Gas consumption ?
- Thread starter brin
- Start date
- Views: 4656
OP
brin
Super Member
Bob, just finished off a pot of homemade bean soup so thought I may be able to give some gas consumption remarks but alas you,re speaking of the gas that costs money!Mine was FREE:laughingave
Dave ...never mind the tractor gas consumption...I want some of that Bean Soup.........Geez, I love bean soup. Now I have to have some, I sure wish you had not brought that up...:laughing::thumbsup:
Good to [talk to ya again Bob].I add about 6 slices of jalapeno peppers to mine and always use a smoked pork hock,give it a try:thumbsup:.I must say I get away with it as I,m alone during the week:laughing
ave
LD1
Epic Contributor
My JD 240 with 14HP kawasaki is about 1 gal per hour. It takes me about 2hrs or a little better to mow, and I can mow twice and it's all I can do to squeeze a 5 gal can it.
My bota 3400 is about 1gal per hr as well.
Dads 61" ZTR with 23 HP kaw is somewhere between 1.5-2gal per hour. But considering it mows 2x-3x as fast as my 240, he is actually using less fuel per acre.
Another note, the 8n we have only consumes about 1 gallon per hour as well. I think that was a big selling point for them as well, being able to pull a 1bottom A WOT one gallon per hour. It also has the sherman tranny so it will do about 25MPH. Given that driving on the road isn't as much load as pulling a 1 bottom, that is somewhere north of 25MPG on 60 year old technology. And considering it uses about half the fuel as some of these small mowers with little briggs motors, and it is way more tractor, are we going the wrong way with technology???
My bota 3400 is about 1gal per hr as well.
Dads 61" ZTR with 23 HP kaw is somewhere between 1.5-2gal per hour. But considering it mows 2x-3x as fast as my 240, he is actually using less fuel per acre.
Another note, the 8n we have only consumes about 1 gallon per hour as well. I think that was a big selling point for them as well, being able to pull a 1bottom A WOT one gallon per hour. It also has the sherman tranny so it will do about 25MPH. Given that driving on the road isn't as much load as pulling a 1 bottom, that is somewhere north of 25MPG on 60 year old technology. And considering it uses about half the fuel as some of these small mowers with little briggs motors, and it is way more tractor, are we going the wrong way with technology???
OP
brin
Super Member
Good to [talk to ya again Bob].I add about 6 slices of jalapeno peppers to mine and always use a smoked pork hock,give it a try:thumbsup:.I must say I get away with it as I,m alone during the week:laughing
Dave..Nice talking to you again too....I have not tried the Jalapeno peppers yet but I will now and I also use a smoked pork hock but I shred some carrots and add some small dice potatoes ..as well.
clemsonfor
Super Member
AHHH but remember there were no EPA regs or smogg junk back then like our mowers now have.
I also drove a 1991 geo metro 3 cyl that got 50 + MPG in the late 90's. Not even the worthless smart car gets that now adays and it only has 2 seats and a runk big enough for 4 grocery bags, the metro , small yes but has a back seat and 4 doors.
EPA crap, im telling you, we have the technology.
I always argue that were burning twice the fuel that we could be.
LD1
Epic Contributor
Very true. I drive a 2001 saturn. SOHC 100HP 5-speed. I consistantally get 40-43MPG.
Cant even find a car nowadays that gets that unless it is either a hybrid or a VW diesel. Even when saturn replaced the SL series with the newer IONs, they went backwards on mileage.
We just purchased a new nissan sentra with the CVT last year for my wife. It is not much heavier than my saturn, yet still only gets about 33-34MPG???
We are definatally going the wrong way. What gets me is that the expensive hybrid technology (civic for example as we looked at them as well) added about 8k to the cost yet only returned about 5mpg better. With gas @ $3/gal as it was at the time, we'd have to keep the vehichle for 240,000miles just to pay for itself provided we didn't have any trouble with the expensive to repair hybrid technology.
Call me a planet killer if you like, but they are going to have to do a lot better with the hybrid/electric stuff before I jump on the bandwagon.
bp fick
Super Member
The pollution control standards have tightened three or four times over the past few decades. These do seem to take their toll on the gas mileage.
Most of us can point to high fuel mileage cars from the past. We had a couple of Ford Feistas that consistently got well over 40 mpg. We had one plain jane, 5 speed that knocked on the 50 mpg door.
The reasons we seem to be "going backwards" are many. Not the least of which is that the vehicles are now equipped with so many more safety, crash, air bag type features that all add weight. Side impact beams are another example. Horse power is up too. Electronic gizmos abound. Power everything, from windows to ???
If we are genuine about our memories, however, those super high mileage cars from our past were typically much leaner, more spartan on appointments, fairly short on safety devices and were a little under powered. Did we, the consumer care? Not then we didn't. Would these same kind of spartan cars be marketable today? I kinda have my doubts.
Most of us can point to high fuel mileage cars from the past. We had a couple of Ford Feistas that consistently got well over 40 mpg. We had one plain jane, 5 speed that knocked on the 50 mpg door.
The reasons we seem to be "going backwards" are many. Not the least of which is that the vehicles are now equipped with so many more safety, crash, air bag type features that all add weight. Side impact beams are another example. Horse power is up too. Electronic gizmos abound. Power everything, from windows to ???
If we are genuine about our memories, however, those super high mileage cars from our past were typically much leaner, more spartan on appointments, fairly short on safety devices and were a little under powered. Did we, the consumer care? Not then we didn't. Would these same kind of spartan cars be marketable today? I kinda have my doubts.
clemsonfor
Super Member
I too drive a saturn as my main commuter vehicle now. Its a 1997 SL2, i only get 34-5 MPG on the highway. The twincam version returns 1-2 mpg lower than the single, yet makes more power. Trust me i drive my wifes old car that we kept when we bought a used 2001 toy highlander for her last year, the saturn has a salvage title from a deer collision ( all that happened was a split door skin, shattered quarter panel, busted side mirror, and bent hood), we kept it vs selling it cause it might be worth $1600 and with fuel i will prolly save that in a 2 years if fuel stays where it is and if i jumps again, that will actually make me $$ over the ranger. Oh anyway her sister had the same car but single cam version, i drove both in college from time to time when my ranger was down and the SL1 got better by 1-2 mpg.
The other thing about hybrid is that when i looked they return lower MPG than their fuel models on the highway. This is from an underpowered gas motor that has to constantly run to maintain highway speeds. I drive 60mpg on a highway to work 25miles each way. I use to drive 55 miles oneway on interstate and highway it would not pay for me. They are designed for city drivers or those in traffic a lot. Im never in traffic unless a log truck spills, road construction or a wreck. Once out of the 2500 pop town near my house i may pass 45 vehicles in 20 miles?
On a side not we have a saturn VUe hybrid at work it gets horrible mileage considering that. Not better than 25 i think they said on highway? It has no spare tire cause the batteries sit low under the rear seat or somewhere and they dont want you jacking it and then falling off and busting through that floor and busting the battery pack (not sure if that is a work thing or a Saturn thing though?) I was told the battery pack is said to be replaced around 7 years old and costs 2-3K??? We get rid of them at 6 years so after auction someone will possibly need to buy a 2K battery 2 years after they aquired a 6 yr old vehicle?????
CHDinCT
Veteran Member
This is all very true, but you left out one piece of the equation, residual value. It will alwasy be higher on the diesel. My rough estimate is that you'll get back half the difference at the time of sale or trade.