Please explain this frugal Fendt

[AlanT]

Help me understand these figures please.
If I’m using a 728 pulling a press on ploughing, so it’s working to its maximum all day, can I assume it will be using more fuel per hour than its predecessor? Am I missing something or is the 728 using 1.5 litres an hour more than the 828.

 

[ford 7810]

View attachment 1174809
Help me understand these figures please.
If I’m using a 728 pulling a press on ploughing, so it’s working to its maximum all day, can I assume it will be using more fuel per hour than its predecessor? Am I missing something or is the 728 using 1.5 litres an hour more than the 828.

There will be less emissions shite on a 2015 tractor compared to 2024

 

[Boysground]

There is no mention of the 728 and 6250r both having boosted engines to about 300hp. The 828 will peak 20ish hp less so perhaps that’s the reason. I am no expert, sure someone will correct me.

Bg

 

[Lakesdigger]

That's an absolute maximum figure for fuel use though when the engine is at it's absolute peak output and being nearly 1.5 litre bigger engine it will be a higher figure. I'd doubt you'll be running it that hard all day, if so buy a bigger hoss

 

[Zebbedee]

If you look at the specific rates above the red line it looks even worse

 

[Wellytrack]

Am I missing something? It’s putting out 6% more power for 3% more fuel use? Is that not better

 

[balerman]

Much higher torque figures on the 728 tho,for the same fuel.

 

[Cowabunga]

View attachment 1174809
Help me understand these figures please.
If I’m using a 728 pulling a press on ploughing, so it’s working to its maximum all day, can I assume it will be using more fuel per hour than its predecessor? Am I missing something or is the 728 using 1.5 litres an hour more than the 828.

Yes it may well do but it is also more powerful to the extent that it uses less per kW/hour. Less per unit of power output in other words. Plus the 728 substantially more maximum torque. It does use nearly double the Adblue though, which is probably due to meeting new stricter emission regulations.

 

[DrDunc]

The explanation is simple

The 828 has a deutz engine

By comparison Deere and Agco engines like a drink

 

[MF CI]

OK I'm not paying the bills but if you're using 50lts an hour 1.5 more or less is neither here nor there. If you add on the ad blue use it starts to make the newer model a fair bit more to run, but apparently that's the price you have to pay to save the planet.

 

[Mixedupfarmer]

The explanation is simple

The 828 has a deutz engine

By comparison Deere and Agco engines like a drink

Is that the one that blows up?

 

[Cowabunga]

The explanation is simple

The 828 has a deutz engine

By comparison Deere and Agco engines like a drink

Not true if those figures are accurate. They were collated by an independent testing station.

 

[Dave6170]

The explanation is simple

The 828 has a deutz engine

By comparison Deere and Agco engines like a drink

Better thirsty than blowing up

 

[Wellytrack]

The explanation is simple

The 828 has a deutz engine

By comparison Deere and Agco engines like a drink

Good theory if the figures actually said that. But they don’t.

 

[BRB John]

I suspect cylinder size says it all surely?
Bigger cylinders means bigger potential for a drink but also realistically it means
more torque which means lower rpm in work which ultimately means lower average fuel consumption.

 

[Cowabunga]

A massive benefit of the AGCO Power Core engine range is the total elimination of exhaust gas recirculation, where some of the rivals need complex plumbing to not only accurately recirculate dirty exhaust gas back into the cylinders, which must accelerate wear, but also water-cool the gas. This nonsense inevitably clogs up the intake system eventually with massive quantities of soot, and in the meantime also has moving parts to partly divert the gas.

None of which is needed on the Core series engines. Also these are relatively slow running engines which would normally, with fixed ratio gearboxes, slightly limit flexibility. However in combination with a CVT transmission and a high maximum torque, back to very traditional low revs [1300rpm], the optimal engine speed can be run for most non-PTO applications for the lowest fuel consumption practically possible.

Having read back the above it sounds as if I write copy for AGCO’s advertising agency. However it is all what I deduce from the figures and little technical information available for these engines.

 

[warksfarmer]

My old 724 used 1l/hour (average use) less than my Puma 230CVX but the puma was £30,000 cheaper for a better spec as it included RTK steering which the 724 did not.

 

[JJT]

View attachment 1174809
Help me understand these figures please.
If I’m using a 728 pulling a press on ploughing, so it’s working to its maximum all day, can I assume it will be using more fuel per hour than its predecessor? Am I missing something or is the 728 using 1.5 litres an hour more than the 828.

It may use more per hour but it's got more power so it should be doing more work per hour too. It's the g/kwh that shows fuel efficiency.

 

[Wisconsonian]

The biggest difference is 1,700 compared to 2,100 revs. Everything else is minor in comparison.

 

[AlanT]

My issue is when I was using my 2022 828 pulling a 6 metre carrier I could get to 7-8 o’clock at night. Now with my 728 it needs refuelling between 3 and 5 o’clock. Same story with 3m sumo trio. And yes it has the bigger fuel tank apparently.