Weekend Freedom Machines banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,017 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I found this while looking up a DTAC case and thought you guys might be interested.

NOTE: FUEL CONSUMPTION WILL VARY WITH CUTTING CONDITIONS. 1/2 LOAD FIGURES ARE CLOSEST TO MOST CUSTOMER MOWING CONDITIONS.

GPH = GALLONS PER HOUR, LPH - LITERS PER HOUR)

TRACTOR 1/2 LOAD FULL LOAD

210 0.6 GPH 2.3 LPH 1.1 GPH 4.2 LPH
212 0.8 GPH 3.0 LPH 1.3 GPH 4.9 LPH
214 0.9 GPH 3.4 LPH 1.4 GPH 5.3 LPH
216 1.0 GPH 3.8 LPH 1.6 GPH 6.1 LPH

316 (S/N 285001- )0.9 GPH 3.4 LPH 1.4 GPH 5.3 LPH
318 0.9 GPH 3.4 LPH 1.4 GPH 5.3 LPH
322 0.9 GPH 3.4 LPH 1.5 GPH 5.7 LPH
325 0.75 GPH 2.8 LPH 1.25 GPH 4.5 LPH
330 0.4 GPH 1.5 LPH 0.8 GPH 3.0 LPH
332 0.4 GPH 1.5 LPH 0.8 GPH 3.0 LPH
345 0.8 GPH 3.0 LPH 1.3 GPH 4.9 LPH

420 1.0 GPH 3.8 LPH 2.0 GPH 7.6 LPH
430 0.4 GPH 1.5 LPH 0.9 GPH 3.4 LPH

425 0.94 GPH 3.6 LPH 1.57 GPH 5.9 LPH
445 0.98 GPH 3.7 LPH 1.64 GPH 6.2 LPH
455 0.79 GPH 3.0 LPH 1.32 GPH 5.0 LPH

IF FUEL CONSUMPTION IS ABOVE NORMAL CHECK THE FOLLOWING:
- BRAKES DRAGGING
- ENGINE RPM - LOW AND HIGH IDLE SPEEDS SET TO SPECIFICATION
- MOWER DECK BELT OR BRAKES DRAGGING
- DIRTY AIR FILTER
- CHOKE ADJUSTMENT
- FUEL SYSTEM LEAK
- CARBURETOR FLOAT MISADJUSTED
- INCORRECT MAIN JET IN CARBURETOR
- BAD MAIN OR ROD BEARINGS
- OPERATING CONDITIONS; GRASS HEIGHT, HILLS, BALLAST, GROUND SPEED,
ETC.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
FUEL CONSUMPTION BETWEEN MODELS MAY VARY BECAUSE:
- HYDROSTATIC TRANSMISSION IS LESS EFFICIENT THAN GEAR TRANSMISSION.
- ENGINE HAS OVERHEAD VALVES (INCREASE IN COMPRESSION RATIO INCREASES
ENGINE OPERATING EFFICIENCY).
- TOTAL OPERATING TIME ON TRACTOR (IE: WEAR OF ALL ENGINE AND DRIVE
TRAIN COMPONENTS, INCREASING FRICTION).

(Message edited by steveh on December 18, 2007)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,017 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Shawn
DTAC is short for Dealer Technical Assistance Case. Basically it is the system by which Deere provides technical assistance to dealers. Service bulletins are often referenced in DTAC posts. Unfortunately, the DTAC system is not accessible to the public.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
159 Posts
Most of the older diesel tractors are rated at 16hp or less. The 455 is rated at 22 hp. Maybe that has something to do with it?

My 455 seems to go a long time a tank of fuel. I checked it for the first 30 hours I had it and got in the .6 to .7 GPH range for general use (mostly mowing) which is a little less that the chart shows.

Maybe the lawyers were reviewing all publications by that time instead of just relying on the engineers?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,034 Posts
The consumption figures are very interesting and seem to align with the experience of most everyone on this forum. The gas engines burn about twice the fuel as the diesels do. Even if diesel was the same cost as gas, that would account for about $1.50 an hour or so advantage to the 332 over my 322. While I may own a diesel in the future for many reasons, fuel savings alone is not the justification. As I currently have under 500 hours on my '91 tractor, it would take me twice its current life to break even if the 332 cost me just $1500 differential from the current tractor. This of course assumes no difference in the cost of maintenance over the life of each tractor, which certainly is not the case. If I used my machine commercially or had much larger property, the economics would work out very differently. All of this does not mean that I don't want or desire to have a diesel...far from it. It just speaks to the fuel economy issue (similar to the thread in Trucks, tools, etc that discussed getting a smaller truck for fuel savings...)

