Any news on gas engine CUTS?

[buickanddeere]

That entire post is either wrong, or a complete guess.

Lots of people with SCUTs and CUTS run tillers for food plots, or rotary cutters for brush cutting, or snow throwers...all of those can be for hours on end. If they don't have big fields, they don't need big machines, so the idea they bought a machine too small is simply wrong.

Your guess of 50-100 hours per year is a guess. There are no hard stats on that I've ever seen posted, but I've looked at a lot of used CUTs machines that averaged well over 100 hours per year. In fact, to prove how silly this statement was, I just went to Craigslist, did a search on Kubota and Deere and looked at what came up for SCUTs/CUTs (ads with year and hours listed).

2013 L3540 with 480 hours.
2005 BX2230 with 645 hours.
2013 L4600 with 95 hours.
2004 L5030 with 1054 hours.
2011 B2920 with 465 hours.
2004 JD 4210 with 2500 hours.
2014 JD 1025R with 50 hours.
2008 JD 2305 with 769 hours.
1998 JD 4200 with 838 hours.

That's a low of 50 hours a year, and a high of 240 hours a year. So sure, some folks run their SCUTs and CUTs 50-100 hours, but plenty of folks go well over that. Saying they're just "puttering around" is yet another guess on your part. You aren't there, you haven't seen, so you really can't say how they're using the machines.

Contractors using CUT and SCUT have been mixed into that group. Contractors tend to trade machines in before warrenty expires .Or trade and buy new to avoid taxes.
We have other posters here that have found mostly 50-100 hr per year machines . Over a 20hr span of ownership , the bulk of hours will be in the first 1-3 years when the machine is still a novelty . And until loader or backhoe landscaping jobs are completes. Usage per year will drop over the ownership of the machine .
The use of 100 or 300brs a year is still a mute point . 300hrs a year isn't going to save on the cost of fuel over gasoline . Nor will the gasser engine wear out before the tractor chassis expires .
Getting back to spark ignition engines replacing small light and medium duty Tier V diesels in some select applications . Are you saying that Kubota and Whiteman don't know what they are doing ?

 

[buickanddeere]

I can't say it any plainer.

Eugene

Why do you want 23 to 1 compression in a spark ignition engine ?

 

[GManBart]

You might be right, but from the Kubs we have Im not seeing inferiority in the duty cycle at 100% load supported by the smaller sizes. For sure, my smallest tractor sees 100% load in a greater proportion of its life than do the gear tractors. Just hold the pedal right at the bog point.

I can totally see how the smaller engines get run hard, especially with HST...just as you describe. Still, would you expect those smaller machines to routinely go 10K hours or so before any sort of major work? I think that's a pretty common expectation on the bigger machines.

 

[arrow]

There is more involved than most here will ever understand! I also have a few engines with compression ratios higher than 11;5 that run on 87.

The new Mazda engines run 14 to 1 CR's. They also can run on 87 or higher octane. They can do so for several reasons that has to do with molecular cracking of modern gasoline (which is the part I do not care to understand) along with clever engineered sensoring of intake combustion. Their CO2 particulate measures from 119 -144. They run this high to get the most burning efficiency as possible.

 

[arrow]

The reason why diesels have such high compression ratios is so hey will start in cool weather .
I don't know how to get some people to understand that high compression isn't an advantage when operating but a high expansion ratio is very desirable .

I thought the reason CI engines (diesels) have high compression is so they "run" since nothing else but high temps are creating ignition. Expansion ratio and compression ratio in a normally aspirated gas engine is usually talked about in the same circles and tend to run equivalent. When turbines or supercharging is introduced, you then achieve differentiations or if the cycle is measured after TDC.

It is however the expansion ratio that makes a diesel more efficient.

 

[GManBart]

Contractors using CUT and SCUT have been mixed into that group. Contractors tend to trade machines in before warrenty expires .Or trade and buy new to avoid taxes.

All of the ads referenced appeared to be private sellers using them on their own property. None of the machines I listed would be right at the end of their warranty in most cases in that they're either too new (2013/2014) or too old (2008 or older).

We have other posters here that have found mostly 50-100 hr per year machines .

Sure, I listed machines in the 50-100hr range, they just were in the minority.

Over a 20hr span of ownership , the bulk of hours will be in the first 1-3 years when the machine is still a novelty . And until loader or backhoe landscaping jobs are completes. Usage per year will drop over the ownership of the machine .

Another guess on your part. Some folks buy machines a few years ahead of when they're going to put a lot of hours on them....like planning for their retirement big project, but they want the machine now. Regardless, you're making this up out of an opinion, hoping to support your position.

The use of 100 or 300brs a year is still a mute point . 300hrs a year isn't going to save on the cost of fuel over gasoline . Nor will the gasser engine wear out before the tractor chassis expires .

There is no such thing as a mute point. Do you mean a moot point? Either way, it's neither moot, or mute, and this is yet another point you can't answer definitively because the data simply doesn't exist.

