(800) 853-2651
SHOP NOW

fuel consumption (diesel)??

A

Anonymous-0

Well-known Member
Hey folks,
my little tractor (1.8 liter indirect injected) sips fuel like it's the last bottle of Jim Beam that'll be put out.... Possible "new" tractor has a 2.5 direct injected motor. Was told that it would use even less fuel than mine because of the type of injection (or maybe the type of pump??).
Think there is any truth to it? Both IHC..
Dave
 
Dave I have a N/H 1715 it is a 27 HP 4WD. and it uses less than 1/2 GPH while cutting with a 5' brushhog. I can run it all day "8 hours" on less than 4 gal of fuel. That might be true about that tractor.
 
At 1/2 GPH, you must be using only about 10 of it's 27 HP!

(GUESSING it's HP hrs per Gallon @ about 18.)
 
I have a 175 HP 1086 that burns 6 gallon an hour when pulling hard doing tillage. 21 foot disc and 6/16s plow.

So 25 hp per gallon is not uncommon.

On easy pulling it burns 3 or 4 gallon an hour.



Gary
 
"So 25 hp per gallon is not uncommon."

NOT in the measured and metered world of the Nebraska Tests, it isn't!

The John Deere 720 made 18.33 HP hrs per gallon at rated HP back in 1956 and held the record for 27 years, not sure, offhand, what beat it and by how much.

By contrast, your beloved IH 1086 made 15.31 hp hrs per gallon at rated engine speed.
The FACTS on the 1086
 
I can tell you from experience Nebraska Tractor test fuel consumption and real life in the field
operation can be way different,very few people run their tractor at max RPM and pulling a hard constant load.Of course Bob I realize all you know is what you read.
 
My car window sticker rated it at 23 mpg highway, and 19 mpg city in 1995. I get 32 hyw, and 27 city, in 2011, with 195K on it.
 
Trad farmer...

WHAT have I done to you... WHY jump all over me for posting the TRUTH... 25 HP hr per gallon just AIN'T gonna happen with a conventional technology diesel, certainly NOT a 35-year -old one.

Yes, if you are pulling a light load, fuel CONSUMPTION will drop, but NOT HP hrs per gallon. In many cases it actually INCREASES under lighter loads. Besides the engine likely not being as efficient, parasitic loads such as the cooling fan, charging system, hydraulic system, and transmission losses consume a greater percentage of HP/fuel at lighter loads.

Fuel consumption in units per hour is MEANINGLESS as a measure of efficiency because there's no correlation to work actually being done.

HP hrs per gallon measures actual WORK being done against the fuel it takes to do it.

And the NASTY comment... "Of course Bob I realize all you know is what you read." is CERTAINLY unwarranted.

I'd venture to guess I've spent more hours studying, operating, wrenching on, or driving diesels than a good percentage of the population and KNOW from experience there's a limit to fuel efficiency, especially with old/conventional technology!

And, it seems you would make a mockery of the serious and detailed work done by a long succession of learned folks at the University of Nebraska. It's good to know you are FAR smarter than they, as well!

You simply cannot defeat the basic rules of how this stuff works, (except at the coffee shop or bar or on a message board)!

I'll end my RANT now and let you get back to ignoring the facts and pulling figures out of thin air!
 
What make and model... it would be interesting to go to the EPA mileage site and see what their new/revised numbers are.
Find a car
 
(quoted from post at 04:46:51 09/20/11) Dave I have a N/H 1715 it is a 27 HP 4WD. and it uses less than 1/2 GPH while cutting with a 5' brushhog. I can run it all day "8 hours" on less than 4 gal of fuel. That might be true about that tractor.
Click to expand...

UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!! Of all people, a guy from WV managed to stay on track and answer the riginal ????

Thanks Oldmax.
 
(quoted from post at 07:14:25 09/20/11) My car window sticker rated it at 23 mpg highway, and 19 mpg city in 1995. I get 32 hyw, and 27 city, in 2011, with 195K on it.
Click to expand...

