Gasoline Tractors are they coming Back ?

[MossRoad]

I just can't see gas powered industrial farm equipment anytime in the future for many of the reasons you listed. It's not practical, or economical, when you run the numbers.

That doesn't mean it won't happen. Anything can happen. But right now, I can't see any economical or environmental advantages for large farm equipment. Cars, yes. Large farm, no.

 

[THE ANDROID]

They still exist up to 34 hp. I have one w/540 PTO, FWD & Loader. Sure is handy.

If they used existing OBD2 injection systems.. they would be efficient, clean, and could use inexpensive code readers. Preferably meet emissions from around 2000. Likely that would be cleaner than a diesel w/o adding massive complexity or losing power.

 

[Flad]

How would you guys like paying $2.30 per litre roughly 4L per gallon that's what we pay hear in Australia What you call Gas We call petrol, thats any where between $1.80 to $2.20 per Liter and that's average around town the further out you go the higher the cost of any fuel, I have an old 1952 Petrol Inter Aos 6 That I dusted off and put back in to service for mowing, I am now looking at trying to get a hold of the LPG carby set up that was an option on this model, I bought a Chinese LPG Duel fuel carby for my 5hp Chonda pump out of curiocity I havn't yet got around to fitting it to see if it's any cheaper to run.

 

[Fixastuff]

I ran a older 45hp diesel trencher and rented a newer 44hp gas trencher for a month. The 45hp diesel could do the work at a nice easy 2k rpms, I think 2600 rpms was maxed out. The gas trencher had to be maxed out 3500rpms to get anything done, was louder, vibrates more and burnt way more fuel in a 8hr day.

 

[warrendeere]

Diesels really do need the emissions crap on them because they really are bad for the environment. Old smokey diesels put out big soot particles that make smog and turn everything black, the new diesels with high pressure common rail multi injection are much more efficient but they make tiny soot particles that get far down into your lungs and act like asbestos and can give you cancer later down the road. That is why the new engines have DPF and those over 74HP have DEF systems on them.

After having three emissions diesels in pickups (nightmare emissions problems with the RAM, the Fords were better) the last pickup I bought was a F350 dually with the 7.3 gas engine in it. Tows 20K pounds just as good as the diesels did (just does not accelerate uphill as fast) and is so much easier to live with. Gets the same crappy mileage the diesels did but fuel and maintenance are a lot cheaper. And you can even see the engine and get to everything to work on it if needed down the road. When the powers that be decide to tighten emissions again, I think gas engines will make a comeback.

Once again you are unable to back up your argument with facts. Emissions from diesels are not worse than the emissions from a gas engine, they are just different and more visible. How about how much fuel was burned to mine the materials in these dpf's? Nobody wants to talk about that. How about how much shorter the lifespan of the engine is when it has dpf and a vast amount of emissions standards. Ever think about the fuel burned when these engines have to be recycled? How about how much emissions there is in refining that fuel? All your doing is defering the emissions from your truck to a different place. Again, as I also said, your comparing a nearly brand-new gas engine to an diesel engine that is 20 years old! A new diesel can see mileage in the mid20s. My 6.7 gets 21MPG average. If you don't haul all the time, absolutely, go with the gas. But you put 20k pounds every day behind that 7.3 gas and behind that 6.7 diesel, the diesel will last longer, it will get far better mileage. Even these modern gas v8s just cannot keep up with a modern diesel. A 7.3 gas not pulling at best will get 16mpg-AT BEST!

 

[warrendeere]

Diesels really do need the emissions crap on them because they really are bad for the environment. Old smokey diesels put out big soot particles that make smog and turn everything black, the new diesels with high pressure common rail multi injection are much more efficient but they make tiny soot particles that get far down into your lungs and act like asbestos and can give you cancer later down the road. That is why the new engines have DPF and those over 74HP have DEF systems on them.

After having three emissions diesels in pickups (nightmare emissions problems with the RAM, the Fords were better) the last pickup I bought was a F350 dually with the 7.3 gas engine in it. Tows 20K pounds just as good as the diesels did (just does not accelerate uphill as fast) and is so much easier to live with. Gets the same crappy mileage the diesels did but fuel and maintenance are a lot cheaper. And you can even see the engine and get to everything to work on it if needed down the road. When the powers that be decide to tighten emissions again, I think gas engines will make a comeback.

