Any news on gas engine CUTS?

[k0ua]

Diesel is not cheaper than gas here, but the gap between them has narrowed considerably.
Gas is about 15 cents cheaper than diesel, and the gap used to be around a dollar.

 

[buickanddeere]

If the EPA goes ahead with Tier V diesel emissions, probably. Manufactures also consider there is a market outside of North America and western Europe. Where diesel is cheaper than gasoline and emission regulations are limited.
It's currently more profitable to build all diesel and charge extra to the deep pocketed North Americans and western Europeans to scrub to Tier IV.

 

[buickanddeere]

Diesel is not cheaper than gas here, but the gap between them has narrowed considerably.
Gas is about 15 cents cheaper than diesel, and the gap used to be around a dollar.

Instead of comparing diesel to gasoline cost per gallon. We should be comparing cost per btu of energy.

 

[GManBart]

Instead of comparing diesel to gasoline cost per gallon. We should be comparing cost per btu of energy.

That actually makes diesel look even better.

A gallon of regular unleaded gasoline has approximately 114,000BTU. #2 diesel is around 129,500 BTU per gallon. Diesel engines are more efficient...at the very least 15% more when you compare state-of-the-art models of both types. Diesel costs the same, or less than regular now...even though some folks said it would never happen again.

Another station nearby.....diesel less expensive than regular unleaded, just like I predicted earlier in this thread.

 

[kenmac]

Gasoline here is $2.41 per gallon... Diesel is $2.69 per gallon

 

[mikeharold]

Diesel just dropped another $.04 today and is down to $2.95 while regular is at $3.54 or so.

 

[AxleHub]

Greetings,

Coming into this thread in the middle and noted all this diesel price vs. Gasoline price is not related to epa as a primary cause.

We all know oil has dropped in price . . we also know it is earlier cheaper processing to make diesel vs later processing to make gasoline (plus the regional gas additives required in chicago and california). But the demand for diesel has dropped not in the U.S. but in China who was soaking up diesel for 20 years as fast as it was produced.

Everything in china runs on diesel . . but china's consumption needs have dropped greatly as their economy and their construction industry have both cooled off incredibly. China created the famous "diesel gap" from 2003 to 2013 where diesel was as high as 80 + cents above gas pricing. The exact same condition and situation existed for concrete powder . . China was using 47% of all the concrete powder the U.S. was producing until 2013.

 

[mo1]

I think that a gasoline-engined subcompact or compact tractor just might make sense.

- The cost of a modern fuel-injected, water-cooled industrial-grade gasoline engine of the same torque output is somewhat to considerably less than a current Tier IV diesel engine, particularly units rated at over 25 hp that have to use a DPF or DOC/SCR.

- Gasoline engines have a better power to weight ratio and power-to-size ratio than diesel engines. This is important in applications such as a SCUTs and CUTs where size and weight are factors.

- Fuel-injected gasoline engines start better in extremely cold weather compared to diesels since you have a volatile fuel and a spark to light it off versus relying on heat alone to combust a much less volatile fuel. However, most modern diesels in good repair have few starting issues in all but the absolute coldest weather. My Massey's old-school mechanical IDI diesel has no trouble starting in mildly cold weather (single digits) as it's in good repair and all of the glow plugs work well. But it doesn't fire up with doing nothing more than cranking one crank and immediately run smooth as butter like my F-150 in that weather.

- Offroad 4-stroke gasoline engines currently have very few emissions restrictions on them compared to offroad diesels with the recent EPA Tier IV regulations. This is especially true with the over 25 HP units which now require either a DPF or SCR/DOC for particulate emissions and the requisite electronic engine controls that go with them. Gasoline engines' emissions controls for on-road vehicles are far more mature and reliable than those for on-road and Tier IV off-road diesels. On-road gasoline engines have had to deal with some emissions regs since the mid-1960s and a bunch of regs since the early 1970s with significant changes to the fuel composition as well. The technology stank at first but by the late 1980s the kinks got worked out and there is little trouble with gasoline engine emissions equipment today. Diesels are just starting to go through the same thing; they are about at the same level of maturity as gasoline engines' emissions controls were in the mid to late 1970s. If the EPA ever decides to tighten off-road gasoline engine emissions to match that of on-road engines, the required equipment is very well-known, reliable, and less expensive than the diesel counterparts.

