i can get anywhere from ZERO MPG to 10 MPG on my mower, depending on what i am doing, and that is at full throttle.

on a mower, the gas consumption should be measured in gallons per hour at a set throttle level. since blade speed affects cut quality, the RPMS MUST stay up. unless you change out the pulleys to make the blades turn faster, but that is a whole nother set of problems!

this might be ok on a vehicle, or even in a new tractor, but it would be cost prohibitive to use in a retro fit situation.

Reminds me of the last great invention that was going to revolutionize the transportation industry. Remember the Segway? And the fact that he was in league with John Z. DeLorean (the Preston Tucker of the 80's) doesn't exactly instill a lot of confidence, either.
Actually, it sounds like a great idea and seems very impressive, but the whole thing starts to fall apart for me when he claims to be able to move a 7,000 lb. Ford Expedition from 0 to 60 mph in less than 3 seconds. Sorry, not in this life, not even if you dropped it out of an airplane. This indicates to me that he is basing all of these exorbitant claims on pure calculation. And while he may be a brilliant engineer, I think the real-world results will be much less impressive. This may become another tool in the fight to eliminate our dependance on fossil fuel, but I don't see it as the ultimate solution. Besides, even at $3.00+ per gallon, gasoline is still just too cheap and plentiful in this country to effectively drive serious development of alternative technologies.

fpda31 wrote: "While it appears the pump design is new (based on vane pumps) the concept is surely not."
----------------------------------
While the swashplate design is most common, My wifes' '98 murray has a peerless VST which is a vane pump design. The pump is buried in the transaxle and varies the displacement by moveing the houseing that surrounds the rotor.

JerryO

$3 gas brings out all sorts of inventions that attach to your engine fuel system and double your gas mileage sold at state fairs and similar events. Even better, there has to be a conspiracy theory between the automakers and the big gas companies which prevents them from putting this $19.95 fuel saver on every vehicle!

Woodrunner said:

"Besides, even at $3.00+ per gallon, gasoline is still just too cheap and plentiful in this country to effectively drive serious development of alternative technologies."

You may not be aware of the E85 sunami that is about to
wash your comment away. I believe over 130 ethanol plants
are under construction as we speak. This is a secret to everybody except those in the investment community.

FlexFuel vehicles are coming - Big oil is trying to prevent the stations from selling E85 - but it's coming.
Biodiesel in large quanties is also on the very near horizon (months not years).

Jerryo - Vane pumps are by NO means a new concept, in fact they are quite old technology as they have certain engineering drawbacks limiting their use. The pump they are talking about for the hydrostat here however is a design that has eliminated some of the drawbacks typical to vane pumps. That is what is new. As I was saying before, the only gain I see here is to also have the deck be closed loop hydraulic driven so the blades would turn at the proper speed given the ground track. Otherwise it would appear to me that trying to mow at 3mph with the blades turning at just above engine idle speed would not exactly be what the engineers at JD/MTD etc had in mind.

Hey, while the subject is being mentioned. I recall back in the 70's when gasohol was on the market that it caused some serious problems. Specifically incompatibility issues with certain gaskets, seals etc in the fuel system. Just because the fuel becomes available does not necessarily mean it can be used without possible retrofits does it?
I wonder what the Kohler/Briggs/Tecumseh folks have to say about older equipment running on E-85?

fpda31,
Kohler/Briggs/Tecumseh folks say don't run E85 in thier old engines and not in the present ones either. Don't know if these 3 company's sell engines in Brazil SA, since that country is already well over 50% ethanol in the IC engines. As I said before Flexfuel is on the way, and Biodiesel is just a matter of months since no retrofit or conversion is required for diesel engines to use Bio produced fuel. Gasoline to ethanol ain't that simple.

"I believe over 130 ethanol plants
are under construction as we speak. This is a secret to everybody except those in the investment community."

I know of a few ethanol plants that are tucked deep into a few hollows here in WV. Heck they were supplying ethanol before it became a fashion statement. It even comes in different flavors also. Hank III sings about the Boone County brand in a few of his songs.

More fossil energy is used to produce ethanol than the energy contained within it. It takes six units of fossil fuel to produce 1 unit of ethanol. E85 is not the answer.

I have some ocean front property in Arizona, selling cheap as I can no longer use it. Gas is to expensive to get there.

Ervie, I am a member of the investment community. And I don't see anyone going apesh*t over any E85 "sunami " (tsunami?). Maybe I missed that "secret" memo?.
If and when E85 becomes widely available, it is still only compatible with what, maybe 15% of the vehicles on the road at present? Hardly a cure-all.
I checked for E85 stations in my state. Of the 9 listed, 3 were private (government only), 2 were "planned" and don't even exist, and of the 4 listed as public, not one was closer than 100 miles. No help there.
Anyone who believes that there is going to be one magic invention or one silver bullet technology that will cure all of our energy woes is being sadly naive. E85, biodiesel, fuel cells, hybrid vehicles and all the rest may all play a part, but not any one will be the ultimate solution. And as long as there is an oil man in the White House, I stand by my original comments.

steve2ski

That is pretty much what I figured regarding the E-85 and
it being a "not yet configured for" alternative.
You just KNOW someone is going to ruin their engine trying to run ethanol in it THEN will read the owners manual.

others / all

As for big oil or the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue having the power to keep alternatives off the market. Well, if any of you are old enough to remember Grants Dept Stores, they were once considered nearly a monopoly in the business. They folded in the early/mid 70's as happens to any company or product when faced with a challenger with a better business model, or affordable quality product. Heck I recall these things called "Turntables" and it was said they would never be replaced by something called a "CD player". Investors were clearly sold by someone (phillips perhaps) on the idea.
I think turntables now are used for little other than folks who wear incredibly baggy pants and tons of gold jewelry to ruin vinyl.
I could be wrong though, ever since I misplaced the tin-foil hat I have these strange thoughts. :)

Woodsrunner,
I'll guess you are in the insurance, real estate or banking end of the investment community. The end of it I
am in is more venture directed than memo directed and I find lots of grassroot activity in ethanol right now.

Watch 60 Minutes tonight. They will have a segment on the
Ethanol situation. Maybe you will better understand my opinion or perhaps I'll see you were right.

As for compatibility of cars with ethanol, certain parts of the
fuel system have to be made of plastics or synthetic rubber that alcohol won't harm, and it's not big dollars. Detroit has built and sold over 4 million flexible fuel cars, but who knew? They never told the people that bought them. It was an EPA deal. The government left them off the hook a little on fuel mileage standards if they built some flexible fuel cars. Now you have to check your VIN to see if you own
one.

This year GM decided to publicize flexible fuel cars and trucks. They are building 400,000 new ones. Ford will build
250,000 this year.

Gas stations are a problem right now. I think Marathon is the only oil company offering E85. The rest of big oil ain't interested, but why would they be? hahaha.

I've seen all kinds of gas mileage gadgets and all where just that, a gadget someone could sell to make a profit. I have never seen any of that stuff really help, but have had to remove a few to get the vehicle running right again! I've got four gas tractors and one desiel, fuel for all of them is nothing to the fuel the trucks use!

My brother in law invented a novel fuel intake system for the internal combustion engine. It operates on the prinipal that if you can vaporize gasoline just before intake then you can get significantly more energy out per unit of fuel. We are talking vapor here, not just a fine mist or spray.

Real world problems like the cryo effect kept it from completion, but on it's one & only trial it ran a mid 70's caddy a long way on a little bit of gas. (before the frost buildup caused shutdown)

He has a letter from the D.O.E. telling him his idea would never be practical...

Trouble is, he never tried selling any of them at State Fairs - bet he could of made a killing!

Big Oil can't keep the Ginie in the bottle for ever !!

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE:WMT - news), the world's largest retailer, is considering selling ethanol-based fuel at its more than 380 gasoline stations, the Wall Street Journal reported late on Wednesday.