Thats cause the EPA will drive a vehicle for the test how they think the average owner will drive it based on model and how much they don't like it. They have been caught at that more than once. Try to figure why they get 50-60 MPG on a hybred and most owners actually get 45.

By the same token the Nebraska test are just that, a test. Going up and down hill, different soil conditions, larger or smaller implements, more or less traction and even the weather can figure in there. The Nebraska test are done in a controlled enviorment to minumize any one tractor having an advantage. They also make sure that if the book says WOT 2100 RPM thats what it's doing, not 2095 or 2150.

Rick
 
(quoted from post at 09:28:15 09/20/11)
(quoted from post at 07:14:25 09/20/11) My car window sticker rated it at 23 mpg highway, and 19 mpg city in 1995. I get 32 hyw, and 27 city, in 2011, with 195K on it.
Click to expand...

Thats cause the EPA will drive a vehicle for the test how they think the average owner will drive it based on model and how much they don't like it. They have been caught at that more than once. Try to figure why they get 50-60 MPG on a hybred and most owners actually get 45.

By the same token the Nebraska test are just that, a test. Going up and down hill, different soil conditions, larger or smaller implements, more or less traction and even the weather can figure in there. The Nebraska test are done in a controlled enviorment to minumize any one tractor having an advantage. They also make sure that if the book says WOT 2100 RPM thats what it's doing, not 2095 or 2150.

Rick
Click to expand...

Rick, I AGREE with what you posted. At the same time, when you are operating a tractor in the field at less than full load and measuring just the gallons per hour it doesn't mean much.

If you were to lend it to a neighbor and tell him it used 4 gallons per hour and he actually pulled it to it's capacity he would be quite crabby with your assessment of fuel use when he filled it up at the end of the day!
 
(quoted from post at 10:23:22 09/20/11)
And the NASTY comment... "Of course Bob I realize all you know is what you read." is CERTAINLY unwarranted.

I'd venture to guess I've spent more hours studying, operating, wrenching on, or driving diesels than a good percentage of the population and KNOW from experience there's a limit to fuel efficiency, especially with old/conventional technology!
Click to expand...

Bob
Just because Traditional Farmer disagreed with you I think his comment couldn't be classified as "nasty". It is possible he didn't include your limited experience but "nasty" I think not so.

Your second quoted paragraph is just your opinion and that's all as there's several educated,experienced farm equipment members of this forum that post here.
 

That's why folks pack up and leave or just start posting OT and BS.... almost everytime a legit ??? get's asked, it takes about 2 replies until folks hijack it into an argument and personal jab fest.....
 
(quoted from post at 09:30:38 09/20/11) Damn Dave2,you sure know how to start a ruckus. You have to quit posting such controversial topics. LOL
Click to expand...

Starting to look at them folks from the wrong side of the river a little different now :shock:
 
You are RIGHT, Jim.

It is also important to note unverifiable anecdotal evidence and straight nnalert carry more weight on this Forum than anything published or otherwise verifiable. (EXAMPLE... a 1086 making 25 HP hrs per gallon.)

I stupidly THOUGHT the Nebraska Test results were somewhat accepted as FACT, but that is obviously not the case. I will not trouble this Forum by posting any reference to them again.

Also, WHY do some make vague posts, such as RedRoundhead (below) where he posts of his great car mileage success, but doesn't mention the make and model. If he had posted that, it would be interesting to see what the experiences of any others were with similar cars, and what the new/revised EPA numbers are. I find such comparisons REALLY interesting.
 
Generally speaking a direct injection diesel is more efficient than indirect. However the larger tractor will have a greater rolling resistance and probably more advanced hydraulics, etc for greater parasitic loss. So there may be some "truth to it" but I doubt you'll see less fuel consumption.
 
(quoted from post at 07:36:51 09/20/11)
(quoted from post at 09:28:15 09/20/11)
(quoted from post at 07:14:25 09/20/11) My car window sticker rated it at 23 mpg highway, and 19 mpg city in 1995. I get 32 hyw, and 27 city, in 2011, with 195K on it.
Click to expand...

