Oil & Fuel Fuel Efficiency

[MadDog]

Ah, Soundguy, now we're talking about YOUR efficiency (which takes time into account) rather than fuel efficiency.

Your own experiential data suggests pretty much of a tradeoff, i.e., the heavier machine and larger fuel consumption/unit time was about offset by larger implement and shorter time to do the job.

Plainly, in the real world, where time is $$, that's a big saving even though you burned about the same amount of fuel.

This proves (and it is reassuring that it does /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif ) that it won't be an extravagance for any of us to move up to larger and more powerful tractors. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I'll flag this thread to show it to SWMBO when the time comes.....

 

[stevenf]

MadDog, You won't want to show this to your SWMBO whatever that is and I have very little and not very good experience in the tractor world having used my dads old ford years ago to move dirt and rock with a loader and now owning a M9000 but something that I haven't seen and something that should probably be considered is the equipment cost new is substantially more in the big stuff plus parts, lots more fluid volume, implements if you size them for the machine and completely guessing but they probably cost more to work on. Mines still in warranty so I haven't experienced the repair side yet, its a Kubota maybe it'll never see a wrench turner but Oh wait I'm awake again it most likely will at some point. I think my wayroundabout post boils down to its probably best to size your machine and be happy that it doesn't need to be bigger, although I'll have to say my 90hp machine is fun and awesome and all its also very expensive when something breaks. Also somebody posted their M9000 used 3.? gallons an hour I guess I'm not using mine hard enough at this point I've got a pretty accurate usage record I bought a 300 gallon tank and had it filled its the only thing on the ranch that uses diesel, the tractor had 3hrs or so when I got it, it has 211hrs on it now and I have over 75 gallons of fuel left so I'm thinking for mine its more like a gallon an hour. Many of my projects don't require full pto 540 rpms and I'm sure that is where the difference is but so far I'm very happy with fuel consumption.
Steve

 

[Soundguy]

For me, the time savings was the important part. i work 6 days a week usually.. and need to mow, during season, about 1 time a month. that leaves me about 3 days a month to have a life.... With my old setup.. it really blew a day, and then i had to finish the day by doing the undone weekly chores around the farm. Now.. mowing can be done by 10am if I get a good start.. and cores done by late lunch.. and then still have tme to relax or take the wife out.

Course there was an up front cost to that.. I had to trade that nice new 1920 in, plus another 3ys ofpayments to get the bigger tractor... Havn't regretted the bigger tractor.. though do miss the 1920...

The extra 3$ of diesel was low on the priority list... finishing in half the time was a major plus!.. course.. looking at total cost of ownership... the 7610s takes about 3x the fluids in quarts than the 1920.. and the 10' mower was about 260$ per foot /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Soundguy

 

[Volfandt]

Heres an example of what I've personally observed.

BX23 SubCUT, 22hp 3cyl liquid cooled diesel, 60" MMM, approx weight 1700lbs.
Mow's 2.5 acres in 1.75hrs and uses approx 1.5gals of fuel.

JDL130 lawn tractor, 23hp 2cyl air cooled gasoline engine, 48" MMM, approx weight 600lbs. Mowed 2.5 acres in 2.5hrs and used approx 3gals of fuel.

Both engines were run at full throttle and both were HST's.

In this case a much larger & heavier tractor w/a similar hp rateing as the smaller & lighter gasoline powered lawn tractor mowed the same area in less time and at approx 1/2 the fuel usage.

Perhaps the diesel to gasoline comparison isn't apples to apples but I thought I'd throw it out there anyways /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Volfandt

 

[Soundguy]

I'd have to say that the lawnmower engine vs diesel tractor engine was a raisin to watermellon comparison.

The 22hp diesel tractor engine is probably exactly that on a dyno, as equipped. that 23hp lawnmower engine hp # was probably the bare engine run on 0w5 oil, on special fuel with special carb settings.. no air filter or parasitic belt / pump devices, run at an rpm range outside of normal user range, and that was the dyno number that was clocked at the last 1/8 second before the engine detonated on the stand... I.e., the engine probably puts less than half that advertised hp to the blades or ground.. whereas your diesel will probably put 90% of it's hp tot he blades.. and at least 50% to the ground even in bad conditions... that lawnmower engine is like weedwhacker technology compaired to your diesel tractor. their carbs are so simple.. that is one reason they run so ineficiently.. less fine tuned metering... I had some brigs engines... the carbs between 8-10-12.5 hp models were 100% identical, down to the main jet... neat huh? A closer comparison would to use an antique tractor in the 23 hp range as a test case.. etc..

Soundguy

 

[Volfandt]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( A closer comparison would to use an antique tractor in the 23 hp range as a test case.. etc..
)</font>

OK, I used to occasionally bushhog the same area w/a 48 Ferguson TE20 and a Howse 5' rotary mower. I've read where the TE20 had anywhere from 20 to 24hp which varied from different sources. The Continental engine in the TE20 was a 4cyl inline overhead valve powerplant and mine ran pretty good. It used your basic updraft carb.
The fuel tank held around 10 gals. Usually I finish mowed that area but I'd bushhog it on occaison if I let it get to long between mowings so these results are skewered a bit.
The time frame would be similar to the BX23, maybe alittle longer but it would drink the gas. Almost 1/2 a tank. I'll guesstimate it at 4 gals to mow 2.5 acres.

1st thing I noticed after working that diesel for the 1st time was how much more fuel efficient it was over the 4 different gasoline powered machines I have mowed that field with.

As for those B&S carbs, I wouldn't doubt it. But Kohlers are a differnt beast. The carb off of my K181 won't run a 10hp K engine and a 10hp carb would run way too rich for the 8hp.

 

[Farmwithjunk]

Back in 1969, John Deere introduced a tractor designated the model "4000" It was essentially a stripped down 4020. It employed some components from previous models. (i.e., tranny/rear end parts from the 4010) No battery covers, no sheet metal covering seat suspention, less available options, and less over-all weight than the 4020. BUT. . . It had the SAME 96 HP 404 cu. in. diesel engine.

The purpose was twofold. One (probably being the MAIN reason) was to compete with the IH model 706. Bigger than Deere's 3020, and smaller than the 4020) It was quite a few bucks cheaper than a 4020. It filled a void in Deere's arsonal. #2 reason, and what Deere's advertising centered around was this. They claimed that a buyer who owned a 3020, and was ready to step up to more power, could buy a 4000, use the same implements as they were using with the 3020, and run FASTER in the field, at a lower throttle setting. That would get more work done, save a lot of cash on implements, and would be as productive as pulling bigger imlements at a slower speed, therefore, saving some money there. They also claimed field tests proved this concept (Gear up/throttle down) would save fuel.

The entire Deere line at that time was the "New Generation" tractors. They replaced the old 2 cylinder line. Their claim to fame was it's "HIGH HORSEPOWER TO WEIGHT RATIO". A typical 4010 was just a few pounds heavier than the 730 it replaced, but nearly double the available HP. They were both rated to pull a 5-bottom plow, only the 4010 would pull it almost twice as fast. Big fuel savings as well as higher productivity.

Also to consider, some engine manufacturers are better than others at fuel economy. And within those brands, some particular engine sizes are more economic.

The "standard" for the AG tractor industry has always been "The Nebraska Test". They rate HP hour per gallon for fuel economy. The big winners and big loosers in that area come from all sizes, big or small.

 

[Soundguy]

The te and to 20 were more along the lines of 27hp.. just like the flathead 4 cyl ford 8n. PTO hp was 25, and drawbar was 20. 129CID.. vs the 119cid for the flat head 4 that a ford N used.

Soundguy