Hydrostatic vs. Manual pro's and con's

   / Hydrostatic vs. Manual pro's and con's #11  
Re: Hydrostatic vs. Manual pro\'s and con\'s

As I have said before, If you are not working the tractor hard (very hard) for longer than a few minutes, it is entirely personal preference. Try both and see which one you like the best. As far as longevity goes, the type of hydro that is in use in these compact tractors has not been out 50 plus years like the standard transmissions have. Only time will tell, but the vast majority of compact hydro tractors never never work a hard day in and out like the 8Ns and the MF 35s of the early 1900s did. The very few that actually are worked hard seem to be holding their own for the most part. But, the higher the temperature generated by the hydraulic system the sooner the the system will degrade.
 
   / Hydrostatic vs. Manual pro's and con's #12  
Re: Hydrostatic vs. Manual pro\'s and con\'s

<font color="purple"> Other than the old man ease of use factor why select hydrostatic? </font>

I'm not an old man, but I won't go back to gears on anything that I will actually use for working my property. I love gears on the old iron. And gears are good. The modern SMALL tractors really started with the Fords, Olivers, Deeres, McCormicks, etc in the 1940's and 1950's. Sure there were tractors earlier than that, but tractors, and the impliments that go with them, as we know them today really evolved about 50 to 60 years ago.

But understand that the JOBS have pretty dramatically changed in the past 50 to 60 years for small tractors. Ford 8N's today are mowing tractors. Ford 8N's, in their prime were plowing tractors.

Very few of us with CUTS actually do things like plow a field. And those that do plow, are probably using tractors with roughly twice the hp of the old Fords. So the tractors have changed because what we ask of them has largely changed.

Now people who buy little tractors (those tractors that are roughly 45hp and lower) buy them because they are landscape business owners, property owners who need to maintain their property, etc. The tasks are often well suited to hydrostatic transmissions. Front end loader work is more efficient with a HST transmission. Lawn mowing and field mowing, especially if cutting around trees and landscaping, is faster wtih an HST transmission. Gears are great for long runs, but most of us don't really have long runs. When box blading, a HST will lose to a gear tractor, but only marginally. When snow blowing, I'll take the HST any day of the week becuase I can keep up the PTO speed while instantly changing the ground speed to match the conditions. I dare say that in the early 1950s the thought of blowing snow with a Ford 8N, an Oliver Fleetline or an AC was never imagined.

I'm not putting down the gear machines, but I am saying that conditions and jobs have FOR THE MOST PART changed.

There is a difference between change and being different. The old guys on this forum probably bolted 8-track tape players to the dash of their souped up Chevy Novas to play music. I have a Delphi SkyFi unit that I use to draw music down from a satellite. The old guys played music, I play music. So really that has not changed, it is just different.

With tractors, my point is that the uses have actually changed. I don't plow, I don't harvest, I don't run a belt over to a grain elevator to power grain up to the top, I don't do many things that the old timers did. I do mow around trees and landscaping. I use a blower to clear my driveway in the winter. I use a Front End Loader for countless tasks, and they were in their infancy in the 50s and barely capable compared to what we have today. The uses are really changes. And HST is someting that has changed the uses of tractors. It makes them more suitable for many tasks. If your tasks are not well suited for HST, then buy gear. If your tasks are well suited for HST, then it is silly not to change with the times because the tasks are not just different . . . they have actually changed!
 
   / Hydrostatic vs. Manual pro's and con's #13  
Re: Hydrostatic vs. Manual pro\'s and con\'s

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( would like to hear the good and bad of these two different transmissions )</font>

Here we go! let the flame wars begin. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Other than the old man ease of use factor why select hydrostatic? )</font>

I hear that a hydro, or even a shuttle shift is great for loader work, especially when there is lots of forward reverse activity.

You also have prety much variable control of speed vs rpm, that may give you some advantage over a gear in very specific circumstances like tilling up close to a building.. wanting to keept he till rpm up.. but drop to a creep speed, without stopping forward motion and shifting to a low range of gears.. etc.

I think the percieved advantage of the hydro is directly related to the work it will be doing.

For instance.. there is a rough concensus that constant speed heavy pulling tasks like pulling large disc harrows, or plows, or even a mower over for a long period of time / large acerage, that the hydro advantage drops a tad, and in those cases, a gear tranny steps up in efficiency.


Remembering many discussions on hydro vs gear, it looks like 2 concerns surface. Efficiency/loss of hp to the ground, and loengevity/durability.


