7000 fuel economy?

Are you actually using a gallon counter at your fuel barrel or just going by the gauge on the instrument panel??  Looking at Nebraska Testing for both the 7045 PS and 7050 PD doesn't make me think there is much difference if everything is right on each tractor. Each tractor at 100% load uses 9.9 GPH (146 HP) and 9.8 GPH (156 HP).   Each tractor at a lesser load uses 7.9 GPH (100 HP) and 7.5 GPH (105 HP).   Each tractor at even less of a load uses 6.5 GPH (68 HP) and 6.1 (71 HP).  The 7050 is slightly more efficient due to the intercooler. Being "turned up" slightly has no bearing on this.  So, your 7045 has something wrong with it or you're not measuring gallons or there's a fuel leak onto the ground below when operating.  The model 7000 at 106 HP uses 6.8 GPH which is 100% full load.

and no leaks(i make sure of that). Never really thought about the L3, it can cut 40acres of beans (50 bpa) on a tank. But that is 85 gallons.

When we were farming, we had a 180, 185 and a 7000. There was not a noticeable difference in fuel consumption between the three.

The drawbar performance tests are as follows:  7045 Power Director in 4th gear S L made 123 HP @ 5.2 MPH and burned 10.1 GPH of fuel.      The 7045 Power Shift in 1st gear hi range made 123 HP @ 4.9 MPH and burned 9.8 GPH of fuel.   In actuality, the AC Power Shift was VERY efficient in gears 1 and 2. It was equal to most gear transmissions in 3 and 4.  When in 5th and 6th gear it wasn't quite as efficient as the standard transmission.  Anytime I can do my work in 1st or 2nd gear high range, I do. Not always possible, but when it is take advantage of it.  There is no torque converter on an AC Power shift like a car. Your main fuel tank is 51 gallons. How many gallons per day for each one ??  I don't think the 7045 is using twice the fuel of the 7050.

I bought the 7045 about a year ago, has 4755 hrs on a working tach. Doesn't appear the engine has ever been touched. The 7050 I've had for 5 years and had in-frame done about 2 years ago. Both have the same straight pipe cut from the same piece. Don't have a gallon meter on my service truck, but the 100 gallon tank in it fills the 7045 twice in 2 days and I have to go get more the second day to fill the 7050. Maybe I need to have the pump and injectors rebuilt, but she does run good and smooth with plenty of power. And you don't really need 140hp on a 15' bushhog.

I have seen fuel gauges that seemed to go down faster the closer they got to empty or vice versa. Weight of each one might need to be considered. Another thing that possibly could account for the difference might be some error on the tach reading. Loose belts or worn pullies to the alternator could have them running different true crankshaft rpms. I have seen my tach change 300 rpms when I turn the A/C fan off or on. That said my 190Xt seems to barely use fuel compared to the 7045 or 7060. I do not have a meter on the pump. If you are not measuring the gallons and doing identical work at identical rpms you are really just judging off perception.

New holland 648 round baler using 185 burned 2 gallons per hour. Upgraded to 8030 power shift same baler almost not quite 4 gallons per hour

The 7050 had a leak in the aux tank, so I removed it. Scott, the sale is online and ends Monday at 1200. Talking weight, the 7045 does have quite a bit more weight, inside and outside wheel weights and 20.8x38 loaded rears. The 7050 has no wheel weights and 18.4x38 duals with inside loaded. That might be the difference.

no smoke, just the usual slight dark haze while pulling my average loads on each.

Fluid in tires will hold back if you are running any speed..Dad had a cub when i was growing up and it would pull a trailor up this hill in high without fluid. With fluid it would not. Fluid swings to back of tire with speed and holds back.

bakwoodsfarm wrote: Talking weight, the 7045 does have quite a bit more weight, inside and outside wheel weights and 20.8x38 loaded rears. The 7050 has no wheel weights and 18.4x38 duals with inside loaded. That might be the difference.

About your 7045's weight:
Typical Inside rear weights weigh 400lbs each. Typical Outer rear weights weigh 300lbs each. 20.8-38 fluid could weigh 1500lbs each tire. So what number of weights does it have?

7050's 18.4-38s fluid could weight 1200 lbs each tire. So it's probably carrying 2400lbs max in its rear tires.

Thanks guys, I'm thinking weight is the issue(pretty much), I counted the weights on the 7045, it has 2 on each inside and 3 on each outside, full set on front and fluid in rears. So it has about 6400lb on the rear and 1000 up front. No wonder it cant get out of its own way. The 7050 only has fluid in the inside tires.

bakwoodsfarm wrote: Thanks guys, I'm thinking weight is the issue(pretty much), I counted the weights on the 7045, it has 2 on each inside and 3 on each outside, full set on front and fluid in rears. So it has about 6400lb on the rear and 1000 up front. No wonder it cant get out of its own way. The 7050 only has fluid in the inside tires.

Yes, your 7045 needs a weight diet? The fluid weight in its 20.8-38s should easily suffice most traction requirements. Because of its current weight(22,000#), it's engine & drivetrain is being severely punished just to move. Since it's rear end is nailed to the ground, it's not allowed the required relaxation (wheel slip) during field operations. In Norm Swinford's book on page 170, it list a 7045 PS unballast @ 14,600# & ballasted @ 18,990#. The weight difference is 4390#, minus diesel weight @ 350# = 4050#. So 1000# front weights plus 3000# rear fluid, should be maximum.

If you decide to reduce its weight, please follow-up later to let us know about its fuel usage then.

It's like the supposedly famed Deere 6030. No ballast it weighed at least 18,000# and it was a dog. Everyone back in the day knew it was a dog..... until the owners started cranking the engines to 250 or more and then kaboom! goes the engine not to mention increased drive train problems. Worse yet was the 5020 all because they were way too heavy.