Tractor Performance: diesel vs gas

[WH401]

Ah, but I like the smell of a diesel (tractor) on a fall morning.

I bet it smells even better when you have lung cancer and your on oxygen because of it.

 

[Soundguy]

IMHO.. that was a bit of an abusive use of a tractor.. wrenching out 4" trees. And yes.. the tractors of that erea... many were geared high.. especialy the fords.. that's why they were no good as rototiller machines.

besides.. you are compairing 2 different hp machines to boot, plus antique vs shiney new.... in this case.. a few hp and MANY decades can make a difference. Virtually worthless as a comparison.. like comparing an old desel ww2 sub to a nuke powered one of today...

soundguy

I had access to the homeowners Ford 8n for a few years before I purchased my first tractor (TC 30). The 8n ran great and it did a decent job. It wasn't the best rig for pulling small trees out of the ground or when pulling a rear blade full of gravel. I attempted to pull a 4" tree out of the ground and I had the tractor in low gear with all of the throttle and it stalled. I did the same thing with my TC 30 and it did the job without much effort. I know the gearing of the 8n had a lot to do with it, but the TC 30 seemed to have almost double the power (not comparing 2wd vs FWD).

 

[Egon]

you are comparing 2 different hp machines to boot, plus antique vs shiney new.... in this case.

Can this be interpreted as saying the newer tractor's may have some advantages???

 

[Soundguy]

Can this be interpreted as saying the newer tractor's may have some advantages???

I was wondering when the peanut gallery would throw in a quip.

Answer.. NO.. ( it's really more of a wear issue, than age.. plus a size issue.. )

what my point was.. if you are looking for an apples to apples comparison.. you cannot compair a new 30hp machine to a 50 year used 27 hp machine. Just plain age and wear dictates that that 27hp machine ain't 27hp anymore.

Now.. fully restore that 27hp machine and stack them back up.. and it will still loose to the larger machine that has better gearing.

IE.. it's not an apples to apples comparison.. thus useless as a side by side...

soundguy

 

[Egon]

From some of your prior postings Soundguy this looks terribly much like a flip-flop or is it flop-flip!

Or are you changing your stance?

Could you elucidate on "Peanut Gallery" please?? To the best of my knowledge I have never seen or been in one and am curious?

 

[Soundguy]

From some of your prior postings Soundguy this looks terribly much like a flip-flop or is it flop-flip!

Or are you changing your stance?

Could you elucidate on "Peanut Gallery" please?? To the best of my knowledge I have never seen or been in one and am curious?

Not a flip flop.

It's difficult to make an apples to apples comparison of 2 machines that are geared differently and have different hp...


You can compair older and newer tractors on many levels.. but in this discussion of gas vs diesel.. to level the playing field and get accurate comparison.. it would be nice to use at least similar vintage, and similar geared machines.. heck.. the gearing is probably even more important in fuel economy / work than the exact vintage.. etc.

And when compairing work done.. hp comes into play as well as the gearing issue.

Peanut gallery.. oh yeah.. you're in it.... as well are a few other posters here that I have to manually click 'view post' to read em...

soundguy

 

[WilliamBos]

Not a flip flop.

It's difficult to make an apples to apples comparison of 2 machines that are geared differently and have different hp...


You can compair older and newer tractors on many levels.. but in this discussion of gas vs diesel.. to level the playing field and get accurate comparison.. it would be nice to use at least similar vintage, and similar geared machines.. heck.. the gearing is probably even more important in fuel economy / work than the exact vintage.. etc.

And when compairing work done.. hp comes into play as well as the gearing issue.

Peanut gallery.. oh yeah.. you're in it.... as well are a few other posters here that I have to manually click 'view post' to read em...

soundguy

I agree, you can compare to a certain extent. Comparing a travtor with creepers to one with out is not really fair, is it? But at what point do you stop? Is it fair to compare a newer to older? Will they last? MF 35/DX line, Fords and others of the same vintage that are still working today, will the newer versions of these last as long? I really hope our MF 1523 will be around in 30 years, as I guarantee our 35 will be.

