Full RPM or high idle? Bush hogging fuel efficiency

[284 International]

And if your tender feelings don't allow you to be questioned, maybe you should join a sewing circle with a bunch of old ladies.

The old ladies' sewing circle I used to get dragged to by my grandmother when I was a small child was as bad, or worse, as an internet forum for questioning sewing style, pattern, lifestyle choices, and innumerable other things! :laughing:

FWJ, I think it would almost have been easier had you directed your comment at those you think are advancing comical theories and concepts. Maybe I'm one, I don't know.

Theory is different than reality many times. Aerodynamic drag DOES require 8 times the power to proceed at twice the speed, but the power used to drive a tractor at walking/jogging speed against air resistance is negligible. 8 times nothing is nothing. The Nebraska tests, manufacturer recommendations, Farmswithjunk's documented fuel burn, and other's carefully documented experiences are certainly legitimate sources of clues, in my opinion. Separating the wheat from the chaff is hard, and can be confounded by poor presentation, even if the information is factual.

 

[indianaEPH]

Wow, this turned out to be a crazy thread.

As for my 2 cnts: I mow at about 2000rpm pulling a 6 ft bush hog. If I were to run at rated speed I could cut NO faster because my limitation is the tractor speed due to rough ground. At 2000rpm there is no lugging and the tractor just breezes though what I need to cut without any problems( probably have a lot of HP for the 6ft mower). IF I throttle up to 2600 It would take the same amount of time. THe only thing that would benifit is perhaps a slightly better cut. But it's a bush hog so who cares? I really cant see the difference. So, I'm quite sure that running a 2000 rpm vs 2600 saves me fuel, is less noisy, and very slightly less wear on the equipment. So that is were I run it.

 

[JDgreen227]

The old ladies' sewing circle I used to get dragged to by my grandmother when I was a small child was as bad, or worse, as an internet forum for questioning sewing style, pattern, lifestyle choices, and innumerable other things! :laughing:

FWJ, I think it would almost have been easier had you directed your comment at those you think are advancing comical theories and concepts. Maybe I'm one, I don't know.

Theory is different than reality many times. Aerodynamic drag DOES require 8 times the power to proceed at twice the speed, but the power used to drive a tractor at walking/jogging speed against air resistance is negligible. 8 times nothing is nothing. The Nebraska tests, manufacturer recommendations, Farmswithjunk's documented fuel burn, and other's carefully documented experiences are certainly legitimate sources of clues, in my opinion. Separating the wheat from the chaff is hard, and can be confounded by poor presentation, even if the information is factual.

Any members "documented fuel burn" can be considered nothing but hearsay UNLESS they can furnish proof of such RIDICULOUS claims....I want to see REAL WORLD FACTS WITH DOCUMENTED BACKUP and an unbiased witness to vouch for the claims.

 

[JoeBuyer]

I prefer actual over theory on these types of questions. The Nebraska Tractor test results are not based on theory, they are based on actual performance. Automobile manufacturers don't advertise MPG on theory, they advertise based on fiction.

 

[Soundguy]

, but as hard as it is to believe, not everyone listens to me.:laughing:

perish the thought!

 

[Soundguy]

Wow, this turned out to be a crazy thread.

wait till you see a gear vs hydro thread.

chevy vs ford.

dodge, you name it.. etc.

gas vs diesel.. SRW vs DRW.

any time you got a choice.. there are going to be grand canyon 'level' divides about which is 'better'....

In many cases there are so many variables that it is more subjective than objective. and with a heavilly leaning subjective issue.. you just can't make too many generalities.. or draw and hard conclusions fromt eh experiences or data provided, unless you have such similar circumstances..e tc.

 

[Domush]

Hey Domush I like your tractor. Great job.

thank you redneck. I learned a lot restoring it. One more knowledge base under my belt. Two gazillion to go..

Sent from my SCH-I500 using TractorByNet

 

[Domush]

Now that I've managed to quit laughing at some of these ridiculous replies, I'm gonna take a stab at this!.

SO....IMHO, which is based on (literally) 10's of thousands of hours under the gun, the best I can offer is, "it all depends".....

Bill

You just had to reply with "it depends" didn't you? Haha.

Your reply was quite informative. Thanks.

As for the flak you've gotten for calling some posts ridiculous... Silly. Some posts have been out there. In my experience on this forum, if I am general as to not pick on someone by name, everyone gets offended thinking it is about them (I mean really, isn't everything?) and when I point out something specific I am "calling out" someone and attacked for it, because apparently correcting false claims is frowned upon by those who also make false claims.

Long story short, those who give facts could care less whether someone believes them or not (they are facts either way), those who don't are intimately married to ensuring they are not questioned.

What you give is a guestimate based on thousands of hours of mowing the same lawns over and over again, which is pretty solid in my book. I'm not sure why so many are quick to jump on you about it. Theory only goes so far..

Sent from my SCH-I500 using TractorByNet

 

[aczlan]

Just spent ~2.5 hours mowing a field (supposed to be a hayfield but it grew more weeds than grass for the 2nd cutting).
I was running a 5' bushhog behind our L3830 (35 PTO HP) and I could definitely tell when I changed the PTO RPMs from 540 to 450. When I dropped the RPMs there were more short weed heads left uncut and a generally more ragged cut. Ground speed was 6.3 MPH per the speedo on the tractor with the PTO at 540RPMs, so probbaly ~5MPH actual.

Aaron Z

 

[CowboyRon]

You just had to reply with "it depends" didn't you? Haha.

Your reply was quite informative. Thanks.

As for the flak you've gotten for calling some posts ridiculous... Silly. Some posts have been out there. In my experience on this forum, if I am general as to not pick on someone by name, everyone gets offended thinking it is about them (I mean really, isn't everything?) and when I point out something specific I am "calling out" someone and attacked for it, because apparently correcting false claims is frowned upon by those who also make false claims.

Long story short, those who give facts could care less whether someone believes them or not (they are facts either way), those who don't are intimately married to ensuring they are not questioned.

What you give is a guestimate based on thousands of hours of mowing the same lawns over and over again, which is pretty solid in my book. I'm not sure why so many are quick to jump on you about it. Theory only goes so far..

Sent from my SCH-I500 using TractorByNet

My thoughts exactly. Why confuse everyone with experience and facts, when theory and formulas are so much better.
I just go by what the manufacturer says. I run the rpms up to about 2050, and run her in the highest gear I can and still get a smooth cut.