Thats cause the EPA will drive a vehicle for the test how they think the average owner will drive it based on model and how much they don't like it. They have been caught at that more than once. Try to figure why they get 50-60 MPG on a hybred and most owners actually get 45.

By the same token the Nebraska test are just that, a test. Going up and down hill, different soil conditions, larger or smaller implements, more or less traction and even the weather can figure in there. The Nebraska test are done in a controlled enviorment to minumize any one tractor having an advantage. They also make sure that if the book says WOT 2100 RPM thats what it's doing, not 2095 or 2150.

Rick
Click to expand...

Rick, I AGREE with what you posted. At the same time, when you are operating a tractor in the field at less than full load and measuring just the gallons per hour it doesn't mean much.

If you were to lend it to a neighbor and tell him it used 4 gallons per hour and he actually pulled it to it's capacity he would be quite crabby with your assessment of fuel use when he filled it up at the end of the day!
Click to expand...

Bob if you noticed I did mention "smaller or larger" implements. I figured most people would take that to mean it would alter how the tractor is run.

And the only really practical measure of a tractor is gallon per acre unless the tractor never gets used in the field. A friend has a Stiger and tries telling everyone about the 10 gallons an hour it drinks. But he's only a burning small amount an acre. With his worst field in mind he burns about 2 gallons an acre plowing. If he would drop a botom or 2 he could run in a higher gear at less RPM's and use less fuel. Dad pulled 3-16s behind a an R JD in forth gear at about 2/3 throttle. Like that it was very easy on fuel.

Rick
 

Bob
In my old age I've noticed that people will not state the real truth about fuel mileage or when farm equipment is concerned gallons per hr consumption. I grew up thinking Nebraska tractor tests were true and still think they are. I think a IHC 1086(rated @ 131 pto hp) turned up to 175 HP won't have adequate air intake capabilities to set high HP hrs per gallon.
 
Nebraska tests are great in so far as they go...
What they tell you is what is most efficient at either rated speed or maximum power. The reality, particularly with utility tractors is that they're almost never run at maximum. Most people on here would in fact call you out as a heretic if you did actualyl run a tractor to rated power... and call it abuse.
What Nebraska tests do not accurately depict is mid speed and light load efficiencies... and those seem to vary widely between tractors. Some seem to bur a large percentage of their full power fuel use even at light loads while others get a considerable reduction in fuel consumption at light loads. Ask someone with a Saran/Manheim Deere how much fuel they burn doing light work. *Hint* It's usually about the same as they burn doing heavy work. This in spite of Deere putting up some of the best efficiency numbers at Nebraska over the years. On the other side Ford's have generally not produced the best nebraska numbers because they're winded at maximum power... but at mid speed or lighter loads they can consistently burn 1/2 to 1/3 rated fuel consumption.

In getting back to Dave's original question... I don't think that on the size tractor he's working with the change in fuel consumption will be all that much. It might be better and it might be worse depending on the parasitic losses involved. Generally newer engines were more efficient. Also... newer tractors generally pumped more oil and had more parasitic losses... so any efficiencies the new engines made were often more than eaten up in parasitic losses.
Short answer... I don't think fuel efficiency is a reason to change tractors, in and of itself... at least in that size class.

Rod
 
(quoted from post at 18:10:09 09/20/11) Nebraska tests are great in so far as they go...
Ask someone with a Saran/Manheim Deere how much fuel they burn doing light work. *Hint* It's usually about the same as they burn doing heavy work. This in spite of Deere putting up some of the best efficiency numbers at Nebraska over the years. On the other side Ford's have generally not produced the best nebraska numbers because they're winded at maximum power... but at mid speed or lighter loads they can consistently burn 1/2 to 1/3 rated fuel consumption.Rod
Click to expand...

Rod if Nebraska tests are unreliable in "your opinion" I'd like to know where you're getting your information that JD Saran/Mannheim/Dubuque (300 series) engines are fuel hogs at light work??
 
Everybody I've ever know that owns them locally continously complains about their fuel usage. Wether they're hard on fuel or their owners perpetually complain... I don't know... but when they tell me their annual fuel bills are nearly twice mine for the same size operation....

