E-PTO and regens while working

[mcfarmall]

This is a question for those of you with the E-PTO option on your Tier IV tractors. I have read my manual many times from cover to cover, even before making my purchase...that's how weird I am, so if the answer is in the manual I surely would have found it.

When operating the tractor using the E-PTO, my engine RPM's are around 1850 and PTO is at 540 +/- a few R's. If the tractor wants to do a regen while mowing, for instance, will it ask me to raise the engine RPM's to the regen level? There IS a rev limiter on the throttle when E-PTO is engaged so that you can't overspeed the implement, so I wonder about 2 things:

1. When E-PTO is selected, does it automatically, internally in the ECM, inhibit a regen cycle until the next non-E-PTO occurrence? There is a switch on the E-PTO lever to tell the ECM when it is selected.

2. Will the tractor ECM perform a regen cycle anyway even though the engine RPM's are lower than usual, perhaps altering some other parameters like cycle time or whatever to ensure a proper regen?

Thought I'd throw it out here first to see if there are any real-world stories about how the E-PTO affects regens. If it comes up a bust, I'll hit the service manager at my dealer up with the question.

 

[Thunder chicken]

I’ve never had it happen yet, but I’d either.... stop and switch out of EPTO so it could regen and keep mowing, or, ignore it then do the parked regen when finished.

 

[sheepfarmer]

You ask good questions about the programming of the ECU, and as far as I know, to get a good answer you should contact Kubota technical support by email. It might take a couple of tries, seems like the first answer come from folks that just have the manuals, but I finally got a long email from someone that seemed to understand the programming.

In that email he or she happened to point out that you have a limited number of minutes, about 30, to defer a regen before it starts to shift into the higher levels where you can only do a parked regen. So I don't recommend ignoring or deferring.

If you are mowing in ePTO and it tries to regen and appears not to be able, better to take it out of ePTO and use regular PTO and do the regen while you work. I don't have ePTO, but I do have a dpf level monitor, and the engine is working hard enough that the soot levels decline while mowing without a regen, so the situation might not arise.

If you are able to find out about the programming please let us know the answer.

 

[GeoHorn]

The more threads I read about ReGen ... the stoopid-er this entire business appears ...of turning harmless carbon into carbon-dioxide by burning more fossil fuel.

 

[SDT]

This is a question for those of you with the E-PTO option on your Tier IV tractors. I have read my manual many times from cover to cover, even before making my purchase...that's how weird I am, so if the answer is in the manual I surely would have found it.

When operating the tractor using the E-PTO, my engine RPM's are around 1850 and PTO is at 540 +/- a few R's. If the tractor wants to do a regen while mowing, for instance, will it ask me to raise the engine RPM's to the regen level? There IS a rev limiter on the throttle when E-PTO is engaged so that you can't overspeed the implement, so I wonder about 2 things:

1. When E-PTO is selected, does it automatically, internally in the ECM, inhibit a regen cycle until the next non-E-PTO occurrence? There is a switch on the E-PTO lever to tell the ECM when it is selected.

2. Will the tractor ECM perform a regen cycle anyway even though the engine RPM's are lower than usual, perhaps altering some other parameters like cycle time or whatever to ensure a proper regen?

Thought I'd throw it out here first to see if there are any real-world stories about how the E-PTO affects regens. If it comes up a bust, I'll hit the service manager at my dealer up with the question.

Do not know the answer to your question but have wondered myself as my M9960 has EPTO.

I used EPTO with a mounted HD 7' cutter for a couple of years before replacing the 7' cutter with a 15' BW. I do not use EPTO with the BW so it is no longer an issue for me.

All regen issues have been seamless for me (aside from the B3350) and I do not even know when they occur. It is highly likely that it regened while running the 7' cutter at around 1,700 RPM in EPTO but I cannot be certain. I never noticed any lamps and never increased engine RPM. That said, the engine was often working hard at 1,700 RPM while mowing with the 7' cutter.

I have no idea if the ECM is programmed to compensate for EPTO but certainly doubt if it is. My EPTO was dealer installed and the ECM was not updated at the time.

SDT

 

[sheepfarmer]

The more threads I read about ReGen ... the stoopid-er this entire business appears ...of turning harmless carbon into carbon-dioxide by burning more fossil fuel.

Geo, I don't think I can produce actual numbers, but what manufacturers and others are saying is that the newer tier IV engines do not use more fuel working because increased efficiency offsets any extra fuel used during regen when compared with older style engines. Mine regens for 10 minutes every 50 or so hours depending on how I use it. The 3560 uses 0.4 to 0.5 gal per hour if I remember correctly. I go on working while it regens, and soot is burned off passively while mowing. Regen, when proceeding as intended, uses negligible extra fuel.

