How much gas would be saved if everyone had a zt?

[robert]

Well I got another 1/2 hr out of my new Exmark before another problem but it was enough to form this opinion:
my mowing time has been cut by just a bit more than 1/2 which does not mean that the fuel consumption has been cut by that much, necessarily, but it does mean that I am saving alot of fuel.

I would venture a guess that 90% of the homeowners who bought a lawn/garden tractor use it only for mowing so 90% of the homeowners could go zt and would realize a similar reduction in fuel consumption. More intriguing; zt's would, give twice the service-all things being equal.....

The big question is, would switching pay for itself? and I think that between the fuel reduction AND getting alot more hours out of the machine, it very well could.

You gotta admit guys, its worth a shot running the logic by the Mrs.......

Thoughts?

 

[KeithAlbert]

My GT used 5 gallons of fuel per cut. My ZTR uses about 2. My mowing time has been reduced by a huge margin. The GT was 6 hours and the ZRT is just over 1 hour. So the GT actually uses less per hour.

 

[JDgreen]

Could we say instead "How much fuel would be saved if the frickin' rain would just stop"...LOL

I burned 22 gallons of diesel fuel mowing last month, at $4.30 a gallon...plus another $20 worth of gasoline in my push mowers, blowers and trimmers.

Will be mowing again today, because parts of my yard have 12 to 14 inch high grass, and I cut that area down to 3 1/2 inches ten days ago. AARRRRRGGGHHHH !!!!!!!

 

[oldyellr]

Well, since ZT mowers , as well as being at last twice the price of conventional mowers, also need engines twice the size, the gas savings may not be as much as hoped. Theoretically, the fuel consumption ought to be proportional to the time the mower runs, so with a ZT you save time if you do it right, but the energy required to churn two hydrostatic transmissions may suck more fuel.

I use two rear engine riders alternately, a 34" John Deere and a 30" Honda. The JD turns very wide, whereas the Honda turns tight, so you'd expect the Honda to be more efficient. However, the Honda needs 11 hp for its hydro drive whereas the JD just has an 8 hp Briggs. But the Honda has a modern OHV engine whereas the Briggs is a stone age flathead. Without actually measuring, they both seem to use the same amount of gas per cutting.

Anyway, it would be interesting if someone who has upgraded from a conventional mower to a ZT could provide some input.

 

[Jetblast]

I went from a 54" conventional lawn tractor with a 27 HP Kohler Command to a 60" ZTR with a 25 HP Kohler Command.

I'm mowing at 9 MPH now vs 5 MPH and getting done in about 60% of the previous time, but I'm actually using a little more fuel than before. I think it may be not so much time running that dictates fuel consumption, but the amount of work accomplished. Then on top of that, the old mower just plodded along and the engine never worked hard, while the ZTR wrings out all of available power with the constant jackrabbit accelerations and engine powered turns.

I'm glad the ZTR holds 9 gallons because she sure is thirsty.

 

[Flowin&MowinThugRAT]

about a million gallons

 

[daddy3]

its been so long since i had to add gas to my zt (dixon by the way 3 gal tank) i wonder if they use gas at all, i think its the stabila blue

 

[robert]

I did go from a Simplicity lawn tractor to the Exmark, the size of the engines were the same, 20 hp; its working out for me (time wise) and the cost of the Exmark was not very much different than a 'better' John Deere and I believe the $3,700 for the Exmark was somewhat less than the Deere that had four wheel steer.

My points are that less time equals less fuel-less wear-which should translate to longer service life per unit in terms of years.

Tnks for the replies.