No hole in the fuel system.

It's slightly modified :biggrin2:

This used to cost me about $4.00 per min for fuel. :biggrin2:

I must have been doing something really wrong. I've mowed my 1.25 acre yard with 2 1650's and a 1512, each wearing a different 50" deck. The 1650s had 50A decks, and a 50C was on the 1512. Both 1650s went through a full tank of gas, what 2 gallons? I'd run out if I didn't refuel right before I finished. It was like clockwork for both of them. The 1512 has a 4 gallon tank? and I'd burn 1-1.5 gallons. Not sure how your 1450 can mow twice as much, with half the fuel as either of my 1650s. Both ran well, and both decks were in great shape with sharp blades. We'll see how the new mower does, but I suppose if it really mattered, I'd buy a reel mower and make the boy push it around all summer. :biggrin2:

LOL :biggrin2:


Is that going in a straight line? Or in circles? :bigthink:

Watkins Glen road course. Left and Right. :biggrin2:

Ahhhhh. A Grand Prix! :beerchug:

My 109 w/10 hp and 44 inch deck and 126 with 48 inch deck are the mpg champs in my fleet. The 1650 w/14 hp engine in it has been doing sea trials this winter, towing a firewood trailer and pushing snow seems to burn a more fuel. But the big gas guzzler in my fleet is a 20 hp twin cylinder Onan on another color tractor. Sounds great, but really drinks the gas!

I cannot compare the tractors featured in this thread but can compare the 10 horse Kohler K241 and the 20 hp command. The command uses a lot more gas but it is apples to pineapples. The 10 hp has a 42 inch mower or a 36 inch snowthrower. The 20 hp has a 54 inch mower or a 45 inch 2 stage snow blower or a 54 inch blade. The command uses a tank of gas to mow about 3 acres or a little more. The k241 uses about a tank of gas too. Difference is a little over a gal and about 5 gal.

This conversation about fuel consumption is reminiscent of similar discussions in the boating world--an area where I have considerable experience. There are some general "rules of thumb" for certain internal combustion engines.

Holding all other factors constant (engine efficiency, environment (temp, RH, etc.)) the amount of fuel consumed should be directly proportional to the efficiency of the engine and amount of work done. Work being the power x time definition.

For example, for diesel engines, a good rule is 1 gal/hour for each 20 HP produced. This is actually a pretty good approximation for a modern 4 stroke diesel. No such rule of thumb can be applied to a gasoline engine due to so many variables--especially fuel mixture (lean/rich) which can affect fuel consumption +/- 50% or more. However, the "efficiency" of a gasoline engine properly set up (as in a lab situation) should be close from one engine to another, assuming similar design parameters.

Some of the scenarios presented here with one tractor using substantially more fuel than another to "cut the same amount of grass" must be due more to engine tuning and condition or different grass, air temp, etc conditions.

I guess my point is, if the two engines are tuned to the same mixture, are running properly and in good condition, you should expect similar (+/- say 25%) fuel consumption to do the same work.

Engines, maybe.

What they are hooked to, a whole different story.

A hydro transmission throws 20% of the HP out in heat loss.

Then there are attachment type losses, belt VS shaft.

Base machine weight comes into play, and if there is enough weight, tire pressure will have an effect.

As far as engine efficiency, the JD 820 (and R and 830, all similar) were 30% to 50% more efficient than any other tractor, per Nebraska tractor tests.
(horsepower hours per gallon of fuel)

Many JD 820's were taken out of "show" duty and put back into the field when fuel prices skyrocketed. Farmers are C H E A P ! :bigthink:

:biggrin2:

(Recent engines in tractors have become more efficient, per demands of farmers) :bigeyes: