|
North East Kansas | Marketing changes our views, but doesn't make it correct. CVT's are neat and have some advantages, but don't save you fuel over a powershift. There is no magic inside. Most people miss the point on engines to save fuel. Lower rpm's is not always better. You need to look at the fuel consumption curves of the engine to know what rpm is best at what power percentage. If you don't feel like guessing, Case IH's APM mode is not jerky, and does help although I never use it because I know where the rpm needs to be to save fuel and I know better than the computer what is better on the engine. I always stay with higher rpms if fuel consumption is the same. The computer will stay with lower rpms on both the cvt's and powershifts. Lower rpm's are harder on the engine because of higher cylinder pressures to pull the same load.
I have tracked fuel consumption on the same exact implement in the same field with a massey 8670 CVT and a Case ih Magnum 290. The 290 was just a little better on fuel consumption, and it is a powershift. Don't take my word for it. Go to Nebraska tractor tests and look at fuel consumption. The CVT's are almost never better at conserving fuel.
Marketing always disgusts me in the first place. The new tier 4 engines were supposed to save all this fuel, yet the tier 3 (magnum 275, 9.0L) on our farm was better at saving fuel, and it is almost disgusting how much fuel our old mx220 saves over any of them pulling the same exact planter. | |
|
CVT and IVT the same?
