Tracked Chipper Comparison.

[AHPP]

14 minutes ago, Haironyourchest said:

I wish I was redneck enough to build one myself...

Aye. Same. I've had a plan for ages to build one with two engines. Redderneck.

 

8 minutes ago, MattyF said:

Fuel consumption would be one factor.

Surely more is wasted making a smaller engine work hard, running it into the no stress, waiting for the revs to come back up when it could be chipping. Accelerating in a car drinks fuel compared to motorway cruising, even with the high speed and (wind) resistance.

 

3 minutes ago, Dan Maynard said:

I think in normal use they spend a lot of chipping time at about 10hp on brash, working on the basis that 35hp is when the stress control cuts in.

So? What's the harm in having 80hp on tap and it never hitting the no stress.

[swinny]

I have 73hp in one of my chippers and still need the no stress lol

Edited April 16, 2022 by swinny

[woody paul]

When I was looking at chippers last year looked at the spec of TP chippers, the petrol 175 runs 38hp and uses 6l/h the diesel is 24hp and uses 3l/h. But the surprise was the 215 which runs 59hp diesel and uses 3l/h.which is a lot more chipping using less fuel. 

[AHPP]

1 hour ago, swinny said:

I have 73hp in one of my chippers and still need the no stress lol

What size infeed?

[swinny]

11 minutes ago, AHPP said:

What size infeed?

Think 9x17"

[AHPP]

4 minutes ago, swinny said:

Think 9x17"

153 square inches, about three times that of a Timberwolf 230 and three times the 25hp of the weedy new diesel. No surprise. I prescribe 300hp instead. Trust me, I'm a doctor.

Edited April 16, 2022 by AHPP

[Haironyourchest]

1 hour ago, woody paul said:

When I was looking at chippers last year looked at the spec of TP chippers, the petrol 175 runs 38hp and uses 6l/h the diesel is 24hp and uses 3l/h. But the surprise was the 215 which runs 59hp diesel and uses 3l/h.which is a lot more chipping using less fuel. 

Might be gauging fuel usage by nominal 10HP tick over or something. Maybe the 59HP one can be made to produce that if you crank the revs up?

[Ty Korrigan]

19 hours ago, woody paul said:

When I was looking at chippers last year looked at the spec of TP chippers, the petrol 175 runs 38hp and uses 6l/h the diesel is 24hp and uses 3l/h. But the surprise was the 215 which runs 59hp diesel and uses 3l/h.which is a lot more chipping using less fuel. 

That is because the engine is a turbo charged common rail on that model.

[Ty Korrigan]

I recently completed 100 hours on the GM Evo 165D

It has the Kubota 4 cylinder 1.5litre engine V1505 restricted to 25hp

I keep a record of the hours and fuel used as well as chip type and quantity.

Currently hovering over 3.2 litres per hour.

The consumption appeared to drop as the engine hours increased.

Either that or I made an error and double entered fuel used on one job.

Something which upon reflection, I think quite possible as we used Aspen containers for stock and could have included diesel for the tractor in with the chipper.

Regardless 3.2 litres is where it is now so only a slight blip in my record keeping.

 

 

     

[NJA]

22 hours ago, AHPP said:

I’ve often wondered why 6-8” chipper engines aren’t 100hp. Loads of car engines are that sort of power and perfectly reasonably sized.

I've wondered the same thing, for the stress control to be cutting in regularly surely means ya engine ain't big enough?

But come to the conclusion its all about the money.  What's stopping you (or me) getting a 100hp chipper or larger (probably rated as 12"or something) and just not putting anything over 6" through it.  Then it'd be running at tickover and never struggling.  But for the money we'd spent we'd want to be chucking 12" stuff through it just because you could.