Any news on gas engine CUTS?

[mikehaugen]

I wonder if anyone has any data for the simplicity legacy xl's? They are about as close as you will get to a scut with a gas engine, well then I guess maybe a x700 series deere is close. I have not compared the two to see which is more "tractor" like. The only problem is, both of those seem to have a lawn mower engine stuffed into a scaled down tractor frame. I think what the op is about would be more of an "industrial" engine, and (like tractors) the engine would be a rigid mount to the trans and rearend and would become the main frame for the tractor. I feel those engines would be a completely different animal, but maybe some info from anyone that has either of those would like to interject some experience as far as reliability, fuel usage, cold-start ability, or longevity? It may be helpful?

 

[aczlan]

No way,, it didn't get the recent windmill thread shut down...... Oh Wait! Where is that thread?

It is in Friendly Politics: http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/friendly-politics/329257-wind-generators.html

There's a nice comparison of the Eco Boost 2.7, Chevy 5.3 and Fiat 3.0 in here....short version is the 3.0 crushed them in fuel efficiency by over 20% in real-world testing (even though the 2.7 was in a truck that weighed 1,000lbs less).
Comparison: 2015 Ford F-150 vs. Ram 1500 vs. Chevrolet Silverado All Pages

From the article you linked:

When we put the 2.7-liter EcoBoost V-6 through our Real MPG testing, we saw 17 mpg city, 22 mpg highway, and 19 mpg combined. We also did a far less scientific test while the trucks were loaded down with the mats and divided the miles driven by the gallons pumped. In that test, we got 16.8 mpg.
The Ram EcoDiesel is EPA-rated at 19 mpg city, 27 mpg highway, and 22 mpg combined. In our Real MPG testing, it performed better than advertised, returning 20 mpg city, 28 mpg highway, and 23 mpg combined. Moreover, in our payload fuel economy test, it returned an observed 23 mpg.
The Ram's combined Real MPG is 21 percent better than the F-150's, covering the current 19-percent national price premium of diesel, though paying off the EcoDiesel's $3,120-$4,770 price premium would require time or a dramatic change in the fuel price landscape.

So, 21% fewer gallons used, but only 2% more dollars per mile for fuel.

Aaron Z

 

[hutchman]

It is in Friendly Politics: http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/friendly-politics/329257-wind-generators.html


From the article you linked:

So, 21% fewer gallons used, but only 2% more dollars per mile for fuel.

Aaron Z

That's saving the planet ... and 'having skin in the game'!

 

[buickanddeere]

That is your opinion....not a fact. Just because a SCUT or CUT doesn't run as many hours per day, week, or month doesn't make it a light duty cycle as you're suggesting. The duty cycle is the percentage of rated power that is normally used...actually, the percentage of time the engine can be run at 100% before it needs to be given a break. Further, the true determination of light duty versus heavy duty refers to automobiles, not tractors. The EPA tests all tractors with the same duty cycle standards.

I thought it would have been obvious the entire time so I never mentioned it. How about effiency of scale ? The cost of Tier IV emissions on a 300HP farm tractor is a small percent of the overall price. Tier IV emissions equipment on a 35HP tractor costs a much large percent of the smaller tractor's overall price. Down in the $9,000 to 25,000 range vs the $200,000plus range.

 

[buickanddeere]

I didn't dream it up, it was the result from the comparison of the three trucks in question. You could have answered your own question by reading the facts as they were posted in the article.

As always, you try putting actual dollars on some fictional 5 year timeframe, using a fixed, fictional price for gas and diesel that simply doesn't exist. The price of the two fuels will vary regionally, and over time, so your numbers are just a guess.

When the price of diesel drops here, the way it has in all of the rest of the world following ULSD implementation, even you won't be able to find a way to twist the math in favor of the gasser.

You talk of my "fictional" proposed 5 year prices to calculate operating costs. Yet you yourself are calculating in the hope of something that has not happened , that is for ULSD to drop to less than gasoline . Sorry but the government tax grabbers , refineries and the EPA are never letting that sad cash cow go.

