Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 121 to 137 of 137

Thread: Tractor fuel consumption

  1. #121
    Cowabunga
    Guest

    Re: Tractor fuel consumption

    Quote Originally Posted by deere2140 View Post
    Not only have you got me agreeing with the Duck , now I'm defending him
    You said you saved X amount per bale . I also assumed you meant the saving made whilst baling , not the amount saved by every single field operation , including ploughing , reseeding , fertilising , cutting , tedding , raking , lamping for rabbits etc etc
    You also state that your name contains a clue as to you qualifications . Has the " E " fell off the end ?
    As you can tell, the Dr part doesn't impress me much. For goodness' sake, what a palaver! They do say the line is a thin one.

    I look forward to the verifiable full detailed results being published in Profi, Farmer's Weeky or the Dandy Online. "Impressive" isn't the word for it.

    No doubt SDF and Deutz engines are also about to publish. They are not shy about marketing these massive benefits which should be easily replicated even if the good Dr's figures should, in a very very unlikely event, not be acceptable to them. One thing is certain, they can't possibly ignore it. Can they? In his own words "he results of my analysis all adds up theoretically and mathematically. There is no opinion, iffy smells, smoke, mirrors or myths involved in the derivation of the numerical proof."


    Please do follow his links to justify his rather forceful initial claims that large increases in power were to be found from increased cetane. These were provided after he realised he was wrong. Apart from offroad diesel, as opposed to Derv, having hardly changed over the years in terms of cetane afaik, one of the links is not accessible and the other is an advertising feature for some fuel additive. Make of that what you will, but they are 'scientific' in his terms. Thought I would highlight it in light of the fact that he mentions it again above. Here they are. Check them out.

    http://www.dieselpowermag.com/tech/f...t/viewall.html

    http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00003/art00063

    Note that the second one is really a combined report that basically shows the effect of precision high pressure multiple injection which is facilitated by the faster more precise burn that a high cetane fuel facilitates. It makes no difference to older fuel systems that cannot make use of the Derv's characteristics.

    He didn't mearly get a definition wrong with cetane, he very forcibly made certain claims about power output and economy regarding it and of the fuel itself. This is total bollocks at a basic level, not a small or inconsequential mistake made by a layman and not something to expect from a person who supplies "he results of my analysis all adds up theoretically and mathematically. There is no opinion, iffy smells, smoke, mirrors or myths involved in the derivation of the numerical proof.".

    I gave him plenty of leeway to get it right but he told me to Google it. There is little doubt that is what he did personally in the end when told it was wrong by another, and came up with those links above. Another point I should highlight is that the energy density of Derv actually declined when ultra low sulphur was introduced. Not sure if that is true of Gas Oil, but it certainly didn't improve. So not only doesn't higher cetane produce more power but it doesn't seem that cetane has raised at all significantly anyway in off-road fuel while the energy density declined.

  2. #122
    DrDunc
    Guest

    Re: Tractor fuel consumption

    Cowabunga this thread was originally about a collation of specific fuel consumption figures that was being used as a marketing tool.

    I dared disagree with you and expressed the view that this measure of fuel economy was not a reliable and accurate measure in many workloads the tractor is subjected to in the modern day farming environment.

    In using just a single number extracted from the extensive data contained within the reports, you cannot determine the true comparison of fuel efficiencies.

    This fact has been demonstrated conclusively in my numerical analysis presented. If you disagree with this please provide your own analysis and data.

    If you cannot do so, and if your ego cannot accept that your opinion has been proven to be wrong, I will no doubt be the subject of more carefully crafted pieces of sarcasm.

    At least Deere2140 has the decency to resort to openly name calling, however unscientific, when expressing his incredulity about the information presented.

