Any news on gas engine CUTS?

[kenmac]

R1 tread is the best for traction... You can have all the power in the world.. If you can't plant it to the ground, it's no good

 

[paulfun9]

Yep, pretty much agree with all of that.

So you agree that starting and stopping loaded is harder on an engine than a fixed continuous load? But you still say a lift is a light duty job when it is a constantly starting and stopping application with a heavy weight machine usually over 11,000 LBS of machine or more and then weight is added to it continuously then repeated over and over again with the RPM going up/down and everyplace in between! Actually it sounds a lot like doing a day of loader work with a tractor to me the difference being that we wont all hammer the **** out of our tractor but those warehouse lift drivers are basically nuts and have no respect for those machines its abuse no doubt about it and its a heavy use application no matter how you slice it!

My guess is if you took an engine from a lift that has spent its life in a big warehouse and installed it in a scut it would think it was on vacation!!:laughing:

 

[DavesTractor]

Sure, but not all folks putter around with the CUT or SCUT, so manufacturers have to build them to be on the heavy/strong/durable side if they want to avoid failures and warranty claims. Modern diesels are also a lot better about wet stacking than older designs.

As I've said all along, a manufacturer could make a DI gasser engine for SCUTs and CUTs that would work fine, but it likely wouldn't increase their sales at all, so it would be wasted development money on their part. Sure, they would be able to offer a somewhat less expensive option to customers (the exact amount is open to debate), but those same folks would be buying a tractor either way in most cases. I just can't see that making any business sense to them, and it's almost certainly why they aren't offered now.

On your first point, I do know that different levels of SCUTS/CUTS have duty cycles and planned lifespans that might be less than most people think. A ladder frame SCUT with an aluminum rear transaxle and a plastic fan underneath to keep it cool was never meant to do 5000 hours of sustained high duty-cycle usage. We see an average of 50 hours/year on the 25HP and under machines. It takes 20 years to get 1000 hours on one, so there is no reason from a manufacturers perspective to build this machine to run 5000 hours. Yes, they will run 5000 hours with a lot of care and gentle usage, but they aren't made to do that. Note, I am not naming brands, even the well respected leader of the SCUT market knows these will see less duty cycle and less yearly hours and builds them accordingly. This might be a place for a gas engine. As we go up in HP, we see guys sometimes doing 500 hours a year, and the real ag guys can do 1000 hours a year. If you take a typical CUT and run it 1000 hours a year, it'll see some shop time. Do this with a real dedicated (expensive) piece of ag or construction equipment and 1000 hours is nothing. I guess my point is that while these small tractors can do a ton of work and are occasionally worked very hard, let's not over estimate their duty cycle design.

On your second point, I could not have said it better. A manufacturer needs a reason to go through the R&D and to take a chance. If they are currently selling near capacity and the gas engine would only rob from the diesel sales, why do it. However, if only one manufacturer comes out with a nice gas tractor, it might be that they can do real well. There would be a small market for a gas SCUT, but they would not have a lot of competition.

 

[Hinomotoman]

I never said higher compression was better. You keep saying gasoline engines are just as durable as diesels. I'm telling you that with the same compression as diesels, they're not.

Eugene

Please tell use how or why that is a valid line of reasoning and pertinent to the conversation . Btw the DI gas in Mrs B&D's ride runs just fine at 11.6 to 1 on 87 octane.
The "high" compression ratio is all about increasing thermal efficiency on the power stroke . When throttled the compression ratio maybe as low as 4 to 1 when cruising. This is where a throttled spark ignition beats a diesel's thermal efficiency at part load.
Have you ever seen throttle blades outside the first stator blades on a stationary gas turbine engine ? They are there to improve part load thermal efficiency.
Why do you think higher compression is better? Are you aware of how the basic Otto cycle Brayton design operates . It's all about effective pressure under the curve on the power stroke vs the average pressure in the compression stroke. The engine works by heating and thus increasing combustion chamber pressure after the compression stroke. The delta T and thus the delta P is lower when the combustion chamber is hotter rather than cooler. A high compression ratio has already used power stroke energy to dump more heat into the combustion chamber with high compression vs low compression .why do you think intercoolers are used on reciprocating diesel and on gas turbines between the compressor stage and combustion chamber ? To improve thermal efficiency , reduce max combustion temps and increase max possible full rated power.

