Compact Tractor Horsepower Comparisons

[ducati996]

Here is another tidbit I learned today. Browse on over to deere.com. In Ag tractor world all anyone cares about is PTO HP. For years tractors have been classed by their power to the ground, this is how its always been. Recently Deere changed to listing all their models by engine HP. Part of the reason for this is because the driveline efficency of other companies is improving at a rate much faster than Deere. Other companies are doing more with less HP than Deere is achieving. So, the quick fix here is just to start dropping your PTO HP spec where convienant, and substitute Engine HP instead.

Messick,

I actually notice on Kubota's site that and specifically on the BX Sub-Cut series (BX24 & 2350) that they are full CAT I 3pts. I do believe that is not true at all...

I also wonder why in the competive comparison listing on the B2630 which basically matches the Deere in hydrolic flow, PSI, HP, weight, size, somehow has a higher 3pt lift rating along with the FEL rating than Deere's 2520 series ? but they sure look equally matched in all areas, and when machines look equal on spec they usually are, at least from my experience
I guess I could conclude either Deeres spec's are too conservative (which I know they are from real ownership-) or Kubotas specs are off, or indeed Kubota is accurate and Deeres is off. I dunno what the actual answer is on that is but it makes me wonder out loud.

Duc

 

[MessickFarmEqu]

Messick,

I actually notice on Kubota's site that and specifically on the BX Sub-Cut series (BX24 & 2350) that they are full CAT I 3pts. I do believe that is not true at all...

No thats correct, the BX's are all full CAT 1.

I also wonder why in the competive comparison listing on the B2630 which basically matches the Deere in hydrolic flow, PSI, HP, weight, size, somehow has a higher 3pt lift rating along with the FEL rating than Deere's 2520 series ? but they sure look equally matched in all areas, and when machines look equal on spec they usually are, at least from my experience
I guess I could conclude either Deeres spec's are too conservative (which I know they are from real ownership-) or Kubotas specs are off, or indeed Kubota is accurate and Deeres is off. I dunno what the actual answer is on that is but it makes me wonder out loud.

I don't follow what your trying to say here.

 

[ducati996]

I don't follow what your trying to say here.

I have found Deere's specifications and comparisons that they publish to be less than accurate ( they are dramatically understated and mixed up and confusing and the way they are posted now, paints both 2320 and 2520 as weaker than they are). For example they post the 2320 as having a higher breakout force then its bigger brother the 2520. They post the 2320 as having almost the same lift capability, but the flow rate is significantly higher on the 2520. Some of the cycle times are almost identical but in reality cant be since the flow rate is higher on the 2520. And I actually owned both, and the 2520 was the clear performer over the 2320. Same loader on both machines. The PSI's on both machines were signifcantly higher out of the dealer then the rated 2415 PSI as well.
Now getting back to the B2630 and when reading whats posted both machines are compared side by side, they almost have identical HP, PSI, Flow rates, PTO ratings, weight, size dimensions. But the Kubota comes out ahead in 3pt rating and FEL ratings. I can either conclude the Kubtoa is that good, and the Deere isnt, or the Kubota is exaggerating, and the Deere spec's are woefully inaccurate and make the machine look worse than it is. Im my opinion I willing to bet that they are closer to each other, then whats posted.
And it's probably that Kubota is correct and the Deeres publish spec's are too low. I guess in summary I would never trust whats printed but rather whats being used in real life applications. I know you had objections to the 59" lift posted on Deeres web site for the 2520 series. I find that as actually pretty accurate and a little on the low side FYI. I use a 61" Bucket and weight like that is common, especially with concrete slabs....i think I posted pictures in the past on a similar application. I know how much the slabs were because I had to dump it by the weight/Ton....it didnt clear my mason dump body but it almost did. I had to break it up and it was just shy of 1,500 lbs. Most important for me was to move it where i needed it.

Just my thoughts on the subject, and by no means meant as a bash.