The only way to answer this question would be to have a manufacturer actually build the engine you're theorizing about. At that point we'd know the cost differential to a similarly performing diesel engine. Then we'd be able to calculate the difference in actual fuel usage for the two. That would leave the current cost of fuel to be the last variable. With all of that we could figure out how many hours of use it would take to even out. Until you have all of those parts of the equation, you're simply guessing.

 

[arrow]

The only way to answer this question would be to have a manufacturer actually build the engine you're theorizing about. At that point we'd know the cost differential to a similarly performing diesel engine. Then we'd be able to calculate the difference in actual fuel usage for the two. That would leave the current cost of fuel to be the last variable. With all of that we could figure out how many hours of use it would take to even out. Until you have all of those parts of the equation, you're simply guessing.

I think an interesting take on this is the new stand alone small displacement Toyota engines (1.0 and 1.3L) These use the "Atkinson" cycle as opposed to the patented Otto cycle and they actually have differentiated compression and exhaust strokes due to crankshaft design. The Atkinson engine is one that has all 4 cycles happening with one crank rotation.

 

[GManBart]

Getting back to spark ignition engines replacing small light and medium duty Tier V diesels in some select applications . Are you saying that Kubota and Whiteman don't know what they are doing ?

I wanted to address this one individually. This is yet another example of you making things up as fact, that are opinion, or simply don't exist.

There is no such thing as "Tier V" emission standards. In fact, they aren't even proposed, or under discussion, much less scheduled for implementation.

Some people are speculating that there will be such a thing called Tier V emission standards, but the current belief is that if it happens, it's probably 10+ years away (the government simply can't come up with an idea and actually implement it much faster that that). There is also significant debate as to what any such standards might involve.

Some experts propose that increased standards would no longer focus on particulate size in emissions, but would rather focus on fuel efficiency, the way have for on-road vehicles. They suggest this because the focus on fuel efficiency for on-road vehicles has led to a decrease in total emissions, and a reduction in particulate size...win-win.

Regardless, saying "Tier V standards are coming" the way you have (repeatedly) is untrue and misleading.

 

[terryknight]

This is far and away the most entertaining thread on TBN at the moment (no i have no hard data, just my feeling). The amount of bullsh!t going back and forth is unbelievable. Can a gas engine be made to work, no doubt in my mind, I don't know if it is in the manufactures best interest to do it, maybe we could get a hold of a Kubota, Deere, LS, Daedong, etc. rep and ask them. I wouldn't mind seeing it I like choices. In the long run I don't think much would change, I doubt they'd sell many more tractors. As for the costs of fuel depends one where you are and what you do, but for putt putting around as people are talking about doing it won't cost a whole lit more to run whichever fuel is more expensive at the time. I bought a bigger tractor to have more capacity and be able to putt putt around at lower RPMs. where I am diesel costs a little more ~$0.10 today, but off road diesel costs much less and ethanol free fuel costs 4.49.

Sure, I listed machines in the 50-100hr range, they just were in the minority.

you're normally very good about not making mistakes but this is just flat wrong

shall we (red is mine)

2013 L3540 with 480 hours. 2 years old 240 hr/yr
2005 BX2230 with 645 hours. 10 years old 64.5 hr/yr
2013 L4600 with 95 hours. 2 years old 47.5 hr/yr
2004 L5030 with 1054 hours. 11 years old 95.8 hr/yr
2011 B2920 with 465 hours. 4 years old 116.3 hr/yr
2004 JD 4210 with 2500 hours. 11 years old 227.3 hr/yr
2014 JD 1025R with 50 hours. 1 year old 50 hr/yr
2008 JD 2305 with 769 hours. 7 years old 109.9 hr/yr
1998 JD 4200 with 838 hours. 17 years old 49.3 hr/yr

That's a low of 50 hours a year, and a high of 240 hours a year. So sure, some folks run their SCUTs and CUTs 50-100 hours, but plenty of folks go well over that. Saying they're just "puttering around" is yet another guess on your part. You aren't there, you haven't seen, so you really can't say how they're using the machines.

so 9 tractors, 5 are in buickanddeeres guess of 50-100 hr/yr, or less, not much use, 2 are just over 100 at 109.9 and 116.3, to me that's closer to 50-100 hr/yr than the 1000 hr that has been thrown around in this thread, and 2 more in the low to mid 200s hr/yr.

i would agree with buickanddeere lots of people who buy tractors average 100ish hours a year or less, just my experience. no not everyone, and i would guess lots of the tractor enthuists on TBN are greater than that.

 

[terryknight]

you're normally very good about not making mistakes but this is just flat wrong

so 9 tractors, 5 are in buickanddeeres guess of 50-100 hr/yr, or less, not much use, 2 are just over 100 at 109.9 and 116.3, to me that's closer to 50-100 hr/yr than the 1000 hr that has been thrown around in this thread, and 2 more in the low to mid 200s hr/yr.

i would agree with buickanddeere lots of people who buy tractors average 100ish hours a year or less, just my experience. no not everyone, and i would guess lots of the tractor enthuists on TBN are greater than that.

i should clarify after rereading, technically you are correct 3/9 tractors fall in 50-100 hr/yr, 2 under, and 4 over, but I still thinking you are proving buickanddeeres point that lots of tractor owners don't put a whole lot of hours on their tractors every year.