 

[GManBart]

You talk of my "fictional" proposed 5 year prices to calculate operating costs. Yet you yourself are calculating in the hope of something that has not happened , that is for ULSD to drop to less than gasoline . Sorry but the government tax grabbers , refineries and the EPA are never letting that sad cash cow go.

Again, you're using an argument already proven to be false. The refineries have let go of a huge amount of profit recently when they dropped the price of gasoline 50%. The tax difference between gas and diesel has been steady for a long time, and is only $.06 to start with.

The companies that own the refineries here are some of the same companies that own refineries in the rest of the world....and they dropped their prices back down after they paid off the ULSD costs. The supply and demand issue in this country has gotten better, and is predicted to continue to get better as refineries adjust to the new demand. These aren't guesses, and aren't wild theories.

Either way, let us know when you get your tractor company off the ground and get some actual comparison numbers for a gasser CUT....I'm sure it will be interesting. :thumbsup:

 

[buickanddeere]

How do you think that will hold up when you put an equal trailer behind both of them?

I don't dispute the price difference between gas and diesel is significant right now, but there are reasons for that....ULSD implementation costs, lower supply, and rising demand for diesel all have kept the price high. They are starting to pay off the ULSD costs, and the supply is closing on the demand. Those three things will change, and there's no reason to believe the U.S. won't follow the model that we've seen in the rest of the world, or close enough to make the price gap so close gassers won't be able to compete.

The numbers still hold up with trailer towing as both the diesel and gas will burn more when towing a load. As for all this trailer towing talk. In reality the amount of pickup truck owners that tow anything at all are rare.Look around gas and diesel pickups are driven as personal transportation hauling pets, groceries and sports equipment. The number of diesel pickups are much fewer than gas. The number of diesels on the road with an actual hitch is a smaller minority yet.Fewer still the diesels that tow anything more than a car trailer , bumper pull camping trailer or a bass boat and that is 100 to 1000 miles a year at most.The actual number of pickups sold that actually tow over 10,000 lbs on a 5th wheel hitch is a exceedingly small market share. Even then the distances are short trips under an hour.not cross country hauling 40hrs a week.
People who talk diesel towing power and diesel towing effiency are 99% dreamers that they are big time truckers just like the He Man TB ads "Dodge Tough".
It's 2015, not the past glory years of diesel pickups from 1988 to 2006 . When pump diesel was cheap, coloured farm diesel cheaper yet and before particulate filters/urea injection.

 

[buickanddeere]

The OP was about GDI tractors which there are none. So then you start comparing trucks, cars, chainsaws, boats, ATV's (I probably missed some) to diesel engines and set up this Tier IV - light vs heavy straw man and started beating it and anyone with a different opinion with colorful comments about bubba, and country bumbkin talk like we're all idiots.

I simply provided a healthy dose of reality to the points you tried to make. You refuse to consider economy of pre-2007 diesel's as if they don't exist anymore and want to compare everything to Tier IV only. If someone brings up a pre-2007 or pre Tier IV engine you claim it's 50yr. old technology. And you refuse to acknowledge GDI's will be more comples/expensive once PM specs hit it in 2017. You even posted slides that show how wildly complex (much more than a Tier IV diesel) things are headed.

Even my last matchup of the GDI to the pre-2007 TDI isn't a fair fight because my diesel's have EGR and EGR Cooler so I already have some PM equipment and still blow the doors off GDI without it. If you compare the previous Mk III/A3 TDI to today's GDI it gets its butt kicked even worse because the TDI's during that era (pre 1999.5) got the best MPG because they had even less emission stuff on them.

Your whole argument centered around comparing economy of GDI's (of which two or more of the companies are being sued for false MPG claims not matching real world driving MPG's) to Tier IV diesel's and your argument totally fell apart if pre-2007 diesel's were considered ... all the while ignoring the fact there are not PM standards for gasoline at the moment but they are coming.

Diesel is best suited for tractors today due to all manner of reasons that have been beat to death here ... economy, torque, long term fuel storage stability, safety etc., etc. and the MARKET bears that out.