I know that's not a simple straight comparison as there are several factors involved there... but one neighbour in particular uses nearly twice as much fuel as I do while covering fewer acres. Two things that i've observed in his case... he does tend to leave tractors idleing for extended periods of time rather than turn the key off... and secondly... he's running 3130/3140's for nearly all of his work when a lighter tractor would do some of that work. So he pays for that in fuel... I think that's probably an informed tradeoff on his part that he's made simply to have a backup of the larger tractor should he need them... but it comes with a significant cost.

Also note... I did not say the nebraska numbers were incorrect or unreliable... FOR WHAT THEY ARE. They simply do not take into account that there are situations where a tractor can loaf along at 1500 rpm and accomplish the task at hand and burn less fuel. Some engines are designed to be more efficient in that range while others are designed to be most efficient at maximum power.
I think one should always remember that it's the gallons used at the end of the year to get the work done that counts the most, not the maximum efficiency the engine makes on a dyno once in it's life.
Probably one of the biggest differences in fuel use between the tractors I mentioned is simply that those Manheim's HAD to run at ~2500 for their PTO speed... so even on light loads they were still running at WOT. The Ford's run at 1900 for 540 PTO, somewhat below their rated power and closer into their efficient range.
The Saran engine makes good power at 2500... and it very efficient at that speed if it's making maximum power... but again, how often does it really make maximum power? I think if you look at the nebraska tests on that subject you also find that those engines put up some awfully poor efficiency numbers when they're anywhere below maximum output... much to the point of being pitifull.
Again... when the Ford's are run past 1900 they fall flat on their faces for efficiency. My observations... it's not uncommon for a 7710 to burn 2 gph doing light work at 1800 rpm. Doing the same work at 2200 rpm will generally see it consume 3.5 gph... and no more work done. On the other hand I've seen this tractor chop as much silage as a 4440 in one hour on 4 gph of fuel while the 4440 took 8 gph... To be fair, I only run a half set of knives now to get that tonnage from the 7710... but otherwise... I ran both tractors and pumped the fuel into both so I know what got used.

Rod
 
RodinNS
So if I read your last post correctly then your other statement about JD utility tractors being fuel hogs when doing light work at less than pto speeds is based on "hear say" not facts and I'll quote you.

[/quote]2nd[/quote]
That's fairly significant for an 86 pto hp to chop "as much silage" as a 130 pto hp tractor on 1/2(half) the fuel in the same amt of time. Maybe the 4440 had some bad injectors or needs a "BLUE" paint job.
 
(quoted from post at 09:33:19 09/20/11)
(quoted from post at 09:30:38 09/20/11) Damn Dave2,you sure know how to start a ruckus. You have to quit posting such controversial topics. LOL
Click to expand...

Starting to look at them folks from the wrong side of the river a little different now :shock:
Click to expand...

I used to work with some folks from WV. It's still the wrong side of the river. :D

On topic, my L3400 Kubota is much better on fuel than my 300U or my Farmall H.
 
(quoted from post at 09:52:33 09/21/11) RodinNS
So if I read your last post correctly then your other statement about JD utility tractors being fuel hogs when doing light work at less than pto speeds is based on "hear say" not facts and I'll quote you.
Click to expand...
sk someone with a Saran/Manheim Deere how much fuel they burn doing light work. *Hint* It's usually about the same as they burn doing heavy work. [/quote]n the other hand I've seen this tractor chop as much silage as a 4440 in one hour on 4 gph of fuel while the 4440 took 8 gph... To be fair, I only run a half set of knives now to get that tonnage from the 7710... but otherwise... I ran both tractors and pumped the fuel into both so I know what got used. /quote]
That's fairly significant for an 86 pto hp to chop "as much silage" as a 130 pto hp tractor on 1/2(half) the fuel in the same amt of time. Maybe the 4440 had some bad injectors or needs a "BLUE" paint job.[/quote]

Jim I've got a 1206 Farmall. At PTO or WOT it can go through some fuel for it's size. Nebraska test says 7.1 gph at PTO RPM and 7 gph at drawbar, I'd say that's pretty close to what I'm getting. Now the engine is in good shape and the pump and injectors were tested a little over a year ago. But it burns almost that much at half throttle just picking up bales with the loader. I think thats what RodinNS is saying.