    Best to let everything know, I have heard that Dungcan make the grass grow. I also suspect that I'm no longer on Cowabunga's Christmas card list

  3. #123
    Cowabunga
    Guest

    Re: Tractor fuel consumption

    Quote Originally Posted by DrDunc View Post
    Cowabunga this thread was originally about a collation of specific fuel consumption figures that was being used as a marketing tool.

    I dared disagree with you and expressed the view that this measure of fuel economy was not a reliable and accurate measure in many workloads the tractor is subjected to in the modern day farming environment.

    In using just a single number extracted from the extensive data contained within the reports, you cannot determine the true comparison of fuel efficiencies.

    This fact has been demonstrated conclusively in my numerical analysis presented. If you disagree with this please provide your own analysis and data.

    If you cannot do so, and if your ego cannot accept that your opinion has been proven to be wrong, I will no doubt be the subject of more carefully crafted pieces of sarcasm.

    At least Deere2140 has the decency to resort to openly name calling, however unscientific, when expressing his incredulity about the information presented.

    Best to let everything know, I have heard that Dungcan make the grass grow. I also suspect that I'm no longer on Cowabunga's Christmas card list
    I have come to certain conclusions. It is rather telling that you prefer to be called names to having your numbers and statements analysed.

  4. #124
    deere2140
    Guest

    Re: Tractor fuel consumption

    DrDunc , my apologies for offending you . However , the crux of your argument is that you believe your Deutz used 7 litres per hour less than another tractor doing the same job , ie power harrowing .
    You have measured a difference in fuel use , I'm not doubting that you have managed to do that accurately . It's the " same " work part that I doubt .
    How do you know that the 2 power harrows were doing exactly the same job ? Did you measure ( with the same accuracy as you did with the fuel ) the depth of work , did you pass both sets of finished tilth through different sets of mesh to check on clod size , and did you check the compaction profile on the pre harrowed land ? You didn't ? That's not very scientific , is it ?
    You could have got around some of these problems by installing a torque meter on the power shafts to verify that the 2 tractor were indeed doing the same work , but I'll guess you didn't .
    So it's no more scientific than anecdotal evidence .
    I get what you say about the inability of the test stations to accurately measure efficiency in transient loads , but the replication of these transient loads is almost impossible to standardise .
    I did a bit of pto dynamometer work for my thesis for my Higher National Diploma in Engineering ( Agriculture ) , so I know its easier to test at a constant power level . The only way to give an easily replicated test for vaying loads would be on a transport job of varying altitudes , ie a hilly test track . But that would introduce a number of variables which would reduce the accuracy of any result .
    One test that is relatively easy to do is to give a fuel consumption at various ( rather than varying ) power levels . For example traxtors could be tested at say 20 , 40 , 60 ,80 etc pto horse power levels and the fuel consumption at these power levels compared . This would allow buyers to compare tractors of different sizes but doing the same work , ie would a 300 hp tractor use more fuel doing a 150 hp job than a 200 hp tractor?
    One of the reasons the State of Nebraska started testing tractors in the 1920's was to stop inaccurate advertising and give a prospective purchaser a better guide to a tractor's abilities than could be gleaned from simple " pub " banter .
    I completely agree that DLG style testing isn't the same as using the tractor in the field and road . But please DrDunc , don't insult our intelligence by saying what you have done is more accurate . A manufacturer wouldn't be allowed to use your results , with good reason .

  5. #125
    chocolate pig
    Guest

    Re: Tractor fuel consumption

    I think we have established a JD 6330 is not programmed to even use 25l/hr spot rate, let alone over an hour or day. No ifs, no buts.
    Therefore something does not add up, whether that be the test accuracy or that particular Deere has been 'fettled' either of which make the comparison invalid.

    The only way I can see these proposed 'test' results being accepted as accurate is by borrowing a pair of lime green tinted glasses and re-reading the data

  6. #126
    Cowabunga
    Guest

    Re: Tractor fuel consumption

    Quote Originally Posted by chocolate pig View Post
    I think we have established a JD 6330 is not programmed to even use 25l/hr spot rate, let alone over an hour or day. No ifs, no buts.
    Therefore something does not add up, whether that be the test accuracy or that particular Deere has been 'fettled' either of which make the comparison invalid.

