Welcome! Please use the navigational links to explore our website.
PartsASAP LogoCompany Logo Auction Link (800) 853-2651

Shop Now

   Allis Chalmers Case Farmall IH Ford 8N,9N,2N Ford
   Ferguson John Deere Massey Ferguson Minn. Moline Oliver

Farmall & IHC Tractors Discussion Forum
:

1466/1566 VS. 1468/1568 fuel economy

Welcome Guest, Log in or Register
Author 
Trent544

11-18-2007 17:50:55




Report to Moderator

I was just reading below about V8's not having as good of fuel economy as the turbo 6 cylinders. I owned a 1468 for a short time and worked it in the field some. I was so surprised by how little fuel it used I went to my Nebraska Test book and found out this:

On the ten hour drawbar test (75% of drawbar horsepower) which I think is the best test to compare tractors in real field conditons the results are as follows:

test 1125 on the 1466=100.58 hp and 12.01 hp hrs/gallon
test 1118 on the 1468=107.23 hp and 13.22 hp hrs/gallon

test 1174 on the 1566=110.79 hp and 11.69 hp hrs/gallon
test 1175 on the 1568=108.44 hp and 12.59 hp hrs/gallon

Otherwise the six cylinders had better economy at 1000 rpm on the pto. They reached 1000 pto rpm's at about 2270 engine rpm. The six cylinders seemed to lose a LOT of economy going up to the rated 2600 rpm from pto speed of 2270.

[Log in to Reply]   [No Email]
ChrisAS

11-19-2007 08:12:02




Report to Moderator
 Re: 1466/1566 VS. 1468/1568 fuel economy in reply to Trent544, 11-18-2007 17:50:55  
I remember custom plowing with a 1468 and 5-18 steerable plow no problem with power any where or fuel use, some of this in hilly ground. The dv550 may not have life as the 400s they did not lack power.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Hugh MacKay

11-18-2007 18:37:50




Report to Moderator
 Re: 1466/1566 VS. 1468/1568 fuel economy in reply to Trent544, 11-18-2007 17:50:55  
Trent: The fuel economy is small potatoes. V8 diesels are troublesom. They don't stayed tuned near as well as inline 6s and they don't give near the hours of service between rebuilds.

All this should take is look at statistics 85% of all diesels over 100 hp are inline engines. I'm sure the industry that use them have looked at overall efficiency. I suspect that 85% figure is actually low in the past ten years. V8 diesels over 100 hp have all but disappeared. I tried one of those 1468 at a demonstration back in 1976. I went home that day, and no one could have convinced me to bet money on that 1468 over my 1066 in the field all day. They were so damn close, I wouldn't have laid money on either one over the other.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Trent544

11-18-2007 19:37:13




Report to Moderator
 Re: 1466/1566 VS. 1468/1568 fuel economy in reply to Hugh MacKay, 11-18-2007 18:37:50  
I understand completely about the reliability. I was just showing that in some conditions the V8's tested better in fuel economy. Also the 6 cyl's did much better at 2000-2200 rpm. I don't know why they ever ran them 2600 rpm's, the fuel economy really dropped off.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Hugh MacKay

11-19-2007 03:29:54




Report to Moderator
 Re: 1466/1566 VS. 1468/1568 fuel economy in reply to Trent544, 11-18-2007 19:37:13  
Trent: I could never understand why manufacturers designed transmission and pto ratios to come up with desired speeds with diesel engine rpms in excess of 2,000 rpm. We buy diesels to take advantage of maximum torque basically anywhere above 1,500 rpm, plus giving fuel economy anywhere under 2,000 rpm. Then the industry cranks it up to 2,500 rpm with very little fuel economy over a gas engine.

I've been scratching my head on that one for many years. The numbers of light truck on the go with roughly 360 cubic inches turning 2,500 rpm, unbelieveable. IH were no different with those 06, 56, 66 and 86 series tractors, everyone of them could have developed same hp at 2,000 rpm yet pto ratio was designed for roughly 2,300.

I bought one of the Mickey Mouse diesels of all times 86 6.2 Chevy, a friend bought the same or so he thought. I specifically ordered 3.24 axle ratio giving me 60 mph at roughly 1,850 rpm. He had 4.10 gears giving him 60 mph at somewhere around 2,800 rpm. He bought 3 replacment engines for roughly 500,000 miles, got 15 mpg most of the time he had it. I put 600,000 miles on the original engine and got over 25 mpg the whole time. He had more starting away power than I did, but on the highway there was little difference.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
[Options]  [Printer Friendly]  [Posting Help]  [Return to Forum]   [Log in to Reply]

Hop to:


TRACTOR PARTS TRACTOR MANUALS
We sell tractor parts!  We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today. [ About Us ]

Home  |  Forums


Copyright © 1997-2023 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy

TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters

Website Accessibility Policy