Comparison Smallest compact/biggest subcompact??

[Dirk Digger]

You'll have no problems with a 5 foot cutter with 25 hp. Ive done it plenty.

The only problem is that a 25 hp subcompact only puts out about 19hp at the PTO. A 21hp subcompact puts out about 16hp at the PTO. Mowing 3+ft tall saplings and thick weeds is no easy going with a 5ft mower with that much power (especialy on hills where propelling the tractor weight also consumes even more of that very limited power). Unless lurching along at a very low speed.

But 35 hp in a 1700 pound tractor. I'm not even aware of such a package.

Actually what I said was "I'd like to have closer to 30-35hp instead of 20-25hp." Not 35hp specifically. Here are the stats for the Kubota models I mentioned:

B7800 30hp (22hp at PTO) at 1741 lbs
B3200 32hp (23hp at PTO) at 1764 lbs

 

[4570Man]

While I can’t argue that more power is obviously better I’ve done a lot of work with a ck25 with 19.5 hp and a 5’ cutter. That tractor weighs over 3000 without the loader, loaded tires and the cutter. Putting the tractor on a diet to the size you want and I think the pto power would be fine.

 

[aczlan]

The problem with the 20-25 hp subcompacts, especially those with hydros (i.e. nearly all of them), is that the actual net PTO output is about 5-7 hp less than the engine power. This makes for pretty marginal 4-5 ft bush hog performance in dense 3ft+ tall weeds and saplings. My Gravely tractor has a 20hp Wisconsin with a 4' mower deck with no hydro-inefficiencies, and it was brought to its knees every time in that thicket. I know it's not a dedicated bush hog mower with the special blades and all, but still...one of the reasons I'd prefer to go with a surplus of PTO power if at all possible.

How much torque did your Wisconsin engine have? The B7500 that we have (21 engine HP, 16 PTO HP) would probably handle a 4-foot mower deck with no problems in most any conditions. It handles a 5-foot mower deck fairly well, but you have to go slow when you are in thick grass or brush.

Aaron Z

 

[dnw64]

Plus I like the idea of having reserve power so I'm not taxing my tractor in any way.

Tractors are designed to run at full capacity for many hours at a time (like the original VW). You will not kill a tractor engine for decades in homeowner use if properly maintained.

 

[Dirk Digger]

How much torque did your Wisconsin engine have? The B7500 that we have (21 engine HP, 16 PTO HP) would probably handle a 4-foot mower deck with no problems in most any conditions. It handles a 5-foot mower deck fairly well, but you have to go slow when you are in thick grass or brush. Aaron Z

I don't know how much torque it has (could easily be googled though). And I misspoke, it's actually a Kohler horizontally opposed twin engine, not a Wisconsin. But either way, it creates 20hp, which is delivered to the mower deck (minus mechanical frictional losses, limitations in PTO clutch power transfer and the power required to move the tractor). Power is torque x rpm and is the rate at which a machine can do work. So available power (torque x rpm) at the deck is really what matters, not just torque. The only way I could get my Gravely tractor to handle the overgrowth was to inch along extremely slowly. Only then could it digest the overgrowth without bogging down and getting choked. So technically, it could do that job, it would just take forever. Hence the need for more power - or in another words, something with the ability to perform the bush hogging at a much higher pace.

Tractors are designed to run at full capacity for many hours at a time (like the original VW). You will not kill a tractor engine for decades in homeowner use if properly maintained.

Yes I know they are designed to run at full capacity for many hours at a time. But the life of a tractor operated that way will be much shorter than one that gets mixed use or is always used lightly. And I plan on keeping whatever tractor I buy for at least two decades, or as long my body and life holds out (which of course no one can predict). As long as I pick a properly sized, high quality tractor with minimal use, this should be my last one.

 

[heavy hammer]

Are you trying to keep it light for a specific reason. From what you have described is you need a bigger, more powerful tractor. If it weighs over 1700 lbs is that bad? I say go with the bigger more powerful tractor, you will have more power, when needed, and weight and size. Are you set on that weight range? I was looking at a 30-35 hp range for my 2.5 acres but I ended up going bigger 40 hp one size bigger. I still use it to finish mow some of my back yard,, push snow, move firewood, pull out stumps. What I'm getting at is I'm very happy I went bigger, I have used it to help a friend log some small properties. For me having a little more tractor was the better decision. Are you going to keep the other tractor you have? If you are I would look at the bigger heavier ones. You said your smaller tractor struggles to do some of the jobs you need done, answer is right their. Hope this helps.

 

[Dirk Digger]

Are you trying to keep it light for a specific reason. From what you have described is you need a bigger, more powerful tractor. If it weighs over 1700 lbs is that bad? I say go with the bigger more powerful tractor, you will have more power, when needed, and weight and size. Are you set on that weight range?

The reason why I want to stay around that size and weight is because if I go bigger, I'll need a bigger shed, a bigger trailer and a bigger towing vehicle. Plus a bigger tractor than around `~1700 lbs or so becomes cumbersome to mow my hilly residential lawn, which means I'd need another riding mower, which means yet another machine to buy, maintain and shelter.

 

[heavy hammer]

For me then I would get the heaviest, most hp for the tasks you have at hand in that range. For you hp might be more important than weight since you are brush hogging and you need more power correct? What is the price difference between the B3200, and the B7800. They seem so close in weight, and hp, what are the other differences?

 

[AchingBack]

You aren't going to find a 1700 lb. tractor to meet your needs. It's fantasy thinking.

 

[Dirk Digger]

There's a couple people here on TBN that bought underpowered machines that can't mow AND climb a hill at the same time. More than a couple, actually. Quite a few over the years. I say settle on a frame size and then get the highest HP engine offered in that frame. If you then compare dollar per HP, it usually works out exactly the same. Your thought process is correct. :thumbsup:

Thanks, I think it has merit. But I still wanted to hear other perspectives. I'm not knowledgeable on modern tractors, but am starting to learn more seeing what others have to say.

For me then I would get the heaviest, most hp for the tasks you have at hand in that range. For you hp might be more important than weight since you are brush hogging and you need more power correct? What is the price difference between the B3200, and the B7800. They seem so close in weight, and hp, what are the other differences?

I agree with your thinking. And yes hp is more important than weight, other than weight has to stay below a certain threshold. And all I know about the 7800 vs the 3200is that the 7800 is the older model. Apparently the 3200 superseded it. And the 3200 has like 2 more hp (32 vs the 7800's 30). The weights are nearly identical (~1740lbs). Other than that I don't know the differences between the two. I assume the newer 3200 has more whiz bang features and probably commands a little higher price, especially being a newer machine.

You aren't going to find a 1700 lb. tractor to meet your needs. It's fantasy thinking.

Not sure what you're talking about? Several tractors have already been idenitifed that meet my specified needs. Or are you just a tractor troll?