- Reliability of modern fuel-injected gasoline engines is excellent and the rest of the tractor will wear out before the tractor does...just like in your car. I'd expect the hydrostatic transmission to be the first thing to wear out on a SCUT/CUT anyway. This is even true at heavy loads- look at ZTRs. If gassers could not handle sustained full-load operation you would see zero ZTRs with gasoline engines, but yet there are a lot of them with gasoline engines being used commercially.

- Fuel consumption will be higher with a gasoline engine but few SCUT/CUT operators run their units enough to use enough fuel to have paid for the price difference compared to getting the diesel version. The fact that diesel fuel has been more expensive both in price per gallon and price per BTU during nearly all of the last decade makes that even tougher to accomplish.

- I think most of the ill will directed towards gasser tractors is because of two things- comparing a far smaller displacement gasoline engine to a diesel engine of the same HP and also comparing a modern diesel tractor to a 50-year old carb-and-points gasser tractor. Your 1.1 liter 25 hp diesel will make a lot more torque than a 750 cc 25 hp V-twin gasser, so it has more power. Apples to apples would be to compare engines with similar torque outputs if not similar displacement. The gasser would be making considerably more HP if you compared similar torque-rated engines, and if it's the same displacement, much more HP and torque.

- The economics change greatly when you start to talk about row-crop tractors with 150+ hp engines that all are turbocharged and the operators put on many hundreds of hours a year. That's why we don't have large gasser tractors any more and I think the trickle-down "if it works for the larger guys, it will work for the smaller ones too" is why we don't have small gassers any more. There is also a bad reputation from the past regarding gasser tractors. The 1960s and 1970s diesel row-crop tractors being much better than the gassers stuck in people's minds just like the terrible 1970s and 1980s car diesels stuck in American motorists' minds and why we have very few passenger-car diesel engines.

Personally I would be very willing to buy a gasoline-engined SCUT/CUT over a current Tier IV diesel unit if one were offered.

 

[GManBart]

- Gasoline engines have a better power to weight ratio and power-to-size ratio than diesel engines. This is important in applications such as a SCUTs and CUTs where size and weight are factors.

Power to weight makes very little difference in tractors. Some of the old iron was extremely heavy for their HP ratings, and they still worked very well. Further, many/most CUTs are on the light side for the amount of power they have. Saving a couple of hundred pounds won't make them better machines...if anything, that's just more ballast you'll have to add.

- Reliability of modern fuel-injected gasoline engines is excellent and the rest of the tractor will wear out before the tractor does...just like in your car. I'd expect the hydrostatic transmission to be the first thing to wear out on a SCUT/CUT anyway. This is even true at heavy loads- look at ZTRs. If gassers could not handle sustained full-load operation you would see zero ZTRs with gasoline engines, but yet there are a lot of them with gasoline engines being used commercially.

Tractors aren't cars/light trucks, and they make for a poor comparison. Cars/light trucks, with any engine setup, are rarely run at high power settings for extended periods of time....hours on end. If you ran your car/truck with a gasoline engine at the equivalent of PTO speed, it wouldn't last long, because they aren't built for that kind of service. If you make a gasoline engine to withstand that level of use, it would cost nearly as much as a diesel. The best ZTRs have diesels, and that's what most commercial operators seem to be using around here. Regardless, the loads from spinning a couple of fairly small blades really don't compare to what we see with even small tractors.

- Fuel consumption will be higher with a gasoline engine but few SCUT/CUT operators run their units enough to use enough fuel to have paid for the price difference compared to getting the diesel version. The fact that diesel fuel has been more expensive both in price per gallon and price per BTU during nearly all of the last decade makes that even tougher to accomplish.

