|
| Can't really comment on the fuel economy with respect to engines between a 535 and a 485, but if you are really serious about fuel economy, then you might consider the whole system (ie the entire powertrain). Begging your pardon for playing devil's advocate for a moment, while the QuadTrac certainly has no equal in total traction or total footprint and I certainly will say that it has its place, it comes at a price, and that is greater complexity and higher fuel consumption. Nearly all of the local co-ops around here that used to rent Quads are now renting Cat MT800s, and one of the co-op managers had told me that they were using close to 25% less fuel with the Cats on a per-acre basis to apply anhydrous last fall and this spring. They are faster and smoother down the road and they have fewer undercarriage issues with them also, but he was most surprised by just how much better the Cats were on fuel (some from overall efficiency of the big displacement Cat engines, he credits, but I think the simple, in-line powertrain design with the single drive axle and fixed frame do a lot also). The guys around here who have switched from Quads to Cats comment on that and also about the impressive torque that the Cats have compared to their old tractors. I would recommend giving it a look. We have been very impressed with the MT800. | |
|
485 or 535 quad
