Fuel economy or usage based on size

[Midniteoyl]

Fuel usage is based mostly on horsepower required to run implement. It is also based on how much power to move tractor, and frictional losses in engine and transmission, but these should be close to even. That being said, a 84" finish mower takes 40 horsepower (guess) to turn. 40 horsepower consumes approximately 2 gallons of diesel fuel an hour. So, each tractor will burn the same amount of fuel to make 40 horsepower. ... Philip.

:thumbsup:

 

[PHILIP8N]

If I am not mistaken a turbo will change things a little bit. I think i remember reading various engineering papers that an engine with a turbo is slightly more fuel efficient per horse power than a naturally aspirated engine is...

That is within reason. A 600 HP vs any 40 HP is not what I mean...

It is still the btu content and mass of fuel demanded to make required horsepower. Turbo has it's advantages, mainly more horsepower from smaller displacement, torque rise at decreasing engine rpm. I would not count specific fuel consumption as one of them, as it would be a small percentage. Philip.

 

[compact]

To really figure out the answer, one would need a Brake specific fuel consumption chart for the particular engine, then the RPM and torque load, etc. and then there is efficiency vs. wheel slip on the surfaces you run on, etc. Fairly hard to do. in general, bigger tractor uses more fuel for small jobs, until the smaller tractor gets overloaded, then the bigger one is better.

 

[Ken45101]

To really figure out the answer, one would need a Brake specific fuel consumption chart for the particular engine, then the RPM and torque load, etc. and then there is efficiency vs. wheel slip on the surfaces you run on, etc. Fairly hard to do. in general, bigger tractor uses more fuel for small jobs, until the smaller tractor gets overloaded, then the bigger one is better.

I suspect you have the best answer. With any setup reasonably matched to the task, fuel consumption should be pretty much the same with variables being engine efficiency (a 1950's engine would be less efficient).

But when your equipment is not matched to the task (either way too big, or way too small and overloaded) then fuel consumption would go up.

My M9540 and 15' Bushhog seems to gobble up the fuel. But I get done in 3 days what would take me two weeks with the M5040 and a 6' cutter. Fueling up the smaller tractor a couple of times over two weeks wouldn't seem all that noticeable compared to fueling the big one every day.

 

[Gale Hawkins]

Well, I think when you spend $XX,XXX on a tractor the concern about whether you get one gallon per hour verses 1.2 gallons per hour is pretty insignificant. If you can afford the tractor then you can afford to put fuel in it.

Sure, if you are running 60 hour weeks, 50 weeks a year there might be some significance to fuel costs but at a hundred hours or less per year (a typical hobby farm usage) there is no point sweating the small stuff.

Bingo!

 

[KYDan]

Echoing the others mate the tractor and mower to the job needed and other uses that best suits your needs. I am retired so a job I used to want to do in a week or last can now take longer and is of little consequence. I am maintaing (mowing) 40 acres and the MX5100 seems well suited to my needs. I have used larger tractors in the past and smaller ones for specific projects. Fuel consumption while significant is not a dominate factor. I am an unabashed Kubota fan, their dealer network and proximity were the main reason I went with them. I pulled a 5' rotary mower behind my L2900 as well as a 5' LP finishing mower. I now use a JD 5' zero turn for most of my finish mowing as it gives a better cut and is much faster. I pull a HD, 3 pt. hitch rotary cutter behind the MX and it is well mated. They key is to match the attachments to the tractor for optimal performance.