This is sort of a moot point. First off, diesel prices have normalized....the demand from China has dropped and the costs to upgrade refinery facilities for ULSD have been paid off. Diesel now costs roughly the same as gasoline in most places, and it's actually less expensive in quite a few places. Second, tractor manufacturers would have to spend a lot of money to develop and test gasoline engines for tractors, and those costs would take a long time to be amortized....so there's a risk on the part of the manufacturers, with very little potential gain. In fact, those costs would get passed on to the consumer, so the price gap between gas and diesel would likely shrink....especially after factoring in that the engines would have to be much more robust than automobile engines.

Then there's the reality check....the tractor manufacturers are extremely unlikely to sell any additional tractors if they suddenly offer a gasoline option. The same people are going to be buying the same number of tractors either way. There is no reason why they would take the risk, and added expensive of developing something that won't give them a higher profit margin, or increase their total sales numbers.

Short version: It's beyond unlikely we'll see a gas CUT/SCUT anytime soon.

Pretty much all of your points have been brought up before....I know it's a long read.

 

[mo1]

Power to weight makes very little difference in tractors. Some of the old iron was extremely heavy for their HP ratings, and they still worked very well. Further, many/most CUTs are on the light side for the amount of power they have. Saving a couple of hundred pounds won't make them better machines...if anything, that's just more ballast you'll have to add.

Depends on what you are going after. Weight is often the enemy for mowing as you want as little turf damage as possible. Ditto with any kind of operating in wet areas unless you want to make big ruts. Tillage however is the opposite, you want to have as much weight for as much traction as possible. Loader work is a mixed bag. You want enough weight to remain stable (hence counterweights) but it would be better if the weight were in the rear of the tractor rather than on the front.

Tractors aren't cars/light trucks, and they make for a poor comparison. Cars/light trucks, with any engine setup, are rarely run at high power settings for extended periods of time....hours on end. If you ran your car/truck with a gasoline engine at the equivalent of PTO speed, it wouldn't last long, because they aren't built for that kind of service. If you make a gasoline engine to withstand that level of use, it would cost nearly as much as a diesel.

No. Diesel engines in every other application cost more than analogous gasoline engines in the same usage scenario- generators, mowers, pumps, automobiles, light and medium duty trucks. Tractors would be no different.

There are gasoline engines designed to run at "PTO speed" all of the time- namely pump engines, commercial generator engines, inboard boat engines, and piston-powered aircraft engines. The big difference between those engines and an automotive engine is that they have a lower redline and thus a lower peak power rating. A car engine may redline at 6500 rpm but it is mainly designed to operate in the 2000-3000 rpm range. The industrial engines are simply governed at somewhere in that 2000-3000 rpm range...just like the diesel engines are.

The best ZTRs have diesels, and that's what most commercial operators seem to be using around here. Regardless, the loads from spinning a couple of fairly small blades really don't compare to what we see with even small tractors.

I see very few diesel ZTRs around here. Nearly all of them are gasser Deeres and Gravelys. Finish mowing is often the heaviest load people will put on a SCUT or CUT and it is absolutely a sustained load. You won't use 25 PTO HP doing loader work but you certainly can with a decent-sized mower. The fact that you can bog down a tractor with a mower speaks to the fact that they can take a lot of power to swing.

Then there's the reality check....the tractor manufacturers are extremely unlikely to sell any additional tractors if they suddenly offer a gasoline option. The same people are going to be buying the same number of tractors either way. There is no reason why they would take the risk, and added expensive of developing something that won't give them a higher profit margin, or increase their total sales numbers.

Short version: It's beyond unlikely we'll see a gas CUT/SCUT anytime soon.

^ Now that really is the bottom line of why we don't see any gas SCUTs/CUTs. I think there would be a market if they were offered, but I don't think it would really turn into additional sales.

 

[AxleHub]

I really don't get the logic that a gas engone tractor is at all competitve with a similar sized diesel engined tractor:

1. Similar hp for gas and diesel does not equal similar power or torque. Diesel performance per horsepower in terms of torque and DURABLE power is substantially greater.