</font><font color="blue" class="small">( To me it seems like a more high maintenance option over the life of a tractor. Will it still work like new 30 years from now without some sort of rebuild )</font>

That is my biggest concern. A hydro is a lot of seals and gaskets and fluid power equipment.. hoses, etc. I'm not sure how long term use is going to come out on this type of setup, given the conditions that tractors usually run in, and if they do last.. will parts be available in 30-40-50 years for repair.. or is that even a concern.. will the tractor even be there in 30-40-50 years??

I'm a gear person myself. Looking at both systems, I'd guess the hydro is more prone to problems due to leaks. With power transmitted via fluid, pressurized.. there will be exposed lines and oil coolers. Gear trannis for the most part are fairly self contained.. about the only leak points are shaft seals.. not as much chance for a catastrophic leak to leave you stranded with a gear tranny as a hydro might do.

Also.. power issues. Your hydro tranny will have a relief setting. this is for machine protection, and is probably overall, A good thing. Me, however, I think I'd rather have the final say with my throttle and clutch about just how much power makes it out of the transmission, say.. in an emergency situation.. whether or not that amount of power is detrimental to the machine or not. I'd rather not have a valve pop open and decide for me that that is just quite enough power out of the tranny thank you very much /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Next is repair parts. A gear tranny has the requsite hard parts, and then a few seals. Hydro has less hard parts.. and way more seals.. I know space age materials are good.. but I'd rather bet my neck on steel vs neophrene and viton..., urethane..e tc.

Looking back at early combination hydraulic transmissions.. like fords SOS trannie.. that even gives me more inclination to stay with a traditional gear tranny.

All that said.. I'm one of those people that look at tractors as long haul machines. I have running tractors from the mid 40's... still in original non-rebuilt condition. My ford 2N transmission is coming up on 60 years old. Tranny input shaft seal doesn't leak...metal gears are all nice and tight.. no bearing whine... Talk to me again when hydros' are routinely making it 60 years on oem seals.. and then I'll concede the point. That will be a problem I imagine, as todays tractors don't seem to be built to last 60 years either... ( not to mention.. I'll be way old! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif ).. and my tractor will have to have a wheel chair ramp and oxygen bottle.. perhaps a driver too! )

Soundguy
 
   / Hydrostatic vs. Manual pro's and con's #14  
Re: Hydrostatic vs. Manual pro\'s and con\'s

Go test drive a hydro at a dealer........
 
   / Hydrostatic vs. Manual pro's and con's #15  
Re: Hydrostatic vs. Manual pro\'s and con\'s

<font color="blue"> Go test drive a hydro at a dealer........ </font>
Go test drive <font color="red"> BOTH </font> at a dealer.......
Then get the ONE that fits YOU the best.
 
   / Hydrostatic vs. Manual pro's and con's #16  
Re: Hydrostatic vs. Manual pro\'s and con\'s

<font color="blue">
Go test drive a hydro at a dealer........</font>

<font color="red">
Go test drive BOTH at a dealer.......
Then get the ONE that fits YOU the best. </font>


Well, I am going to disagree. Get the one that fits YOUR JOBS the best. When using a saw to do fine interior trim work do you use a chainsaw or compound miter saw? When doing rough framing do you use a 20oz framing hammer to drive the spikes or a 8oz finish hammer? Get the right tool for your job. Transmissions are different and while both will do the same job, they each have strenghts and weaknesses. Determine your regular tasks. Get the transmission that suits those tasks.
 
   / Hydrostatic vs. Manual pro's and con's #17  
Re: Hydrostatic vs. Manual pro\'s and con\'s

Our 20 year old MF 1030 Hydro only has 2,100 super heavy duty hard work hours on it, but the only thing we've ever done to it is change the hydraulic fluid and the hydraulic filters. No leaks, no downtime, no hassles, no nothin but good hard quality work.

Should I be worried if it will be working in the year 2050 as well as it is now? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
   / Hydrostatic vs. Manual pro's and con's #18  
Re: Hydrostatic vs. Manual pro\'s and con\'s

</font><font color="blue" class="small">(
Should I be worried if it will be working in the year 2050 as well as it is now? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif )</font>

I'm 57, I hope I have that problem in 2050.
 
   / Hydrostatic vs. Manual pro's and con's #19  
Re: Hydrostatic vs. Manual pro\'s and con\'s

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( </font><font color="blueclass=small">(
Should I be worried if it will be working in the year 2050 as well as it is now? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif )</font>

I'm 57, I hope I have that problem in 2050. )</font>

That is what I was alluding to, probably be more interested in biomedical body parts than mechanical tractor parts by that time, or maybe they might be some way to convince the Good Lord to let me take it with me for another couple of centuries of work!
 
   / Hydrostatic vs. Manual pro's and con's #20  
Re: Hydrostatic vs. Manual pro\'s and con\'s

Bob Skurka,
Amen to everything you said.


The right tractor for the right job.
 
 
Top