Fuel Economy

Lazy JW

5K+
Staff member
VIP
I have been doing some informal research in my book about the Nebraska Tractor Tests. In 1919, the state of Nebraska passed a law that any tractor sold in the state had to undergo a series of performance tests at the University of Nebraska. The test information was to be publicly available.

My book covers 1,551 different tractor tests from 1920-1984. Many foriegn as well as domestic models were tested. All went through a standard series of testing, incuding drawbar, PTO dyno tests, etc. Fuel economy was noted also and was tallied in Horsepower Hours per Gallon of fuel.

As would be expected, there was a very wide range of fuel economy numbers. I was a bit surprised to see the relatively poor fuel economy of propane.

Here is a very brief summary. This is by no means all-inclusive as there is a huge amount of data. I will list the lowest economy numbers and the highest of each fuel type.

Horsepower Hours per Gallon:

Diesel- 9.29- 18.64
Gasoline- 3.30- 13.18
Propane- 7.26- 9.99
Distillate- 6.71-12.44
Kerosene 4.85-11.36

Diesel fuel really is the way to go for most power out of the resource. I looked closer at the top 30 tractors in the diesel category. 22 were naturally aspirated, 8 had turbos. Of the 22 na machines, 16 were imported models, 5 of the US made were John Deere two-cylinder engines.
Deutz had a full 7 models, those are air-cooled engines!

The mighty John Deere Model 720 two-cylinder set a record for fuel economy in 1956, this record was not broken until 1983 when a Yanmar built John Deere turbocharged tractor finally topped the 18 Horsepower Hours per Gallon barrier. It was the only machine to beat the 720.

I found it interesting that so many foriegn models rated so well in economy. Reckon when fuel costs more it pays to make engines more efficient.

Gasoline actually fared pretty well overall, and distillate did better than I expected, much better than propane. No propane engine achieved 10 horsepower hours per gallon.

All of these numbers were recorded at maximum power at rated speed. Fuel economy almost always dropped at lower power settings, but there were a few exceptions.

Several tractors were tested in different fuel configurations. These machines were virtually identical except for the necessary changes to accomodate the different fuels. Distillate engines always made less power per cubic inch, but the fuel economy remained comparable. Surprising to me was the fact that gasoline, propane, and diesel versions of the same displacement made almost identical power with the BMEP being within a couple of percent.

Most of the BMEP numbers are under 100 psi at maximum power at rated speed. When they are lugged down, BMEP went up, some dramatically, but generally it seems that if engines are going to live long lives they had best keep the BMEP around 100 or so. I wonder what modern engines put out on a long term basis.

These tractor engines were all tested on a dyno at 100% power for several runs up to two hours, plus did drawbar testing. One drawbar test was for ten hours non-stop at rated power. Try that with your SBC.

I'm not sure what to make of all this, I found it interesting.
Comments, anyone?
Joe
 
Wouldn't HP-hours per moles of fuel (or its primary constituents, if a blend) be a better comparison? I'm thinking a gallon of propane possibly has less combustible bits in it than a gallon of diesel.

With the economical diesel part, you can bet the old 720 model required less maintenance than the turbo unit which marginally out-economised it.

I'd like to see an SBC on that drawbar test. :eek:
 
Keep in mind that these tractor tests were really a result of grass-roots political action by farmers who were unhappy with the performance and service being provided by many of the fly-by-night manufacturers of the times. There were quite a few brands that were literally built in someones barn, then went broke after only selling a few machines. The farmer was then stuck with a broken tractor that didn't meet any of the performance claims, plus couldn't get parts for. The Nebraska tractor test act required that at least one service station be maintained in the state for each brand sold. Another requirement was that if any part of the testing results was used by the manufacturer in their advertisement that they had to print the entire test so that nothing could be taken out of context and give a misleading impression.

This testing was set up to benefit farmers, and I believe that this is why the measurement of fuel consumption was done in Horsepower Hours per Gallon of fuel rather than horsepower hours per POUND of fuel. Since fuel is commonly sold by the gallon this was a more meaningful specification to the farmer who really wanted know how much work he could expect to get out of his fuel DOLLAR.

I knew that propane had fewer BTU's per gallon than gasoline but was a bit surprised that it was that much lower in actual practice. The better gasoline engines beat propane by a significant margin. Some of those early gas engines weren't too great though, one of them was actually a 1.47 hp Clinton engine of 5.89 cubic inch dispacement. Not too great for fuel economy at 3.3 hp. hrs. per gallon of gasoline.
Joe
 
I have a couple of books that refer to those Nebraska tests. Nice to talk about "hours per gallon", instead of "gallons per hour" as with airplanes!
A pal of mine had one of those little Yanmar tractors. I built him a rollover bar, and got to use the tractor before I got my Bobcat 630; lot of fun! The Bobcat has a Wisconson V-4 gas-burning flathead, and I don't suppose that the fuel burn is very impressive, although I've never checked.
 
I think propane has about 91,000 btu per gal, Gasoline about 125,000 btu per gal, and diesel in the range of 135,000 to 140,000 btu per gal.

So gasoline has nearly 40% more energy content than propane. Eventhough the energy content is not tha much higher than gasoline, I guess the diesel's higher specific output is related to the higher compression ratio those engines operate at as well as the fact that turbos are more common on diesels than gasoline engines.
Doug
 
Yup, the compression ratio of diesel engines does seem to be the significant factor. What surprised me was the relatively constant BMEP of the various engines. And those diesel Johnny Poppers, what a marvelous piece of engineering! 8) 8)
Joe
 
Back
Top