TYM (Branson)

[dpauly]

One thing I've realized after watching the TYM honcho's vids about the advantages of a strictly mechanical fuel system vs. the electronic fuel injected systems most if not all other mfg's have gone to is he makes a great case. Yes, an electronic system (assuming it and all related components are working as designed) will provide absolute optimal efficiency. However, when something goes wrong and especially if you can't fix it yourself because it's a computer hardware/software issue or one of the myriad sensors and you don't have the diagnostic equipment/experience is all that efficiency worth being able to get your tractor back out in the field by doing an old school analysis/repair that many are or would be capable of if theirs was a purely mechanical system? I have to wonder. I have a Case IH Farmall 50A 2016 and it has the aforementioned electronically controlled fuel system. My other is a 2011 Branson 3120 with the old mechanical system (Kukje {Cummins}engine - the size of which I'm no longer sure of! More about that in another post . . .) Anyway, recently bought a Cub Cadet Zero Turn Pro Z that seems to be top of the line in many respects. Initially I was somewhat dismayed that the Kawasaki engine on this particular rig only came with a carbureted engine while others in that line offered a fuel injected one. Now, I'm glad I didn't let that stop me from buying for the same reasons cited above, as I try to fix what I can on my equipment (it also irks the crap outta me that with Cub Cadet products [as I learned AFTER the purchase], even though something might be under warranty the dealer still gets into the customer for a 'Pick Up/Delivery' charge {in my case for a 2 mile journey $60 and I'm not sure it covers the round trip!}) In any case, I will definitely give thought to staying with a tractor using a mechanical fuel injection system vs. electronic when I buy my next one.

 

[CloverKnollFarms]

One thing I've realized after watching the TYM honcho's vids about the advantages of a strictly mechanical fuel system vs. the electronic fuel injected systems most if not all other mfg's have gone to is he makes a great case. Yes, an electronic system (assuming it and all related components are working as designed) will provide absolute optimal efficiency. However, when something goes wrong and especially if you can't fix it yourself because it's a computer hardware/software issue or one of the myriad sensors and you don't have the diagnostic equipment/experience is all that efficiency worth being able to get your tractor back out in the field by doing an old school analysis/repair that many are or would be capable of if theirs was a purely mechanical system? I have to wonder. I have a Case IH Farmall 50A 2016 and it has the aforementioned electronically controlled fuel system. My other is a 2011 Branson 3120 with the old mechanical system (Kukje {Cummins}engine - the size of which I'm no longer sure of! More about that in another post . . .) Anyway, recently bought a Cub Cadet Zero Turn Pro Z that seems to be top of the line in many respects. Initially I was somewhat dismayed that the Kawasaki engine on this particular rig only came with a carbureted engine while others in that line offered a fuel injected one. Now, I'm glad I didn't let that stop me from buying for the same reasons cited above, as I try to fix what I can on my equipment (it also irks the crap outta me that with Cub Cadet products [as I learned AFTER the purchase], even though something might be under warranty the dealer still gets into the customer for a 'Pick Up/Delivery' charge {in my case for a 2 mile journey $60 and I'm not sure it covers the round trip!}) In any case, I will definitely give thought to staying with a tractor using a mechanical fuel injection system vs. electronic when I buy my next one.

I ran this tractor 22 hours in two days... And often thought, this thing has had no error codes and no fuel issues since 1982! . 12,000 hours.

 

[Texasmark]

TYM bought Branson to get the Cummins licensed mechanical fuel injection system and the Cummins reliability...as the story goes and I believe. My 6530 has that engine, bought new in 2007. Totally bullet proof as are most if not all the Cummins family of engines for road, industrial, and farm usage. At PTO RPM of 65 HP, working that HP, it runs 2.7 gph.

 

[Harry in Ky]

No matter who builds the engine, there is no comparison between the old "common sense" fuel system and the (highly touted) common rail system. With one, when it fails, almost ANYONE can get get it going again before dark.. With the other, when it fails almost NOBODY can get it going again. With common rail, it's a given that sooner or later you'll have to walk home.

 

[jyoutz]

No matter who builds the engine, there is no comparison between the old "common sense" fuel system and the (highly touted) common rail system. With one, when it fails, almost ANYONE can get get it going again before dark.. With the other, when it fails almost NOBODY can get it going again. With common rail, it's a given that sooner or later you'll have to walk home.

I had the same concern when I traded in my mechanical Cummins engine (99 Dodge 2500) for my common rail Cummins (2007 Dodge 2500). Now 170K miles later, I have never experienced an issue. Using clean fuel and changing fuel filters on schedule are the key to keeping common rail engines happy.

 

[Harry in Ky]

I'm not talking about automotive type systems, mainly the tractor systems. In the automotive world the sheer volume alone dictates that far more resources can be devoted to R&D, product support, and a much better trained and equipped work force. In the tractor world that simply doesn't exist.