Used Value vs Age

[wolc123]

If I was in the market for a new CUT of more than 27 hp, I would look for and consider paying more for a late model , pre Tier 4, if one could be found with low hours and in good condition. Tier 4 compliant CUT's use more fuel to produce less power.

If enough efficiency improvement could be found to make up for the "clean exhaust" losses, then I would lean more towards a Tier 4 compliant model.

The problem is, most of the engineering development is now focusing on electric and hydrogen power. That makes it unlikely that enough added efficiency will ever be found to make a Tier 4 compliant diesel CUT cost effective.

 

[espacef1fan]

I don't have numbers for tractors but my dad's SUV goes straight from 40 MPG to 26 MPG during a regen. And I bet it would easily do 43/44 MPG without all the emissions on it.

On tractors, the fact you need to run the engine at least above 2000 RPM to keep the DPF or DOC happy, says a lot about how efficient these emission systems are. Basically forcing you to operate at wide open when something like 1200 to 1500 RPM would be plenty using like 1/4 of the fuel.

Lower rpm doesn’t always mean less fuel used, especially if the engine is designed to operate efficiently at an rpm that works with other emissions equipment.

 

[fried1765]

Lower rpm doesn’t always mean less fuel used, especially if the engine is designed to operate efficiently at an rpm that works with other emissions equipment.

"operate efficiently"?
It seems quite obvious that higher RPM will always be less fuel efficient, with or without "other emissions equipment".

 

[Hay Dude]

Not true

Ok because 30 trillion debt looks real good on the balance sheet.
Maybe some more multi-trillion dollar boondoggles coming soon for “infrastructure“

 

[Hay Dude]

How much less efficient? Got some numbers/data specific to tractors?

Well for starters I can tell you that a vehicle with a dpf injected with diesel fuel is using more diesel fuel than the same diesel engine without a dpf. Its also less reliable since there’s more parts to wear out or fail. That also lowers efficiency.
Is that enough data for ya?
Why do you think pre emissions diesel equipment is so sought after?

 

[espacef1fan]

Well for starters I can tell you that a vehicle with a dpf injected with diesel fuel is using more diesel fuel than the same diesel engine without a dpf. Its also less reliable since there’s more parts to wear out or fail. That also lowers efficiency.
Is that enough data for ya?
Why do you think pre emissions diesel equipment is so sought after?

Some tractors like Branson don’t use extra fuel injected to create heat. They are completely passive if you run the tractor hard enough.

Also some that can inject, don’t inject, if you run it hard enough.

I would be surprised if a modern 50hp tractor would use anymore fuel than an older 50hp tractor at rated power .

 

[espacef1fan]

Well for starters I can tell you that a vehicle with a dpf injected with diesel fuel is using more diesel fuel than the same diesel engine without a dpf. Its also less reliable since there’s more parts to wear out or fail. That also lowers efficiency.
Is that enough data for ya?
Why do you think pre emissions diesel equipment is so sought after?

Also used equipment is USED which means while there may be less parts to wear out, they are further along in the process of wearing out than new machines.

Also used machines represent buying someone else’s neglect/problems.

Neither is a good case for claiming improved reliability nor reduced liability of paying for parts(most used machines without emissions equipment are no longer under warranty )

 

[mo1]

New tractors have certainly gotten much more expensive after the significant changes with the 2014 emissions restrictions. This has kept prices up on the newer pre-emissions used tractors as a result as people often do choose between new and lightly used. The prices of 40+ year old units or somewhat newer ones with a lot of wear have NOT changed all that much as people don't normally comparison shop between a brand-new tractor or a 50 year old one. We have also have a big disruption to the supply chains with the whole coronavirus ordeal and it is much more difficult to get new tractors right now, period, so the price of any new or newish tractor is going to be higher than a year or so ago as well.

I don't see much evidence of the 2014-up units being noticeably less desirable than the 2013 and older units. If that was the case, you would see people getting very little for trade-ins on tractors made since 2014 and also the prices of a 2014 used tractor would be noticeably less than that of an otherwise similar 2013. We do not see that.