 

[AxleHub]

P

#1 we have all seen and heard the predictions of crude oil prices since the early 1970's as they roller coaster up and down. When prices are climbing the graphs show $200 a barrel in a few years. The. The price of crude slumps and the new graphs show $50 crude in the same time frame that $200 had been so somberly predicted in. The market and prices do not stay down or stay up, they swing.
#2 as for those using thier CUT and SCUT at full power for hundreds of hours per year. You know that is the exception rather than the rule so quit wasting you time .

Buickanddeere,

Your reasoning is just unbelievable in so many ways:

1. What possible value is 1970s or 1980s or 1990s oil patterns to the changes that started in oil and natural gas in 2003 in the U.S. and have altered EVERY 18 months since then. Your statements demonstrate you don't know the trending doubling each 18 months of oil reserves in the shales of the colorado/wyoming/ dakotas. And your statements also appear hollow as to the cost reductions developed since early 2013 and the retro applications developed in late 2014 and early this year. You're way out of touch with the trends of oil costing and present/future oil quality improvements, as well as the artificially created temporary oil demands of China from 2004 thru 2013.
The pricing swings NEVER exceeded 150.00 per barrel and currently you can acquire oil futures for year 2020 at less than 69.00 per barrel. Since 2013 Opec has been running scared because they know their grip on the oil market is rapidly disappearing.

By the way, pump pricing as of yesterday in our area of western wi was as follows:

Premium gas . . 3.29
Premium diesel . . 2.59

Regular gas with ethanol . . 2.57
Regular gas no ethanol . . . 2.71
Regular road diesel . . . 2.54

Note: all diesel listed is road taxed and ultra low sulphur 15 ppm

#2 As for your original demeaning comments on older tractor buyers using 50 tp 100 yearly hours and light loads . . now suddenly you want to debate "hundreds of yearly hours with full loading" being the minority. ???? So exactly where do your numbers come from buick? Is that 150 yearly hours or 400 yearly hours? The point is . . you just keep making things up. Where are your facts?

 

[Hinomotoman]

I just bought hiway diesel at $2.16.

Eugene

Diesel around me is $2.43 at the moment.

I found it kind of interesting poking around on this site for what real world number people are reporting for various vehicles:

Browse All Cars | Fuelly

 

[AxleHub]

One of the gaping holes that "gas engines for scuts and cuts" keeping talking about without reference . . Is what is needed in a gas engine to mimic the performance of diesel in a scut or cut tractor.

It will require high compression gas engines with clean burn characteristics. A high compression engine is typically defined as an above 9.1 compression ratio. 9.1 and below allows use of regular gas (preferably none ethanol). To attain both cleaner burning and higher compression ratio performance a non-ethanol octane of 90 or above is desired with even higher octane levels for cpmpression ratios above 12.

Failure to use a higher octane in a high compression engine will cause 2 things:

1. Decreased actual burning of the gas fuel = lower mileage/hours per gallon.

2. Increased unburned hydrocarbons and emission issues.

That means premium gas and premium gas pricing . . Current price in our area is $3.29.

My massey gc1715 duesel operates at a 22.5 compression ratio and I use premium diesel (including road tax) of $ 2.59 per gallon.

Now isn't it strange that gas proponents don't seem to mention this that the fuel costs of a yet to be developed gas scut/cut tractor engine would actually be considerably higher than diesel . . . not lower

 

[AxleHub]

I just bought hiway diesel at $2.16.

