X540 Fuel Use.

[rsewill]

If you do 80% of the mowing buy them, as a gift, whatever you want! If all they do is mow, and they are buying, get a zero-turn like a Z425.

 

[sparc]

I had an x540.

Fuel use wasnt that bad. I cant quote GPH or anything, but it doesnt stand out as being excessive.

I will say that its a VERY good mower. Better than my BX. Very smooth and fast. Nice even cut.

Hydraulic steer / lift is very nice and worth it IMHO.

I have a x534. It has the 26hp kawisaki motor. I have the 48" mower deck and i don't thi k the fuel consumption is excessive. I haven't watched it closely but I think I use less than 1 gph mowing, slightly more with the snow blower mounted. I like the power steering and 4 wheel steering is great too. I just mounted the snow blower in prep for winter.

 

[jcmseven]

1 GPH on a 540 is exceptional economy for this engine/tractor. At WOT duties, such as mowing, 1.25-1.5 GPH is more average and I would plan on that. If one happens to buy one that burns less, one is lucky to a degree or does not run the engine at max RPM as often. Kawasaki powerplants are known for many things including high torque (for a gas engine), quiet/smooth operation, longevity and strong engineering, but they are NOT known for their economy. It is true that an efficient mower such as an X540 JD will do more work than an older or lighter duty mower in the same time, so that certainly is worth consideration (much like a ZTR will mow much more grass than a standard mower on the same amount of fuel). I can attest in the course of my usage that liquid cooled engines of this type do get better economy, but not by much. It, for example, likely would not be worth the additional cost over an air cooled engine (i.e., 530 v. 540) to purchase a liquid cooled tractor of similar engine and HP just based on fuel consumption. Yes, one could ultimately even out on fuel over time but it would likely take several hundred (maybe even a thousand) hours to do so, if ever. My experience with the liquid cooled Kawasaki's is that they are more quiet than air cooled, but I could not tell much difference in power or fuel consumption. I would not recommend the 300 series machines v. a 500 series if one can afford the price difference. The X 360 though specifically is a really nice mowing machine in the 300 class, but the differential lock and heavier construction of the 500 series in my opinion is worth the difference in cost between the two. The 500 series also have true ground engagement capability, in the event that one day our OP expands his task list. I would mention that based on the new SAE standards for power equipment, the X540 is no longer rated at 26 HP. Though I cannot recall the revised number, my understanding is this is not a reduction in true power but a change in ratings to reflect the actual available power an engine may produce in a certain application. Kawasaki engines are thirsty, no two ways around it, but they are good powerplants and well-designed for the long haul. They also offer the power to get big jobs done quickly and will last and that is to me personally more-important than a difference of a quarter GPH at WOT. Not to say that fuel consumption is unimportant, just that to me it is a secondary issue (I realize our OP is mainly asking for information, not necessarily justification).

John M

 

[jcmseven]

Same would apply for the in-laws.....

John M