    The only way I can see these proposed 'test' results being accepted as accurate is by borrowing a pair of lime green tinted glasses and re-reading the data
    http://tractortestlab.unl.edu/deere/jd-6330.pdf

    The absolute peak, when the engine is wound down to 1900 revs under full load, is 22lph. Normal full load where the rising power feature is not used, peaks at 21lph.
    25lph is at least 20% more consumption than I would expect from the best matched and hard driven of these models on a power harrow. It is impossible on the model unless substantially tampered with.

    The JD 6430 Premium could just about sup 25lph at peak, but I would not expect it to come within a couple of litres an hour of it, 23lph, during normal efficient power harrow work averaged over at least an hour. Most people would comment that they would never get it near even that figure, although I know it is possible.

  7. #127
    balerman
    Guest

    Re: Tractor fuel consumption

    Why do you lot find it so hard to believe that a Deere can use a lot of fuel,fairly common knowledge i would have thought,its also fairly common for them to be producing much more power than they should,straight from the factory(or not). 25l/hr on a power harrow in tough conditions is easily possible IMO not much more than double what the Ducks 135 was using on a water pump!

  8. #128
    Cowabunga
    Guest

    Re: Tractor fuel consumption

    Quote Originally Posted by balerman View Post
    Why do you lot find it so hard to believe that a Deere can use a lot of fuel,fairly common knowledge i would have thought,its also fairly common for them to be producing much more power than they should,straight from the factory(or not). 25l/hr on a power harrow in tough conditions is easily possible IMO not much more than double what the Ducks 135 was using on a water pump!
    You won't get them using that much more than the official test result unless tampered with, especially on modern tractors that have their fuel delivery mapped in the ECU rather than subject to a human turning a screw.

    25litres per hour is possible with the 6430 Premium in the same constant maximum load circumstance as the 135 but, firstly it is not on such an implement and indeed the Dr claims that the load fluctuates substantially and by definition and logic the fluctuation will to to a point where consumption is lower than maximum.

    Secondly 25litres per hour, according to my basic maths is not "not much more than double the 135" but actually near enough three times the fuel consumption. 25lph compared to the 135 on the pump at 8.5 lph, not that this is relevant but let's get it right and at least one person didn't believe me it could use that much.

    The main point is that it was a 6330 not a 6430 and the maximum for that is considerably less, and it was on a power harrow that is claimed to provide a fluctuating load and is always subject to periods of light load. The Nebraska figures indicate the maximum possible fuel consumption, which is what DrD himself has indicated as part of his claim. People can't have it both ways.

    I hope that makes it clear.

    I am not an apologist for JD fuel consumption and corrected to 100hp at the shaft, the Nebraska test shows the 6330 to sup 23.7litres/100hp/hr. This is nothing special, but keep it real, yeah!

  9. #129
    balerman
    Guest

    Re: Tractor fuel consumption

    We dont even know that this particular Deere has not been tampered with in some way(chipped?)not even been dynoed to see what it produces,could easily be more than 100hp.Why be so hard on the man,he has just given the results of his fairly unscientific test,and you all jump down his throat.From what other people have told me from equally unscientific tests,he may well be right

  10. #130
    DrDunc
    Guest

    Re: Tractor fuel consumption

    Deere2140 there was no need for an apology, you really did made me laugh out loud with your humour! I don't think anyone could argue you did mean any offence either, especially after you've taken the time to write such a detailed and informative addition to this thread (well maybe not everyone wouldn't argue )

    Yes, the on farm measurement I made of fuel used per hour is accurate.