Somehow it seems like if the Oil Co's. wouldn't be so greedy - things might be different

I'm with ervie & Steve2ski. Looking at Biodiesel and E85 for my future. I like these 2 because they require little if any changes to vehicles to use. I'm pretty sure i can pop B100 in my oil furnace right now...and I'm told that i am running 10% ethanol right now..and some vehicles produced last decade are already e85 capable. When Rudolph Diesel invented the diesel engine (late 1800's) it ran on peanut oil. During the depression Henry Ford and George Washington Carver developed a Soy based fuel to put farmers back to work.

What halted the use of these fuels? A cheaper and more available alternative we use today.

Gasoline and diesel are still pretty much affordable...but with rising demand world wide, a volitile market and national security at risk..this might just be the time for E85 and Biodiesel.

I read somewhere that driving a Suburban for 15000 miles that burns E85 uses less "foreign" oil than a hybrid Prius
running for the sane 15000

The E85 vs. hybrid will be the next debate...already we have seen that the cost to the consumer would be more for the useful life of the hybrid...and a nation of producing maintaining, and disposing of hybrid vehicles would be far worse for the environment than even our current gas burning vehicles.

see:
http://www.e85fuel.com/index.php
http://www.biodiesel.org/

Will we see an E85 capable tractor engine in the future...or will my next one be a diesel.

"More fossil energy is used to produce ethanol than the energy contained within it. It takes six units of fossil fuel to produce 1 unit of ethanol. E85 is not the answer."

starhust,

Is that because the manufacturers are doing the same thing you would do right now in pulling up to a gas station with E85 and regular gas? I can produce my results cheaper right now with regular old gas, I will probably do that until the scale changes....if your statement is correct (or shall we say constant) then why would manufacturers be puting 10% ethanol in their product right now? How much fossil fuel does it take to aquire, refine fossil fuel now? Can't I eventually run the process with E85 in place of fossil fuel when it becomes economically feasable..or a better business decision?

I'm not being a wise arse...just want to how I can be hurt if I buy a flex fuel vehicle.

Doesn't ethanol added to the gas combine easily with water and if there is any oil in the gas the whole mixture turns into a mess of sludge that clogs filters, valves, etc.

It is a big issue with boaters where I live (and the boat mechanics are getting rich off of it too).

Thoughts?

We all know what a gallon of gasoline costs but has anyone heard what a gallon of ethanol costs? Now I know you don't burn it straight but just how much would a gallon of the stuff cost? I'd like to know.

I remember back when I was working on cars in the late '80s this guy came in with some magnet gizmo that was supposed to be around the fuel line and the magnet was to excite the molicules in the fuel and magically increase fuel mileage,and he told me all about this wonderful thing.
Funny thing was as I was looking at it I realized he had installed it around a vacuum line!
Looking back now maybe he did get better mileage with a lighter wallet!

From what I've read about E85, a gallon costs close to the same price as a gallon of gasoline, but doesn't get as many mpg.

John

Nice tangent on ethanol, but back to the original point of the variable displacement hydraulic tranny...

Is it me, or does this thing still get it's power from gas or diesel or electric motor that is terribly inefficient? If it does some of what it claims, great, but it can't be more efficient than direct gear drive (95 to 98%). Sure, you can run the engine at it's peak efficiency all the time, but what is that on a carbureted 1 or 2 cylinder low compression engine? 25% efficient? If this thing quadruples the efficiency of the hydrostatic drive it might save a gallon of gas over the life of the tractor (this is a tractor forum, right?). I'm all for saving that gallon if we can. Every drop saved makes the world better, cleaner, and safer for the grandkids. But I wouldn't call it a revolutionary concept.

And accelerating an Expedition from 0 to 60 in 3 seconds? I have to disagree with woodsrunner55 - I think this is possible if you drop it out of an airplane. I'd love to try it and see...

tennesseetoro: you put the thingy on the vaccuum line and it improved mileage right?... there is a perfect explenation for this phenomenon:

You see, the vaccuum maintains a presence in the vaccuum lines and whatever these lines connect in the engine. By installing the magnet, you improved the efficiency of vaccuum flow, thus reducing the strain on the engine - which is what produces the vaccuum. Reduced strain = better gas mileage. You just can't go wrong with magnets. I have one strapped to my head right now! Without it there is no way I would have been able to come up with the perfectly logical explanation I just typed up.....

