- Location
- Co antrim
Our 5465 perkins is the same, small tank but shes very frugal
Fendt going 200hp 4pot?
- Thread starter daveydiesel1
- Start date
maybe he had his collar turned up and 20 ton behind doing that gay hand wave the paddy’s seem to do when padding each other trying to go 50 k uphill
Wellytrack
Member
I’ll have you know that’s a long finessed and refined greeting, lift the hand too slowly or too far right you look like your feigning the Volvo driving ‘country gentleman’ wave.
Too far to the left, and too quickly you knock your passenger TF out.
I've owned both deutz and valtra(sisu) 4pot 150hp, both tier 4.Why would you think they are a backward step in Fuel consumption?
Fendt have been running Deutz and SISU across the different ranges and are getting excellent results using both brands of engines..
DLG Powermix
www.dlg.org
I've been accurately recording fuel use for near 2 decades (how else does anyone know the actual cost of making a bale, ploughing a field, hauling home straw, etc etc etc?)
Whatever the job, be it gently pulling a roller, or chapping like the hammers of hell driving a power harrow, the sisu generally uses at least 20% more fuel per hour than the deutz
SISU area worked per hour on some jobs (mowing, harrowing) is slightly greater, but nothing like enough to offset increased consumption
Looking at the cost per kwh link that you posted, the 5l sisu costs more to run than the equivalent deutz, so @daveydiesel1 is absolutely correct to say that fitting sisu is a backward step for fuel economy
However, the accountants will be far happier fitting an agco engine, and to hell with whats good for their customers
- Location
- Co antrim
It was either grassmen or farmflix that did an interview recently with an irish man that moved to new zealand and started piping slurry, he had ran/runs different breeds ( i seen a case in the video and possibly a deere) but he had got a big deutz, something like a 8280 or 9230 iirc, and he claimed the fuel usage difference was a big thing, bearing in mind his tractors were all doing the same thing day in day out so it cant be argued
Wellytrack
Member
It’s not the first time you have made claims for 20-30% difference in fuel use from Deutz to another competitor, comparing fuel use to work done.
If Infact a 20-30% drop in consumption was actually a real thing absolutely nobody would be buying anything else but tractors with Deutz motors, they simply couldn’t afford to buy anything but.
In those DLG test reports you will find SISU motors matching or bettering Deutz engines, so too FPT ones because they are testing given output for given fuel use and not “Work done”.
Hey, I'm running a sisu
Comparing mowing the same field of grass that's yielding the same weight of dry matter, taking the same time to cover the acres, with the same mower hooked on
Or the same field being ploughed, to the same depth, with the same plough
Or the same power harrow
Or the same grass harrow
Or the same bale wrapper
Or an identical journey hauling the same weight of straw, with the same trailer
I'm not trying to "claim" anything. I know for a fact how much more fuel the sisu uses
Actual work done, year, after year, after year
celtis man
Member
Just to chuck a spanner in the works Zetor are going to use Duetz engines in their next generation proxima tractors to meet emissions regs
Maybe that's upset fendit
It may be the same jobs and machinery but the tractors are different aren’t they? Is the Valtra heavier, does it have different wheels/tyres? gearbox efficiency won’t be the same.
Your comparison’s are fair between the 2 tractors but can’t be an exact comparison of the 2 engines.
Wellytrack
Member
Right, and you’re still claiming it to use 20-30% more fuel than a Deutz? Fuel a quid a litre why do you still have the thing??
DLG power mix over its variations of tested work has a SISU powered Fendt (314) beating a Deutz (6140) by a mere 2grams per KWh at 272 to 274.
It’s near as makes no difference one to the other. So too for FPT.
The idea of a tractor 'running in' is nonsense, the operator just gets used to it.
35 years ago a few of us were playing around with the Datatronic on an early 3000 series. Think it was a 3090 with a 4 furrow dowdeswell, one person went into comparison mode and was running at a number of 100. The others tried to get to the highest and lowest number, in the end the lowest was near to 50 and the highest 150. All still ploughing with 4 furrows but the range of effeciency was huge. It was a fairly basic system mesuring fuel consumption and area worked, but highlighted the differences a driver could make.
Hope that makes sense.
Hope that makes sense.
- Location
- Co antrim
Im not sayin your wrong but our 6499 deffinitely had more grunt from 2000 hours onwards
An engine can certainly gain power after it has done a few hundred hours.
- Location
- Ardrossan Ayrshire
Not denying your fuel use figures and experience but unless you swap the engines over to the other tractor and do the same job twice to give you the four permutations of work done and fuel consumed then its not a proper comparison. For example the original Maxxums weren't bad on fuel, not great either, despite having a very thirsty Cummins engine this was offset by a very efficient gearbox giving an average fuel consumption figure. Also iirc your deutz tractor is a bit older than your Valtra so possibly older emissions spec which is usually better on fuel.
ollie989898
Member
20% seems an awful lot? Are the tractors of the same peak power?
- Location
- Pinnaroo. South Australia
No it’s not
oil barron
Member
- Location
- Aberdeenshire
Classic tractor did a good test a few years ago with a NH8870 against a NH T7 auto power. If the T7 was driven manually it was way worse on fuel than the 8870. But if it was driven in auto then it was better or something like that. I don’t know the correct terms for the Autocommand modes.
oil barron
Member
- Location
- Aberdeenshire