    No, I don't have any way of measuring pto shaft torque so you're completely correct saying there is no way of knowing if the actual workload was the same. I wrote in my numerical analysis post that the Deutz had both diffs auto engaged, and the Deere was operated without diff lock. This alone would have caused a difference in soil compaction and tractor load would it not?

    Taking numbers from the dlg reports showed that huge differences in fuel consumption can occur from transient operating conditions as you have said.

    It would not be unreasonable, I don't think anyway, for the detailed analysis I conducted to be akin to using a sledge hammer to steeple up a fence.

    However that sledge hammer has clearly made the point that using a measure of relative fuel economy developed near a century ago doesn't provide a complete picture of a modern engine and the environment it works in.

    This forum is a wonderful medium to discuss and develop ideas and share knowledge. This is provided that the ideas or differing opinions can be shared and expressed without derision, scorn, or contempt being heaped upon the post. Otherwise these ideas may never come to light.

    I think Deere2140 has made an excellent suggestion about testing tractors at different partial loads to allow an informed decision to be made about whether a bigger tractor would be a better buy for your farm.

    Though a transient test of fuel economy would not be relevant for a man buying a tractor that will work primarily in say constant speed static load draft work below it's maximum output (the 1920's measurement is perfect for that), transient loads which would represent the dynamic relative fuel economy of tractors could be developed I think.

    For example the drawbar pull load change when you hit a hill is fairly easy to calculate from geometry. So a standard slope or "steepness" could be simulated by the brake truck to measure how quickly the tractor speed drops by say 8kph (to account for cvt boxes) when it's operating at whatever maximum load the tractor can pull and still run at 40k on the flat. A standard "route" could be simulated to represent an hour's diving on hilly terrain. So relative fuel consumptions of tractors that mainly do transport could be compared? It is possible to analyse the current full dlg report and, using a bit of maths, derive a fairly good approximation of this, but personally I'd rather pull my own teeth (and I used to do that sort of thing a lot. the maths, not teeth ).

    For situations like my power harrow or Cowabunga's forager, the pto dyno load could be increased by a standard percentage amount greater than the tractors maximum output, increasing steadily over a set amount of time. Again this could be used to show relative fuel used in an hour of this type of loading?

    What's people's thoughts on this?

    P.S. Just read Cowabunga's last post. Maybe I'm being too hopeful that new ideas and opinions can be discussed on here, but anyway in reply, and at the risk of another huge disagreement about the colour of the stripes on a zebra............

    The power harrows weren't under light load very often in my measurement. We just changed up a gear (or allowed the auto shift to do so). Not very good for even finish, but a lot of rain was forecast

  11. #131
    DrDunc
    Guest

    Re: Tractor fuel consumption

    I REALLY ought to know better if I would like the forum to discuss something new and potentially ground breaking, but.......

    Err, Cowabunga, the figures from Nebraska for a 6430 are different (and better) than the DLG ones. You told us this earlier. The gearbox and diesel fuel used in the test is different between American and European spec Deeres. Also you reckoned they have a different or updated engine tune? It's not unreasonable to then assume the same will apply to other 6030 series four cylinder Deeres between the Atlantic?

    Oh bugger it, maybe I ought to say the world is round just to see if Cowabunga comes out with a post that shows its actually flat

  12. #132
    Cowabunga
    Guest

    Re: Tractor fuel consumption

    Quote Originally Posted by DrDunc View Post
    I REALLY ought to know better if I would like the forum to discuss something new and potentially ground breaking, but.......

    Err, Cowabunga, the figures from Nebraska for a 6430 are different (and better) than the DLG ones. You told us this earlier. The gearbox and diesel fuel used in the test is different between American and European spec Deeres. Also you reckoned they have a different or updated engine tune? It's not unreasonable to then assume the same will apply to other 6030 series four cylinder Deeres between the Atlantic?

    Oh bugger it, maybe I ought to say the world is round just to see if Cowabunga comes out with a post that shows its actually flat


    I said none of that. You must inhabit some parallel universe.

