Fuel usage 1450 v. 2182
 

Since my 2182 is down right now, I mowed with the 1450. I am amazed at the difference in the fuel consumption between the two.

I mowed about 2.5 acres with right at 1 gallon of gas. That same amount would have taken at least 2 gallons with the 2182.

Might have to make it a regular thing!

Wish I was cutting grass w'ere going to be plowing snow Wednesday

I had the exact opposite experience with my 1450, it's a fuel hog! Then again I'm comparing it to cutting grass with my O. :beerchug:

Bill

Had similar results this winter, when the thrower was on the 1811 or 682, I'd have to fill up after a couple hour full throttle blowing session. When it was on the 129 I had (with a 14hp Kohler) I'd still have to fill up every couple hour blowing session but then again, you're looking at a 1(ish) gallon tank vs a 4 gallon tank :biggrin2:

I've heard that all vehicle manufacturers use a formula to figure out what size tank to install so the car or truck could travel close to a 400 mile trip before refueling. I wonder if that is true for other machines in hours such as tractors and mowers.

If a hydro 1450 seems fuel stingy, try a gear drive,, :bigthink:

I can plow snow for an hour with a quart of gas.

http://i1104.photobucket.com/albums/...008640x359.jpg

The hydro is wasting at least 20% of the HP, and gasoline. :bigeyes:

My 100 was a lot better on gas, than my 782 and 1872. Course the 782 and 1872 have twins in them versus the single in the 100.

Allen has the right idea guys.....
If your feeding fuel to a 40 cubic inch motor, and a 31 cubic inch motor, which one do you think will burn more? More cubes = more fuel. :Forgot:

The Kawasaki I have in my John Deere gator is the most fuel efficient engine I have. Fill it, forget it. Compared the the kt twin or magnum twins I have are fuel pigs.

I really doubt the engine in your gator works as hard as the engines in the tractors though..... :bigthink:


While were on the subject of fuel consumption......
A bigger engine when compared under loads to a smaller, may in fact burn less fuel than a smaller engine. Because of the size difference, it doesn't have to work as hard to complete the same task. So, load comparison is ultimately a factor.

So...what you're saying is we all need bigger engines in our Cubs?:beer2::biggrin2:

I have to say I agree with the working load but just with blades on my 1450 has went through almost three tanks this winter as my 1000 has only used one.

I noticed the same thing 1650/1812 with my 1650 moldboard plowing I could run 3-4 hours on a tank of fuel , upgraded to a 1812 and better check the fuel every hour or so, otherwise enjoy a long walk back to the truck.

Something doesn't sound right about that.....
2 more horse on the 18' and pulling the same plow :bigthink: The tank on the 18 is almost 3 times as big. Sure it's not running a little rich? It shouldn't burn that much more fuel pulling the same plow. :bigthink:

What about walk behind mowers? I had two walk behinds, one with the Kawi motor and one with the kohler and the kohler would run through two tanks before the Kawasaki would run through one. Both mowers worked the same grounds and had the same drive system and mower deck size....? Do the kawasakis do better on fuel than other engines? The engine in my gator does work pretty hard...climbing hills with a load in the bed. The only real big load I've had on the cubs is mower decks. Which does work the engine way harder but still it gulps fuel.

I prefer kohler in general as my engine of choice but for a walk behind or piece of commercial equipment I'll choose the Kawasaki for fuel efficiency.

What's the difference in the engines? Are they both H-opposed? Both V's? Similar in cubic inches? Yes, the Kawasaki's seem to be better on fuel, but there is a lot that goes into that. Carb jetting, intake and head design, exhaust is a BIG factor..... But you may not be comparing similar engines. Depends on what they are. Just because they are the same HP doesn't really mean anything. Look at the 185 Cub Lo-Boy and an 1811 Cub Cadet. Similar HP, WAY different motors.

Dull blades, sharp blades, blade design, deck housing design, ground speed, grass moisture all effect fuel consumption. :bigthink:

You have a lot more variables than engine brand.

I agree.

It's very technical to make fuel consumption comparisons. SOOOOOO many variables. It truly can only be done in a controlled environment, such as on a dyno.

Reminds me of a British Top Gear episode where they ran a Prius flat out on their track followed by a BMW keeping the same pace for a specified amount of time. The BMW got better gas mileage.

Bill

Get ya a 1650 and a 1250 run 50 inch decks on both. Same lot same height of grass both tuned perfectly. Only real thing is that 1250 is going to be working harder. Now take both and let em idle in the driveway that 1250 will prolly come out on top

I take it the vmw was almost idling the whole way? Lol

After a few miles (or once the batteries are exhausted) the batteries are dead weight.
The same car, without the batteries will get better mileage.

Same thing with the hydro, it is dead weight and drag, :bigthink:, until it is time to back up, :bigeyes:

then the little wasted gas seems like nothing, compared to the convenience of instant reverse! :biggrin2:

I used single cylinder Kohlers in a variety of sizes from 10 hp to 16 hp to cut my yards for years. Almost twenty years ago, I got my first Mag 18. 46" cut vs. former 42" cut. First thing I noticed was it took a lot more gas to cut the same amount of grass as with the single cylinder. Later, got another 18 Mag and same thing with it.

Then later, got a couple of Vanguards and finally a Command and then another. Bottom line comparison, the Mag 18's are gas hogs compared to the single Kohlers, Commands and Vanguards!

