(800) 853-2651
SHOP NOW

Fuel efficient tractors?

B

blunosr

Member
Hi, I'd like to get suggestions for a fuel efficient, 30-50hp tractor for light tilling, cultivating, mowing around my small farm. I do have a big old tractor for heavier work, but I'd like something smaller and cheaper to run as well.

I was thinking new, or recent, John Deere/New Holland/Massey Ferguson/etc. Maybe even a Kubota, although I'm not fond of unusual makes that are not common in North America. I want to be able to go to my local dealer for parts.

Thanks for any advice,

Troy Boyd
[email protected]
 
In 30-50 hp Kubota is the most common tractor of any recent vintage.

As for most fuel efficient, that would be a Deutz but at least in Canada they are very expensive.
 
I bleed blue. I have five Fords. Two are big and three are old. but for every day light work such as clearing snow, and tedding hay I have thirty horse Kubota. It is very fuel efficient, parts are not expensive and resale value is excellent. A word of advice: if you are going to put a lot of hours on a compact diesel where you won't need the loader, take it off and save your front axle. It will make a big difference in seal life.
 
Kubota is not an uncommon tractor. They pioneered the small deisel. I have had a 17hp(20hp engine) 4 wheel drive Kubota since 89. It will outwork a lot of bigger tractors. They are tough little machines. I also have a 2008 JD. I think the Kubota is a better tractor.
 

You can drive anywhere in the state of Iowa and see Kubota tractors in use, along with a dealer who is not too far away, and that dealer will have a fully stocked parts department to support your needs.
 
Kubota is far from "unusual", and are very fuel efficient. There seems to be a Kubota dealer behind every stump, around here. I've got one, and am very happy with it.

The "Big Bud" tractors from Montana were on an episode of "Classic Tractors" on RFD channel recently- One guy had one with Cummins engine, one with Komatsu, both about 400 HP. The Komatsu used about half the fuel of the Cummins, he said.
 
Both our MF135 and our ford 3000 are very effecient. I can go out run either one of them hard for about 2 days (discing or shreading) before needing to refuel (they still have about a 1/4 of a tank). Now when it comes to light work, such as pulling the hay trailer and raking I can get about a week of work before needing to refuel.
 
You have to put a few hours a year on that tractor for fuel efficiency to be a really significant factor which might or might not be greatly overshadowed by many other factors. At 100 hours use per year the difference between using 2 gal/hr vs. 3 is about 300 bucks. Don't over rate the merits of fuel efficiency unless you are using the tractor every day.
 
My son brought over his 30 hp Kubota (which is a common brand around here) and I used it off and on for a couple weeks, light duty, cleaning up after a big windstorm. I wanted to return it with a full tank of fuel, so I went to town and bought two five gal cans of diesel fuel. It wouldn't even hold all of one can. Come to find out, the tank only holds something like eight gallons. My old John Deere 50 (about the same HP) would have burned a lot more fuel, and would have been a lot more clumsy on the job, but that's apples to oranges.

If I were in the market for a new tractor, Kubota would be on the look at list.

Paul
 
If you were looking for a used tractor, The Massey 100 and 200 series set fuel economy records in their class. Perkins are generally very fuel efficient and good starters. My 45 HP Perkins is way more fuel efficient than the 43 HP Kubota in my skid steer. Both are good engines though. Dave
 
Has nothing to do with the engine. A skidsteer is running a lot harder than a tractor even just driving in a line. Its turning those inefficient hydro pumps all the time.
 
Agree, but I do get tired filling the 140 L tank on my massey vs the 40 L tank on the little Kubota.

You save a lot more fuel by having a right size tractor for the task.
 
It's cost per year, not fuel efficiency.
For 20-100 hrs a year fuel efficiency does not particularly matter. Price, user friendly, local dealer and reliability rate higher.
 
Look at it this way. If you put on 100 hours a year with a fuel efficient tractor you'll burn maybe 1 1/2 gallons an hour at the very most. 20 years-2000 hours=3000 gallons @$3.00 per gal=$9000. Get an old gas hog @3 gal per hour=$18000. You'd have to get the old gas hog for free.
 
How many hours are you going to run it in a year on an acreage. 40? 60? 80?
Forget the fuel. The biggest difference I see from a 966 to a small Kubota might be 40 gals of diesel. For 120 dollar scrimping you could just go get whatever comes alonf at a good price.

Gordo
 

135 or 240 MF or similar


152 perkins diesel sips fuel and the rest of the tractor is well built.
 
Here I come again. A tractor will easily last for 20-40 years. The amount of fuel it uses will add up. It's like what the monkey said when he ------ into the cash register. "This is running into real money."
 
Hydrostatic drives are supposed to be more efficient is what I've read. Anyway, work is work to the engine. If I'm cultivating or pulling a disc making the tractor work or using the skid steer, either engine is under a good load. The tractor probably more because it can be under heavy load for a long distance, while a skid steer is usually under heavy load for short bursts. Hydrostatic crawler loaders will out work a torque converter machine by about 3-1 but have about the same HP. In my case, the tractor has an AD3-152 Perkins which set fuel economy records. It's also a bigger engine than the Kubota, 152.7 cu inches vs. 113.5. Dave
 
Hydro's are less efficient than gears, but more efficient than a torque convertor.

If you put the two engines under the same hp load ie take them out of the machines, they probably will use almost the same fuel with slight edge to the perkins since it is direct injection with a higher compression ratio. Most of what you're seeing as fuel use is the difference in machines.

The perkins in my Massey is slightly more thirsty in gph/hp than my little Kubota despite having a turbo. The massey is a newer model with some stiffer emissions requirements. I'm sure if I advanced the timing a bit I could solve that but I'm not gonna touch the pump until it needs it. (4000 hours so far)
 
Hydrostatic drives can outwork a torque or gear drive in certain situations because the operator gains productivity due to the efficiency of the controls... but strictly speaking about power transmission, gear drives are most efficient. Hydro would likely be next because it's a positive displacement. Torque would be slightly less....

You also need to consider that your skid steer is probably dragging about 1 ton more steel around than the 135 so that's going to take some fuel... I'm using a ballpark guess... but the 135 is in the area of 3500# and the skid steer probably more like 5500#.


Rod
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
cheap diesel injectors- are there any good ones?
Replies
10
Views
465
ironandsteel
I
J
Decisions decisions...
Replies
18
Views
2K
wvfarmboy
W
F
Ford 5610 Fuel Tank
Replies
3
Views
1K
Dopp Creek
D
F
Ford 5610 Fuel Tank
Replies
1
Views
1K
macec3
M
K
Tractor Fire
2
Replies
20
Views
3K
jwmfarms
J
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