Comparison Educate me: compact versus utility

[frank29]

A recent thread batted around the terms compact tractor & utility tractor and made reference to the uninitiated being confused between the two. I am one of the confused.

I imagine the line between these types is blurred? Or is there some sort of definite division? Is there such a difference that an individual, based on their planned usage, would need either a compact or a untility and would be ill served by one or the other?

ON EDIT: removed a question to streamline the thread

 

[JDGREEN4ME]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( If a tractor fits your needs, does it even matter what it is termed? )</font>
Not to me it wouldn't! /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[frank29]

ZING! You got me. /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

That was the question I removed (on edit) after belatedly realizing it was nonsensical.

 

[MessickFarmEqu]

The terms kinda speak for themselves... or maybe just because I am used to using them. A Compact tractor is a machine made to have big tractor power in a smaller, more agile, refined package. A utility is a machine made for heavy duty chores and sacrifices some of the compact traits for shear brawn.

That defenition should be broad enough to encompass most everything. Kubota/CNH/Deere often segment these broadly on transmission and bulk or weight. Utilities never have a hydrostatic transmission - compacts almost always do. Compacts are usually more light weight to reduce ground compaction, make transport easier and improve handeling. Utilities have more bulk to improve traction. Smaller venders that don't offer a model for every segment often classify a machine in an area that it does not really belong - thats what makes this confusing.

 

[JDGREEN4ME]

Compact Utility Tractor or CUT covers a pretty good range of tractors. I know in the JD line up there are small frame (like my 4115) medium frame and large frame tractors. I think that is part of JD's reasoning about the 2000, 3000 and 4000 Series tractors to help differentiate the different sizes. JMHO. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[Sully2]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( ( If a tractor fits your needs, does it even matter what it is termed? )</font>
Not to me it wouldn't! /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif )</font>

You go tthat right! The HARD PART..is trying to figure out if the tractor will do all that you want it to do...ESPECIALLY if you dont know about tractors and such. The "classification" doesnt mean jack squat!

 

[Sully2]

Well said..well said. Its the "cross over" by some makers that really screws up the classifications...

 

[JoeR]

Most of the big manufacturers put anything under 50HP as compact. If your 3PT is CAT-1 it is most likely compact. If you have CAT-1/2 then you are probably in the 45+HP range and on the edge of being out of the compact grouping. If you look at Kubota and John Deere, both of their lines of compact tractors are all under 50HP. As stated earlier, the word utility impacts weight, transmission, and refinement. I don't think HP has any impact on the utlility word. Just my thoughts...

Joe

 

[deerefan]

Easiest way for me is my 5103 is utility, my buddy's 790 is compact. Maybe weight is the deciding factor. Under 3k pounds, compact?

 

[daTeacha]

To me, a compact is something which has been designed to accept a mid-mount mower in one configuration or another. A utility tractor is a smallish Ag or Commercial tractor whose primary design function is ground engaging equipment, loader work, spraying, etc. Lawn care is not a prime intent although it will readily handle rear mount finish mowers and the like. I'm not saying I think all compacts and subcompacts are primarily mowers, just that can serve well in that capacity if properly configured. I'd look at about 3000 lb and 45 hp as the upper limit of what I might call a compact. All this is just personal opinion, of course. There is no agreed upon industry standardized classification system that I know about.