Wally2q Just a second. I think I need to get my decoder ring and my tinfoil hat but it makes sense to ME!!!!!

"You just can't go wrong with magnets. I have one strapped to my head right now!"

Why doesn't it just stick by itself? Mine does!

"You just can't go wrong with magnets. I have one strapped to my head right now!

Why doesn't it just stick by itself? Mine does!"

... I have to strap my magnet on my head, because they don't stick to wood, and/or air....

Don asked,

"We all know what a gallon of gasoline costs but has anyone heard what a gallon of ethanol costs? Now I know you don't burn it straight but just how much would a gallon of the stuff cost? I'd like to know."

Verasun's cost to produce a gallon of ethanol was $1.22 last year and rose to $1.33 when natural gas prices peaked. The
spot price to buy ethanol was up as high as $3 a gallon in
June but has gone down steadily to $2.20 today. It will trend downward as 32 additional distilleries are completed.
It could go as low as $1.60. Then E85 will start spreading
across the country as consumers see its price advantage compared with gasoline.

E85...go to consumer reports online and read their latest fuel economy tests on "flex" vehicles...

For a real eye-opener, go to an auto dealer and price the hybrid vehicles. Then, do the math. It would take more than five years, assuming $3.00/gallon gasoline, to make up the difference between conventional and hybrid technoligy. This doesn't even factor in the cost of replacing the batteries, which are about gone after 5+ years. Imagine the megashock when you leave the batteries-plus place!!!!!

Sure this system could work. It doesn't seem very practical for a lawnmower application for the above mentioned reasons. Also, I don't think anyone applies the brakes on their lawnmower hard enough to energize this system effectively. I don't think there would be enough deceleration while braking and insufficient mass if this system was used on a lawnmower. But it should work fine for a vehicle. I think a piston pump design would be much more efficient than a vane pump.

Proposed possibility:
{{gwi:322946}}

Posted by odo53 on Thu, Sep 7, 06 at 21:08

"And accelerating an Expedition from 0 to 60 in 3 seconds? I have to disagree with woodsrunner55 - I think this is possible if you drop it out of an airplane. I'd love to try it and see..."

Very possible. Falling objects on Earth accelerate at a rate of 32 feet per second, every second. This constant holds true regardless of the object's weight.

At 3 seconds an object would fall at 3 x 32 feet/second, or 96 f/s

At that point in time the object is travelling 96 x 3600 feety every hour, or 345600 feet per hour.

So after three seconds the truck would be travelling 345600 / 5280 MPH, or 65.45 MPH .

Air resistance would slow it down, for sure. Yet I don't think the truck would be anywhere near its terminal velocity at that point. So it shouldn't lose too much speed.

I don't know what the top speed would be...maybe 300 MPH as a guess.

Anyone know the terminal velocity of a truck ?

Peace.

Marco

Some interesting facts here about ethanol. Might not be the answer we thought it was.

http://zfacts.com/p/60.html

Gas prices have went down.They now say we have plenty?They fixed the pipeline in a few days rather then months?The problem was not as bad as expected?They found new oil in the Gulf?

Were safe for awhile now.Probably until Thanksgiving weekend?

terminal velocity of a human falling, with a perpendicular aspect of body to direction of travel, is about 140mph.

I think a truck will probably fall slower than 300mph....

Oh yea, here is a "too long" of a ramble regarding E85 marketability, and the whole "investment community" line?... I am a member of the investment community too.... everyone is - some just don't realize it... anyway - the so called investment-community is not driven by logic - it's pure sentiment. It's like asking a bunch of kindergarden kids: what's better: ice-cream or lolly-pops?.... so although one wants to be in the herd, so as to make money, when the going gets good, the direction that the markets go in, has typically nothing to do with common sense, so using that as a gauge for what fuel is better is a joke.

