Tractor fuel economy

[John S-B]

I'm planning on buying a new(er) tractor next year for baling small squares. I'm currently using a '45 M which is not too bad on gas but it would be nice to have a live pto and hyd's. I was thinking of buying something between a 560 to a 766 diesel in an IH or a 1650 to 1800 Ollie or something similar depending on price and condition. I'm know wondering if I should be looking at maybe a 450 gasser or something with the price of diesel. What tractors have good fuel economy for doing hay?

 

[Anonymous-0]

Models depend on your brand preferences, but in any brand, a diesel will be much more fuel efficient than a gasoline tractor. A small square baler only reguires a small, low HP tractor, but you don't say what other equipment and uses you have. Tom

 

[Rootsy]

The M (33 drawbar HP) in stock C248 form was rated at 3 gal /hr of gasoline consumption.

Most M's have been updated to the C264 (stock Super M - 42 drawbar HP) over the years and the Super M was rated at 3.9 gal / hr of gasoline consumption.

The 560 D (D282 - 55 drawbar HP) in stock form was rated at 4 gal / hr of diesel fuel consumption.

The 756D (D309 - 69 drawbar hp) was rated at 5 gal / hr of diesel fuel consumption.


As a comparison, a 450 gas (C281 - 51 drawbar hp) with a TA, LPTO, Live hydraulic, etc is rated at 4.8 gal / hr of gasoline consumption.

 

[Ken Macfarlane]

You want to compare gph/hp not just straight gpm at full power.

 

[Dick L]

I baled last year with my Oliver 1650. Way to much tractor. I could have baled using half the gas using the Oliver 77 or 88. I had used them for pulling and didn't want to take the time to change the drawbars. I will bale with the 77 this year. We did custom baling back in the 1950's with an Oliver 77. More than enough tractor on a power takeoff baler for small bales.

 

[John S-B]

I use the M with a 214t baler and a EZ-Trail bale basket wagon. I should have said, but I'd like to also get a 9' haybine or moco to use with it also. I now use a self propelled windrower, but everything is old so I need backups. Other than that I just do some mowing and plow and disk the garden.

 

[Steven f/AZ]

I would say for a small square baler, a Farmall 300, 350 or even the utility version would be about the most efficient. A 350 diesel would be good on fuel, but expensive to repair.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=da_lX2ChI5s

 

[Anonymous-0]

Nebraska tracctor tests showed hp-hr/gallon for all the tractors they tested. Detailed test data showed that for several loads and gears.

There's a paper back by Lester Larson (who ran the lab for that time period) about tractors tested from 1950 to 1975 that gives a little bit about each of the most popular tractors of that time frame. Its a good reference to look at. There are big books with detailed test data and some is on-line. Many tractor stores keep these books on hand for sale.

One thing you will find is that the number of Oliver's to choose from will be a lot smaller than the number of AC WD and they will be fewer than the same vintage Deere and IH.

The later the tractor (until the most recent decade) the poorer the fuel economy because the more power grabbing auxiliaris like power steering, hydraulics for three point, and power brakes. Untill recent times, the most fuel efficient tractors was a 2 cylinder 1958 JD.

But unless you use a tractor (or truck or car) reeally hard and long, buying for fuel economy may not ever pay out if you have to pay a premium for the fuel economy.

Small square balers take only about 20 hp to run, but when pulling a rack of hay behind, I found my MF-135 at 35 HP did OK. More gears in the transmissssion rather than fewer do help the baler bale better bales. And my '68 MF-135 is economical on fuel.

Gerald J.

 

[cj in wisconsin]

JD 720 diesel if you can find one, mine practically makes fuel. I run a 4 14 plow 12' disc, big round baler etc. great machine until you need repairs, then hang on to your wallet.

 

[evilboweviel]

Dick L
loaded way over 100,000 bales on a wagon behind a 1650d with a Int 46 baler. Always thought it was a perfect size for this work .uses very little fuel and has the weight to handle the baler and wagon on hillsides.
Moved a Oliver 18 combine behind my 1650d and a 12' disk behind my 66gas. used less fuel in the 160d then the 66gas, about 2/3. round trip was about 160 miles. I drove the 1650d and my brother drove the 66gas. we were in hills and flats running as fast as the 66gas would go about 12 mph
Ron

 

[John S-B]

I forgot to say that I want to be able to run a 9" moco or haybine with it also. I don"t anticipate any tillage other than some hayfield renovation every few years.

 

[buickanddeere]

Run the numbers carefully. We've all seen somebody spend $10,000 in order to save $250.00 a year on fuel.

 

[Anonymous-0]

Find a Massey or Allis with a Perkins diesel....they are very fuel efficient at low loads such as mowing, raking and baling. I have a 175 Allis (67HP) that is my main brushhogging tractor and most of the time it burns right around 1 gph. A larger Perkins diesel
is very economical, especially when running under rated loads.

 

[Tradititonal Farmer]

Most of the foreign made diesels are very fuel efficient as fuel has been higher and for longer time than in the US.Fiat built tractors are good,my Yanmars run really cheap.Also the Oliver diesels don't burn much fuelf or their size

 

[buickanddeere]

(quoted from post at 04:29:41 04/30/08) Most of the foreign made diesels are very fuel efficient as fuel has been higher and for longer time than in the US.Fiat built tractors are good,my Yanmars run really cheap.Also the Oliver diesels don't burn much fuelf or their size

Are you getting your numbers from Bubba down at the diner? Or from the Nebraska tractor testing lab?