, which was done in July, same field. I got rid of the new Frontier mower and went back to my old John Deere #8 sicklemower, took 4 gallons to mow, 4 gallons to rake, and around 6 to bale. Had more hay as well.

So I am wondering, if I traded my tractor in for a gear driven, like a shuttle, doing the exact same work, would my fuel consumption decrease? 10.6 gallon fuel tank, 2 gallons per hour, 5 hours of work. And my old Deere had a 16 gallon tank and I was around 10-11 hours per tank, unless I was disking, then it burned more.

So what's your thoughts?

 

[ptsg]

That does look a lot of fuel indeed. For comparison, I get about 0.9 gal/hour with my 35 HP mechanically injected tractor with a 12x12 Shuttle transmission working in 540. In 540 Eco, I get 0.6 gal/hour or so.

I would expect a lot better fuel consumption from that common rail engine on the MF.

Just to rule out some basic stuff, make sure you don't have the brakes dragging or parking brake still engaged, something along those lines.

 

[3gunr]

i have a similar size tractor in hst and i can work it hard all day disking brush hogging tilling you name it on 10 gallons, that seems like alot of fuel ,are you running AC?

 

[LD1]

Im 2.5-2.6 GPH working my MX5100 bota with a 8' bushhog.

So ~1.75-2gph is about what I would expect out of a 35HP HST.

Yes HST is a fuel hog. But worth it for what I do. A 35HP gear tractor should knock off about 1/2 gallon per hour. But is $2/hr savings worth it?

 

[bearthebruce]

So ~1.75-2gph is about what I would expect out of a 35HP HST.

Yes HST is a fuel hog. But worth it for what I do. A 35HP gear tractor should knock off about 1/2 gallon per hour. But is $2/hr savings worth it?

I run a MF1533 geared open station tractor. With a 5 foot brush hog on hills, fuel is 1-1.25gph just as @LD1 predicted. We typically run a 10 hour day and near the end of the day always want a 5 gal can of diesel nearby!

Just picked up a 25hp LS125 HST. I'll be interested to see the fuel economy on that one. We wanted a small unit for smaller chores. We won't be mowing with it. (4" max mower height is too low for what we do. We need 6" min.)

 

[LD1]

I run a MF1533 geared open station tractor. With a 5 foot brush hog on hills, fuel is 1-1.25gph just as @LD1 predicted. We typically run a 10 hour day and near the end of the day always want a 5 gal can of diesel nearby!

Just picked up a 25hp LS125 HST. I'll be interested to see the fuel economy on that one. We wanted a small unit for smaller chores. We won't be mowing with it. (4" max mower height is too low for what we do. We need 6" min.)

I do custom mowing/bushhogging. Been doing it for 11 years now and to the tune of 400 or so acres per year.

My first 5 years in business was with a gear L3400 kubota and a bushhog 306 6' cutter.

1-1.25 GPH was about where it was always. And on hot days it wasnt until the radiator screen was nearly 100 plugged that it would start the temp needle moving upward. 1.5-2 acres per hour was about the norm. And best case scenarios I could get close to 3, on the jobs that got done 3-4 times per year and were large/open enough and smooth engough to go fast.

I upgraded to the MX5100HST and been using it for the last 6 years. 8' Woods twin. Its pretty consistent at 2.5GPH. But Im a pretty solid 3-4 acres per hour and best case scenarios north of 5.

So while it is a fuel hog and I burn twice the GPH.....I can also do twice the amount of work in the same hour. Therefore.....gallons of fuel per acre....or per job is the same. To mow a given field with my old tractor that used 4 gallons of fuel to complete.....I can be pretty confident saying that I can also mow the same field on 4 gallons with the MX.

Same with plowing. The L3400 could do 2-12 plows. The MX can do 3-16 plows. Twice the work per hour and twice the fuel burned per hour. So makes perfect sense in my head.

 

[oldnslo]

A rough rule of thumb from the 70’s was naturally aspirated get approx 16 HP per gallon per hr
Turbo charged approx 20 HP per gallon per hr.

No clue if these numbers are even clise today with engine design changes, emissions, fuel grade etc.

I know fall field work 480 HP tractor averages 22 - 24 gallons per hour with pretty steady load and long passes. This is a 12 year old tractor so pre def.

 

[Slowpoke Slim]

Hey everyone,

Earlier this year I traded in my 1966 John Deere 1020 for a Massey Ferguson 1835M compact with a hydrostat transmission. I have been blindsided, so to speak, on how much more fuel a hydrostat consumes when compared to a gear drive. Best example:

Mowing hay with a sickle, frontier sb3106 (6 foot), took 21 gallons to do 5 acres. 4 gallons raking. 10 gallons baling. We have an Ibex TX31 mini round baler that does 50 pound round bales. This Massey is perfect match up with the baler. Basically 31 gallons for 5 acres. 2nd cutting hay, which was done in July, same field. I got rid of the new Frontier mower and went back to my old John Deere #8 sicklemower, took 4 gallons to mow, 4 gallons to rake, and around 6 to bale. Had more hay as well.

So I am wondering, if I traded my tractor in for a gear driven, like a shuttle, doing the exact same work, would my fuel consumption decrease? 10.6 gallon fuel tank, 2 gallons per hour, 5 hours of work. And my old Deere had a 16 gallon tank and I was around 10-11 hours per tank, unless I was disking, then it burned more.

So what's your thoughts?View attachment 821833

My thoughts are you can't lay your fuel consumption issues at the feet of just having an HST trans.

If I was burning over 4 gallons an acre, mowing with my 6' cutter, I would be underneath it looking for fuel leaks or a hole in the fuel tank. I'm burning right at 1 gallon per hour normally, unless I'm really buried in thick stuff, or very tall dense weeds, then I'm up to 2 gallons per hour. I've never been over 2 gal/hr, ever. My tractor is HST, btw.

I'm at 37 engine hp (advertised), which is close enough to yours (36hp) to not worry about. However, I do see a big difference in our pto hp. Mine retains 32 pto hp and your MF is down to 25 pto hp. That could very well be some of the issue you're having. I'm not sure that would cover double the fuel consumption compared to what I experience (especially if you're cutting "hay height" grass).

When you were making first cutting with the 6' rotary, did you have to (and how often) did you have to slow down from engine bogging while mowing your field? How often is your tractor doing a regen? Do you notice black smoke from the exhaust while mowing? What elevation are you at (Idaho)? I'm wondering if you have a fuel system and/or tuning problem?

4 gallons per 5 acres with the sickle bar mower sounds about right to me, but not 21 gallons with the rotary cutter.

 

[Williy]

My Yanmar YT235C mid range 2200 rpm tilling, leveling
uses 1 gal per hour.

willy

 

[Sawyer Rob]

This tractor right here,

has 60 engine hp. It's spent many hundreds of hours pulling a 9' haybine, burning three quarts of fuel per hour! Pulling a 6' rotary cutter it ups it to four quarts, unless it's VERY tall heavy grass, then it goes up to six quarts an hour burned.

Hrdros don't just cost you more in fuel use, they also cost you more in maintenance cost too.

They make more heat; heat is just wasted energy.

SR