Ethanol contains less energy per gallon, than does gasoline. So why is everyone surprised that ethanol cars get lower mileage?... it takes an "x" amount of energy to transport that Chevy Yukon one mile, so if it's ethanol, it will take more gallons. BUT... and this is the thing: Ethanol is "fully renewable"... you can grow corn for the next 1,000,000 years. Has anyone done an analysis which would determine the price of ethanol, if it was consumed at the same levels as gasoline (therefore manufactured in so much greater quantity)?.... there is this concept - it's called: economy of scale. The more you make, the less it costs to make per unit. You eventually hit the point of diminishing returns, but ethanol fabrication is FAR from that today.... so when people say it will never make it, because it's too expesive... they are only correct for as long as there is oil.... so maybe not today... maybe not next year... maybe 20 years from now, maybe 50 or 100... but eventually it will happen... it's inevitable...

and by the way - forget about hydrogen and electric vehicles - that concept is a government funded science project joke!

you see... corn uses solar energy (when you analyze the entire energy increment chain) to grow and form starch and sugar. Yeast then converts those to ethanol. It's basically free, other than the destillation process. Gas is the same - you get "free energy" from oil - all you've got to do is destill out the gasoline.... but with hydrogen: every Joule of energy you use in your car, you have to produce first from another source... you do that by creating energy by typically burning something else (like coal), or through a nuclear reaction... every Joule of energy is "man-made" (not solar, and not infinitely renewable)... so why not just take the original energy source (like coal or nuclear), and run your car on that?... way cheaper, because electricity transmission through power lines (delivered to your house) is massively inefficient!.... just have figure out a way to keep that nuclear reactor together when the drunk guy rear-ends you...

... but with ethanol, GM needs to change some gaskets and fuel lines... retune the computer, and install a bigger gas tank... and voila - after investing a whole 2 weeks of engineering effort, your 2010 model year Chevy Yukon is set to run on fuel we will never run out of!... imagine that...

ok.... ramble time is over....

Now if we could just grow corn in the snow. Wow what an idea! If ethanol is the answer why does the government have to subsidize it?

"...If ethanol is the answer why does the government have to subsidize it?..."

the gov't doesnt HAVE to subsidize it.... the government WANTS to subsidize it... it's the same as fuel cell research and other even less usefull endeavours.....

picture yourself as a business man... you want your business to make money, so that you can collect a fat bonus and buy your mistress that nice mercedes.... you find yourself a few bright engineers who have the idea, but no clue how to bring it to fruition.... so you call up your buddy at the government so he can help you get your greasy little hands on a piece of the research-grant money the government hands out every year...

so the bottom line is... there is free money to be had - why wouldn't you ask for it?....

if you really think the industry cares about the environment - you are probably naive.... don't get me wrong - there are those who are environmentally sensitive - but don't kid yourself - there is no business out there, who's #1 priority isn't "making money"....

and the government is right in what they do (handing out free money)... which by the way is not really free... but that's another story.... the government figures that either they hand out the cash, and have a bunch of companies employ a bunch of people on fruitless projects (which do better society in one way or another - through general levels of technology development and intelectual growth of the industry base), or else, take the money and hand it out as welfare to the same people who otherwise would be unemployed.... so a bit of the cash leaks out to buy a mercedes and the odd yacht... the bottom line is that at the end of the day, it's government [read: taxpayer] funded employment.... and that is always better than government [tax payer] funded welfare....

You have one hell of a way to play with words. Taxpayer funded employment is better than tax payer funded welfare. BS I say - one is the same as the other. One other point you make is "the government doesn't HAVE to subsidize it.....the government WANTS to subsidize it." Sure they do. While they are out looking for things to subsidize let them look at our children without medical coverage and the elderly who are forgoing food to pay for their prescriptions. I personally am tired of paying Archer Daniels Midland and the other conglomerates subsidies.

Saw a recent article that said that if we converted "all" of our corn into ethanol we would only meet 6 to 12% of our needs. Does that mean I have to give up corn on the cob and corn liquor?