2. Use of fuel in diesel is substantially more efficient AND effective than gas.

3. A gas engine's maontenance requirements are more ftequent and more neccessary than is diesel.

4. Initial cost on a diesel engine is higher . . But its mean time to failure and fuel efficiency more than makes up on a busy engine.

5. While numbers can be run in many ways . . A gas engine under sustained load does not compare to a diesel engine under that same sustained load . . . unless that gas engine is of considerable larger size of hp, extended cooling options, and larger engine cavity/dimension.

I have a 25 horse gas in a ztt and a 25 horse diesel in my sub compact. There is no contest as far as fuel usage or continually produced power or ability to deal with enviromental stresses.

 

[batwing]

I had a 165 Massey with a gas motor for about 6 years, plenty of torque and horsepower, I would have bought a new gas tractor with hydro if there was a real gas engine available. I would not buy one with a lawnmower engine even if they said it had 50hp. it looks like most small tractors get used about 50 hours per year.

 

[GManBart]

Depends on what you are going after. Weight is often the enemy for mowing as you want as little turf damage as possible. Ditto with any kind of operating in wet areas unless you want to make big ruts. Tillage however is the opposite, you want to have as much weight for as much traction as possible. Loader work is a mixed bag. You want enough weight to remain stable (hence counterweights) but it would be better if the weight were in the rear of the tractor rather than on the front.

Sure, it's situational, but most folks aren't using a CUT on their lawn, so that probably narrows the discussion down to SCUTs...at least when we start wondering if lighter might be better.

No. Diesel engines in every other application cost more than analogous gasoline engines in the same usage scenario- generators, mowers, pumps, automobiles, light and medium duty trucks. Tractors would be no different.

There are gasoline engines designed to run at "PTO speed" all of the time- namely pump engines, commercial generator engines, inboard boat engines, and piston-powered aircraft engines. The big difference between those engines and an automotive engine is that they have a lower redline and thus a lower peak power rating. A car engine may redline at 6500 rpm but it is mainly designed to operate in the 2000-3000 rpm range. The industrial engines are simply governed at somewhere in that 2000-3000 rpm range...just like the diesel engines are.

Well, I never said diesels would't cost more, I just said the gap would narrow. Generally speaking, nobody makes a gasoline engine, with the most modern features that are required to really get good efficiency like the folks in this thread are talking about, in a package truly equivalent to the diesel engines we're using as a benchmark. If you look at the engines used in generators, or inboard boat engines, or medium duty trucks and compare gas to diesel, it's pretty much a given that the diesels are intended to last longer, and survive more difficult duty cycles. In other words, if you buy the version with the gasoline engine, you know it's not going to last as long as the diesel, and that's why it costs less. If someone wants a 40' sport fishing boat they can get it with gasoline engines, or diesel engines, but nobody expects the gasoline engines to last anywhere near as long, or be anywhere near as fuel efficient.

I would leave out references to aircraft piston engines....they're a completely different animal. They're designed to be as light as possible, and require extensive maintenance on a regular basis....and they still fail with regularity.

As has been said many times in this thread....comparing modern diesel tractor engines to pretty much any known gasoline engine is going to be an apples-to-oranges comparison. If someone decided to make an engine that could be expected to perform reasonably as well as it's diesel counterpart, and have a similar service life, the cost difference between the two wouldn't be nearly as big as we see in things like commercial light trucks, or boats, or anything else.

I see very few diesel ZTRs around here. Nearly all of them are gasser Deeres and Gravelys. Finish mowing is often the heaviest load people will put on a SCUT or CUT and it is absolutely a sustained load. You won't use 25 PTO HP doing loader work but you certainly can with a decent-sized mower. The fact that you can bog down a tractor with a mower speaks to the fact that they can take a lot of power to swing.

I see a lot of mom and pop landscape people running gasser ZTRs, but all the bigger places seem to be running diesels around here...SCAG, Farris, Hustler, Kubota and Deere.

