Buying Advice HST or Gears?

[5030]

In the compact tractor arena, I suspect a hydraulic shuttle isn't in the cards, a hydraulic shuttle and multi=speed / range gearboxes are for the bigger units (like I run) but while a HST unit might work for ocasional ground engaging work on a limited scale, they really aren't suited for heavy application. Years ago IH offered one and it was problematic. The issue is getting rid of the residual heat generated by what amounts to a torque converter in the driveline.

Far as a sore left leg goes, the ONLY TIME I use the clutch is to start the tractor and select a gear or when changing ranges. Up shifting and down shifting in a particular range is simply a matter of moving the shuttle lever to the center position (which releases pressure on the clutch packs) and changing gears and then engaging the shuttle lever again. Not familiar with JD, but Kubota uses a sensing valve arrangement that senses load and modulates the pack pressure accordingly so gear changes as well as directional changes are seamless and smooth.

I'd never go back to a gear drive, dry clutch unit again. My last big tractor before the Kubota's was a V8 Massey with 32 forward and 16 reverse gears and I did get a tired left leg and foot, even with the torque amplifier which basically splits the gears for more drawbar power. If the Massey had the hydraulic shuttle, I'd still have it, even though it drank diesel like a drunken sailor..........

When you farm, like I do, you want the least complex, easiest to service drivetrain that is the most user friendly and the HS is just that.

 

[Oldpath05]

My L3400 DT is ok for a small amount of loader work but I wouldn't recommend it for a lot. The shuttle shift sounds like the best of both worlds to me, but I don't remember that offed in 07 when I got mine tractor, just the HST version, probably only comes in a bigger model like 5030 is saying.

 

[5030]

My L3400 DT is ok for a small amount of loader work but I wouldn't recommend it for a lot. The shuttle shift sounds like the best of both worlds to me, but I don't remember that offed in 07 when I got mine tractor, just the HST version, probably only comes in a bigger model like 5030 is saying.

The 5030 (that is my screen name) was my last HST tractor (I joined the forum in 2003) and I traded it soon after for the M9 and then bought a 105X the next year (because I was not retired and could afford big payments, being retired and have 2 good, reliable and fuel sipping units is nice and they are both paid for a while ago,

I had just gotten into hay seriously and found out quickly that while a 50 horse unit (45 pto) was enough to mow with (with a JD MoCo SCH sickle bar setup), making round bales, even 4x4's which are less than 900 pounds each was an exercise in futility. I'd start a bale no issue but by the time the chamber was half full, I had the throttle on the stop and thats on level ground. Oh a hill, no way. Small squares was no issue back then but I've ramped up to a NH 575 3 rotor High Capacity square bailer, no way a 45 horse tractor could run that and my sickle bar MoCo, while I keep it for a backup is still operational, I mow with a NH center pivot discbine. All my implements not only weigh more than the 5030 did, they requite more pto power than the unit made.

It's economy of scale and getting it done before it rains...lol

 

[varmint]

Reading 5030's post reminds me that TbN has different users... guys like me, who are not really using our tractors for earning money, or doing big, heavy jobs, and guys like 5030, who need heavier, more powerful tractors. It's almost like they need their own threads... but of course, we juniors learn stuff from reading about their issues. A 100hp seems like a lot in a tractor, to me, but then again, if we were talking about trucks or cars... not so much.

 

[Oldpath05]

I'm quite sure that my mid small size L3400 DT with AG tire's would be almost useless on a working farm. I guess I could pull a small hay rake as long as the hay field is not soft. Probably could bucket manure out of the barn, but then I'd want different tires for that and a HST trans. The only thing my tractor is any good for is getting out firewood for the house, at a selective cutting way, I can get really into, out of tight areas with it. Just with it was shuttle shift.

 

[ovrszd]

I have a 95hp hydraulic shuttle. A 47hp mechanical shuttle. A 22hp HST.

When people talk about engine rpms and say they usually run their HST tractors at 2000rpm or a bit less and that they don't think that's excessive I am amused. My 47hp mechanical shuttle tractor is governed at 2000rpm. It spends most of it's work time at 1200rpms or less. My 95hp hydraulic shuttle tractor is governed at 2300rpm. It spends most it's work time at 1000rpms or less. Only time those two tractors are operated at 2000rpms or above is when doing heavy tillage work or running down the road.

The 22hp HST tractor is the only one that has to have rpms to be effective and it wants close to 2000rpms for efficiency of the HST system. It's just a simple truth that HST requires much more rpms. And that isn't necessarily because that's where the pump pressure works best. It's mostly because the HST pump, when activated, requires substantial HP to operate. Puts a much heavier load on the engine. So the engine needs to be up in it's peak hp/torque range.