Hey Don.... thanks for the compliment!: "..you have one hell of a way to play with words..." I practice a lot....

you're right - social equality or at least working towards social equality is important... however, it has been demonstrated in the past, and even currently in some countries, that "forced social equality" or socialism does not work... an economy can not support it. Why?.. because there are not enough "rich" people to give to all the "poor"... if you take all the money and distribute it to everyone, then everyone will still be poor... just a little less poor, but still in the "poor" bracket.... so what's the answer?... Canada thinks it has it (as do several other european countries), but the reality is that our health-care sucks: I just heard today that the average treatment wait time in Ontario is 16 weeks.... 4 months!... I could be dead by then!... so could my kid!... sure, fast response of private systems is much better but not affordable for all.... the answer is somewhere in the middle I guess.... not sure if it is practically possible tough...

I agree with you with respect to children.... as far as I am concerned, there should be zero reservations with respect to providing care etc. for children, senior, and disabled citizens - reason being that they can not provide for themselves....

But welfare is much more than providing for those that can't provide for themselves... it's for people who don't want to provide for themselves.... this issue gets even more silly when you think about the fact that Canada has a very robust welfare system, and yet there are homeless people on the street!... how can that be?... all they have to do is walk into a welfare office, and they will get a free place to stay, and a small pay-cheque (for food, beer, and booze)... free!... so why would these people live on the street?... because they choose to do so....

similarly then, there are those who choose to live on welfare, yet they are fully capable of getting a job and working... I have no time for those folks..... system abuse is what it's called.

so job creation by government grants is good in principle, but it too gets abused... you can't win... but if I had to choose between welfare abuse, and job-creation abuse, I choose the latter... because at least some people will benefit from having a job... and society benfits from the "value added" activity & products that the work force creates....

as for the 6% of ethanol supplied by corn?... of course... who could eat that much corn on the cob?... no-one grows it, because no-one wants it... another economics concept is "supply & demand"... just create the demand, and very quickly the supply base will provide it.... it's quite trivial... and if you think there are not enough farms to grow corn to provide all the supply, then maybe some third-world country in africa can provide the land - industry will provide the irrigation systems and the corn-seeds (all driven by "demand"), and all of a sudden we fix 2 problems for the price of one!

Wally said "Ethanol contains less energy per gallon, than does gasoline. So why is everyone surprised that ethanol cars get lower mileage?.."

That is true, but flex-fuel cars are still using engines designed for gasoline, with an octane of only 87 to 92.

Just as cars with 9:1 compression get more power per gallon than the 6:1 compression engines of the 1930's, engines designed expressly for ethanol may do much better in the future. Ethanol's octane rating of over 100 suggests compression ratios of 13:1 may be practical.
.

I had a Deisle Simplicity but my freind borrowed it for a tractor pull. It was running on bio-fule and it made it explode and it threw him off and he got run run over by a IH F-12 farmall with steel wheels and he died. Too bad, it was a nice tractor.
How to prevent: Don't let freinds borrow you're things.

Ervie said "...engines designed expressly for ethanol may do much better in the future. Ethanol's octane rating of over 100 suggests compression ratios of 13:1 may be practical...."

all I can say is: True 'dat.

Tom Kasmer, inventor of the Hydristor here to answer any
questions. 607-2068960 tkasmer(a)yahoo.com

The JD tractor shown on the IFPE video is all my own work
and JD did not provide anything. I am designing a skid steer drive for Bobcat. The JD tractor incorporates a 3
input hydrostatic control; the steering wheel position, the
fwd/rev speed lever and a 'spin like a Bobcat' contol lever. This will fix the 'one wheel drive' defect of traditional tractors which result in serious accident and death when a wheel starts to slip on a wet grass slope.
The Hydristor equipped tractor will have the same drawbar pull on any turn as a solid axle in straight motion with
all 4 wheels in lockstep, stratght or turning.

Your blog comments have motivated me to address fuel economy and emissions in tractors. I will design a hydrid
drive which includes a pressure storage tank. Also, there will be a hydraulic motor deck drive. The engine can be
run to charge the pressure and then be shut off. The tank pressure would normally be plenty to simultaneously drive
a heavy wheel drive AND mow a heavy grass section. The Hydristor would directly restart the engine to add energy.
This should double fuel economy and quarter CO2 emissions.