Eugene

You must be in the indiana/ohio area or the South. Very attractive pricing. And it will be declining further.

Do you know if what you got was premium or not (both are ultra low sulphur) . . but the premium diesel is just a nickel or a dime higher but has cleaners and increases mileage.

 

[Baby Grand]

I'd expect to see spark ignition CUTs available when I start seeing spark ignition semis on the interstate.
One variable I'd like to see defined is fuel consumption per unit of work done.
An example would be how many "standard" square acres of grass a machine can mow on a gallon of fuel.
From personal experience - and I'll admit that I can't document it - it seems that I can cut twice as much grass with a diesel tractor compared to a gas one.
That means I can cut for twice as much between fuel stops, using diesel.
Or I can get an equal amount of cutting done with a fuel tank that's half the size.

 

[Loadstar]

I'd expect to see spark ignition CUTs available when I start seeing spark ignition semis on the interstate.
One variable I'd like to see defined is fuel consumption per unit of work done.
An example would be how many "standard" square acres of grass a machine can mow on a gallon of fuel.
From personal experience - and I'll admit that I can't document it - it seems that I can cut twice as much grass with a diesel tractor compared to a gas one.
That means I can cut for twice as much between fuel stops, using diesel.
Or I can get an equal amount of cutting done with a fuel tank that's half the size.

I never would have thought I would see all the LNG class 8 trucks that I see. So who knows.

 

[kenmac]

there are high HP high torque gasoline engines in small packages these days..

I think it would work ok if it were to lower tractor prices..

If prices were the same, I'd choose the older diesel.. I don't want a new diesel tractor, truck, etc, with all the EPA crap

I highly doubt gasoline ,or diesel prices are going to stay low

 

[hutchman]

It's 2015, not 1993

As Hillary says ... "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE"? So what are we supposed to do? Throw away a perfectly good diesel just because it isn't up with current spec? In 2017 I'll be ribbing you about your auto being so 'yester year'.

You're saying gas engines are whooping up on diesel's because technology has made them more thermally efficient yet none of these new gassers beat the "cost per mile" of something like my TDI that's 13yrs old. Your arguments for "cost per BTU" are meaningless because you don't measure the efficiency of a system by what you put IN to it, it's what comes OUT of it that matters (like MPG) no matter how much you don't like or accept it. Some of the new 2015 TDI's do about as good as my 2002 (because of gearing) so your year vs year in terms of diesels is meaning less too (only valid when talking about engine cost year vs year ... not so much with efficiency). But I understand you are grasping at straws to try to baffle us with BS to support your argument all the while you can't point to anything concrete to demonstrate it in reality.

 

[buickanddeere]

I never said higher compression was better. You keep saying gasoline engines are just as durable as diesels. I'm telling you that with the same compression as diesels, they're not.

Eugene

Please tell us your point .

 

[buickanddeere]

Buickanddeere,

Your reasoning is just unbelievable in so many ways:

1. What possible value is 1970s or 1980s or 1990s oil patterns to the changes that started in oil and natural gas in 2003 in the U.S. and have altered EVERY 18 months since then. Your statements demonstrate you don't know the trending doubling each 18 months of oil reserves in the shales of the colorado/wyoming/ dakotas. And your statements also appear hollow as to the cost reductions developed since early 2013 and the retro applications developed in late 2014 and early this year. You're way out of touch with the trends of oil costing and present/future oil quality improvements, as well as the artificially created temporary oil demands of China from 2004 thru 2013.
The pricing swings NEVER exceeded 150.00 per barrel and currently you can acquire oil futures for year 2020 at less than 69.00 per barrel. Since 2013 Opec has been running scared because they know their grip on the oil market is rapidly disappearing.

