Jump to content

Garden Tractors and Parts on eBay

- - - - -

Looking for comments

  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 fergie OFFLINE  


    New Member

  • Member
  • Member No: 138
  • 2 Thanks
  • 8 posts

Posted May 10, 2015 - 02:19 PM

I have both a MF10G and MF12 Hydrostatic. To me the Hydrostatic uses a lot more gas. I sometimes wonder if this is just my imagination. I used to also own a Mf12G and I didn't see the difference between the the 10 and 12 in gas usage. But I am wondering what your thoughts are. Does a Hydrostatic use a lot more gas? Thanks.
  • MFDAC and chieffan have said thanks

#2 boyscout862 ONLINE  

  • Senior Member
  • Contributor
  • Member No: 8923
  • 15101 Thanks
  • 9976 posts
  • Location: N.E. Connecticut

Posted May 10, 2015 - 02:23 PM

The amount of fuel an engine uses is a function of the work it is doing and how well tuned it is. A hydro tranny shouldn't use alot more than a gear tranny unless the hydro has a problem. I would suspect the tuning of the engines, Good Luck, Rick

  • MFDAC and TomLGT195 have said thanks

#3 WNYTractorTinkerer OFFLINE  


    Tinker Master

  • Senior Member
  • -GTt Supporter-
  • Member No: 10789
  • 17604 Thanks
  • 7630 posts
  • Location: Avon, NY

Posted May 10, 2015 - 02:43 PM

I agree with boyscout on the engine performance..  A larger engine will burn more fuel and there are many other reasons one particular engine will use more gas than another.  It should not be a huge difference though.  If it is a tune-up is in order.  It could be as simple as one engine is governed slower than the other.  


Power consumption by a hydro tranny is a bit more due to the power loss in the energy transfer.  You are pumping oil into and out of pumps and loose a bit in that action and also the extra equipment that is moving also robs power.  Kinda takes me back to physics class..   :spamani: But the deal with the hydro is that the pump is always a-pumpin' whether or not the tractor is actually moving so it uses more power (hence fuel) there also..


Just thoughts on a Sunday afternoon..    :flipping_flapjacks:

  • limebuzz, tinbender7, MFDAC and 2 others have said thanks



    Only member from Western South Dakota!

  • Senior Member
  • -GTt Supporter-
  • Member No: 5815
  • 3708 Thanks
  • 1771 posts
  • Location: East of Rapid City, SD in Rapid Valley

Posted May 10, 2015 - 06:09 PM

I read somewhere on this site that a hydro requires 2 horsepower over a gear like WNY stated? I would think that would be a consumption difference also besides the obvious engine difference.



Edited by MFDAC, May 10, 2015 - 06:11 PM.

  • tinbender7 said thank you

#5 tater195 OFFLINE  


    I dont deny your history..... dont deny mine

  • Senior Member
  • Member No: 62468
  • 2347 Thanks
  • 1492 posts

Posted May 10, 2015 - 06:22 PM

Just from my experience (especially on the Sears stuff) the hydros are about 15% slower. That can be fixed on most non-shaft drive models by changing the input pulley, as they can handle 3600 rpm and are usually under driven.

  • TomLGT195 said thank you




  • Senior Member
  • Member No: 915
  • 573 Thanks
  • 507 posts
  • Location: Sault Ste Marie, Ontario

Posted May 12, 2015 - 10:21 PM

There is a 20-25% power penalty for hydros on power delivered to the final drive. Considering how little power is required for most tasks, that shouldn't show up as a major increase in fuel consumption. It takes less than 2 hp to the rear end to mow a typical lawn or blow snow from a flat driveway. The penalty is courtesy of the designed internal leakage to supply lubrication for the hydro's pump and motor parts.


The MF12 hydro in neutral doesn't move any fluid. There is no charge pump.

  • rustyoldjunk, limebuzz and ENafziger have said thanks