If I have a chopper that requires 80 HP behind a 90 HP tractor I can only go so fast before I plug it up. Now if I put a 130 HP tractor on that same chopper I'm going to have the same problem with plugging. But to get the most out of the chopper I'm going to have to run both at PTO speed to get the most out of the chopper. Even though I'm not working the 130 HP tractor as hard I've still got those RPMs up. So it will do the same amount of work dictated by the choppers ability but I'd bet that in most cases the 130 HP tractor is going to burn more fuel.

Rick
 
26 replies and 2 answers......... some of you guys really amaze me......

no wonder my people skills suck....
 
(quoted from post at 15:32:40 09/21/11)



I think thats what RodinNS is saying.

If I have a chopper that requires 80 HP behind a 90 HP tractor I can only go so fast before I plug it up. Now if I put a 130 HP tractor on that same chopper I'm going to have the same problem with plugging. But to get the most out of the chopper I'm going to have to run both at PTO speed to get the most out of the chopper. Even though I'm not working the 130 HP tractor as hard I've still got those RPMs up. So it will do the same amount of work dictated by the choppers ability but I'd bet that in most cases the 130 HP tractor is going to burn more fuel.Rick
Click to expand...

Rick
If you pull a chopper built for an 80 pto hp tractor with a tractor that's 130 pto hp that's your problem. I think that larger choppers that are built for larger hp tractors are still available to utilize the higher hp to more than justify the higher fuel consumption.
 
(quoted from post at 15:47:55 09/21/11) 26 replies and 2 answers......... some of you guys really amaze me......

no wonder my people skills suck....
Click to expand...

Davey
I & others replied on fuel consumption just not on your little tractor.
 
There's a few factors involved in getting that amount of haylage through that chopper. As I said, one primary difference is that I was running a half set of knives when it's on the Ford... When I ran a full set I was producing about 25% less per hour.
The other principal factor is that ~this~ particular 7710 is turned somewhere in the vicinity of 105 hp.
Then you add up that there is less parasitic loss on the 4 cylinder chassis tractor; particularly one turned this high... a more efficient transmission to work with for this job... and a bit less weight to drag around generally... And without a doubt the 7710 was working a whole lot harder.
I can't explain to you why the 4440 used so much fuel but I do know it could not make it through an 8 hour day without having some cans brought to the field. Tractordata says it had a 65 gal tank... although to be honest I thought it had a 58 gal tank. You can do the math. But there's a huge difference there in fuel per ton of feed any way you want to work the numbers. Each tractor was chopping somewhere in the range of 4 loads per hour, blowing into either a 14' Jiffy or a 12' shop built high dump... and in case you're wondering, the 12' is mine, towed behind the Ford... and it cubes considerably more than the 14' Jiffy because of it's cross section.
The 4440 was at that time probably a 6500 hour tractor and as far as I could tell, starting, running and pulling just fine. It just likes fuel.

Rod
 
But Dave yer asking questions on here about European tractors and fuel econemy.......yer burning liters while were burning gallons. :shock: :shock: . I think that most of us don't have the experience with the tractors you are asking about to give a good answer.

From what I know as opposed to think, direct injection engines should be more economical than and indirect injection OF THE SAME SIZE. That can and will change with different brands of the same size. Jumping from one size to another may give different numbers. You may get the same, more or less burn rates from a slightly larger tractor when going from indirect to direct.

Worst case you have a tractor to sell.

Rick
 
Jim...LOL I don't chop anything....well pork sometimes....I was just using that as an example. I've known a lot of farmers who will buy a higher HP tractor then over several years upgrade thier implements to match. In the mean time they use what they have. I've also know guys that have gotten a bigger tractor for tillage but had a smaller one for other task but would use the bigger tractor is the smaller one was down. BIL is doing that just now. His IH 826 (one owner) is in for a new engine right now so he's doing things with his 1586 that he wouldn't normally do.