This is an older article but it pertains to the tier IV engines Kubota was producing at that time.
https://www.equipmentworld.com/regu...components-at-the-heart-of-your-tier-4-engine

The harmless nature of soot particles in the air is debatable. In a city asthmatics might beg to differ. Millions of vehicles creating smog have demonstrable bad effects on the lungs. The tiny carbon particles are picked up by cells in the lungs and remain there forever. I have seen them in tissue sections of lung and lymph nodes. Pathologists used to say you could tell how long someone lived in LA by how grey the lung tissue was. Same as smoking.

 

[SDT]

The more threads I read about ReGen ... the stoopid-er this entire business appears ...of turning harmless carbon into carbon-dioxide by burning more fossil fuel.

Talk to your elected representatives. It's certainly not the fault of Kubota.

SDT

 

[Botamon]

I've had my M7060 for several years now. All I use is EPTO - close to 470 hours on it now - and like yours, engine rpm is ~ 1850 rpm when at 540 PTO rpm. All regenerations have been seamless - no interaction required on my part, and for the most part, unless I happen to be looking at the dash and see the light on, I don't know the regen is happening.

Can't remember EVER having run my M7060 much faster than the 1850 rpm - no need for it for me. And absolutely no problems with the regeneration process so I'd say don't worry about it.

According to my owner's manual, should the regen process start and the rpms are not high enough you will get a flashing warning light on the dash. I've never seen it.

Yes, the system is a pain in the butt - but Kubota has done a good job in implementing the requirements so it works with very few problems. For me, it has been zero problems.

 

[GeoHorn]

Geo, I don't think I can produce actual numbers, but what manufacturers and others are saying is that the newer tier IV engines do not use more fuel working because increased efficiency offsets any extra fuel used during regen when compared with older style engines. Mine regens for 10 minutes every 50 or so hours depending on how I use it. The 3560 uses 0.4 to 0.5 gal per hour if I remember correctly. I go on working while it regens, and soot is burned off passively while mowing. Regen, when proceeding as intended, uses negligible extra fuel.

This is an older article but it pertains to the tier IV engines Kubota was producing at that time.
https://www.equipmentworld.com/regu...components-at-the-heart-of-your-tier-4-engine

The harmless nature of soot particles in the air is debatable. In a city asthmatics might beg to differ. Millions of vehicles creating smog have demonstrable bad effects on the lungs. The tiny carbon particles are picked up by cells in the lungs and remain there forever. I have seen them in tissue sections of lung and lymph nodes. Pathologists used to say you could tell how long someone lived in LA by how grey the lung tissue was. Same as smoking.

I’m not saying asthmatics and otherwise healthy people don’t have bad reactions to smog.

I’m saying that if CO causes global-warming...then WHY is it OK to make more CO by burning more fossil fuel than necessary to accomplish a task?

If one wishes to reduce carbon particles in the air it shouldn’t take a rocket-scientist to run exhaust thru a filter in the exhaust system. Collect the carbon and make pencils out of it, or bury it or make tires, or whatever else for which carbon is necessary and re-cycle it, if you’re concerned about it.

But the complaint that we’re too reliant upon carbonaceous fossil fuel which makes CO and damages the environment is a theory I can endorse.... but I cannot see how increasing the fuel consumption in order to increase the CO isn’t simply accelerating the problem.

 

[sheepfarmer]

I’m not saying asthmatics and otherwise healthy people don’t have bad reactions to smog.

I’m saying that if CO causes global-warming...then WHY is it OK to make more CO by burning more fossil fuel than necessary to accomplish a task?

If one wishes to reduce carbon particles in the air it shouldn’t take a rocket-scientist to run exhaust thru a filter in the exhaust system. Collect the carbon and make pencils out of it, or bury it or make tires, or whatever else for which carbon is necessary and re-cycle it, if you’re concerned about it.

But the complaint that we’re too reliant upon carbonaceous fossil fuel which makes CO and damages the environment is a theory I can endorse.... but I cannot see how increasing the fuel consumption in order to increase the CO isn’t simply accelerating the problem.

Well I could get on board with recycling the carbon particles if someone could invent a cheap changeable filter! But reducing particles in the exhaust and reducing CO carbon monoxide gas are two different technical problems. If I run across some articles I’ll post, but I have forgotten what I read a couple years ago about the various strategies

 

[troverman]

Back to the original question, I don't think RPMs really matter. What a DPF needs in order to successfully perform an active regen is heat. With the engine under constant load, plenty of heat is generated...particularly in engines that have turbochargers on them. I believe all the ePTO equipped Kubotas have turbos. However, if you are just shuttling around using the loader, the engine will probably never get hot enough to produce enough heat, even with the additional fuel. Note that all modern diesel road vehicles with DPFs that also need to regenerate never have an RPM requirement.

Now, on to the topic of fuel consumption during a regen...there is no doubt additional fuel is used. The injectors fire twice during the 4 engine strokes, instead of just once. If you have a fuel consumption meter like the Grand L and some other larger Kubota's do, you can actually watch your GPH increase. And if you drive a modern diesel road vehicle, you will notice a substantial drop in fuel economy during a regen.

 

[GeoHorn]

Sorry for my “typo“ when I meant CO2 instead of CO.

Meanwhile, .... I wonder how many tractors are contributing to metropolitan smog. Aren’t most tractors in rurual areas?

I live an a rural central Texas county that has no large city and our autos/trucks/etc have no emissions-tests required to pass inspection (unlike my relatives in Houston that must pay an additional $85 emissions test-fee when they have their cars inspected.). As long as there’s no “check engine“ light illuminated during the test there’s no issue. (They used-to pressure-test the gas cap to ascertain if the gasket leaks but they don’t even do that anymore.)

 

[troverman]

Sorry for my “typo“ when I meant CO2 instead of CO.

Meanwhile, .... I wonder how many tractors are contributing to metropolitan smog. Aren’t most tractors in rurual areas?

Once CARB got road vehicles where they wanted them (fully emissions equipped and on the road to full electric), they turned their attention to other targets, such as off-road equipment like a tractor, excavator, skid loader, etc. Hence the same emissions system as a larger road vehicle, like a DPF. And now they have gone beyond that to the SORE class (small off road engines) like your average 5HP push lawn mower. I noticed my latest zero turn mower (a Kubota Z421 with a 24HP Kawasaki V-twin) has a charcoal canister. The fuel tank and carburetor are both vented to a decently sized charcoal canister mounted under the mower chassis. Apparently this is a new requirement. And many equipment manufacturers simply follow CARB rules, since they are enacted in a number of states now, rather than trying to make a federal vs CA model.

What we are seeing is the law of diminishing marginal utility. That means there are some things you can do for relatively little expense that will have a major impact on reducing pollution (common-rail, electronically controlled diesel fuel injection as an example); vs additional things you can do for a lot of money that have a smaller impact on pollution (diesel SCR / DPF systems, for example).

 

[SDT]

Once CARB got road vehicles where they wanted them (fully emissions equipped and on the road to full electric), they turned their attention to other targets, such as off-road equipment like a tractor, excavator, skid loader, etc. Hence the same emissions system as a larger road vehicle, like a DPF. And now they have gone beyond that to the SORE class (small off road engines) like your average 5HP push lawn mower. I noticed my latest zero turn mower (a Kubota Z421 with a 24HP Kawasaki V-twin) has a charcoal canister. The fuel tank and carburetor are both vented to a decently sized charcoal canister mounted under the mower chassis. Apparently this is a new requirement. And many equipment manufacturers simply follow CARB rules, since they are enacted in a number of states now, rather than trying to make a federal vs CA model.

What we are seeing is the law of diminishing marginal utility. That means there are some things you can do for relatively little expense that will have a major impact on reducing pollution (common-rail, electronically controlled diesel fuel injection as an example); vs additional things you can do for a lot of money that have a smaller impact on pollution (diesel SCR / DPF systems, for example).

Diminishing marginal utility was reached decades ago.

SDT

 

[troverman]

I agree, but agencies like CARB and the EPA still need to justify their existence and requisite large budgets....

 

[NHSleddog]

Geo, I don't think I can produce actual numbers, but what manufacturers and others are saying is that the newer tier IV engines do not use more fuel working because increased efficiency offsets any extra fuel used during regen when compared with older style engines. Mine regens for 10 minutes every 50 or so hours depending on how I use it. The 3560 uses 0.4 to 0.5 gal per hour if I remember correctly. I go on working while it regens, and soot is burned off passively while mowing. Regen, when proceeding as intended, uses negligible extra fuel.

This is an older article but it pertains to the tier IV engines Kubota was producing at that time.
https://www.equipmentworld.com/regu...components-at-the-heart-of-your-tier-4-engine

The harmless nature of soot particles in the air is debatable. In a city asthmatics might beg to differ. Millions of vehicles creating smog have demonstrable bad effects on the lungs. The tiny carbon particles are picked up by cells in the lungs and remain there forever. I have seen them in tissue sections of lung and lymph nodes. Pathologists used to say you could tell how long someone lived in LA by how grey the lung tissue was. Same as smoking.

Does that actually sound right in your head when you say it?

Sure you use a lot more fuel and chemicals in the lifetime of the vehicle but we made it more efficient so it is OK? IMAGINE the fuel savings we could be seeing right now instead of giving all the savings AND pollution back.