Look at what cars.com found from their testing-
To test this, I took a 2020 F-250 Lariat 7.3-liter with the 4.30:1 final drive ratio on a nearly 60-mile test loop, empty and while towing a trailer. For the first trip, I kept the truck as light as possible, with only me in the truck. For the second trip, I attached a trailer weighing 12,500 pounds with a 1,300-pound tongue weight. Apart from me, there were some additional tools in the truck weighing another 100 pounds.
Driving the truck empty is a comfortable experience. Starting and stopping are smooth, and the ride is, as expected, a little rough. Over the 58.8-mile course I used 3.954 gallons of gas, which gave me a calculated 14.87 mpg. The computer read 14.9 mpg, which is exactly the same as our calculated number when rounded.

For the towing run, I used 7.004 gallons of gas and had a calculated fuel economy of 8.4 mpg. The computer read 8.2 mpg. The computer was very close in the estimated fuel mileage, which doesn’t happen often.

8.4MPG Is disastorous. From personal experience hauling 22k pounds in a 6.7, 2021, i have gotten about 15.6-16MPG. From everywhere from what i see online, most people are reporting about 14-15MPG towing. To me personally, these large gas engines just don't make any sense if you haul often.

 

[Gator6x4]

John Deere's 5E tractors does not have DEF fluid to manage, no DPF filter to change, and no Regen process needed in the 5E 3-Cylinder. Which shows manufactures are working hard to find a solution.

https://www.deere.com/en/tractors/utility-tractors/5-family-utility-tractors/5e-series/#:~:text=You'll%20get%20the%20same,simplicity%20keeps%20you%20working%20uninterrupted.

 

[Gator6x4]

Once again you are unable to back up your argument with facts. Emissions from diesels are not worse than the emissions from a gas engine, they are just different and more visible. How about how much fuel was burned to mine the materials in these dpf's? Nobody wants to talk about that. How about how much shorter the lifespan of the engine is when it has dpf and a vast amount of emissions standards. Ever think about the fuel burned when these engines have to be recycled? How about how much emissions there is in refining that fuel? All your doing is defering the emissions from your truck to a different place. Again, as I also said, your comparing a nearly brand-new gas engine to an diesel engine that is 20 years old! A new diesel can see mileage in the mid20s. My 6.7 gets 21MPG average. If you don't haul all the time, absolutely, go with the gas. But you put 20k pounds every day behind that 7.3 gas and behind that 6.7 diesel, the diesel will last longer, it will get far better mileage. Even these modern gas v8s just cannot keep up with a modern diesel. A 7.3 gas not pulling at best will get 16mpg-AT BEST!

"Emissions from diesels are not worse than the emissions from a gas engine, they are just different and more visible."

Here is what the experts say.

"Black carbon particles, found in diesel engine exhaust, are 3,200 times more damaging to the climate than carbon dioxide in the near-term and promote cardiovascular disease and lung cancer."

Cleaning Up Diesel Exhaust Improves Both Health & Climate

A new World Bank study summarizes a menu of technical and policy options already demonstrated to cut the health and climate risks from diesel emissions.

www.worldbank.org

 

[IHpower]

IMHO I never saw the use for a diesel in farmyard or short term light duty chores. That bias is probably based on the older diesels, some which were a royal pain to start in the winter like a Farmall 460 or 560.
Personally I'd take a Farmall 300 or 350 gas. They're top tier for winter starting. Small enough to work around most farmyards, buildings, etc. Plus they have live PTO power, live hydraulics and power steering. Easy to work on. Maintenance parts plentiful. If you find one with a 2 point hitch then you have the ultimate rig.

I could go on but these little tractors are tough as nails. New is nice or okay. But if you want reliability, torque, weight, rugged construction, low maintenance and low price; then I'll take vintage in an eye blink. Sandblast and do a quality paint job and they'll turn heads more than a new green or blue or orange.

 

[JoeBee]

Had old gasoline tractors, it is a nightmare and all of them had a unlimited thirst for fuel, have a MF135 diesel and a full tank seems last forever, no gas trakctor starts easier than a AD3-152 diesel.

Had a couple great uncles who had a horrible accident/fire refueling a hot gas tractor.

 

[duke7595]

No way absolutely not. Gasoline tractors can never compete with a DIESEL and they don't last near as long..

 

[IHpower]

Here is what the experts say.

"Black carbon particles, found in diesel engine exhaust, are 3,200 times more damaging to the climate than carbon dioxide in the near-term and promote cardiovascular disease and lung cancer."

Recently I had a short discussion with fully indoctrinated climate alarmist, who is obsessed with CO2. Climate can be changed on a continental scale or even world scale by 1 big volcano. Its happened plenty of times in earth's history and is recorded in plain sight for all to analyze.