Rick
 
RodinNS
I suppose in your Blue to Green comparison that you know the air cleaner filter was clean and the turbo was operating correctly on the JD. Next thing I'll guess you'll state is your 7710 will pull a larger plow deeper & faster on less fuel than a 4440.
 
My Ford 9000 will burn about 2 gallons a minute and my Ford 901 will work about fifteen hours on a tank. I think it makes a big difference how they are set up and how hard they are working. (Dave2, I know that I am not answering your question with this, just chiming in on the subject)
 
(quoted from post at 12:47:55 09/21/11) 26 replies and 2 answers......... some of you guys really amaze me......

no wonder my people skills suck....
Click to expand...
don't know about over there but my experience around here is that when guys sit around and talk pretty much anywhere, weather the coffee shop, the work shop or barber shop, the conversation wanders and no one walks around with a club to beat those who dare stray from the topic as originally started. Let's try to be a little more casual. Relax and don't try to use ANY skills.
 
Can't speak to the air filter but the turbo was certainly working. IIRC it was a new turbo as the old one had developed a hole in the turbine housing.
A big part of the reason we ran my chopper on that tractor at the time was to try and get more mileage from the big tractor as they had been using a small chopper. They had a 3940 and mine was a 3960. Neither of us were too impressed with the throughput. I'd hoped that I could have doubled the throughput compared to what the Ford was chopping as we were picking up bigger rows... but the pitifull Deere harvester heads can't seem to pick up and faster than 4 mph consistently... so we really just couldn't get any more into the machine. The tractor had the power to handle it and the chopper had the throat to take it... we just couldn't feed enough in. Again... it goes right back to my point about running an engine at rated speed and light loads. They're going to burn the fuel anyway. It's up to you to get the work from the fuel.... and about right sizing the tractor. If we'd gotten the production we were looking for from the chopper when it was on the 4440 then I think fuel use per tonne would have been close to the same.

As far as the sarcastic remark about the plow... yeah, I probably can show you a 7710 or two that has pulled more plow than a lot of 4440's. Another neghbour of mine pulls a Kverneland BB115 at 6x22" with a fully ballasted 7710 MFWD that he's got turned up to somewhere in the region of 120 hp. Does he pull it fast.... No. I think 3L is probably about all it makes most times and only on dry ground... but it did it for a lot of years. The same tractors also hauled an 11' BushHog offset with 26" or 28" blades, buried to the spools. He claims that disc weighs in at 5.5 ton. All I know is that it has roughly 4x6 bar for it's side frame rails... so I know it's heavy. My 9' offset with 3x6x5/16" HSS is roughly 2 ton...
MFWD 7710's when heavily ballasted, on 23 degree radial all traction rubber... will pull like hell. He's had scaled loads of 26 tonne behind his when hauling manure... and I believe 22 yd of wet peat, dug straight out of the bog on the same spreader. He broke 7 drawbars in the span of about 1 week before he made his own... which is now the full width and depth of the housing... along with a rear support strap on the top of the housing to hook the two horizontal holes in the axle center housing. These tractors can nearly have their front ends balanced by drawbar loads alone while carrying 600# of suitcase weights and probably another 800# in the loaded front tires. They don't lift but they're on the edge of controllable climbing a hill.
That's been the life of my buddy's two 7710's and my one 7710... and probably 25000 hours between the three.

Rod
 
(quoted from post at 17:36:46 09/21/11)
(quoted from post at 12:47:55 09/21/11) 26 replies and 2 answers......... some of you guys really amaze me......

no wonder my people skills suck....
Click to expand...
don't know about over there but my experience around here is that when guys sit around and talk pretty much anywhere, weather the coffee shop, the work shop or barber shop, the conversation wanders and no one walks around with a club to beat those who dare stray from the topic as originally started. Let's try to be a little more casual. Relax and don't try to use ANY skills.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point!!!! Somone can post a thread, and it takes a couple replies for the coffeeshop regulars to hijack it into their own conversation.... Arguing and boasting of all their intelligence and (when not real secure with their smarts) bashing the other guy..No harm done and I got the answer I was asking for. Them Hillbillies (I mean Mountaineers :roll: ) in WV may be a little backards and isolated, but they sure got you edumacated folks beat hands down when it comes to manners and common courtesy.