How do you make a point with souped up non stock diesel ?
Ever looked at the rust on a 9 plus year old pickup truck?
Ever look at the odometer of a 9 plus year old pickup truck.
Does the 2006 or older pickup sold used in 2015 come with a supply of pre ULSD diesel fuel prices at 2006 prices below gasoline ?
Why are you dragging the HD industrial, comercial diesel into the conversation again? We are talking light duty service .
I have already explained to you that yes the HD diesel operating 24/7 operating an irrigation pump or ship's propulsion at full power and full load in 100+ HP applications for thousands of hours per year is one application. In particular the older Tier II and previous diesels. When it's time to replace and purchase newer. The Tier III and Tier IV spend too much time and cost too much money with a factory tech trouble shooting emissions equipment.
Just as an aside. The HD use of spark ignition engines operating on Fuel other than diesel are preferred at NG pipeline pumping stations . Have you ever seen co-generation plants for industry to shave peak power demand and provide process heat. They are wimpy spark ignition engines, not your HD diesels. Then there are aircraft gassers making full rated power on take off and climb. Then cruising at a high percent of max power for hours at a time. Why not use diesel in airplanes for fuel Efficiency.
For John Q Public driving down the road, the trails, going fishing and Bubba doing yard work. In the days of Tier IV emissions and the price of ULSD. They are better off with a DI gas.
As previously pointed out. Fork lifts are a prime example of reliable spark ignition engine used above the light duty rating 40+ hrs a week years at a time.

 

[buickanddeere]

I wonder if anyone has any data for the simplicity legacy xl's? They are about as close as you will get to a scut with a gas engine, well then I guess maybe a x700 series deere is close. I have not compared the two to see which is more "tractor" like. The only problem is, both of those seem to have a lawn mower engine stuffed into a scaled down tractor frame. I think what the op is about would be more of an "industrial" engine, and (like tractors) the engine would be a rigid mount to the trans and rearend and would become the main frame for the tractor. I feel those engines would be a completely different animal, but maybe some info from anyone that has either of those would like to interject some experience as far as reliability, fuel usage, cold-start ability, or longevity? It may be helpful?

Those X700 series garden tractors in the 9,000 to 15,000 range iirc . There is a $1200 or $1800 premium paid for the diesel option.
Higher cost of diesel over gasoline will not save any daily operating costs to pay down the diesel option, let alone the higher diesel service costs.

 

[Danny C]

The numbers still hold up with trailer towing as both the diesel and gas will burn more when towing a load. As for all this trailer towing talk. In reality the amount of pickup truck owners that tow anything at all are rare.Look around gas and diesel pickups are driven as personal transportation hauling pets, groceries and sports equipment. The number of diesel pickups are much fewer than gas. The number of diesels on the road with an actual hitch is a smaller minority yet.Fewer still the diesels that tow anything more than a car trailer , bumper pull camping trailer or a bass boat and that is 100 to 1000 miles a year at most.The actual number of pickups sold that actually tow over 10,000 lbs on a 5th wheel hitch is a exceedingly small market share. Even then the distances are short trips under an hour.not cross country hauling 40hrs a week.
People who talk diesel towing power and diesel towing effiency are 99% dreamers that they are big time truckers just like the He Man TB ads "Dodge Tough".
It's 2015, not the past glory years of diesel pickups from 1988 to 2006 . When pump diesel was cheap, coloured farm diesel cheaper yet and before particulate filters/urea injection.

I have personally driven the Ram EcoDiesel on two ocasions for several hund km each time. On avagerage, by the computer, it gets about 10mpg better fuel economy than my '13 Ram 5.7 Hemi. Didn't matter the driving condition, driving speed, towing trailers, etc., it was a 10mpg spread.

With the above being said, I have calculated that with the premimum cost of the EcoDiesel engine, the average difference between gas and diesel prices in my area over the past 6 months, and the increased fuel economy of the EcoDiesel, that it will take ~77,000KM to pay for the EcoDiesel engine 100%.

Of course, if I were to sell the truck at that time, I would realise an increased resale value for the truck because of the EcoDiesel, making it come out even further ahead.

On another note, maybe CUT's and SCUT's should be powered by on-board diesel generators and have electric motors powering each control instead of hydraulics..............but I digress...........