Me and a buddy of mine were discussing old vs new machines today and got off on the subject of fuel usage, and really just everything fuel related in general. Our conversation got me to thinking so I decided to post and see what ya'll have to say on the subject.
First, as far as quality of fuel goes, I've seen more fuel related problems in the last couple of years than I have in the last 20. That said, I read an article the other day basically stating that as fuel injection pressures have risen from the 2000-3000psi range into the 20,000 to 30,000 psi range for the new common rail systems, fuel cleanliness was more important now than ever. In fact it said as the holes in the injector tips, and tollerances have all gotten tighter, contaminates, like just a drop of water, which would have passed through the older systems, can cause major damage to the new systems. Funny thing is when they removed the sulpher to the current Ultra Low spec, it actually made the fuel more susceptible to drawing moisture, not to mention the reduction in lubricity caused. In other words when the systems need the cleanest fuel, with the best qualitys possible, our illustrious leaders pass legislation to make it anything but what it needs to be.
That said, what types of problems are you guys seeing out there nowdays, with the new systems vs the old systems, on your equipment?
Second thing. It seems every year, and with every new inovation, we hear that the new machine/engine uses less fuel than the one it's replacing. In my experince, the best example I know of anyway, a customer had an older crane that moved X amount of materal in a day using 30-40 gallons of fuel. Their 35 plus year newer machine moved the same amount of material but generally used 130 to 140 gallons of fuel per day. I know of several other customers with new machines and old machines, all within the same size range, who experience the same thing with their machines.
So, my second question to ya'll is this. If you take an old tractor in any horsepower range, and a new one in the same range, doing similar work, which, in your experience, is going to use the least amount of fuel?
From there I'll take it one step further and ask two additional questions. If the newer maching is doing better on the fuel usage due to the latest and greatest computer controlled systems, common rail systems, idle control, etc, etc how many gallons/how much money a year is it really saving you? Then, is the amount of savings per year good enough to offset the repair costs associated with the new system -vs- the repair costs on an old system when a problem does occur? In other words, if you save $1000 per year in fuel, and have a problem within three years that costs $4000 to repair, is the yearly savings really worth the repair costs on the new technology? Based on what I see it usually isn't, but I'm still curious as to what ya'll have been seeing too.
Just remember this whole deal is color blind. I don't care if you compare Deere, to MF, to IH, to Case, to Ford, to Minneapolis Moline. In fact the broader the range of machines and mfgs, the better, as long as we can compare apples to apples within the same HP ranges.
First, as far as quality of fuel goes, I've seen more fuel related problems in the last couple of years than I have in the last 20. That said, I read an article the other day basically stating that as fuel injection pressures have risen from the 2000-3000psi range into the 20,000 to 30,000 psi range for the new common rail systems, fuel cleanliness was more important now than ever. In fact it said as the holes in the injector tips, and tollerances have all gotten tighter, contaminates, like just a drop of water, which would have passed through the older systems, can cause major damage to the new systems. Funny thing is when they removed the sulpher to the current Ultra Low spec, it actually made the fuel more susceptible to drawing moisture, not to mention the reduction in lubricity caused. In other words when the systems need the cleanest fuel, with the best qualitys possible, our illustrious leaders pass legislation to make it anything but what it needs to be.
That said, what types of problems are you guys seeing out there nowdays, with the new systems vs the old systems, on your equipment?
Second thing. It seems every year, and with every new inovation, we hear that the new machine/engine uses less fuel than the one it's replacing. In my experince, the best example I know of anyway, a customer had an older crane that moved X amount of materal in a day using 30-40 gallons of fuel. Their 35 plus year newer machine moved the same amount of material but generally used 130 to 140 gallons of fuel per day. I know of several other customers with new machines and old machines, all within the same size range, who experience the same thing with their machines.
So, my second question to ya'll is this. If you take an old tractor in any horsepower range, and a new one in the same range, doing similar work, which, in your experience, is going to use the least amount of fuel?
From there I'll take it one step further and ask two additional questions. If the newer maching is doing better on the fuel usage due to the latest and greatest computer controlled systems, common rail systems, idle control, etc, etc how many gallons/how much money a year is it really saving you? Then, is the amount of savings per year good enough to offset the repair costs associated with the new system -vs- the repair costs on an old system when a problem does occur? In other words, if you save $1000 per year in fuel, and have a problem within three years that costs $4000 to repair, is the yearly savings really worth the repair costs on the new technology? Based on what I see it usually isn't, but I'm still curious as to what ya'll have been seeing too.
Just remember this whole deal is color blind. I don't care if you compare Deere, to MF, to IH, to Case, to Ford, to Minneapolis Moline. In fact the broader the range of machines and mfgs, the better, as long as we can compare apples to apples within the same HP ranges.