As far as whether or not the 2014-up units are particularly troublesome with regards to emissions or the near-ubiquitous adoption of electronic engine controls, about the only common issues I have heard in utility and compact tractors relate to one specific model of Kubota being very troublesome and some people with flaky throttle and ECU electronics on smaller CNH utility tractors. I haven't personally had any issues but haven't had the tractor for years yet. The exhaust smells noticeably different than a 2013 and older unit and there is an extra switch on the dash that the owner's manual essentially says to not touch, but that is all I have seen so far. The rated fuel usage according to Nebraska between the pre-2014 and 2014-up versions of my tractor show the new units use about 1/2 gallon more per hour at full load than the equivalent older engines, but the current engines do also make more power and torque across the entire powerband.

 

[ptsg]

Lower rpm doesn’t always mean less fuel used, especially if the engine is designed to operate efficiently at an rpm that works with other emissions equipment.

I can get like 2 to 4 more hours out of a full tank of fuel by running the brush mower at 540E, that's around 1800 engine RPM, versus running the mower at standard 540 which put the engine at 2500 RPM. How is that not using less fuel?

Same on driving on the road. If I push it to 2500 RPM, I can almost see the fuel gauge moving. If I keep it under 2000 RPM, it will take a lot more time to move.

But then again, my tractor has a fully mechanical engine. No electronics whatsoever. So the others with Common rail may act differently.

 

[paulfun9]

Look this emissions stuff is in the long run, a good thing.

Everyone should be able to agree cleaner air is better.

In today’s world lower emissions almost always correlated to more efficiency as well. We all like saving money on diesel right?

I care less about the smell as I am waiting for delivery of my cabbed Massey 2850M, but you are lying if you say it was healthier for you to breathe what my 1975 JD 1120 spewed in my face everytime I ran it.

It’s also well understood what keeps these systems healthy now so ownership costs shouldn’t be too bad, either.

This makes me laugh!
Emissions have cost us fuel mileage since day one.
No direct comparrison for tractors but every car, truck and motorcycle I own with emissions has given less mpg than a similar vehicle before.

 

[Doughknob]

Some people just simply enjoy whining. Helps nothing; but if it makes them happy.......

 

[Hay Dude]

This makes me laugh!
Emissions have cost us fuel mileage since day one.
No direct comparrison for tractors but every car, truck and motorcycle I own with emissions has given less mpg than a similar vehicle before.

Doesnt it? I’m not 100% sure, but it sounds like the words spoken of a “faculty lounge expert”, with no real world experience.
From the belt driven smog pump of 1972 all the way to today’s DPFs and all the catalytic converters in between, every pollution control device reduces efficiency and increases fuel consumption. That’s just plain fact for the last 50 years.
Now do they reduce emissions? Of course they do and that’s a good thing. However, the word we are focused on is “efficiency“.

 

[Hay Dude]

New tractors have certainly gotten much more expensive after the significant changes with the 2014 emissions restrictions. This has kept prices up on the newer pre-emissions used tractors as a result as people often do choose between new and lightly used. The prices of 40+ year old units or somewhat newer ones with a lot of wear have NOT changed all that much as people don't normally comparison shop between a brand-new tractor or a 50 year old one. We have also have a big disruption to the supply chains with the whole coronavirus ordeal and it is much more difficult to get new tractors right now, period, so the price of any new or newish tractor is going to be higher than a year or so ago as well.

I don't see much evidence of the 2014-up units being noticeably less desirable than the 2013 and older units. If that was the case, you would see people getting very little for trade-ins on tractors made since 2014 and also the prices of a 2014 used tractor would be noticeably less than that of an otherwise similar 2013. We do not see that.

As far as whether or not the 2014-up units are particularly troublesome with regards to emissions or the near-ubiquitous adoption of electronic engine controls, about the only common issues I have heard in utility and compact tractors relate to one specific model of Kubota being very troublesome and some people with flaky throttle and ECU electronics on smaller CNH utility tractors. I haven't personally had any issues but haven't had the tractor for years yet. The exhaust smells noticeably different than a 2013 and older unit and there is an extra switch on the dash that the owner's manual essentially says to not touch, but that is all I have seen so far. The rated fuel usage according to Nebraska between the pre-2014 and 2014-up versions of my tractor show the new units use about 1/2 gallon more per hour at full load than the equivalent older engines, but the current engines do also make more power and torque across the entire powerband.