I'm not sure what kind of finish mowing you've been doing, but I ran a 90" finish mower behind 40hp PTO and it was like it wasn't even there. Running my 87" flail mower behind 45hp PTO is far, far more heavily loading the machine, and even a 60" medium/heavy duty rotary mower put more of a strain on either machine than the 90" finish mower. I'd expect any reasonably sized tiller, snow thrower or even post-hole digger would put more of a strain on the machine. A couple of 12-24" blades going through grass shouldn't cause nearly the resistance that heavy brush, dirt, or snow would.

 

[AxleHub]

Sure, it's situational, but most folks aren't using a CUT on their lawn, so that probably narrows the discussion down to SCUTs...at least when we start wondering if lighter might be better.

Well, I never said diesels would't cost more, I just said the gap would narrow. Generally speaking, nobody makes a gasoline engine, with the most modern features that are required to really get good efficiency like the folks in this thread are talking about, in a package truly equivalent to the diesel engines we're using as a benchmark. If you look at the engines used in generators, or inboard boat engines, or medium duty trucks and compare gas to diesel, it's pretty much a given that the diesels are intended to last longer, and survive more difficult duty cycles. In other words, if you buy the version with the gasoline engine, you know it's not going to last as long as the diesel, and that's why it costs less. If someone wants a 40' sport fishing boat they can get it with gasoline engines, or diesel engines, but nobody expects the gasoline engines to last anywhere near as long, or be anywhere near as fuel efficient.

I would leave out references to aircraft piston engines....they're a completely different animal. They're designed to be as light as possible, and require extensive maintenance on a regular basis....and they still fail with regularity.

As has been said many times in this thread....comparing modern diesel tractor engines to pretty much any known gasoline engine is going to be an apples-to-oranges comparison. If someone decided to make an engine that could be expected to perform reasonably as well as it's diesel counterpart, and have a similar service life, the cost difference between the two wouldn't be nearly as big as we see in things like commercial light trucks, or boats, or anything else.

I see a lot of mom and pop landscape people running gasser ZTRs, but all the bigger places seem to be running diesels around here...SCAG, Farris, Hustler, Kubota and Deere.

I'm not sure what kind of finish mowing you've been doing, but I ran a 90" finish mower behind 40hp PTO and it was like it wasn't even there. Running my 87" flail mower behind 45hp PTO is far, far more heavily loading the machine, and even a 60" medium/heavy duty rotary mower put more of a strain on either machine than the 90" finish mower. I'd expect any reasonably sized tiller, snow thrower or even post-hole digger would put more of a strain on the machine. A couple of 12-24" blades going through grass shouldn't cause nearly the resistance that heavy brush, dirt, or snow would.

Don't forget Toro, Dixie Chopper and Grasshopper diesels in the ztr arena.

 

[GManBart]

Don't forget Toro, Dixie Chopper and Grasshopper diesels in the ztr arena.

Sure...I just don't see as many of those locally. Of those three, probably more Dixie Choppers and almost no Grasshoppers, but a few Toros here and there.

 

[AxleHub]

Sure...I just don't see as many of those locally. Of those three, probably more Dixie Choppers and almost no Grasshoppers, but a few Toros here and there.

I wss very impressed with the grasshoppers made in u.s. talk about an easy to maintain group of products with a ton of flexibility on grass or snow.

 

[buickanddeere]

Agreed. Gas would not hold up with the demands of torque requirements on tractors. Would consume a lot of fuel with little payback.
If you don't like the new engines I would look at a 5 year old tractor.

Torque requirements ? A natural aspirated gasser tractor engine has more torque per cubic inch than a diesel per cubic inch. Look at the JD 4020 specs for example . A lot of fuel? A modern direct injection gassed use a lot of fuel? Have you looked at the part load fuel consumption of Diesel engines .

 

[buickanddeere]

I really don't get the logic that a gas engone tractor is at all competitve with a similar sized diesel engined tractor:

1. Similar hp for gas and diesel does not equal similar power or torque. Diesel performance per horsepower in terms of torque and DURABLE power is substantially greater.

