Register free!
Search
 
     

The Green Industry's Resource Center


Click for Weather
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-07-2014, 06:41 AM
Mxrider52 Mxrider52 is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: TN
Posts: 289
How much of a difference in fuel....

How much of a difference in fuel will I see by going from a 52 inch 25 hp to a 61 inch 35 hp? Right now my 52 is burning about 1.4 gph and from what I have read that the 61 on average burns about 1.8 gph. What I am looking for is to see how much more fuel is going to cost me in the long term. Im not looking for someone to say well you are going to use .4 gallons more per hour. I know that. What I am asking is I use 1.4 now with a 52" but by going to a 61 inch I know my production should be faster since I will have an additional 9 inches per pass but what I want to know is since I will have faster production really will I see extra fuel use or will it stay about the same? I am sure there are guys out there who calculate all this stuff and know exactly how to figure it. Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-07-2014, 06:54 AM
appalachianoutdoors appalachianoutdoors is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Virginia
Posts: 315
For better fuel economy and increased power and productivity, consider a diesel. We burn about .8 an hour in our diesels.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-07-2014, 07:11 AM
Mxrider52 Mxrider52 is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: TN
Posts: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by appalachianoutdoors View Post
For better fuel economy and increased power and productivity, consider a diesel. We burn about .8 an hour in our diesels.
Yes the diesels are nice but I dont think I can really justify spending the extra 4-5k for a diesel machine. Getting the value back would take forever and like most say the diesel motor will outlast the machine.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-07-2014, 10:22 AM
Ridin' Green Ridin' Green is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Michigan
Posts: 8,686
Well, to start with, you are leaving out some critical information like what mower brand, model and engine are you looking at going to, and what are you coming from? Your current engine on a 61" deck will not necessarily use that much more fuel. You don't need a 35 for a 60-61" deck. Some mowers only offer one or two choices.. Some models offer several. More info is needed to tell you anything accurately.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryl G
I can also tell by looking back to see how they're hanging and often reach back and feel them to see how firm they are.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-07-2014, 11:31 PM
herler herler is online now
LawnSite Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,583
As a general rule the bigger mower makes up for fuel consumption, even thou the smaller machines use less actual gasoline it's the larger decks turn out to be more fuel efficient.

As a general rule, that is.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-08-2014, 06:55 AM
Mxrider52 Mxrider52 is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: TN
Posts: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridin' Green View Post
Well, to start with, you are leaving out some critical information like what mower brand, model and engine are you looking at going to, and what are you coming from? Your current engine on a 61" deck will not necessarily use that much more fuel. You don't need a 35 for a 60-61" deck. Some mowers only offer one or two choices.. Some models offer several. More info is needed to tell you anything accurately.
I pretty much covered everything that one would need to know. 52 to 61. 1.4 gph to 1.8 gph. I am going from a 52 exmark lazer z to a 61 scag turf tiger. The 35 vanguard is the best motor option they offer. I dont want a 26 hp motor on a 61 deck. Plus I will never have troubles cutting anything. Alot of extra fuel consumption comes from when you are working the motor harder then it needs to be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by herler View Post
As a general rule the bigger mower makes up for fuel consumption, even thou the smaller machines use less actual gasoline it's the larger decks turn out to be more fuel efficient.

As a general rule, that is.
Yea I am thinking that the fuel will pretty much balance out but I just figured someone has done the math and knows how much it really changes. I know there people out there that calculate this type of stuff. I know if I went efi I would get better fuel compsumption but id feel the motor would be underpowered for around here.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-08-2014, 08:00 AM
CreativeLawncareSolutions's Avatar
CreativeLawncareSolutions CreativeLawncareSolutions is offline
LawnSite Bronze Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: cincinnati, oh
Posts: 1,591
Get a stander with a smaller hp engine?
__________________


F-150
14' landscape trailer
52'' Wright Stander
21'' Personal Pace
Stihl handhelds
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-08-2014, 08:40 AM
Mxrider52 Mxrider52 is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: TN
Posts: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by CreativeLawncareSolutions View Post
Get a stander with a smaller hp engine?
A stander is not an option. Mow too large of places.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-08-2014, 08:54 AM
MOturkey's Avatar
MOturkey MOturkey is online now
LawnSite Silver Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Bolivar, MO
Posts: 2,582
I've been thinking about fuel consumption quite a lot since I checked the same on the latest mower purchase, a 31 Kawasaki on a Gravely 460. It is using almost 1.75 gph. My other 460, with the Kohler EFI 29 horse, by contrast, uses approximately 1.1 gph.

At our current gasoline cost of around $3.30 per gallon, it is costing me approximately $2.15 more per hour to operate the Kawasaki.

The current trend toward more and more horsepower on mowers reminds me of the muscle car era when I was growing up. Few people actually needed all that horsepower, but everyone wanted it. I think engine options are designed to appeal more to male hormone levels than to common sense, real world applications.

My first Z was a Gravely 250 with a 23 horse Kaw. This was in the pre-lawsuit era, so I'm guessing the actual output was probably around 21 horse. I never really thought about it being underpowered and cut grass on a few occasions, literally, higher than my head. Second mower was a 2007 260 with a 25 horse, again pre-lawsuit era, so what, 23, 24 horse in reality. Again, no problem with inadequate power. The next two, I think, were 29 Kaw's, again pre-lawsuit. All those mowers consistently used approximately 1.33 gph.

IF you were cutting in overgrown conditions all day, every day, perhaps there is a need for huge horsepower engines, but how many of us actually do this? I'm not even sure that is true, because in my experience, how quickly you can cut in overgrown conditions is more dependent upon the ability of the deck to cut and discharge clippings than the horsepower of the engine. You could put a 100 horse engine on a mower, and the deck will still handle only so much grass.

But, to answer your question, no, I don't think the extra efficiency of the 61 over the 52 will negate the extra fuel consumption with the 35. Might be pretty close, but I'm betting at the end of the day, you will find your fuel costs to be greater, although probably rather minimally.
__________________
Neill Prater
Dependable Mowing Service
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-08-2014, 09:08 AM
GQLL GQLL is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Hampton Roads, Va
Posts: 762
The 35 brigs on the turf tiger is closer to 2.0 to 2.4 gph depending on conditions.
Posted via Mobile Device
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1998 - 2012, LawnSite.comô - Moose River Media
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:41 AM.

Page generated in 0.13623 seconds with 9 queries