Fuel consumption

[bruceatlam]

I have a 3039 and with just aroudn the house kind of stuff (loader work, cutting and the like) I'm getting about 9-10 hrs on a tank.

This one was helpful for me ---- Thanks ---- creates a good image for me. More like this would be nice.

 

[blucoondawg]

This one was helpful for me ---- Thanks ---- creates a good image for me. More like this would be nice.

Yes I agree that post was informative, many others on here apparently think its foolish to ask such a question as fuel mileage on a tractor, but at prices approaching $5 its something to consider. I know there are certain brands which can attain pto speed at a lesser engine rpm and certain engines themselves are designed to operate more efficiently than others, guess I will have to look else where for this information, I'm sure its out there.

 

[Guesseral]

I can brush hog about 5 acres on less than a 1/2 tank, but never timed it.

 

[Rainbody]

About 1/3 of a tank for 5 acres shredding at about 2400 rpm(540 pto) in 3 2 for gear. Did a another 5 at 2400 rpm in 4 2 and burned 1/4 of a tank. Hope this helps. All on level dry ground.

 

[toxicjeeper]

Yes I agree that post was informative, many others on here apparently think its foolish to ask such a question as fuel mileage on a tractor, but at prices approaching $5 its something to consider. I know there are certain brands which can attain pto speed at a lesser engine rpm and certain engines themselves are designed to operate more efficiently than others, guess I will have to look else where for this information, I'm sure its out there.

cry me a river.. I put more into my reply than you did on your intital question..

just ribbin ya

 

[Sublifer]

Yes I agree that post was informative, many others on here apparently think its foolish to ask such a question as fuel mileage on a tractor, but at prices approaching $5 its something to consider. I know there are certain brands which can attain pto speed at a lesser engine rpm and certain engines themselves are designed to operate more efficiently than others, guess I will have to look else where for this information, I'm sure its out there.

Nobody said it is foolish, just that it is difficult to compare. There are 100's of tasks a person could put a tractor to and there are dozens of ways to do each one of them. Slow at low rpm, slow at high rpm, quick at low rpm, quick at high rpm, or anywhere in between. I personally haven't timed myself or checked fuel usage for any particular task but on average I would say I tend to use a bit less than a gallon per hour. I do most of my work in the 1800-2200 rpm area which is below PTO speed for my R4047.

BUT, me saying this does not mean the next person will get the same rates of consumption. The next guy could have a heavier or lighter foot on getting to his working area, he may run rpm's faster or slower, in a higher or lower gear in swampy or dry conditions, or with any other different vaiable and he may get 2 hrs per gallon or work at 2 gallons per hour.

IF someone does some significant controls in testing by controlling as many of the variables as possible then you can have an accurate comparison and a gauge by which someone could judge if consumption rates on one tractor make it more worth getting or more worth avoiding.

TractorData.com is one site that is positioned to do this testing but its coverage is very spotty especially on off-brands. I checked 45hp tractors for LS, Kioti, Mahindra, Kubota, and Deere and the Deere was the only one with test results and I'm not sure 3 gallons per hour is accurate or meaningful.

TractorData.com John Deere 4520 tractor tests information

I checked a few more and found Case had one with tests too, at 3.4 ga/hr.

Still meaningless when wondering about LS tractors...

 

[northpolefolks]

I can say that my 5020 (47hp) gets alot of work done and is comfortable so far dependable when doing it. The fuels consumptions seems good to ME.

Fuel consumption comparisons would be great to know, however without one person performing the same 5-10 hours of work on each tractor compared we will never know.

I think if you can get the work done, in an acceptable amount of time, and the fuel bill is reasonable for YOUR pocket book then it's good fuel consumption.

I think my Duramax pulling my trailer loaded with wheelers and two bull moose on the way back from hunting does great on fuel, but the guy in the Subaru station wagon with an "Obama for president" sticker thinks my fuel economy is criminal. We both have our opinions. So do different tractor owners.

 

[rsewill]

the guy in the Subaru station wagon with an "Obama for president" sticker thinks my fuel economy is criminal.

Really? Nice interjection.

 

[oldtoyboyd]

With all around use, my R4047 seems to use about 1 gallon per hour.

 

[Gary Fowler]

I quit worrying about fuel cost, it is what it is, and I am not going to sell my tractor and get something else because it supposedly gets .5 gal per hour better fuel economy. My total use per year doesnt justify even checking it.

I suppose that if I were in the major user side of things like the farmer my retired brother in law works part time for and during spring ground breaking season burns $250,000 per month in fuel, there would be some saving in getting the most fuel efficient tractors. The fact that he uses John Deeres might not mean anything though other than he likely gets better lease rates because the swaps them out every year. As everyone said, it is hard to compare tractor fuel economy even when side to side work in the same field doing ground engaging work as soil conditions are never the same from foot to foot. I think the only way that would equal the same would be to put a PTO water pump on one and a flow meter to record the exact number of gallons pumped then hook the other tractor to it and run the same gallons per minute rate and then check the fuel. That would be the same work at the same rate, anything else other than a dynamometer test would be just estimated and a dynamometer test wouldnt run very long without putting excess wear on the dyno.