Fuel usage 1450 v. 2182

[782CC]

Nice thread. I have one addition to the discussion. The combustion chamber design. A flathead motor will not compete with a OHV in efficiency. Fuel droplets do not all center conveniently around the spark plug for a good flame propagation. Bad combustion chambers will always burn more fuel out the exhaust

Tune is everything on a gas motor. A small adjustment in timing will greatly affect tune. Gas motors can be way out and be "Good". Fat motors cover bad tune/fuel delivery. Lean one down to correct fuel and watch the symptoms pop up. EGT and O2 sensor on compared motors would tell much.

[IH Cub Cadet]

Or we can just go to the lab (our back yards) and work the tractor and get actual results instead of theory.....

[J-Mech]

Originally Posted by sawdustdad

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.

I ran some quick numbers and I'd say this is close..... but pretty tough to say it's a rule of thumb. Under a constant full load..... maybe. But I'd say that's a little high for a "modern" engine.

Originally Posted by sawdustdad

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.

Only if you are comparing two of the exact same engine. Not just engines that are similar in size and hp. I can show you gasoline motors that won't fit in the back of a truck, that only make about 20HP. So your can't use HP as a comparable factor. This is true whether your talking gas or diesel. Cubes is a good way to compare.... but there are so many variations in internal engine design that even that makes it hard to compare.

Originally Posted by sawdustdad

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.

Like CAD says, only if you are comparing just the engine. Most of the scenarios here aren't comparing "like" engines or equipment.

Originally Posted by CADplans

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 !



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

I agree with all this except the last part. The reason the engines are more efficient is because the government and the truckers demanded it. Most of the modern farm equipment engines are just truck motors. Truckers DO care about fuel consumption. Farmers are cheap yes, but honestly fuel is an expense and therefore a write off. They really don't care I promise. They also could give a crap less about emissions. They REALLY hate these new motors. I think we will see a severe drop in new tractor sales as these new "environmentally friendly" diesels are 1.) expensive to work on and maintain 2.) require far more maintenance 3.) are FAR less fuel and HP efficient. Truck companies have already started offering new trucks for sale less the motor and trans, so that you can buy a brand new truck and stick a rebuilt older, non emission controlled diesel in it.

[J-Mech]

Originally Posted by 782CC

Nice thread. I have one addition to the discussion. The combustion chamber design. A flathead motor will not compete with a OHV in efficiency. Fuel droplets do not all center conveniently around the spark plug for a good flame propagation. Bad combustion chambers will always burn more fuel out the exhaust

Tune is everything on a gas motor. A small adjustment in timing will greatly affect tune. Gas motors can be way out and be "Good". Fat motors cover bad tune/fuel delivery. Lean one down to correct fuel and watch the symptoms pop up. EGT and O2 sensor on compared motors would tell much.

I disagree on your flat-head versus OHV point. The flat-heads were pretty easy on fuel, but HARD on emissions. Thus the reason for the change. Same is true for a rotatory (wankle) motor. Easy on fuel, HARD on emissions.

[Sam Mac]

Just my 2 cents but we are talking about lawn mower engines. I would think they only way to accurately measure this would be on a dyno with egts, O2 sensors etc. Then when all is said and done then what?

[782CC]

Originally Posted by Sam Mac

Just my 2 cents but we are talking about lawn mower engines. I would think they only way to accurately measure this would be on a dyno with egts, O2 sensors etc. Then when all is said and done then what?

Then we take them out, mow the lawn, put whatever gas used for each back in the tank and drink a beer while enjoying this thread. lol

[jimbob200521]

Originally Posted by J-Mech

I agree with all this except the last part. The reason the engines are more efficient is because the government and the truckers demanded it. Most of the modern farm equipment engines are just truck motors. Truckers DO care about fuel consumption. Farmers are cheap yes, but honestly fuel is an expense and therefore a write off. They really don't care I promise. They also could give a crap less about emissions. They REALLY hate these new motors. I think we will see a severe drop in new tractor sales as these new "environmentally friendly" diesels are 1.) expensive to work on and maintain 2.) require far more maintenance 3.) are FAR less fuel and HP efficient. Truck companies have already started offering new trucks for sale less the motor and trans, so that you can buy a brand new truck and stick a rebuilt older, non emission controlled diesel in it.

Not that this contributes much to the topic, but I 100% agree on this part. Guy I work for in the fall keeps up with new equipment every 1-3 years (depending on machine) and the new New Holland T8 he has requires EXHAUST FLUID (that's what he calls it). Supposedly, it neutralizes the diesel exhaust making it environmentally safe but it's just yet another expense. Plus the new one's seem to have poor transition between clutch packs making some gear changes in the field a bit rough. For those that have used them, just give me an original Ford Genesis 8970 and send me to work

Originally Posted by 782CC

Then we take them out, mow the lawn, put whatever gas used for each back in the tank and drink a beer while enjoying this thread. lol

Back on topic (somewhat), I'm in for this! I've got a 1450 and an 1811 I plan on mowing with this spring and I don't care one single bit about fuel consumption in them. They're cheap enough to run, give me some peace and quite, and put a big smile on my face every time I run them. Worth EVERY PENNY as far as I'm concerned.

[Merk]

Originally Posted by 782CC

Nice thread. I have one addition to the discussion. The combustion chamber design. A flathead motor will not compete with a OHV in efficiency. Fuel droplets do not all center conveniently around the spark plug for a good flame propagation. Bad combustion chambers will always burn more fuel out the exhaust

Tune is everything on a gas motor. A small adjustment in timing will greatly affect tune. Gas motors can be way out and be "Good". Fat motors cover bad tune/fuel delivery. Lean one down to correct fuel and watch the symptoms pop up. EGT and O2 sensor on compared motors would tell much.

As stated earlier the engine in my 149 is not stock......neither is the fuel I use. There was several things changed in that engine to increase horsepower-including the fuel. An engine making more horsepower will use more fuel. I'm big on corn juice (ethanol) and sometimes run more than the 10% you get at the pump.

[782CC]

I was not thinking of your motor in my comment. I got it was modified and am sure it is sweet power now. Sorry bout that. My k17 or my 450 farmall can turn into guzzlers with a slight twist of the jet.
If you are adding alcohol then a major change in consuption and not really compatible usage. Me I am not a blend guy. Either cr for alchy or cr for gas available. I am fond of chemicals. Toulene does well for a bump and helps low cr situations. And if serious there is a nitro additive that mixes with gas...

[Merk]

Originally Posted by 782CC

I was not thinking of your motor in my comment. I got it was modified and am sure it is sweet power now. Sorry bout that. My k17 or my 450 farmall can turn into guzzlers with a slight twist of the jet.
If you are adding alcohol then a major change in consuption and not really compatible usage. Me I am not a blend guy. Either cr for alchy or cr for gas available. I am fond of chemicals. Toulene does well for a bump and helps low cr situations. And if serious there is a nitro additive that mixes with gas...

No problem here.
The blended fuel came about when E10/Bio fuel made to John Q. Public. I've learned not to trust things you read. I've had some good results and some bad. Biggest thing I learned was better fuel storage.