Chuck
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
214 Posts
Chuck,
I have simular thoughts. I would love to have a 430, which by the chart it sips the fuel. I replaced my old brand "x" tractor with a 420. The old tractor had a 18hp engine, manual trans. and a 44" deck. With the "thursty" 420 with a 60" deck, I can mow my yard in 1/2 the time, with using 1/2 the gas, that the other tractor did. So with the 420 having the worst fuel economy, you have to look at how much work you can get done in the same amount of time as a smaller unit.
As for a diesel. I would love to have one. But for right now the other thing I have to look at. From my house I only have to go 1/4 mile to get gas, I would have to go 8 miles to buy diesel. So for me the convenience, a gas is a better deal for me.
Don C

(Message edited by dwc4020 on December 19, 2007)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
989 Posts
Kinda hard for me to believe the 430 numbers, relative to the 330/332 and the 455. Almost seems like they may have changed the test. I would have expected the 430 and 455 to get very similar mileage, and both of them worse mileage than the 330/332, which has a smaller engine.

Tim

(Message edited by Tsykes on December 19, 2007)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9 Posts
Steve Hayes, great information! Do you by any chance have fuel consumption info on the early machines 110-140? I have a '68 140 (12HP Single) and I'm curious what the fuel efficiency on it would be compared to my '99 GT235 (18HP V-Twin) which uses about 1 GPH.

Anyone else have a similar model w/ a 48 deck that could offer some info on fuel economy for your machine?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
343 Posts
I have owned a 420 since 1992, and a 430 since 2006. The numbers Steve Hayes posted from the DTAC case are pretty much right on the mark. I have used right at .5 gallons per hour on the 430, and that is running the deck, and a PTO drive hydraulic dump unit when I use the tractor.
This puts the load at well over 50%.

My 420 easily scarfs 2 gallons per hour with the same load and configuration. The first summer I had the PTO driven hydraulic unit the engine got hot enough that it partially melted the head light molex connector which was laying on top of the heat sheild over the exhaust. I stopped using the pto driven version on the 420 and put the power pack version on the tractor. I think this is probably one of the reasons JD stopped selling the pto version and went with the power pak version.. This pretty much maxxed out the pto horse power on the gas Onan in the 420.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,017 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Here are some other figures from that same publication. They do not list the 110-112

STX30 0.40 GPH 1.5 LPH 0.65 GPH 2.5 LPH
STX38 0.40 GPH 1.5 LPH 0.65 GPH 2.5 LPH
STX46 0.70 GPH 2.7 LPH 1.15 GPH 4.4 LPH

L130 2.1 GPH ¾ load

LT133 0.40 GPH 1.5 LPH 0.65 GPH 2.5 LPH
LT155 0.70 GPH 2.7 LPH 1.15 GPH 4.4 LPH
LT166 0.75 GPH 2.8 LPH 1.20 GPH 4.5 LPH

108 0.8 GPH 3.0 LPH 0.8 GPH 3.0 LPH
111 0.7 GPH 2.6 LPH 1.0 GPH 3.8 LPH
116 1.1 GPH 4.2 LPH 1.6 GPH 6.1 LPH
130 0.4 GPH 1.5 LPH 0.6 GPH 2.3 LPH
160/165 0.8 GPH 3.0 LPH 1.2 GPH 4.5 LPH
170/175/LX172/ 0.6 GPH 2.3 LPH 1.1 GPH 4.2 LPH
LX176/LX178
180/185/LX186 0.75 GPH 2.8 LPH 1.3 GPH 4.9 LPH

240 0.6 GPH 2.3 LPH 1.1 GPH 3.8 LPH
260 0.75 GPH 2.8 LPH 1.3 GPH 4.9 LPH
265 0.75 GPH 2.8 LPH 1.3 GPH 4.9 LPH
285 0.8 GPH 3.0 LPH 1.3 GPH 4.9 LPH
285 EFI 0.7 GPH 2.6 LPH 1.2 GPH 4.5 LPH

GT242 0.6 GPH 2.3 LPH 1.0 GPH 3.8 LPH
GT262 0.75 GPH 2.8 LPH 1.2 GPH 4.5 LPH
GT275 0.75 GPH 2.8 LPH 1.2 GPH 4.5 LPH

X465 1.2 GPH @ ¾ load
X475 1.2 GPH @ ¾ load
X485 1.2 GPH @ ¾ load
X495 0.9 GPH @ ¾ load
X575 1.2 GPH @ ¾ load
X585 1.2 GPH @ ¾ load
X595 0.9 GPH @ ¾ load
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top