  13. #133
    DrDunc
    Guest

    Re: Tractor fuel consumption

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowabunga View Post

    I said none of that. You must inhabit some parallel universe.
    Gosh, just had a quick flick through the thread, and I think you're correct, you didn't say any of that?

    Someone definitely has already pointed out in this thread that the DLG and Nebraska test results differ though, and what some of the differences are between American and European spec in the tests on those Deeres.

    I apologise for thinking you were the source of this correct information.

    What colour are the stripes on a zebra?

  14. #134
    Cowabunga
    Guest

    Re: Tractor fuel consumption

    Quote Originally Posted by DrDunc View Post
    Gosh, just had a quick flick through the thread, and I think you're correct, you didn't say any of that?

    Someone definitely has already pointed out in this thread that the DLG and Nebraska test results differ though, and what some of the differences are between American and European spec in the tests on those Deeres.

    I apologise for thinking you were the source of this correct information.

    What colour are the stripes on a zebra?
    What a surprise. Not.

    I detect some kind of 'problem'. Reality/fantasy-fantasy/reality??

    Have a look at the test results from both OECD test sites, Nebraska and DLG, where the fuel specification and all relevant parameters are clearly printed on each and every test sheet.

  15. #135
    DrDunc
    Guest

    Re: Tractor fuel consumption

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowabunga View Post
    ...........

    By the way, the Nebraska tests show that a 6430 will have a peak maximum of 24.5 litres/h at 1950 revs. It is a 2007 model though and there might have been different engines fitted depending on spec.
    Got it, knew you'd said something about models and spec of Deeres. Pity it wasn't the whole story though.

  16. #136
    Cowabunga
    Guest

    Re: Tractor fuel consumption

    Quote Originally Posted by DrDunc View Post
    Got it, knew you'd said something about models and spec of Deeres. Pity it wasn't the whole story though.
    That is not in answer to your assertions and is directed at a 6430, not a 6330. The point being that there are two versions of that tractor, a two valve and a four valve and there might be some difference in consumption between them. It is worth checking out which is being compared to which for accuracy.

    Odd that you make something else entirely out of it. But I'm getting used to it.


    If you claim to have found "something new and potentially ground breaking", as you do a couple or three posts above, get it verified independently before coming on half-cocked with cock and bull information and a saving per bale that turns out to include all kinds of unspecified prior operations and stacking afterwards. How the heck you computed comparison figures for all that varying work, boggles the imagination. Well it doesn't. It can't be done.
    Most readers, though not all, will have drawn a conclusion about it by now.

  17. #137
    DrDunc
    Guest

    Re: Tractor fuel consumption

    Oh with all due respect, come along Cowabunga.

    This thread is about tractor fuel consumption. Can you not just please let this forum discuss ideas in a "lively and informal" manner?

    For example, we might develop these ideas into something good enough that they could be presented to official testing laboratories. This might lead up to the current near century old fuel efficiency test method being updated to more realistically represent dynamic tractor workload.

    There has already been some pretty good suggestions made about how to measure hilly terrain transport, or transient load forager type working, and whether a larger hp tractor might be more efficient for a buyers farm. But there are holes in these ideas, and they need more deliberation and development.

    In increasingly difficult economic times, this different type of measurement and more easily interpretable data presentation could be of benefit to the agricultural industry GLOBALLY!

    You are continuously flooding the forum thread with imo increasingly insulting and inflammatory statements directed at myself. From reading other threads and from personal messages I've received during this tirade, I know that I am not alone in being the subject of your ridicule during your prolific history within British Farming Forum.

    It would seem the only benefit to the community that your "apparent" personal vendetta provides, is to whatever part of your character that requires you to conduct yourself in this manner.

    If I am wrong, and people you've rubbished over the years start leaping to your defence, and don't start discussing new ideas, provided they are given the opportunity, then please accept my unreserved apology in advance.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •