2-105 vs 2-135 fuel consumption

[rrlund]

I know there's a huge difference in fuel consumption between the Perkins 354 and the 478 Herc,but does anybody know the numbers? I don't want to give up the 2-135 on tillage tools and the chopper,but it's way overkill on the round baler and manure spreader. I don't use the 1850 Oliver on those jobs because it doesn't have an air conditioned cab.
There's a 2-105 coming up on a sale in the spring,says on the sale bill it has air. Just wondered how long it would take to pay for it with the difference in fuel? I'm afraid one of these days I'm going to smoke the clutch in the 2-135 too,stopping all the time with the baler. Gotta consider the cost of replacing that too if I keep it up I suppose.
 

[J. Schwiebert]

Mr. Lund check out the test results 6.7 GPH for the 2-105 9.3 for the 2-135, both at rated speed at full load. Needless to say your baler will not be full load. Print out the 2 tests and see where you would be.
 

[rrlund]

Ya,the baler runs 540 on the PTO at 1700 RPMs on the engine of the 2-135.
Where did you get the results? Do they tell gpm at 1700?
 

[rrlund]

Never mind. I found it under Test on Tractor Data.
Anybody know fuel use at 1700 RPM with a moderate load though?
 

[e]

Best approximation would be to look at the drawbar pull section at at 50% load (64 hp) and 1561 rpm, it used 5.1 gph. Now if you look at a 2-105, at pto speed (2300rpm) and 71hp, it consumes 5.3 gph.

That's not a perfect comparison because we are comparing a drawbar test to PTO test which gives an slight unfair advantage to the 2-105 (less driveline losses through the PTO vs the transmission).

Bottom line, you are not going to save a whole lot if anything by buying a 2-105.

And if you are worried about wearing out a clutch, put in a kevlar one from Southbend. Best bailing clutch out there in my opinion.
 

[rc1855]

My 2-155 used somewhere between 3-4 gallons per hour on the round baler. I also was concerned about the clutch but it a lot more comfortable than the open 1855.
 

[Johnboy60]

I have both 105 135 and using 540 pto they will be real closse to the same fuel usage cutting with a 14 ft NH 116 about half gallon per acre also have a 6125 and it is about the same
 

[Larry NEIL]

I think you need that 105 in your stable Randy!!
 

[TJV]

in my past expirence I dont think there will be much fuel savings. You will be trying to do the same amount of work and it take an amount of fuel to get that done. Yes the bigger tractor may take a little more but they both are pulling the same load across the same distance so it will be really close to the same consumption. I have even noticed that with a larger tractor you tend to get the work done faster using more fuel per hour but it comes out to the same per acre when all is done.

Another way to look at it would be to get the 105 so you dont put the wear and tear on the 135 because as we know they are not getting any newer and parts get harder to find everyday and then you have the possibility of a second tractor if something happens to the other and still can get the work done when it needs to be done, but I dont think the fuel savings will be a big difference.
 

[Close by]

Was wanting a135 to pull our big square baler but left the 110 on it because of compaction problems bought a 105 for the discbind for the same reason talked to a friend says his 135 was real thirsty. I do know both of our 105's ate better on fuel than the 110 believe it or not good luck
 

[rrlund]

Ya,trying to justify it!