How about just making it more efficient without all the crap on top.

GOV: Here we put in a process that will make you more money. +2%
GOV: Now that you have all that extra money, here is a little tax raise, 1.9%.
PRO BIG GOV Thinker - Thats Great!

Wife: It was on sale and 50% off!
Husband: You still spent 600.00 on something we don't need.

Too blind to see the forest through the trees.

 

[sheepfarmer]

Does that actually sound right in your head when you say it?

Sure you use a lot more fuel and chemicals in the lifetime of the vehicle but we made it more efficient so it is OK? IMAGINE the fuel savings we could be seeing right now instead of giving all the savings AND pollution back.

How about just making it more efficient without all the crap on top.

GOV: Here we put in a process that will make you more money. +2%
GOV: Now that you have all that extra money, here is a little tax raise, 1.9%.
PRO BIG GOV Thinker - Thats Great!

Wife: It was on sale and 50% off!
Husband: You still spent 600.00 on something we don't need.

Too blind to see the forest through the trees.

Try reading the whole sentence. Maybe even the whole paragraph. The 10 minutes of regen time is compensated for by the increased efficiency COMPARED with old style engines. The choices people have right now are tractor with dpf and regen, or an older tractor without, and with a lower efficiency engine.

Furthermore, 10 or even 30 minutes out of 50 hours (3000 minutes) is a decrease in that efficiency for 0.3 to 1% of its operating time. Perfect solution, no. If you know how to use these machines and they are in working order, they are not wasting massive amounts of fuel doing regens. B3350 excepted.

 

[troverman]

Does that actually sound right in your head when you say it?

Sure you use a lot more fuel and chemicals in the lifetime of the vehicle but we made it more efficient so it is OK? IMAGINE the fuel savings we could be seeing right now instead of giving all the savings AND pollution back.

This was my argument when the government came down hard on the VW TDI diesel cars. They fined them to the tune of billions of dollars and VW stopped selling the popular and efficient TDI. I'm thinking...so, these cars pushed a little too much NOx when they were working hard (still vastly less than older, "legal" diesels)...but on the other hand, they could achieve nearly 50mpg on the highway. So which is worse...a car that puts out a little too much NOx but uses far less fuel than a comparable car, including all the chain of environmental impacts from drilling, transporting, refining, transporting, and ultimately ending up in the car? Most of those TDIs got bought back and the owners ended up buying gas powered VW cars, or gas powered competitive cars which on average got 10-15mpg less fuel economy than the TDI.

So was the move really to protect the environment? Or to punish an automaker for outsmarting the EPA? Or to use the opportunity to remove a viable alternative to the EV, which is what the real agenda is?

 

[troverman]

Try reading the whole sentence. Maybe even the whole paragraph. The 10 minutes of regen time is compensated for by the increased efficiency COMPARED with old style engines. The choices people have right now are tractor with dpf and regen, or an older tractor without, and with a lower efficiency engine.

Furthermore, 10 or even 30 minutes out of 50 hours (3000 minutes) is a decrease in that efficiency for 0.3 to 1% of its operating time. Perfect solution, no. If you know how to use these machines and they are in working order, they are not wasting massive amounts of fuel doing regens. B3350 excepted.

Maybe other Kubota tractors are different, but the two I've had with a DPF (an MX and a Grand L) don't match your times. Mine need to regenerate far more frequently than every 50 hours, and a regen lasts 20+ minutes for me, not 10. Furthermore, my older L4310 from 20 years ago, with a 4-cylinder engine, was definitely more efficient.

 

[GeoHorn]

This was my argument when the government came down hard on the VW TDI diesel cars. They fined them to the tune of billions of dollars and VW stopped selling the popular and efficient TDI. I'm thinking...so, these cars pushed a little too much NOx when they were working hard (still vastly less than older, "legal" diesels)...but on the other hand, they could achieve nearly 50mpg on the highway. So which is worse...a car that puts out a little too much NOx but uses far less fuel than a comparable car, including all the chain of environmental impacts from drilling, transporting, refining, transporting, and ultimately ending up in the car? Most of those TDIs got bought back and the owners ended up buying gas powered VW cars, or gas powered competitive cars which on average got 10-15mpg less fuel economy than the TDI.

So was the move really to protect the environment? Or to punish an automaker for outsmarting the EPA? Or to use the opportunity to remove a viable alternative to the EV, which is what the real agenda is?

The point in that VW story, I believe, is that VW cheated and lied.... and cheaters/liars should be called-out regardless of any “benefit” they claim. (BTW, the “benefit” claimed was mostly large profits into their own coffers. The fines/penalties deprived them the profit from their cheating.). Seems fair to me.