The big destroyers are ash particles to block sunlight and cover vegetation; and wreck animal respiratory organs (short term, long term for other body organs). Sulfur is a close second behind ash. In the Medieval Ages a volcano in Iceland popped off spewing out massive amounts of sulfurs with ash. This mixed with atmospherical moisture and came down in rain as sulfuric acid across northern Ireland, most of Britain and parts of northern Germany. Crops were midway through growing season so there was no time to replant even if they had the capability. Crops and grass die = starvation for people & animals.

Back to my denier of science and history. He claimed that volcanoes didn't spew out much CO2 so they were not as big a threat as particles blocking sunlight. I'm rarely speechless but occasionally someone is dumb I don't know what to say..

Viking climate history: the Medieval Warm Period began in the late 900's lasting well into the 1400's. This is why Erik the Red was able start his colony on Greenland. He was not pulling a scam as the common legend claims, otherwise he'd been killed. Remember we're talking Vikings!! The Greenland landscape was lush grass and easily supported growing colonies for the next 400+ years.

All was well until a big volcano blew up in the southwest Pacific Ocean region which has hundreds of them. That one big volcano cooled the Northern Hemisphere stopping crop growing in northern regions. The Gulf Stream was "pushed" south and Greenland no longer had the warming waters. Ice began choking water routes and soon stopped supply ships from Norway. Everything went downhill fast. Must've been the CO2 gases.

 

[duke7595]

There was a time when diesels were the simplest motors. They were entirely mechanical without any electrical systems or carburetors. Gas engines were better at just about everything else, and much less expensive because of the lower compression ratio.
I liked the gasoline industrial engines. They ran wonderfully smoothly at low RPM and started easily. Easy to maintain and rebuild. Lasted just as long as diesels. A much quieter engine and easy to control emissions.
I don't see any great advantage to today's diesels. For most things, the gasoline engines do better.
rScotty

I don't know what gas tractor (s) your talking about, however, no gas tractor will outlast a good diesel tractor period!!

 

[torch1]

Looks like lots of interest in this topic
A couple of points here, diesel is cheaper to make than gas as the refining process is simpler so manufacturing cost is not a factor.
Diesel is not bullet proof, it actually develops microbes called fuel bugs, do a google search on(fuel bugs) develops in 10- 12 months of storage.
You need to be aware of winter and summer diesel fuel, more so in northern states and all of Canada. The summer fuel will wax up you fuel filter if you get summer fuel in winter time, always worthwhile to carry spare fuel filters if you have a diesel powered RV or pickup truck. The winter fuel gives you less power, as an average 5% less depending on the specific gravity of the fuel.
My opinion of price increases is quite simple government tax grabs and gouging by the oil companies, notice the profits for the oil companies in the past 3 years.
Something I noticed a lack of or even mention in these articals is no mention of service intervals and if you want any engine to live, all filter‘s and oil changes, valve sets must be kept up and maintained. Servicing is the cheapest way to maintain any vehicle, do not shortcut on this or lengthen the time between changes.
I used to work for Caterpillar and was very surprised when they basically got out of the Highway Truck Market, my take on this, no proof, was the pending changes to the EPA codes and rules for emissions. Cat spent a lot of years and money getting to be the # 1 truck engine and to just drop out all together has to tell you something.
With all the chatter about emissions I am truly amazed there is no government in Canada, either federal or provincial that is currently doing any exhaust emissions testing.

if we are all concerned with carbon levels why are we doing no testing and therefore where are our supposed experts getting there reference material from? Ever try and get a straight and factual answer from any politician?

Electric vehicles need to be improved greatly before they will survive and be feasible in many many of end user markets. As an example this week one morning was -40, think an electric vehicle will handle that and operate at peak efficiency?

Sorry for the length of this

 

[RandR10]

With the high prices of diesel fuel , & possible shortages looming are manufactures considering bringing back gasoline engines that have become more efficient than the ones from 50 to 60 years ago ! & the EV tractors are starting prove themselves not reliable in extreme weather conditions , & the power grid is not there in rural areas & not to mention operating cost ! The diesel engine is still the most efficient as far as fuel consumption , But having to meet stronger emission standards allot of owners are not happy with the regens & having to run def in there tractor of 25 HP or more which adds more to operating cost & efficiency ! In summary would you consider buying a new gasoline engine tractor instead of a EV tractor ! Or as a substitute for a diesel if they were available ? Just a thought .