By the way, pump pricing as of yesterday in our area of western wi was as follows:

Premium gas . . 3.29
Premium diesel . . 2.59

Regular gas with ethanol . . 2.57
Regular gas no ethanol . . . 2.71
Regular road diesel . . . 2.54

Note: all diesel listed is road taxed and ultra low sulphur 15 ppm

#2 As for your original demeaning comments on older tractor buyers using 50 tp 100 yearly hours and light loads . . now suddenly you want to debate "hundreds of yearly hours with full loading" being the minority. ???? So exactly where do your numbers come from buick? Is that 150 yearly hours or 400 yearly hours? The point is . . you just keep making things up. Where are your facts?

Read my post over several times more until you understand .

 

[buickanddeere]

One of the gaping holes that "gas engines for scuts and cuts" keeping talking about without reference . . Is what is needed in a gas engine to mimic the performance of diesel in a scut or cut tractor.

It will require high compression gas engines with clean burn characteristics. A high compression engine is typically defined as an above 9.1 compression ratio. 9.1 and below allows use of regular gas (preferably none ethanol). To attain both cleaner burning and higher compression ratio performance a non-ethanol octane of 90 or above is desired with even higher octane levels for cpmpression ratios above 12.

Failure to use a higher octane in a high compression engine will cause 2 things:

1. Decreased actual burning of the gas fuel = lower mileage/hours per gallon.

2. Increased unburned hydrocarbons and emission issues.

That means premium gas and premium gas pricing . . Current price in our area is $3.29.

My massey gc1715 duesel operates at a 22.5 compression ratio and I use premium diesel (including road tax) of $ 2.59 per gallon.

Now isn't it strange that gas proponents don't seem to mention this that the fuel costs of a yet to be developed gas scut/cut tractor engine would actually be considerably higher than diesel . . . not lower

You seem to have missed a post of mine and reading the specs on DI gas engines . The DI gas in Mrs B&D's vehicle has 11.6 to 1 compression , the manufacture recommends 87 octane tractor gas and the engine doesn't knock.

 

[buickanddeere]

Buickanddeere,

Your reasoning is just unbelievable in so many ways:

1. What possible value is 1970s or 1980s or 1990s oil patterns to the changes that started in oil and natural gas in 2003 in the U.S. and have altered EVERY 18 months since then. Your statements demonstrate you don't know the trending doubling each 18 months of oil reserves in the shales of the colorado/wyoming/ dakotas. And your statements also appear hollow as to the cost reductions developed since early 2013 and the retro applications developed in late 2014 and early this year. You're way out of touch with the trends of oil costing and present/future oil quality improvements, as well as the artificially created temporary oil demands of China from 2004 thru 2013.
The pricing swings NEVER exceeded 150.00 per barrel and currently you can acquire oil futures for year 2020 at less than 69.00 per barrel. Since 2013 Opec has been running scared because they know their grip on the oil market is rapidly disappearing.

By the way, pump pricing as of yesterday in our area of western wi was as follows:

Premium gas . . 3.29
Premium diesel . . 2.59

Regular gas with ethanol . . 2.57
Regular gas no ethanol . . . 2.71
Regular road diesel . . . 2.54

Note: all diesel listed is road taxed and ultra low sulphur 15 ppm

#2 As for your original demeaning comments on older tractor buyers using 50 tp 100 yearly hours and light loads . . now suddenly you want to debate "hundreds of yearly hours with full loading" being the minority. ???? So exactly where do your numbers come from buick? Is that 150 yearly hours or 400 yearly hours? The point is . . you just keep making things up. Where are your facts?

Let's dig this crude oil price topic up in 2-5 years and see how the pendulum has swung .

