Say good bye to the diesel 1430

[joshlee]

This is just my opinion, but it seems like superseding a Diesel engine for a gas is going in a backwards direction with things. I don’t know the whole situation though? Maybe they don’t want to go through all the bother of widening the frame for a different Diesel engine?

 

[sirmombo]

I agree that it seems like a step backwards. All the competitors to PT use diesels with tier IV compliant emissions. I think most of them use Kubota engines. The competitors are all much more expensive. My best guess is that PT thought they would lose too much of their price advantage if they went to a cleaner diesel so they decided to go with a cheaper gas engine.

Fuel consumption and low end torque are two big reasons why you don't see large gas engines in tractors. We stopped using gasoline because diesels stores much better in our bulk tank.

 

[ernemats]

The main reason Power Trac went with the gas is that Deutz discontinued making the 30 hp engine they were using and they could not find another one with the same foot print.

 

[ponytug]

Much as I hate to see the two cylinder go, I understand PT's challenges. With the changing torque and fuel efficiency in the gas vs diesel engine, the tractor will behave differently, but I suspect it will still be incredibly useful. I would think of it as a more powerful 425, something I think that a few people have expressed an interest in.

Yes, it is getting tough to find small diesels, and those that exist are pricey. Hopefully, the larger engines will persist. Getting Tier IV certification isn't trivial.

All the best,

Peter

 

[BigDaddyEureka]

And there is a reason for that. The pre-emissions diesels were supposed to be good for close to 10,000 with proper maintenance. Doubt that will get that on a air cooled aluminum block gas engine. Then there is the fuel consumption issue. My 65 hp Deutz gets about 1 gal per hour for general usage (not runing a mower or trencher)

You've got a point, the pre-emissions diesel fuel burn was waaay better than the equivalent HP (or TQ) gasoline engine. The bad news was / is that with the needed emissions controls to meet the new requirements we could never get the diesel to be as efficient as a gasoline engine under about 250 HP. This is especially true with engine technologies like Mazda's Skyactive-X engine that can meet the torque rise of the diesel but burns gasoline instead.

From 250 to about 750 or so you can get them about the same on BSFC (fuel burn) but the package size of the engine plus the emissions controls is HUGE on the diesel and less so on the gasser. Cost per HP starts getting bad on the diesel too, so unless you MUST HAVE the torque that a diesel provides it's not a deal there either.

Above 750HP diesel reciprocating engines gets better than gasoline but not always better than a recuperated turbine. Time was that turbines were much more expensive to produce than the diesel, but new manufacturing technologies like 3D printing are dramatically lowering turbine costs so it may not be long before that advantage dries up too. Add to that the catalysts used on a diesel use copious amounts of either copper, platinum or a combination of the two and things get pricey fast. You may see natural gas reciprocating engines built on a diesel design or engine block, but those are actually spark ignited, not actually diesel.

What that all adds up to is that diesel's days are numbered UNLESS we find a way to make a cleaner diesel fuel. That's possible - there's a lot of folks in ocean shipping working hard on it - but Mr. Diesel's invention is in dire straights for sure.

 

[Lnk]

Does this mean that the t12 will come down in price? Or is it going away completely?

 

[BigDaddyEureka]

Probably similar price, I'd be surprised if it totally went away.

 

[MossRoad]

One thing I've noticed about my PT425:

I always run it at MAX throttle, 3600 rpm, when working. On the Kohler Command Pro CH25 engine, peak torque is at 2800 rpm. Peak HP is at 3600 rpm. If I crank it down to 2800 rpm, where torque is at it's max, it spins the pumps slower. Wheel speed is slower, mower blades are slower, lift to the FEL is slower, steering is slower. And, I have LESS HYDRAULIC POWER AVAILABLE AT MAX TORQUE ENGINE RPMs.

If I crank it up to 3600 rpm, where max HP is generated, everything is faster and more power is available. I'm sure all of you have experienced this.

Torque is the capacity to do work, and HP is the rate of completing work in a given amount of time.

30HP is 30HP, no matter what's generating it, the Deutz diesel or a gas engine. The hydraulic pumps don't know the difference and will operate with exactly the same GPM at the same PSI with either 30HP engine.

The ability to keep them at the same RPM will be different, I'm guessing. However, that comes with it's own set of problems. As pressure causes the RPM to drop, and if you fight it with more torque, you'll raise the pressure. Maybe to the point of lifting the reliefs, so you'll have to back off when the reliefs lift.

You need a balance of RPM, HP, and torque to keep the system running at the rated GPM and PSI at X RPMs.

What you will notice is higher fuel consumption on the gas engine Vs the diesel engine, and the diesel should outlast the gas engine by a large factor. That's a fact.

This was also the case on my old 70's IH2500b. It had a gas engine and HST transmission. The operator's manual stated for best performance and response, always run it at max RPMs. That sucks a lot of gas.

Anyhow, those are my thoughts on the switch from diesel to gas in this unit. It will use more fuel, and the engine won't last 10,000 hours. However, I'm guessing it will perform darn near the same as long as it has the same HP as the other engine.

 

[MossRoad]

Of course, you all know what this means...

someone that owns a diesel PT1430 needs to go down to Tazewell and drive a gas powered PT1430 and report back!

 

[BigDaddyEureka]

You're certainly on the right track there @MossRoad - HP is HP, doesn't matter to the pumps what makes it!

What might matter in certain circumstances is "area under the torque curve." This governs how quickly the engine falls off that peak HP once the load builds up. A diesel typically has a MUCH flatter torque curve than a gasoline engine of the same HP, so the "luggability" (is that a word?) is better a lot of times.

With newer technology you can certainly make up the difference though. Systems like eTorque add to that well of reserve torque even though they don't do much if anything for peak power. Probably the most radical examples I can think of are the McLaren P1 and the BMW i8. Both of those used VERY peaky gasoline engines backed up with battery-electric torque to make up torque missing the bottom end of the RPM range.

At one point Freightliner and Eaton were experimenting with "heavy hybrid" systems that used hydraulics (pump/motor and an accumulator) instead of electric (motor/generator and a battery bank). I don't think that made it all the way to production though.