Each has it's place. And as someone mentioned, TBN member uses vary greatly. Especially in a thread like this.

 

[jeff9366]

Strong on personal experience and facts.

Thanks.

jeff9366

 

[5030]

Reading 5030's post reminds me that TbN has different users... guys like me, who are not really using our tractors for earning money, or doing big, heavy jobs, and guys like 5030, who need heavier, more powerful tractors. It's almost like they need their own threads... but of course, we juniors learn stuff from reading about their issues. A 100hp seems like a lot in a tractor, to me, but then again, if we were talking about trucks or cars... not so much.

Every Kubota I owned until I went into the Large frame series was an HST. I know the advantages and detractions of them. The big minus is the inherent heat of operation and parasitic power loss plus the complexity of the drive system. On the plus side, they are operator friendly though my wife can run (and does run the big hydraulic shuttles because the main transmissions are synchromesh). For around the farm, mauure management, yard chores, an HST is hard to beat but for tillage and intensive implement use, the HST lacks in power because of the inherent parasitic power loss. The two I have now are my 17th and 18th Kubota's. I've had a few.

In my view, no horsepower is too much. I think newbies are intimidated a bit when it comes to buying a tractor, especially a smaller one, because horsepower is in direct relationship to price, but my opinion is there is no 'enough'. The limiting factor as I see it is physical size and manuverability. Obviously, a smaller unit is easier to deal with in tight quarters and will fit nicely into your garage... My tractors would never fit in a garage.....:laughing:

If I didn't own a quad and a zero turn, I'd own a small BX series with a mower deck. I don't need one however.

 

[ovrszd]

In my view, no horsepower is too much. I think newbies are intimidated a bit when it comes to buying a tractor, especially a smaller one, because horsepower is in direct relationship to price, but my opinion is there is no 'enough'. The limiting factor as I see it is physical size and manuverability. Obviously, a smaller unit is easier to deal with in tight quarters and will fit nicely into your garage... My tractors would never fit in a garage.....:laughing:

Very well stated.

I sold a 44hp CUT and replaced it with a 95hp Utility. My Brother thought I was crazy until he got to run the Utility tractor. He'd never had anything but AG tractors. He thought the M9540 would be wayyyyy to large in size for my needs until he saw it. He was shortly converted when he saw what it could do in the timber. It is also productive enough to remove the FEL and do AG work. For me it fits nicely.

I'd really like to have a powershift model but I'm afraid the "X" series would be too heavy and awkward in the timber.

 

[GManBart]

I have a 95hp hydraulic shuttle. A 47hp mechanical shuttle. A 22hp HST.

When people talk about engine rpms and say they usually run their HST tractors at 2000rpm or a bit less and that they don't think that's excessive I am amused. My 47hp mechanical shuttle tractor is governed at 2000rpm. It spends most of it's work time at 1200rpms or less. My 95hp hydraulic shuttle tractor is governed at 2300rpm. It spends most it's work time at 1000rpms or less. Only time those two tractors are operated at 2000rpms or above is when doing heavy tillage work or running down the road.

The 22hp HST tractor is the only one that has to have rpms to be effective and it wants close to 2000rpms for efficiency of the HST system. It's just a simple truth that HST requires much more rpms. And that isn't necessarily because that's where the pump pressure works best. It's mostly because the HST pump, when activated, requires substantial HP to operate. Puts a much heavier load on the engine. So the engine needs to be up in it's peak hp/torque range.

Each has it's place. And as someone mentioned, TBN member uses vary greatly. Especially in a thread like this.

All completely different animals that you're combining to make a gross generalization.

Comparing a 22hp SCUT to a 47hp Utility machine, much less a 95hp machine isn't going to make for a useful comparison. So a much larger machine spends the bulk of its time at a lower RPM....not exactly a shocking conclusion.

I've had a 47hp CUT with HST and a 48hp Utility tractor with straight gears. The HST machine spent the bulk of it's time below 2000rpm....usually more like 1700rpm. There was no need to run it any faster than that for normal tasks. The gear machine varies widely since I normally use the foot throttle, rather than set it with the lever, but the only time it goes over 2000rpm is when I'm on the road.

There's a reason the newer, nicer HST machines have the throttle linked to the HST pedals...because they simply don't need to have the engine turned nearly as fast as most people set them (they're simply wasting fuel most of the time). If HST machines really needed to have the engine turned as fast as you're claiming, they wouldn't be offering this kind of system.