Hydro power loss? 20%, not on it's worst day!

[art]

Re: Hydro power loss? 20%, not on it\'s worst day!

Another set of tests that are interesting is the test #1151 IH 666 diesel and the hydro 70 test #1154 both using the 312 engine and rated simuliar horsepowers. The economy run produced 58.01 drawbar horsepower on the gear drive and 53.10 on the hydro. This again brings the difference below the 10% difference between the two in the amount pulled. On the 75% pull they gear pulled 46.8 drawbar horsepower and the hydro pulled 45.08 drawwbar horsepower! /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gifThat is pretty close to equal but the amazing thing here is the fact the gear was only pulling 4,240lbs and the hydro 4935lbs!!!! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif There really is only a little difference at best and often unnoticed for the benifits of the rest of the operations the tractors might be used for.

 

[Robert_in_NY]

Re: Hydro power loss? 20%, not on it\'s worst day!

Since everyone here is talking about the International Hydros I wonder if we should bring up the fact that those hydros did not hold up under the power. The International Hydros resale value is junk compared to the gear counterpart. So while the hydro may only lose around 5-10% they didn't hold up to constant heavy strain. In the end that would make the gear tractor a winner any day.

What it boils down to is this. Who cares if the hydro robs some power from your machine? You bought a tractor to do the job you wanted it to do. If "YOUR" machine will do the job then why be so worried if it doesn't have as much hp as the gear version. Not all tractors are used the same and I will say the majority of hydro tractors find themselves mowing a lawn from time to time while you will not find very many gear tractors mowing lawns. The trannys are designed for different tasks and each buyer has to know what he wants to do. So in the end I still do not know why the big fuss over the hydro power loss. If anyone can explain that to me then I will be thankful. Take care.

 

[art]

Re: Hydro power loss? 20%, not on it\'s worst day!

Robert ten years ago I would agree with the price difference. We never had to much trouble with them not working when they were used for what they were designed for and operators keep the oil in them so we might have more working yet then in other areas. The resale value has more then doubled in the last ten years as many farmers are finding that on mixer wagons they work the best. Even older gas models have gone up quite a bit. Many of the larger ones bring all that the gear models do and more at this time. /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

 

[Robert_in_NY]

Re: Hydro power loss? 20%, not on it\'s worst day!

I agree that they were nice machines if used for what they were designed for. I know a lot of guys who swear by them for haying tractors but then it comes down to you have to have two tractors again as plowing and other heavy tillage did not sit well with these tractors. Just like the 2+2's from International, the owners did not use them like they were intended and they got a bad reputation. The problem now is unless you know the entire history of these machines you would be hesitant to pay any amount because you don't know if these machines were taken care of or mistreated and repairs are not cheap on them.

 

[Poppa]

Re: Hydro power loss? 20%, not on it\'s worst day!

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( What it boils down to is this. Who cares if the hydro robs some power from your machine? You bought a tractor to do the job you wanted it to do. If "YOUR" machine will do the job then why be so worried if it doesn't have as much hp as the gear version. Not all tractors are used the same and I will say the majority of hydro tractors find themselves mowing a lawn from time to time while you will not find very many gear tractors mowing lawns. The trannys are designed for different tasks and <font color="black">each buyer has to know what he wants to do. So in the end I still do not know why the big fuss over the hydro power loss. If anyone can explain that to me then I will be thankful </font> . Take care. )</font>

Honest to God that paragraph right there should suffice as the last word on all these Hydro-Gear discussions. I took the liberty of italicizing and bold facing various pertinent parts of that quote.

Figure out what works best for you. Figure out what you feel the most comfortable with. Figure this all out and then buy the HP you need to do the job regardless of what transmission you have chosen.

I think the reason these discussions upset me so much is that I get caught up in the reasoning and then realize at the end that I am right back where I started except that I am older and as PoleCat might say ??????????!!!!!!I CAN"T AFFORD THAT /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif!!!!!!

Mike

 

[timb]

Re: Hydro power loss? 20%, not on it\'s worst day!

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( That's why it's always best to work from the original numbers and not derived percentages.
)</font>

Right, except you didn't.

The real numbers on several spec sheets I looked up are 104 PTO hp on the Hydro 100, 100 even on the 966. 4% starting advantage to the Hydro 100 with it's slightly bigger engine. Given that the PTO number must include the parasitic loss of the tranny pump even running at idle - as we see with the CUTs, the ENGINE hp has to be somewhere around 5% or 6% higher than the 966.

Now - despite that starting advantage the 966 puts 85.21 % of it's PTO numbers on the drawbar, (85.21/100) yet the Hydro 100 gets 75.31% (78.31/104) of it's PTO numbers to the drawbar.

I'd say that's represents close enough to a 25% drawbar loss (from the PTO rating) and also probably 30% overall loss from engine rating hp to drawbar hp.

The 966 therefore has a tick under 15% drawbar hp loss from the PTO hp and probably comes in roughly 20% overall drawbar hp loss from the engine hp.

That's 10% difference of overall system efficiency in rough numbers.

 

[KNotMe]

Re: Hydro power loss? 20%, not on it\'s worst day!

Much ado about nothing. HST machines were manufactured as is with HST, there is no subsequent power loss. If you desire a machine with a certain specification, by all means get it.

 

[MikePA]

Re: Hydro power loss? 20%, not on it\'s worst day!

<font color="blue"> Right, except you didn't. </font>
Sigh, I did. I worked from Art's original numbers.

 

[KiotiJohn]

Re: Hydro power loss? 20%, not on it\'s worst day!

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Honest to God that paragraph right there should suffice as the last word on all these Hydro-Gear discussions. )</font>
But, Poppa, you know it won't be. There always has to be someone who will keep it going, no matter what. One guy says X and the other says Y and then everybody takes sides. It's human nature at it's worst, and won't change in our lifetimes. Usually you will find that the ones who continue to argue are people who have not really had experience with at least one part of the discussion, just arguing their side with no practical knowledge of the other. The HST wars are pretty lame really, but have gone on for more years than many people are old on this board. It's certainly isn't a new thing. John

 

[RoyJackson]

Re: Hydro power loss? 20%, not on it\'s worst day!

You guys have way too much time on your hands...