 

[Soundguy]

Some things you can compair.. some things you can't

For instance.. that 8n wouldn't rip out that 4" tree where the tc 30 did.. however.. will that tc 30 be hear in 50-60 ys.. I have my doubts.

Older stuff was more palin.. but made heavier and better.. IMHO.. yes.. there are performance and bells/whistles trade offs.. besides.. some engine technology advances to boot.

In the end.. i expect the more robust designs to last.. not the ones tweaked to make max power with undersized (designed lifespan)aluminum parts that were spec'ed by the lowest bidder.

soundguy

 

[jaybrad]

In God we trust, all others must show data. If a large manufacturer of diesel engines (JD for example) says there is no more than a one percent change between high and low sulfur fuels, then I'd like more than just anecdotal evidence to the contrary. I wish we had the technical data from JD but I'm prepared to believe their engineers over some informal comments from drivers.

Not to stir the pot (too much), but just because the quoted source is a large national company does not mean that it is an accurate statement.

Take for example the AIG CEO this Spring who insisted the company was in solid financial standing (as he was cashing his $5million bonus check)?

Coming from the medical side, I would submit that statements made by a company with a vested interest are advertising and promotion, not research.

Jay

 

[Earl Ohl]

In God we trust, all others must show data. If a large manufacturer of diesel engines (JD for example) says there is no more than a one percent change between high and low sulfur fuels, then I'd like more than just anecdotal evidence to the contrary. I wish we had the technical data from JD but I'm prepared to believe their engineers over some informal comments from drivers.

Well, I don't know what more to tell you then. I'm telling it from real life experience. The problem with "data" is sometimes it is slanted towards whoever is publishing it. And just remember those engineers you mentioned work for a company or corporation, not for you.
I try to keep current on this fuel issue & I read up on it. But when the "facts" that are presented are contrary to my experience, I trust my experience.

 

[IslandTractor]

Coming from the medical side, I would submit that statements made by a company with a vested interest are advertising and promotion, not research.

Jay

Yes but in this case the company (JD) is not trying to sell you fuel. There is no reason for them to publish a blatent lie (or marketing hype) to suggest that ULSD is better than it is. If they were stating that green tractors get 10% better mileage than orange, blue or red tractors that would be another matter. I would tend to believe JD engineers who have studied the issue more than local mechanics who are relaying their general perceptions.

From the medical side, pharma companies routinely hype their products but you will not find very many factual errors or demonstrably false claims in what they publish as there are big fines and other penalties when they do that.

 

[IslandTractor]

Well, I don't know what more to tell you then. I'm telling it from real life experience. The problem with "data" is sometimes it is slanted towards whoever is publishing it. And just remember those engineers you mentioned work for a company or corporation, not for you.
I try to keep current on this fuel issue & I read up on it. But when the "facts" that are presented are contrary to my experience, I trust my experience.

In situations where (and I am assuming this) an engineering department of one of the worlds largest diesel engine manufacturers has done scientific research that contradicts one's personal experience, it seems reasonable to me to question one's interpretation of your experience. The general impression of a group of drivers using a new fuel just doesn't match up well to engineers actually measuring fuel consumption in controlled conditions. We all love to discount data that doesn't fit our real life anecdotal experience (Sarah Palin and global warming come immediately to mind) but I think a better approach is to look more closely at the data and to more critically quantify the experience.

 

[ray66v]

I have 2 tractors, 1 Gas, 1 Diesel. If I mow my 4 acres with the gas tractor, I use 2.5 gal of fuel. If I mow the same 4 acres, with the diesel, I use about 3/4 of a gal. of fuel.

Guess which one I use.

 

[Soundguy]

Scientifically measured data done in a test environment rarely = 'raw' data achieved by a farmer.