I am also working on a heat recovery system which can harvest engine and exhaust heat and turn it into additional energy as tank charge pressure. That would raise the energy conversion of a gallon of fuel from 20-25% t0 70-80%. This in turn could result in an even smaller engine with even lower losses. I guess this all
could result in a 4-5 times improvement in tractor fuel economy.

Regarding comments about the expedition and John DeLorean, John read all my patents and called me out of the blue in
December of 2003. He had the most complete understanding of the Hydristor I have ever been presented with by any engineer or scientist. He advised me behind the scenes for
two years regarding how I might get the interest of the US
auto industry. He told me his name was not popular. He called me during my trip to VeGas in 05 and died the next day. He was a true visionary who was the victim of an
illegal entrapment and was fully exhonorated. He was an
amazing person to know and I am honored that he chose to
pursue my technology. Given his desperate situation, who of us would step forward to cast the first stone?

Regarding the Expedition, on the stored energy, it will absolutely accelerate to 60 under ideal conditions in AWD
at '1g' in just under 3 seconds, even for a diesel SUV.

Back to work now, regards Tom Kasmer

Here is a link that might be useful: Hydristor

Change is real difficult to accept for some!
Farmers still in business here are using 1950-60 2 cylinder JD's, because they they don't make like that anymore.
I forgot that was plow day, that was where the hobbyest/collectors were, not the Farmers.
The Commerical grass cutters still are still using 1960-70 garden tractors to mow with because they don't make like that anymore, Am Idreaming that they are using ZTR's, oh yeh, thats a nightmare not a dream to some.
The personal vehicle drivers around here are still driving 1970-80 carburated engines not EFI engines. Why, no one can maintain the EFI's.
Same for Disc ABS brakes, multi-valve ovehead cams. and a host of other things.
Ethanol (imported from Brazil) presently has a $0.54 per gallon import tax imposed by the US Gov. and ethanol is still pretty competitive to petroleum(gasoline). This not only protects big oil but helps the US corn prices, now over $3.50 per bushel vs less than $1.60 per bushel less than 2 years ago.
2007 acreage cultivation estimates will be greater than any year since 1944. then a bumper crop of corn was 80 bu/acre, its now well over 200bu/acre.
Check the soybean prices and acres, same senerio just different scale. Biofuels are coming and are very close at hand. Will they replace petroleum, of course not but will be a 15 to 20% supplement to oil -
The scare tactics of the oil guys of these products taking food off tables, read about distillers grains - they are higher protein animal feed stocks than grains prior to the processing for ethanol.
Corn = 30% ethanol; 30% feedstocks; and 30% CO2
Beans = Soyoil and feedstocks don't know the percentage
Wall street doesn't care if the money is made on oil in the middle east or the US grain - they are in both products.
US farmers are in the corn, bean and other biocrop production.
Money can stay in the US or go the middle east, Wall street makes money on products produced in China just as easy as they do on products - but hte workers don't - see the parallel between the workers and the farmers.

The whole easiest way to get best milage is : hook a large electric motor up instead of the gas motor, use a 24 volt truck battery. Talk about instant take offs with no lag or noise.
For using gas motors tho, the best way is keep the engine tuned and maintained, and adjust the carb/carbs from stock settings. Theyre set way over rich ( and dont need to be), and most new tractors bieng well over 300lbs are gonna get squat for 'milage' anyway. With my old 11/36 Dynamark i could mow in 2nd gear ( not too fast, but not slow) my parents yard of 2 acres ( hills included) on almost one tank of gas ( around the last stretch of yard id need to fill it up) and thats nearly 3 hrs later. My 92 White LT12 would finish the whole thing on fumes, and thats with no carb mods/cleaning/tweeking at all in like 4th gear. I believe they all had like 4 1/2 galon tanks. I ran nothing but regular 87 octane gas.
Kidd

Hey, small world.

I live in Vestal, NY also!

Tom Kasmer, you certainly have plenty of irons in the fire!

FullMetal