Gallons per hour....

[D7E]

Tractor I'm looking at says...
2.35 gallons per hour @ 100% load.
What does this mean exactly? What is 100% load?
I don't farm for a living, so cost of fuel is a consideration for me.

I'd agree with this because fuel is our smallest input and if we have a machine that does the job well and quickly trouble free fuel is irrelevant....Seeding with 320hp costs about $2 an acre for fuel...!

 

[e.myers]

D7E-
Yeah, that's what I meant. Your expenses are offset, I'm paying to play without generating any income by use of the tool (for now).

 

[roamerr]

OK -- Here's my take:

If you use your tractor for farming or other tasks where it runs for 8 to 12 hours a day then fuel consumption matters. It becomes a significant cost especially in the large tractors that can burn 75 to 90 gallons per day.

If you use your tractor as a hobby or just to bush hog then fuel is minor. Buy the tractor that fits your need.

My two reference tractors are:

a 1979 MF245 (40+ hp) that I can't push a gallon an hour through if I want to. It's been used for 1 acre gardens and 100's of acres of bush hogging. Fuel is not an issue. The cost is in the implements, tires, and stuff I tear up.

a Kubota BX2230. Small so fuel does not matter. I'll be tired before the tank needs refilling...

 

[schmism]

lets step back and look at this from a theoretical standpoint.

in an internal combustion engine work output is directly proportional to fuel input. (lets assume your running at stoichiometric combustion.)

therefore the only way a turbo would help is that you werent burning all the fuel to start with at a given throttle postion. what does that mean? that for a given throttle position (a fixed fuel input rate, and assuming your not already running stoichiometric) then a turbo would help you do more work on that same fuel input. (due to cramming more air in there and getting more complete combustion)

as for comments about "real world experience and turbo's useing more fuel." LIkely a function of a couple of things.

1) you cant run a diesel to lean but gas engines DO NOT like to run lean as such when you add a turbo there is likely some system to add more fuel to keep your EG temps within norm.

2) with the ability to cram more air into a cylinder, one only wants to add more fuel to it to take advantage of the extra air. and as above more fuel = more power and thats what most people are after in the first place.

so yes your now 40hp motor (thanks to the turbo) does use more fuel than the 30hp NA you started with.

BUT the REAL quesion is, does the now turbo 40hp use more fuel than a NA 40hp. ?!?!?


as to the OP

you can also see near 100% load if brushogging or simular were your consantly adjusting your input speed to keep from bogging the motor = near 100% load

or if you run a stationary machine (like a PTO generator) will/can tax the tractor at near 100% load if things are sized right.

 

[brandoro]

My experience, and what I have read, having owned turbo gas and turbo diesel engines/vehicles, a gas engine on boost is terribly hard on fuel because a lot more fuel is injected to keep the engine from running too lean and also to help cool things, fuel is actually added as a coolant. A diesel on boost is all good, you are getting more power from the same amount of fuel because you are getting a more complete burn. The gas turbo, I would be very carefull to keep it from going on boost unless I really needed the power because of the serious increase in fuel used, the turbo diesel I tried to always have on boost because of the improved fuel economy. This was even more noticeable at higher elevations, anything above 4000feet the diesel was not happy until it was on boost. I also discovered that if I could keep the engine running fairly warm it would help the fuel economy too. To this end I would take the fan blade off in the fall and put it behind the seat, even the clutched fan would slow warmup and cool more than needed when driving.
To avoid the next question, I keep track of fuel and mileage on every single tank, sometimes even noting weather conditions like a big headwind or heavy snow on the road.

 

[Mace Canute]

I also discovered that if I could keep the engine running fairly warm it would help the fuel economy too. To this end I would take the fan blade off in the fall and put it behind the seat, even the clutched fan would slow warmup and cool more than needed when driving.

You've hit the proverbial nail on the head there! Running fanless in winter is a very smart move! Most people don't appreciate how much better their engines, especially diesels, run at full operating temperatures and a lot would be surprised at how high a temperature you can run them with no problems.

 

[lawn_king]

I burn a gallon per hour in my 3540 when its under serious load, a little more if im running the ac.

 

[Redneck in training]

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.

I second that. Turbos have lover specific fuel consumption. Turbos recover energy from exhaust and use it to cover suction losses in the intake.

 

[patrick_g]

MY Kubota (NA Diesel with 39 HP) can burn a little more than a gal per hour if you work it really hard but that is NOT TYPICAL.

You don't get something for nothing. Fuel consumption is related to work performed (assuming efficiencies are similar between the large and small engine.) A smaller engine, turbo or not, may burn fuel at a slower rate but takes more hours to do the job. The larger HP machine doesn't always burn more fuel per hour but will if you ask it to do work at a rate faster than the little machine.

This last statement (given similar efficiencies) has to be true.

The "basal metabolism" of a diesel burns fuel when it runs whether or not it is doing anything useful. The larger the displacement the greater the basal metabolism. Turbo diesels have a dual personality. At idle or light loading (low turbo boost) their basal metabolism is low like the non-turbo engine BUT when worked hard (significant turbo boost) they produce more power per unit of displacement than non-turbo and typically do it at least as efficiently (fuel consumed per HP-Hour) and sometimes more efficiently.

The chief reason folks get the idea that turbo diesels burn more fuel is because they can BUT while producing more power. Properly operating turbo diesels DO NOT burn more fuel to do the same job and may burn less.

I have a non turbo diesel tractor, Kubota Grand L-4610HSTC with over a thousand hours on the meter. I get by fine without a turbo but would not have "dodged" buying this tractor if it had been turbo as I like turbo diesels.

Pat
Pat

 

[Kyle_in_Tex]

Turbos give you more torque and torque is what gets the work done.

e.meyers, nothing personal, but I think you might be splitting pennies. If you are only going to use your tractor a few times a month for a few hours the fuel costs are negligible. If you really want to save money, find yourself a clean used machine and save thousands.

Low usage would lead me to a NA engine. Nothing likes to sit for a month or more unused.