Duc

On a side note:
I would be curious if anybody has a B2630 within the tri-state area (NY,NJ,CT), and over a few beers and a good lunch compare both machines -

 

[MessickFarmEqu]

For example they post the 2320 as having a higher breakout force then its bigger brother the 2520. They post the 2320 as having almost the same lift capability, but the flow rate is significantly higher on the 2520. Some of the cycle times are almost identical but in reality cant be since the flow rate is higher on the 2520. And I actually owned both, and the 2520 was the clear performer over the 2320. Same loader on both machines. The PSI's on both machines were signifcantly higher out of the dealer then the rated 2415 PSI as well.

I think there maybe some misunderstanding about how hydraulics play into capacities. Flow has nothing to do with power, only speed. Power is determinted by PSI, hydraulic cylinders and loader geometry. Since I know Kubota best I can use them as an example, the 2630 has more flow than the B3030 - both have the same loader and same hydraulic pressure, however the 2630 has more flow so its a touch faster. Higher PSI is not a good thing! Overtime is leads to more cylinder and hose failure, idealy what you want to see is lower PSI, but high flow and larger cylinders for more capacity.

Now getting back to the B2630 and when reading whats posted both machines are compared side by side, they almost have identical HP, PSI, Flow rates, PTO ratings, weight, size dimensions. But the Kubota comes out ahead in 3pt rating and FEL ratings. I can either conclude the Kubtoa is that good, and the Deere isnt, or the Kubota is exaggerating,

Your still overlooking half the equasion here. Both cylinder size and geometry play into this yet. On a loader, lowering the attachment point of the cylinder to the boom just 2" can make a 10-15% increase in lift - but at a loss of height, everything has a trade off. There are way more factors at work here than just the few that show up on the spec sheets.

I know you had objections to the 59" lift posted on Deeres web site for the 2520 series

If they gave that figure from bucket center, it maybe somewhat useful - but from the pivot pin has absolutly no use what so ever. My objection is more that they are starting to use figures that do not follow what the rest of the industry uses. There are ASTM and AEM guidelines for how these things should be presented and Deere is really starting to push the boundries.

I don't mean to single out Deere here, alot of other companies are doing this too. I just center on them because they are the most visible and market themselves in questionable ways. Thanks for keeping this civil and not taking offense to the conversation because its centered around green tractors.

 

[ducati996]

Thnaks Neil for taking the time to explain. You're right I didnt take into account the cylinder size and such...Thanks for the info

I was just curious and wondering out loud...

Duc

 

[KICK]

I'm with the previous poster in that a non-turbo engine will vary with atmospheric conditions.

an electronically controlled one usually wont but this probably wont apply when talking about tractors which tend to have more primitive fuel controls.

 

[art]

All engines are effected by the air pressure. Some you just notice it more on!

 

[ozzie tractor]

All engines are effected by the air pressure. Some you just notice it more on!

i agree, i have a 2.5 ltr turbo diesel pickup and it is really badly affected by altitude. what do i put this down to? i suspect the turbo is a bit too small and has to spin faster to gain full boost, this in turn sends inlet temps through the roof, yes it is intercooled but by a dodgie little thing which is way too small. no amount of electric control can counter act this.

 

[Raddad]

Who cares? Why would anyone buy a tractor and cut the horse power requirement so close that a 5% or 10% variance in HP makes a difference.

 

[Turbys_1700]

I think that we all here read so much into the different specs of different tractors and implements that we tend to forget the greater picture... Does the tractor or implement get the job done in a satisfactory manner and am I happy with it's overall performance? Will one tractor outperform the other if one lifts 2,000# @ 24" behind the lift arms where-as another tractor will lift 2200#? Technically...yes... But how many of us ever try to lift 2200# with our 3-pt. hitch? In most instances, tractors of the same class from different manufacturers are for the most part, so close in performance, that it is irrelevant to argue one is better than the other...

One thing that our discussion does help with is that we can determine if the specs from brand A are measured the same way as the specs from brand B or brand C... One thing that we can't determine is if the specs are accurate... We are at the mercy of the individual manufacturers... I still suspect that most of the manufacturers push the ratings higher than they would actually test out in most instances... Again, in my opinion, and it's just my opinion, it's irrelevant... I'm not going to argue that my tractor is better than your's just because it has 200# more lift @ 24" behind the lift arms...Both get the job done...