I've found fuel requirments up significantly on a group of rental machines byt he end of the month.. and it ende dup tracking back to operator actions.. IE.. the operators idled the machines more between use vs turningthem off.. etc. With a group of machines over a month.. that = alot of fuel.. vs what's on the paper.... Paper wasn't wrong... ops weren't specifically wrong either.. just that real world work environment doesn't always match white coat tests.

soundguy

 

[Soundguy]

I have 2 tractors, 1 Gas, 1 Diesel. If I mow my 4 acres with the gas tractor, I use 2.5 gal of fuel. If I mow the same 4 acres, with the diesel, I use about 3/4 of a gal. of fuel.

Guess which one I use.

Might I ask what 2 tractors? age? and hours?

I mow 10ac routinely.. I either use a 15' batwing on a 2000 year model NH 7610s ~95 hp tractor.. or a 10' fixed deck mower on a 1975 year model ford 5000 ~70hp.

Amazingly enough it takes just under 3 hrs with the 10' mower.. and 5g of fuel.... or just under 2 hrs with the 15' mower and 5g of fuel. I have also mowed with the 'new' tractor and the 10' mower.. fuel used and time usage was the same as the 'old' tractor and 10' mower.

Tells me I'm using 70hp or less to mow with as there is no increased fuel consumption on the alrger tractor. ( old tractor runs good with -0- smoke.. though no TC.. new tractor has a TC.. so thus probably runs a tad bit more efficient.... not sure how much that skews the data.. but in any case.. I know I'm using less hp than the old tractor has.. and thus am only using the fuel for that much hp.. no matter which tractor I use. )

Strangely enough I have mowed that pasture many times with a ~32 hp NH 1920 ( 1997 yr ) machine and a 5' mower.. took 4.5-5.5 hrs.. still used 5g of fuel... tells me it takes about 1g of diesel per 2ac of grass to cut....

Hav'nt cut that pasture with a gas tractor to compair..

soundguy

 

[MossRoad]

Could you elucidate on "Peanut Gallery" please?? To the best of my knowledge I have never seen or been in one and am curious?

I think he is insinuating that we are sitting in the cheap seats and heckling the performer.... hey, that sounds like fun!

The seats are cheap, free, in fact.

Peanut gallery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MossRoad]

Hey, Soundguy...

Back in the mid to late 70s IH made a 2500B tractor. They had gas and diesel engine options, as well as gear and hydro options for the tranny. If we could find any data on those models it would be easy to compare. The 2500B was an industrial version of a farm tractor... but I cannot recall the number of those. Mine had a C200 gas engine, 50 PTO HP and the HST tranny. Pretty strong running machine with plenty of guts.

 

[jaybrad]

From the medical side, pharma companies routinely hype their products but you will not find very many factual errors or demonstrably false claims in what they publish as there are big fines and other penalties when they do that.

I don't want to hijack this thread onto a medical reseach path, and I have no interest in a "bash the drug companies" discussion, but there are lots of studies promoted by drug companies that are based upon questionable methodology.

There are also legitimate studies with one control group that are used to support a position for a different control group, which is misleading at best.

Happy to continue this offline if you'd like to PM me.

In the meantime, it's Howdy Doody time - and I'm heading back to the Peanut Gallery (of which I have fond memories....)

Jay

 

[Todd_C]

ttp://www.blueridgediesel.com/CUMMINS%20TSB_082905[1].pdf

Here is a link about a service bulletin from Cummins about the use of ULSD in their diesel engines. Just more info. to look at.

 

[Soundguy]

I've known a couple guys with those large IH with the hydros. decent machines actually.. they kept putting thicker oil in the hydro the weaker it got till it finally went out.. by then they scrapped the tractor ( unfortunately ).. I hate to see -any- old iron get scrapped.

soundguy

Hey, Soundguy...

Back in the mid to late 70s IH made a 2500B tractor. They had gas and diesel engine options, as well as gear and hydro options for the tranny. If we could find any data on those models it would be easy to compare. The 2500B was an industrial version of a farm tractor... but I cannot recall the number of those. Mine had a C200 gas engine, 50 PTO HP and the HST tranny. Pretty strong running machine with plenty of guts.