Thanks for the replies tho.
 
(quoted from post at 20:53:06 09/21/11)
As far as the sarcastic remark about the plow... yeah, I probably can show you a 7710 or two that has pulled more plow than a lot of 4440's. Another neghbour of mine pulls a Kverneland BB115 at 6x22" with a fully ballasted 7710 MFWD that he's got turned up to somewhere in the region of 120 hp. The same tractors also hauled an 11' BushHog offset with 26" or 28" blades, buried to the spools. He claims that disc weighs in at 5.5 ton. All I know is that it has roughly 4x6 bar for it's side frame rails... so I
Rod
Click to expand...

My remark is no more sarcastic than your remarks. I guess the fuel,air and operators are a lot better in Nova Scotia than at the Nebraska test center. A 11' offset disk being pulled to the spools is a "load" for an 85 hp turned to 120 hp.
 
(quoted from post at 02:39:35 09/22/11) Them Hillbillies (I mean Mountaineers :roll: ) in WV may be a little backards and isolated, but they sure got you edumacated folks beat hands down when it comes to manners and common courtesy.
Click to expand...

Your quote on the "lack of manners & common courtesy" could also include a guy that hangs out in Germany. :lol:
 
(quoted from post at 04:12:20 09/22/11)
(quoted from post at 02:39:35 09/22/11) Them Hillbillies (I mean Mountaineers :roll: ) in WV may be a little backards and isolated, but they sure got you edumacated folks beat hands down when it comes to manners and common courtesy.
Click to expand...

Your quote on the "lack of manners & common courtesy" could also include a guy that hangs out in Germany. :lol:
Click to expand...

Look MISTER..........I got people skills...And don't you forget it.......
As for hanging out here, went back a few times with the thought of going back home or maybe the area for good but sometimes you just can't go back....... Already set up here and kinda spoiled with the proximity of stuff. Living kinda in the boonies but 10 minutes from work (for now) and more services than you'd even think of within 30 minutes.....Don't wait ungodly times for health care appointments, in the 21 years I've been here, experienced maybe 20 minutes combined of power outages. Still get homesick tho.... But family is so much more fun when you have a few states and an ocean between you (except Mom of course).
 
(quoted from post at 08:13:16 09/22/11)
Look MISTER..........I got people skills...And don't you forget it.......
As for hanging out here, went back a few times with the thought of going back home or maybe the area for good but sometimes you just can't go back........
Click to expand...

I'm fully aware you have people skills just not the "good ones". As far as Germany is concerned my Grandparents on my Mom's side came here from Germany. I had an Aunt that spoke fluent German. So without Germany I wouldn't be here today.
 
(quoted from post at 05:23:12 09/22/11)
(quoted from post at 08:13:16 09/22/11)
Look MISTER..........I'm fully aware you have people skills just not the "good ones". .
Click to expand...

That's what some ladies are prolly thinkin that were gathering apples in frt of one of our pastures yesterday.....Had it up to here with people gathering apples (almost lost a horse to the nuts) and went off on em so quick they couldn't get on their ponies and outta there quick enough. They really weren't doin anything wrong.....saw one today and apologized a little.... Know where your family is from???
Click to expand...
 
Dave I have fond memories of tearing up the German country side during REFORGER! Couldn't maneuver at night for safety concerns so a lot of nights in positions just outside of some German faming community. And the people coming out with hot apple cider and brats, opening their homes so that we could grab a quick shower! And the german kids thinking it was a treat when we gave em a box of C rats or showing the inside of out tanks.

Now I'm trying to figure out how a hard headed, no/wrong people skills person such as yourself gets along!......Just kidding here!

