I would think a B could pull a single bottom plow I have never tried. An 8n can pull the heck out of of a 2 bottom had and used one for years. same hp but the bigger wheels and extra weight mean a lot.
Stingy on fuel
- Thread starter RalphVa
- Start date
Now 18 gallons at 46.5, completely full: 0.39 gph or 0.015 gph/engine hp. Running closer to 0.5 gph now though the last 2 fills. That's about what the 18.5 hp JD 4010 ran over 660 hours.
Years ago I worked at a golf course mowing greens. I had a little Jacobsen greens mower with a tiny Kubota diesel in it. It would take about three hours to get through the course and the boss wanted it full of fuel after every shift. I always had a chuckle because it only took about two liters to fill.
I ran my WC68 chipper 4 solid hours a few days ago. And I was FEEDING it like a hungry baby. If it wasn't chipping, something was on the way. Some of it was up to 5 inches in diameter. I doubt I used a gallon of diesel. It wasn't enough to turn off the top bar on the fuel gauge on the display. These things are VERY efficient. I'd have used at least 4 gallons of gasoline with a 6.5 HP 3" chipper and would have been out there 2-3 days grinding up the pile of stuff that I took out in 4 hours. There was at least 2 cubic yards of chips/mulch when I finished. I think I just bought my 5th can of fuel (5 gallons) and have nearly 200 hours on the machine. I tend to use a little more when I'm digging out the stumps from all the brush I've cut but having the weight and torque of the tractor sure beats the heck out of a comealong, pickaxe, shovel, chainsaw, and an axe. Gotta cut a way across the 2nd wash across my property today.
For you guys that are obsessed with a tenth of a gallon per hour:
www.facebook.com
Does removing weight impact fuel usage? | Fuel Consumption on a Kubota BX | You asked, we tested. Does removing weight from your tractor improve your fuel economy? We put a BX through four different tests to see how it impacts... | By Messick Farm Equipment | Facebook
You asked, we tested. Does removing weight from your tractor improve your fuel economy? We put a BX through four different tests to see how it impacts...
www.facebook.com
Last edited:
I'm up to 22 gallons at 55.7 hours, completely full except for about a cup full. That's almost spot on 0.4 gph or 2.5 hours/gallon. That's fully 1/3 less than the 3 JDs used. Doesn't even blacken the back of the FEL like they did.
There is a decent comparison chart here of the BSFC of several different types of engines. Not surprisingly, the huge very low speed long stroke marine going diesels are near the top of the efficiency class surpassed only by two stage gas turbines that extract as much heat energy as possible from the fuel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake-specific_fuel_consumption
Small diesel engines took an overall efficiency hit from Tier IV emissions equipment when a DPF is required, both in terms of fuel needed for regen and for the additional exhaust restriction imposed by the DPF. This has been offset to some extent by the more precise injection control and higher injection (thus better atomization) brought about through high pressure common rail systems with electronic control of the injectors. DEF is a bit of a bother but it does help with Tier IV fuel efficiency because it allows more NOx to be generated during the combustion cycle that is then cleaned up via the SCR system. Prior to DEF/SCR systems, NOx was reduced via controlling peak combustion pressure via EGR and reduction of compression ratio and boost level.
I have been pleasantly surprised by the low fuel consumption of the 3.3L Mitsubishi turbo diesel powering my standby generator. I did install it just before Tier IV required DPF and DEF for this size of standby generator.
A diesel engine needs to run under enough load to avoid "wet stacking" but it tends to remain far more efficient at reduced power levels compared to a gas engine running at reduced power, especially in a fixed RPM environment.
GM uses AFM (active fuel management) on most of their gas powered vehicles and it attempts to improve fuel efficiency at lower power levels by leaving the intake and exhaust valves closed on some of the cylinders during AFM operation. This reduces the amount of power normally required to pull intake air through a mostly closed throttle plate reducing the pumping loss of the engine when running at low power. This closed throttle plate is how gas engines provide engine braking, similar to the work we would face in trying to inhale when pinching our nostrils mostly shut.
The benefits are minimal in many situations, especially compared to the complexity and weight added by the AFM system but it can provide some gain under the right conditions. Prior to Tier IV, most diesel engines had a very free flowing intake and exhaust but the DPF imposes a substantial exhaust restriction and many DPF equipped engines now have a throttle plate to help create exhaust heat during DPF regen.
Rodger
Small diesel engines took an overall efficiency hit from Tier IV emissions equipment when a DPF is required, both in terms of fuel needed for regen and for the additional exhaust restriction imposed by the DPF. This has been offset to some extent by the more precise injection control and higher injection (thus better atomization) brought about through high pressure common rail systems with electronic control of the injectors. DEF is a bit of a bother but it does help with Tier IV fuel efficiency because it allows more NOx to be generated during the combustion cycle that is then cleaned up via the SCR system. Prior to DEF/SCR systems, NOx was reduced via controlling peak combustion pressure via EGR and reduction of compression ratio and boost level.
I have been pleasantly surprised by the low fuel consumption of the 3.3L Mitsubishi turbo diesel powering my standby generator. I did install it just before Tier IV required DPF and DEF for this size of standby generator.
A diesel engine needs to run under enough load to avoid "wet stacking" but it tends to remain far more efficient at reduced power levels compared to a gas engine running at reduced power, especially in a fixed RPM environment.
GM uses AFM (active fuel management) on most of their gas powered vehicles and it attempts to improve fuel efficiency at lower power levels by leaving the intake and exhaust valves closed on some of the cylinders during AFM operation. This reduces the amount of power normally required to pull intake air through a mostly closed throttle plate reducing the pumping loss of the engine when running at low power. This closed throttle plate is how gas engines provide engine braking, similar to the work we would face in trying to inhale when pinching our nostrils mostly shut.
The benefits are minimal in many situations, especially compared to the complexity and weight added by the AFM system but it can provide some gain under the right conditions. Prior to Tier IV, most diesel engines had a very free flowing intake and exhaust but the DPF imposes a substantial exhaust restriction and many DPF equipped engines now have a throttle plate to help create exhaust heat during DPF regen.
Rodger
Think the biggest problem with DPF is the extra fuel needed to ignite it when doing a burn off. Dropped the fuel efficiency on VW TDIs to not much better than our current Mazda3. TDI did 40 mpg overall. The 3 does 35.
The additional fuel used during active regeneration is very noticeable but Tier IV hurts in other ways with vehicles. My 2018 GMC 2500HD is rated for 10,000 pounds GVWR, 800 more than my previous 2006 GMC 2500HD but they had almost identical payload ratings with most of the 800 eaten up by the weight of the DPF, DEF, and supporting systems. There is also a penalty, particularly when higher power is being developed, due to the increased back pressure from the DPF even when it is fresh from a regen.
The switch to gas direct injection with most current gas engines has done a lot for car and truck operating efficiency. My Cadillac ATS and Camaro RS are both equipped with GM's 3.6L V6 with 11.5:1 compression ratio engine which are designed to use regular 87 octane fuel. Both have consistently provided a combined MPG avg in the 27.5-27.9 range and both return over 30 MPG in 80 MPH interstate driving. I am very happy with that level of operating economy from a 335 HP engine that runs on regular fuel. I don't put a lot of miles on my 2016 Corvette Z06 (also gas direct injection) and it definitely isn't fuel stingy but it will stay around 27 MPG in high speed interstate driving. It requires 93 octane minimum for its 650 HP supercharged V8 so I don't drive it if I feel like being cheap
Rodger
Continuing in our tradition…Horses can make more horses.
…that would mean MORE vet bills, farrier bills, mucking out stalls…..(besides…I’ve already GOT more tractors…).. 
Right on. Some of the best engines I ever worked on were Isuzu tier 3, common rail fuel system. They used egr, but it was a "light" egr system. Tier 4 the fuel consumption went up considerably with the addition of the dpf/doc system.
Our Mazda3 uses 87 octane and has 14/1 compression ratio. Does about 38 on hwy and averages 35.The additional fuel used during active regeneration is very noticeable but Tier IV hurts in other ways with vehicles. My 2018 GMC 2500HD is rated for 10,000 pounds GVWR, 800 more than my previous 2006 GMC 2500HD but they had almost identical payload ratings with most of the 800 eaten up by the weight of the DPF, DEF, and supporting systems. There is also a penalty, particularly when higher power is being developed, due to the increased back pressure from the DPF even when it is fresh from a regen.
The switch to gas direct injection with most current gas engines has done a lot for car and truck operating efficiency. My Cadillac ATS and Camaro RS are both equipped with GM's 3.6L V6 with 11.5:1 compression ratio engine which are designed to use regular 87 octane fuel. Both have consistently provided a combined MPG avg in the 27.5-27.9 range and both return over 30 MPG in 80 MPH interstate driving. I am very happy with that level of operating economy from a 335 HP engine that runs on regular fuel. I don't put a lot of miles on my 2016 Corvette Z06 (also gas direct injection) and it definitely isn't fuel stingy but it will stay around 27 MPG in high speed interstate driving. It requires 93 octane minimum for its 650 HP supercharged V8 so I don't drive it if I feel like being cheap
Rodger
dirtydeed
Well-known member
Lifetime Member
Equipment
B2650 BH77, U27-4R2, BX23TLBM, box blade, rear blade, flail mower, Stump Grinder
We hired 50-60 goats from the local firm here around Charlottesville. These eat stilt grass, but the guy said it would not be cost effectively because you'd need to do it for 4 or 5 years in a row. A lot easier though than mowing the entire property (once I've paid a forestry mulcher guy nearly $10k to remove all small trees and stumps) with a brush hog.