 

[buickanddeere]

I'd expect to see spark ignition CUTs available when I start seeing spark ignition semis on the interstate.
One variable I'd like to see defined is fuel consumption per unit of work done.
An example would be how many "standard" square acres of grass a machine can mow on a gallon of fuel.
From personal experience - and I'll admit that I can't document it - it seems that I can cut twice as much grass with a diesel tractor compared to a gas one.
That means I can cut for twice as much between fuel stops, using diesel.
Or I can get an equal amount of cutting done with a fuel tank that's half the size.[/QUOTE


This has been beat to death and mentioned several times but yet again . Or are you just baiting with a foolish question? The highway tractor operating 50-55hrs a week and 200 HP field tractor making 180HP average for 1000hrs per season. Marine propulsion of heavy ships and irrigation pumps . Those are all HD service suited to diesel. Been saying that since the word go.
Mr Retired out puttering around on his CUT or SCUT doing 50-100hrs a year clipping lawns, going to get the mail, feeding the horse or spraying the lawn etc. that is light duty use. Diesels are not the best cold starters either for winter use.
Diesels , Tier IV diesels in particular don't handle short duty , stop, start , idling and light loads well . Old diesels wet stacked. New diesels wet stack and run the particulate filter regen more often.
Fork lifts and the like are medium duty and run spark ignition industrial engines for a reason.
Diesels are best at 100% rpm at 90 or higher load for hours at a time.
Spark ignition engines are better suited for operating at 5-50% of max rated power, at reduced or varying rpms and stop/start duty.
Are you aware of the up coming Tier V emission specs ?

 

[AxleHub]

You seem to have missed a post of mine and reading the specs on DI gas engines . The DI gas in Mrs B&D's vehicle has 11.6 to 1 compression , the manufacture recommends 87 octane tractor gas and the engine doesn't knock.

I never said anything about "knock" . . now did I buick? You just made it up. My high performance gas truck engine can run on crappy 87 or 89 octaned ethanol even without "knock". But it runs in a far poorer combustion situation which on a tier 4 or tier 5 tractor requirement would never pass . . and it would do it at inferior power levels and poor mileage numbers.

Put in non ethanol 90 or 91 octane and the engine is transformed. And this at only a 10.1 compression.

 

[AxleHub]

Let's dig this crude oil price topic up in 2-5 years and see how the pendulum has swung .

Futures buying of crude in 2020 is less than 68.00 per barrel and that is out 4 years. And if you don't understand what that means . .
Ask someone and they will tell you that is a very strong indication that oil will not swing back to the 80 to 125 dollar a barrel level.

Come on Buick, you aren't dealing with children. The markets out 2 and 3 and 4 years out are saying the pricing bracket for oil is dropping because we have the techniques now to harvest PLENTIFUL quantities for many many years at lower prices and better quality.

Tier 5 for diesel will become much easier to accomplish . . but not so for gasoline.

 

[buickanddeere]

As Hillary says ... "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE"? So what are we supposed to do? Throw away a perfectly good diesel just because it isn't up with current spec? In 2017 I'll be ribbing you about your auto being so 'yester year'.

You're saying gas engines are whooping up on diesel's because technology has made them more thermally efficient yet none of these new gassers beat the "cost per mile" of something like my TDI that's 13yrs old. Your arguments for "cost per BTU" are meaningless because you don't measure the efficiency of a system by what you put IN to it, it's what comes OUT of it that matters (like MPG) no matter how much you don't like or accept it. Some of the new 2015 TDI's do about as good as my 2002 (because of gearing) so your year vs year in terms of diesels is meaning less too (only valid when talking about engine cost year vs year ... not so much with efficiency). But I understand you are grasping at straws to try to baffle us with BS to support your argument all the while you can't point to anything concrete to demonstrate it in reality.

Tell us where that supply of brand new zero miles 1993 vehicles is so we can all go and purchase several each. And the 1993 priced diesel to fill them with.
Once again the topic is small new light and medium duty equipment with Tier IV emissions in the PRESENT 2015 .With consideration to the future Tier V emissions the EPA has in mind . You don't think the EPA has gone away ?
It's about cost per mile with equipment purchase price, cost of service over the life time, trade value and fuel costs. What light duty operator such as a home owner or rural easte owner wants an emissions Diesel engine repair bill ? The up front diesel cost and no fuel cost saving of worth noting.