Rick
 
What I said was not intended to be sarcastic. The 11' offset is without doubt a very heavy load on a 7710. But if you stop and think about it... what we've done is little different than the basic principle that Kubota follows with all of it's tractors. Take a small light frame tractor and small displacement engine... and turn the damn thing for all it's worth. The ironic thing as that these Ford's are still built heavier than the Kubota's... but that's another story.
When mister was dragging the 11' disc with the Ford's he was changing a clutch a year in both of them. Wether that's purely from the power that was going through them or rough use, I don't know. I've only changed 2 clutches in mine in 7700 hours and it's still got the original pressure plate.

As far as nebraska is concerned... if they tested the tractors at actual varying speeds and loads that occour in real world conditions they could tell you a lot more usefull information about power and torque curves and varying efficiency curves of everything they test. As it stands, the only data I've ever seen published is efficiency at maximum power, at rated speed and then at varying speeds above rated up to high idle. That really doesn't tell you much...

Rod
 
Rod
Evidently there's a part of Nebraska Test 1433 for a Ford 7610 that you've overlooked or failed to read. 1st section is titled Varying power & fuel consumption. 2nd section is titled Drawbar performance with bias ply tires. Under 2nd section there's 4 breakdown areas.
maximum available power
75% of pull at maximum power
50% of pull at maximum power
and last but not least 50% of pull at REDUCED ENGINE SPEED
Under that section it shows the 7710 uses 3.118 GPH

Nebraska Test 1606 for a JD 2955 in the 50% of pull at REDUCED ENGINE SPEED shows 2.707 GPH

I know Nebraska testing facility probably made a mistake while testing your beloved Ford tractor
 
No, I've never seen those tests. Published data I've seen has never shown reduced engine speeds...
They've shown various reduced load situations at rated speed tho.

Rod
 

Rod
It's simple to view them on the internet. Just type in Nebraska Test Ford 7710 or JD 2955 and they will pop up then scroll down to the area that has 50% of pull at REDUCED ENGINE SPEED and you'll see the facts.
 
(quoted from post at 11:39:15 09/23/11)
Rod
It's simple to view them on the internet. Just type in Nebraska Test Ford 7710 or JD 2955 and they will pop up then scroll down to the area that has 50% of pull at REDUCED ENGINE SPEED and you'll see the facts.
Click to expand...

Bump! 8)
 
Yeah, I did look it up after I posted that...
I don't recall seeing that before.
I don't agree with it either.
It was not, and still is not uncommon to see a 7710 run for 15-20 proof meter hours on a tank of fuel when doing light work.
Wether that's less than 50% of rated power is open to debate... but many times I've run for 2 full days rock raking on one fill of somewhere around 40 gal. By my math that puts in somewhere in the 2-3 gph range...

Rod
 
(quoted from post at 23:33:20 09/23/11) Yeah, I did look it up after I posted that...
I don't recall seeing that before.
I don't agree with it either.
It was not, and still is not uncommon to see a 7710 run for 15-20 proof meter hours on a tank of fuel when doing light work.
Wether that's less than 50% of rated power is open to debate... but many times I've run for 2 full days rock raking on one fill of somewhere around 40 gal. By my math that puts in somewhere in the 2-3 gph range...

Rod
Click to expand...

According to the Nebraska test I think 3.118 GPH that it shows is very darn close to your 2-3 GPH calculation don't you?????????????????? Be sure to also note the JD 2955 85pto hp tractor came in at less fuel consumption per hour @ 50%!!!!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
New fuel filters, lift pump, getting fuel and still wont
Replies
14
Views
640
FAKEITORMAKEIT
F
J
diesel fuel additives for better fuel efficiency ?
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
olgentdc
olgentdc
B
1655 diesel fuel sys.
Replies
4
Views
650
buzzinduzzin
B
J
David Brown 885 diesel fuel in crankcase - followup
Replies
3
Views
937
Jim in Sask
J
M
CAS Fuel Injection Pump Does Not Prime
Replies
3
Views
908
Midnight_Gardener
M
Tractor Parts Tractor Manuals

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy

Back
Top