2. Use of fuel in diesel is substantially more efficient AND effective than gas.

3. A gas engine's maontenance requirements are more ftequent and more neccessary than is diesel.

4. Initial cost on a diesel engine is higher . . But its mean time to failure and fuel efficiency more than makes up on a busy engine.

5. While numbers can be run in many ways . . A gas engine under sustained load does not compare to a diesel engine under that same sustained load . . . unless that gas engine is of considerable larger size of hp, extended cooling options, and larger engine cavity/dimension.

I have a 25 horse gas in a ztt and a 25 horse diesel in my sub compact. There is no contest as far as fuel usage or continually produced power or ability to deal with enviromental stresses.

Are you living in 1975 or 2015 ?

 

[buickanddeere]

Sure, it's situational, but most folks aren't using a CUT on their lawn, so that probably narrows the discussion down to SCUTs...at least when we start wondering if lighter might be better.




Well, I never said diesels would't cost more, I just said the gap would narrow. Generally speaking, nobody makes a gasoline engine, with the most modern features that are required to really get good efficiency like the folks in this thread are talking about, in a package truly equivalent to the diesel engines we're using as a benchmark. If you look at the engines used in generators, or inboard boat engines, or medium duty trucks and compare gas to diesel, it's pretty much a given that the diesels are intended to last longer, and survive more difficult duty cycles. In other words, if you buy the version with the gasoline engine, you know it's not going to last as long as the diesel, and that's why it costs less. If someone wants a 40' sport fishing boat they can get it with gasoline engines, or diesel engines, but nobody expects the gasoline engines to last anywhere near as long, or be anywhere near as fuel efficient.

I would leave out references to aircraft piston engines....they're a completely different animal. They're designed to be as light as possible, and require extensive maintenance on a regular basis....and they still fail with regularity.

As has been said many times in this thread....comparing modern diesel tractor engines to pretty much any known gasoline engine is going to be an apples-to-oranges comparison. If someone decided to make an engine that could be expected to perform reasonably as well as it's diesel counterpart, and have a similar service life, the cost difference between the two wouldn't be nearly as big as we see in things like commercial light trucks, or boats, or anything else.



I see a lot of mom and pop landscape people running gasser ZTRs, but all the bigger places seem to be running diesels around here...SCAG, Farris, Hustler, Kubota and Deere.

I'm not sure what kind of finish mowing you've been doing, but I ran a 90" finish mower behind 40hp PTO and it was like it wasn't even there. Running my 87" flail mower behind 45hp PTO is far, far more heavily loading the machine, and even a 60" medium/heavy duty rotary mower put more of a strain on either machine than the 90" finish mower. I'd expect any reasonably sized tiller, snow thrower or even post-hole digger would put more of a strain on the machine. A couple of 12-24" blades going through grass shouldn't cause nearly the resistance that heavy brush, dirt, or snow would.

We have people here who do not understand the difference between light duty applications and heavy duty applications . Nor are they aware of direct injection gasoline engines, tied IV diesel emissions and glow plugs, 30,000psi injectors or pumps, egr valves, egr coolers , urea injection , particulate filter regeneration . They are thinking of carbureted gas engines with points vs an inline diesel with just a P pump and a turbo. With diesel costing 3/4 the price of gasoline .
A DI gasser will make just as much power per btu of fuel than a diesel.
Part throttle, part load applications a gasser absolutely stomps all over a diesel's part load efficiency . That is why they are used in light highway vehicles.

 

[buickanddeere]

Given the upcoming Tier V emission regulations limiting CO2 output . Fuels with more hydrogen and less carbon such as NG, LP and gasoline vs carbon heavy diesel. Equipment Manufactures will have to consider the same strategy as automotive manufactures. Build the same chassis with diesel for 3rd world no emissions countries and for where gasoline is taxed higher than diesel. Sell the same chassis with a gas engine in North America.
Right now manufactures keep their market share in 3rd world countries and over taxed gasoline countries by selling the diesel . North Americans are rich by comparison and will pay for the emissions equipment added to a diesel . Cheaper and more profitable than building gassers for the limited North American market. Many people forget that the U.S. Is not the only significant market in the world.