Gallons per hour....

[DIRTROAD]

Everyone has their own opinion.

I am just stating what I have observed first hand in my life.

 

[whistlepig]

Sorry, but this is nonsense. Turbodiesel engines have lower friction/hp, higher HP/weight, both of which are critical factors affecting fuel efficiency in a vehicle application. The most fuel efficient engines on the planet are turbodiesel engines and they have held this status since the 30's.

Amen. I couldn't have said it better.

 

[Diamondpilot]

The fuel burn does seem on the high side to me also. My tractor made 31 HP on the pto and burns about .8 gph going so. Its a 3 cylinder diesel, non turbo.

Chris

 

[westcliffe01]

A table showing fuel consumption comparisons can be found here:
Brake specific fuel consumption - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Junker Jumo Airplane engine held the record from 1931 until another German engine, the TDI from Audi finally beat it in 1990. Today the most efficient engines are the very large ship diesels. Slow speed 2 stroke diesels will most likely always be the most efficient. But the difference between common diesel engines and the Tdi in 1990 was approximately 10% better thermal efficiency. Since the "regular" diesel is only about 30% efficient, a 10% improvement is in fact an improvement of about 30%.

 

[Duffster]

I don't farm for a living, so cost of fuel is a consideration for me.
.

I like to know what that statement means?

It makes a huge difference if the tractor in question has a turbo or not.

A naturally aspirated tractor will get far better fuel milage than its turbo cousin.

I think you got that backwards.

 

[AndyMA]

Everyone has their own opinion.

I am just stating what I have observed first hand in my life.

The problem is when you let opinions rule over facts. Unless you were comparing identical engines under lab conditions I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion.

Turbo diesels are clearly highly efficient as they basically operate as a "smaller" engine until a power boost is required and the turbo kicks in.

Andy

 

[kenstrac]

Since they don't test tractors at the university of Nebraska anymore I don't believe in ANY info that the mfg are throwing at us.

 

[westcliffe01]

You can typically find the fuel consumption curve for the engine at the engine manufacturers website.

As an example, here is the fuel consumption curve for a kubota 1105 NA engine which is rated at 24.8hp.

And below it is the fuel consumption curve for the same engine, but turbocharged, rated at 32.8hp.

At 2200 rpm the specific fuel consumption of both engines is very similar, but at lower or higher speed the naturally aspirated engine will use more fuel than the turbocharged one.

Of course, it needs to be understood that if you use all the power provided by the turbo, you will probably use more fuel than the weaker naturally aspirated engine of the same size. The catch is that you would have to run the weaker engine for a longer time to get the same amount of work done, so you would still end up using more fuel all in all with the naturally aspirated engine.

If you live at a high elevation, the differences between the turbo and naturally aspirated engines become more dramatic. At 7500 ft, you would lose approximately 23% of the performance of a naturally aspirated engine.

 

[MtnViewRanch]

To be fair for comparison, shouldn't the NA engine have the same HP as the turbo? Then with a bigger CI motor, the NA engine is not going to be as fuel efficient as the turbo engine.

There are several tractors out there that are the same machine except the turbo on the engine and the guts that go along with the turbo. I would expect the turbo engine to burn more fuel, it has more power, and it takes fuel to make that power. The capabilities of the turbo tractor far exceed it's non turbo brother.

 

[D7E]

It makes a huge difference if the tractor in question has a turbo or not.

A naturally aspirated tractor will get far better fuel milage than its turbo cousin.

I have to question that ....We've turbo'd our own tractors and improved the fuel consumption because they are not struggling and are "on top of the job" and have turbo'd tractors for customers who say the same.....Many times have had 4cyl turbo's that are better on fuel than a straight 6 of same hp...and sometimes the other way.....Too many variables on make and model and how they are set to say ..!

Take our old cat D7E with that huge 4 cyl turbo 180hp running at 1250rpm uses as much fuel in a day as a 90hp 4cyl natural aspirated tractor thats skidding the logs with it..?

After finnishing tonight and re-fuelling i noticed both tractors are 320hp one has a 14 liter turbo intercooler and the other has a 10 liter turbo intercooler with a few turns of the diesel scew... and very hard pulling on same size cultivators they used exactly the same amount of fuel today just different characteristics the 14 liter will run at 1600 rpm with more low end torque ..but at full tilt i'l say the 10 liter has the most grunt..!
Both do about 10 gal an hour...?