Not a scientifically backed statement. No need for it because the difference was so great. No, there was nothing wrong with the carbs either. I checked that for a possible cause of the difference. The Magnums just eat gas!

The K321 Kohler in my 149 will go through 1 1/2 to 2 gal of fuel in 1 hour time. It's worse when you plow with a moldboard plow.

Uhhh....what? I've had several K321's and have NEVER come close to that, even at WOT riding the governor throwing snow. Heck, I don't even think I come close to that on a KT17 or M18. Do you have a hole in your tank? :bigthink::biggrin2:

IF Dale is talking about the 149 I'm thinking of.... it isn't a stock motor.

No disagreement with this!
But out of all the engines you listed, I've been around them too, and I don't think any of them have the torque rise that the Mag's have. They are one "gutsy" motor! :biggrin2:

AFAIC, I don't care how much fuel I burn. I don't look at fuel consumption as anything other than necessary. I have the tractors to do specific jobs. Some burn more fuel than others. I don't care. They work well. As a general rule, more fuel consumption means more power is made. Power gets work done and I don't have to use my back. :biggrin2:

I have the 16 Vanguard turning a 48" mower, an M18 and Command 18 both turning 54" mowers. None of them labor turning their respective decksizes so "torque" or "horsepower" has never been an issue with me on these mowers.

The thing I think about is where is that extra fuel going? Out the muffler or in the crankcase? The Magnums used about half again as much gas as the others which to me meant about $10/week or more on the amount of grass I cut during the growing season. That is 2-3 cases of cold beverage for me a month.:biggrin2:

it costs what 12-16 bucks to fill these cubs up, its worth every penny to me. puts a smile on my face and im having a great time.

Some of us are on a fixed income and obama hasn't factored in the inflated price of gasoline and other necessities in our SS monthly checks.:biggrin2:

No hole in the fuel system.

It's slightly modified :biggrin2:

This used to cost me about $4.00 per min for fuel. :biggrin2:

I must have been doing something really wrong. I've mowed my 1.25 acre yard with 2 1650's and a 1512, each wearing a different 50" deck. The 1650s had 50A decks, and a 50C was on the 1512. Both 1650s went through a full tank of gas, what 2 gallons? I'd run out if I didn't refuel right before I finished. It was like clockwork for both of them. The 1512 has a 4 gallon tank? and I'd burn 1-1.5 gallons. Not sure how your 1450 can mow twice as much, with half the fuel as either of my 1650s. Both ran well, and both decks were in great shape with sharp blades. We'll see how the new mower does, but I suppose if it really mattered, I'd buy a reel mower and make the boy push it around all summer. :biggrin2:

LOL :biggrin2:


Is that going in a straight line? Or in circles? :bigthink:

Watkins Glen road course. Left and Right. :biggrin2:

Ahhhhh. A Grand Prix! :beerchug:

My 109 w/10 hp and 44 inch deck and 126 with 48 inch deck are the mpg champs in my fleet. The 1650 w/14 hp engine in it has been doing sea trials this winter, towing a firewood trailer and pushing snow seems to burn a more fuel. But the big gas guzzler in my fleet is a 20 hp twin cylinder Onan on another color tractor. Sounds great, but really drinks the gas!

I cannot compare the tractors featured in this thread but can compare the 10 horse Kohler K241 and the 20 hp command. The command uses a lot more gas but it is apples to pineapples. The 10 hp has a 42 inch mower or a 36 inch snowthrower. The 20 hp has a 54 inch mower or a 45 inch 2 stage snow blower or a 54 inch blade. The command uses a tank of gas to mow about 3 acres or a little more. The k241 uses about a tank of gas too. Difference is a little over a gal and about 5 gal.

This conversation about fuel consumption is reminiscent of similar discussions in the boating world--an area where I have considerable experience. There are some general "rules of thumb" for certain internal combustion engines.

Holding all other factors constant (engine efficiency, environment (temp, RH, etc.)) the amount of fuel consumed should be directly proportional to the efficiency of the engine and amount of work done. Work being the power x time definition.

For example, for diesel engines, a good rule is 1 gal/hour for each 20 HP produced. This is actually a pretty good approximation for a modern 4 stroke diesel. No such rule of thumb can be applied to a gasoline engine due to so many variables--especially fuel mixture (lean/rich) which can affect fuel consumption +/- 50% or more. However, the "efficiency" of a gasoline engine properly set up (as in a lab situation) should be close from one engine to another, assuming similar design parameters.

Some of the scenarios presented here with one tractor using substantially more fuel than another to "cut the same amount of grass" must be due more to engine tuning and condition or different grass, air temp, etc conditions.

I guess my point is, if the two engines are tuned to the same mixture, are running properly and in good condition, you should expect similar (+/- say 25%) fuel consumption to do the same work.

Engines, maybe.

What they are hooked to, a whole different story.

A hydro transmission throws 20% of the HP out in heat loss.

Then there are attachment type losses, belt VS shaft.

Base machine weight comes into play, and if there is enough weight, tire pressure will have an effect.

As far as engine efficiency, the JD 820 (and R and 830, all similar) were 30% to 50% more efficient than any other tractor, per Nebraska tractor tests.
(horsepower hours per gallon of fuel)

Many JD 820's were taken out of "show" duty and put back into the field when fuel prices skyrocketed. Farmers are C H E A P ! :bigthink:

:biggrin2:

(Recent engines in tractors have become more efficient, per demands of farmers) :bigeyes: