Is it true

Growing up the neighbor had Internationals,he always said JD`s were harder on fuel.I know another guy who got rid of his Deere`s and bought Case IH or whatever they are now. He said they are easier on fuel any truth to these claims?

false!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Is there any red in your shed? jd2wd

as my handle dictates ,that would be NO,was raised on all green stuff now I have some orange but never red. not that red is bad .

Definitely better with gas compared to the post 2 cyl era Deeres. Real competitive or possibly better before, would need to review the Nebraska Tests. International produced an efficient gas engine. But until they went direct injection, Deere had the edge with diesel, and they really blew IH out of the water during the 2 cyl diesel era.

There are many things to consider when buying a tractor to farm with. Fuel economy is one of them. I never farmed with John Deeres. However, I think everyone should own a John Deere over any other brand. Or at least the farmers I am selling diesel fuel to should own a John Deere. After 35 years of hauling fuel to all colors, Green is my favorite.

Only non-partial answers are the Nebraska tests, nothing but a comparison under the same load conditions.

Would all depend on the years you were growing up and if we are talking about gasoline or diesel tractors. The 2 cylinder JD 70 and 720 blows away all other diesel tractors in their time period. Gasoline tractors favored the IH H's through 560. Later 6 cylinder diesel tractors favored the IH tractors tractors in the mid 60's.
Figures were taken from Nebraska test results... Gene

I have JD, Ford, and a Case, and a friend has a couple IH I let him keep here.

If anything the JD are a little easier on fuel when considering actual work done.

Just from my expereience on my farm under my conditions.

Comes down to the individual engine & tranny combo, each color has a real good tractor, and a real lemon for fuel use.

Just like planters - back in the 70s & 80s, everyone had a green planter, pulled by all colors of tractors. Now in 2000s, everyone is pulling a Case planter, no matter what color tractor they have....

No company has all better tractors than the other company.

--->Paul

Listen to garytomaszewski instead of Bubba down at the coffee shop.

If you want the truth, check the Nebraska tests for the models in question. For several years running the John Deere 730 Diesel was the best in horsepower/hours per gallon. It was only recently surpassed, like in the last 10 or 15 years as I recall.

Lots of variables here. As a rule, I've found the turbo 4s to be easier on fuel for the same horsepower than the nat asp 6s. Right now, of all the turbo 4s I've got the DT219 in a John Deere dozer runs longer per gallon than anything else I've got. Its competition is a 3404 Cat, TB 3.9 Cummins, a pair of DT 256 Fords and 4 DT 268 Fords.

An MF 150 with a 3 cylinder Perkins held the record for fuel economy for many years. The MF 165 also had the best fuel economy in its class. I have also heard that the multi cyinder JD's used more fuel than some others. Of course no one is going to want to admit that their brand uses more fuel. I don't have a big tractor but can't complain about fuel use in my MF 135. Dave

I got a cockshutt 1855 with a 310 waukesha 6 cyl Turbo diesel. fuel tanks hold 50 gal diesel.
I can cut 160 acre hay with it with fuel to spare.

The worst one on fuel is the one that first starts in the mornin Best is the one that didn't

We used to have a Massey 550 combine with a Perkins 354 non turbo. When it was running we could combine corn on about one gallon per acre. The neighbor's 6620 JD would use at least 2 gallon per acre or more and not combine anymore corn. Lee

For the HP the Deere's I have run were harder on fuel than most any other brand.David Brown and Zetor are among the best

I'll admit it! That 478 Hercules in the 2-135 White is miserable on fuel. I don't think you could fill the tank with it running. The 2-85s and 2-105s with the 354 Perkins are GREAT on fuel though. So,just depends on the engine in a White.

Yep and that 730 was so good that they never built another one. Good on fuel but no good otherwise. Sorry. Bad mood.

Tough to beat a D21 or 190xt in the 60's.

Rather than personal opinions, it would be far better to study the Nebraska tractor test results. John Deere has broken many fuel economy records over the years, but all brands have made very good and bad tractors.

I would say that there's good and bad among all of them... but on balance I don't know too many Deere owners around here that rave about how little fuel they use. I know of some that don't do the volume of work we're doing on this farm that use a lot more fuel than we do with a fleet of Fords.
Wether you can blame that on the Deere tractors, their work habits or the fact that they're using 3 80 Hp Saran engines to do all their work.... I don't know, but they use more fuel for the farm as a whole.

One thing that bears mentioning about UNLC tests is this: The official test is conducted for maximum power at rated speed.

Some engines are very efficient at that speed and power level. Some are more efficient at lower speeds and power levels. Holding a fuel efficiency record for a tractor that runs at full power at 2500 rpm is all well and good, but if the tractor does all it's work at 1400 when it's well below it's torque curve and performs as a gutless wonder... it's not getting it's best efficiency. I think that's a factor that hits a lot of later Deere engines very hard. They put up some fine numbers on a dyno at maximum power, but get them out in the field doing actual work at varying speeds and loads and their real efficiency drops off somewhat. That's a factor that's not readily shown in the official UNLC tests.

Again, fro what I see of deere's, and those are mostly 30 series and 40 series manheim's, they are not efficient. Not nearly as efficient as comparable size Ford's, IH's, Brown's, Zetor's and Belarus's that are around here.
The ruski's were efficient because they were simple tractors with a deep stroke slow revving engines. The browns because of a decent length stroke and smalish displacement/power ratio. The Ford's were decent probably because of their flatish torque curve. They drink it pretty good on the top end.
The deere's that I've worked with had pretty narrow, quick torque bands in the higher speed range... so they were destined to run fast and not do much unless they ran fast, and that's probably what kills their efficiency on lighter loads.
If you pummeled the crap out of it and ran it hard all day at maximum power it would probably do a lot of work for it's fuel. A perfect example being a dozer...


Rod