I purchased an old Massey 204 for some of the reasons you listed, but now that I sold that machine and now own a smaller diesel Kioti I prefer the diesel. Even with the extra fuel costs I still spend less on fuel with the DH1101 engine vs. the Z134. While the Continental had reliability to rival diesels it was a pig on fuel and ran rich no matter what I did with the carb. I'm sure a more modern fuel injected gas engine that starts instantly and is way more efficient like modern car engines might sway me back the other way, but the compact tractors that Cub Cadet made a few years back with a horizontal Briggs or Kohler v-twin wouldn't do it. Those are like 1k hour engines while the diesels can get closer to 10k hours with proper maintenance. If the price disparity for diesel remains we might eventually see some offerings that tick all the right boxes.

 

[RandR10]

"Emissions from diesels are not worse than the emissions from a gas engine, they are just different and more visible."

Here is what the experts say.

"Black carbon particles, found in diesel engine exhaust, are 3,200 times more damaging to the climate than carbon dioxide in the near-term and promote cardiovascular disease and lung cancer."

Cleaning Up Diesel Exhaust Improves Both Health & Climate

A new World Bank study summarizes a menu of technical and policy options already demonstrated to cut the health and climate risks from diesel emissions.

www.worldbank.org

I might be wrong but I think Eric Nora, the author of the linked article, may not be an actual expert based on what he's saying. Given how politicized climate science has become I wouldn't believe anything unless it was in an actual peer reviewed journal article, and even then I would approach with skepticism weighed against an entire body of evidence. I studied climate science in undergrad (albeit on an introductory level because my concentration was in environmental studies, so take what I say with that in mind) and my understanding from that coursework is that small carbon particles in fact do the opposite of a greenhouse gas or at the very least any warming effects are offset because they will seed clouds when released into the atmosphere and increase cloud cover. There may be other emissions from burning diesel that increase greenhouse gases above an beyond an equivalent gasoline engine, but carbon particles are not doing it. At the very least, that 3200x claim is almost certainly either made up or he's misunderstanding what he's been told. I would certainly be interested to see where he got that info from. Here's a recent article discussing it:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2001674117

The claims about localized pollution on diesel are correct though. It's much worse for air quality in population centers.

Also, the total amount of carbon dioxide released is a bit higher for diesel than with gasoline. Even though your fuel consumption is lower for diesel, it's because the hydrocarbons are longer and the fuel is more energy dense. Still, it takes a bit more carbon from diesel fuel to make the same amount of power, so they emit more CO2 (but like 12%, not 3200x).

 

[bowenskye]

Diesel would have to get pretty high for me to go to gas. Maybe if they had made some good fuel injected gas tractors during the sweet spot in the 80's / early 90's.
All of my experience with gas tractors has been with points and condensers. I don't care to go back. I can't imagine a modern gas engine being any good at all, when it comes to repairs requiring unavailable chips

 

[RandR10]

I don't know what gas tractor (s) your talking about, however, no gas tractor will outlast a good diesel tractor period!!

The Massey 204 I mentioned above (one of the two I had) had a Z134 Continental gas engine with somewhere north of 11,000 hours on it and was still chugging along. I'd say that is at least the equal of any diesel I've ever seen.

 

[Hotpot]

i really like my gas'er. 1974 international 354. I find it to be fuel efficient and easy to work on. I dont think id take a new tractor over it, even if it was given to me. Lots of cast iron.

 

[can do]

I purchased an old Massey 204 for some of the reasons you listed, but now that I sold that machine and now own a smaller diesel Kioti I prefer the diesel. Even with the extra fuel costs I still spend less on fuel with the DH1101 engine vs. the Z134. While the Continental had reliability to rival diesels it was a pig on fuel and ran rich no matter what I did with the carb. I'm sure a more modern fuel injected gas engine that starts instantly and is way more efficient like modern car engines might sway me back the other way, but the compact tractors that Cub Cadet made a few years back with a horizontal Briggs or Kohler v-twin wouldn't do it. Those are like 1k hour engines while the diesels can get closer to 10k hours with proper maintenance. If the price disparity for diesel remains we might eventually see some offerings that tick all the right boxes.

I have a 1959 M-F 50 with a Z134 continental gasoline engine 4 cylinder 34 HP, & I put in a electronic ignition it so has cut the need for tune ups , & replacement of spark plug last twice as long ! & it does consume way more fuel than my 2018 M-F 1526 with a 3 cylinder Iseki diesel 25 HP , & it weighs over 1,000 lbs. less ! Of course you really can't compare the two ! But You & some others did get what the hypothetical thread was about , If you needed to buy a new tractor today would you buy a gasoline tractor over a diesel if it where comparable ? & a E tractor is just not a option as of yet !