Agree somewhat, but those “2014 and up” units you speak of are not quite old enough to start needing pollution control systems repaired or replaced.
Give it about 5 more years and the repair replacement bills start coming in.
I replaced (2) DPF systems on (2) different 2008 Ford trucks with DPFs to the tune of about $2500 each.
That did a real number on the “efficiency“ of my bank account!

 

[wolc123]

Doesnt it? I’m not 100% sure, but it sounds like the words spoken of a “faculty lounge expert”, with no real world experience.
From the belt driven smog pump of 1972 all the way to today’s DPFs and all the catalytic converters in between, every pollution control device reduces efficiency and increases fuel consumption. That’s just plain fact for the last 50 years.
Now do they reduce emissions? Of course they do and that’s a good thing. However, the word we are focused on is “efficiency“.

Spot on. Problem is, most of these folks have liberal arts degrees and no real knowledge of math and science. They are really lacking in thermodynamics and the understanding that energy can neither be created or destroyed.

 

[Hay Dude]

Not only do they reduce efficiency, but they also create more heat.
Anyone who makes a living around machinery or vehicles knows those hot DPFs, Catalytic Converters, etc create equipment life-shortening heat which creates all kinds of issues, from the possibility of wild fires, to discomfort of operation, requiring more air conditioning in cabs to shortening of component life, requiring more parts and services, which means more parts to be made in factories, which means increased pollution. More service truck trips from the dealer to the farm, mine, etc means more air pollution from service truck exhausts. Also there’s a human component. More service truck trips means more possibilities of death or injury in vehicular accidents or service persons injured servicing pollution equipment.
People in colleges just don’t understand the impact of all this pollution stuff they force on us. It’s not thought through completely.

 

[fried1765]

Also used equipment is USED which means while there may be less parts to wear out, they are further along in the process of wearing out than new machines.

Also used machines represent buying someone else’s neglect/problems.

Neither is a good case for claiming improved reliability nor reduced liability of paying for parts(most used machines without emissions equipment are no longer under warranty )

Oh no!
Now I am seriously worried!
I did not realize that the 2006 251 hour Kubota L48 TLB I bought 25 months ago, was actually "someone else's neglect/problems".
The L48 TLB is 2006 pre emissions, so I therefore also suffer from the most dreaded tractor scenario of having no warranty.
From current comparables, it appears that I could sell my L48 TLB today, for at least $12K more than I paid.
What am I missing in this picture?

 

[wolc123]

I am very thankful to have purchased what will likely be the last new tractor I will ever need, back in 2005. I was able to get a 43 hp, made in America tractor with an American diesel power plant back then to boot, and cheaper than some of the Asian powered models that the competition offered:

 

[Hay Dude]

I was beyond happy when I bought my well used Case-IH MX-270.
Built in USA, extremely efficient and easy to repair. Reliable and very clean running. American made Cummins 8.3L diesel @ 270 PTO HP.
Built in Wisconsin by American UAW employees at a Case-IH factory.

Sorry to see those days are over, as America declines into debt and kicks all manufacturing off shore, but hey, we have more “efficiency“, right?

 

[rScotty]

Can you be more specific?

How can you say it doesn't store the soot if it catches it and waits for something to happen?

What's an EGT? Some sort of chemical?

What kind of less harmful gas can soot be converted to? I thought soot was mostly carbon.

 

[espacef1fan]

This makes me laugh!
Emissions have cost us fuel mileage since day one.
No direct comparrison for tractors but every car, truck and motorcycle I own with emissions has given less mpg than a similar vehicle before.

Anecdotal, I know but I have a 06 Triumph Bonneville. It is carbed. Like other carbed Bonnevilles it gets between 38 and 45 mpg.


In 08 they went to EFI, for emissions.

The rule for those bikes is they get around 50mpg+.

Another anecdote.

Look at pickup truck fuel economy and capability in 1985 vs today.

Strangely we are both in the golden age of power and the age of the cleanest vehicles ever produced.