Earthforce EF-500/I-R BL575 update

_RaT_ · Jun 22, 2003

It may be swirling, but its not got much room to do it, remember, the fuel is not introduced till about top dead center, that gives it very, very little room in a very confining and pressured packed enviroment. Most of that cylinder never gets to see the fuel mixture like in gas engines. Actually, yes, an intercooler I am told can reduce the inflow air temperature allowing for even more air in the cylinder simply because cooler air is more dense. Tubos on gas engines can create such high temperatures that early failure due to overheated surfaces can result. With a diesel, a lean mixture will mean a cooler engine unlike a gas engine where it could actually melt the pistons (like I did to my old fuel injected VW). All said, I understand that even the first diesel was designed to use a air compresor to introduce more air into the cylinder or positive inflow pressure. Relying on the piston to do all the work while pulling it through the various passages really sucks, much like my non turbo 7.3 L Navistar. Rat...

PhatBoy · Jun 22, 2003

I found a PDF brochure which lists capacities for the IR BL575, and a picture.

Off-topic...
Have you seen the Bobcat Toolcat ? 4WD, all-wheel steer. Kind of different. They got a contest going where you could win the use of one for a year.

Charlie_Iliff · Jun 23, 2003

I'd like to add yet another guess, er .. proposed scientific explanation, as to why power, efficiency and longevity can all be increased by a turbo. Turbos allow the designers more flexibility in matching the intakes, valves, exhausts and cams by broadening the torque peak. This lets them design the engines more easily to run at their most efficient RPMs, and good power output can be achieved at a bit lower RPMs, thus reducing rotational forces and losses.
Make sense?

MChalkley · Jun 28, 2003

Well, you guys have left me on this one - I try to stay clear of theory and complicated stuff, as ya'll know. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

I can tell you this, though: I think my fuel consumption is going to start going up now, because the EF-500 now has AC!!! /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

I had DEAA in Atlanta, GA put in a Red Dot 22k btu rooftop unit. I've got to put some protection around it, but otherwise it's complete. I'll try to get some pictures up soon. We had to swap out the original 40-amp alternator for a new 70-amp one, and it took a bit of shoe-horning to get the much larger alternator and the compressor under the hood but it sure does improve hot weather life in the cab!

Bird · Jun 28, 2003

The extra fuel consumption will be well worth it!

MossRoad · Jun 28, 2003

<font color="blue">the EF-500 now has AC!!! </font>

Cool! (sorry, couldn't resist).

AMP762 · Jun 28, 2003

Well here goes my s.w.a.g. The increase in power causes an increase in heat,which heads and pistons do not like thus shorter life.this is true in farm tractors anyway. /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Paul

MChalkley · Nov 23, 2003

With almost 500 hours on the EF-500 now, my overall average fuel consumption has risen to .566 gph. However, the tanks I've burned since adding the AC have been higher. I estimate that the AC adds about .05 gph to the consumption rate. It's a bit hard to tell, because I actually burned .735 gph on one tank, the third after the AC was added, even though the AC was only on about 2/3 of the time. But the whole tank was pretty much non-stop running as hard as the machine would go through deep sloppy mud carrying all the muck I could get in the high-capacity 1.75 cu/yd bucket (over 5,000 lbs per trip including the weight of the bucket...). (It sure gave the Michelin XM37's a work out, too!) The engine was working so hard that the coolant temperature stayed at the top of the normal range almost constantly and the hydraulic oil temperature was 3/4 of maxiumum in the normal range. Bottom line is: I can't imagine a circumstance in which the EF-500 will burn more than .75 gph, no matter what. It's just not capable of working any harder than it was for that tank full. That Kubota 56-hp turbo diesel is a marvel of efficiency, as far as I'm concerned...

_RaT_ · Nov 24, 2003

That is amazing. I'm seeing Kubotas smaller diesels in more products all the time. Miller uses them in its engine driven welders, Bobcat uses them in its various machines from skidsteers to excavators. Your GPH is truly superb. I've not seen anything match that, particularly at that HP.

Bird · Nov 24, 2003

I did not keep records of tractor fuel consumption that were as precise as what I keep on my cars/trucks, but figured my average fuel consumption on the B2710 to have been approximately .7 gph. So I think your EarthForce with the larger Kubota engine gets better fuel economy. That makes me wonder why. Is it because of the turbo? Is the larger engine actually not having to work as hard as the smaller one? Is there a difference in the interior of the cylinders that results in more efficient combustion? Does the EarthForce have more efficient hydraulics requiring less energy from the engine? Or did I just overestimate my own fuel consumption? /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif I know you've kept more precise records than I did, and it's my understanding that turbo diesels are more efficient, but with the larger, heavier machine and that much larger engine . . . just idle curiosity, I guess.