Gear drive vs hydro

[N80]

I am not going to "contend" that you do not know your point. I do, however state that your hypotheticals are inconsistent with it and that exaggerated comparison is one of the reasons.

Reg summarized my point better, or much more accurately than you, because you wanted to spin it your way. Read it again, its pretty close:

I already HAVE perfectly good dollar mouse traps and while those appear to offer some convenience in a number of areas I intend to stick with what I have and what I know.
My mouse population is already so low that accepting some of your's on free trial for 3 months wouldn't produce meaningful results.
I am unwilling to take my existing traps out of service long enough for the population to recover to where it was when I bought this place JUST to put those traps in and see how quickly they reduce the population to what it is now.

Having seen your responses to good council prevalent in the thread

What good counsel. I haven't asked for councel and don't need it. So I can't imagine what you mean. Let me say this again:

1) I have a tractor.
2) It is as much tractor as I could afford.
3) It does everything I want/need it to do in a fashion that makes me happy.
4) I do not have access to an HST.
5) Even if I thought HST was THE thing, I couldn't afford one when I was buying.
6) I can't afford one now, and in fact, things being as they are, if I were in the market for a tractor today.....I couldn't buy ANYTHING.

So what is the point of this counsel that you speak of? The only point in me spending time on an HST, then, would be to change my opinion of them so I could admit to you that I was wrong. It would serve no other purpose. And when the only thing I know for sure, is that I couldn't and can't, under real world circumstances, get a 45 hp HST for what I would pay for a 45 HP geared. All the experience in the world won't change that, even if I fell in love with HST. So what do you call the kind of counsel that says I need to waste any further time or money experiencing HST?

I have been brief and blunt in order to express the situation w/o entering the morass. I will not waste time in specific debate, as I can see that there could be no resolution.
larry

Well, shouting your point, which you cannot substatiate and which has been completely defeated, and not defending it 1) still means you're in the morass and 2) makes your point meaningless and 3) means that you could have avoided the morass altogether if you had wished to.

 

[N80]

That was the point and the right question. That was my post on hp loss with HST. If you want to compare price see my post # 339 on price. The point on price is that I compared the best prices I could get on all models of Kubota form 40 to 50 hp. The price I paid for my 45 hp L4400HST was $3000 less than the best price I got for an L4740 49 hp gear drive.

The GL 4740 is a lot more tractor than L4400 regardless of which tranny. It has many more amenities, higher hydraulic capacities, heavier, etc etc. So not really a fair comparison.

It was $2000 less than an M5040 50 hp gear drive

Likewise, waaaaaaaaaaaay more tractor than a 4400. whole different class in fact, will pull Cat 2 implements, etc.

and it was $900 cheaper than the MX5100DT 50 hp gear drive that doesn't even have a cup holder.

But still, all around, more tractor than a 4400 irrespective of tranny.

So how could I have gotten a larger gear drive tractor with more hp for the same $?

Well, for one thing, you clearly got an exceptional deal on your 4400HST and I have said before, with the deal you got, the HST would be very tempting and probably the best choice for a lot of people. BUT, it was still more than the 4400DT and the fact remains, most people are not going to get the deal you got. So your experience, while great, is sort of an exception.

Don't say I could have got a 90 hp Chinese make for the same price. Lets compare apples to apples and Kubotas to Kubotas.

I totally agree. And the truth is, I'd like someone to show me this mythical, cheap-but-reliable machines in 45 hp in either configuration.

You have to make up an imaginary 47 hp Kubota gear drive with an imaginary price to compare it to mine.

No, there is the L4400DT, just like mine. It cost less when you got your deal and costs significantly less for most if not everyone else.

 

[N80]

Masterdebater huh? A couple ways of winning are: Just don't quit and never admit the validity of an opposing view except in condescension (kinda like BOMBAST.)

I think it is funny that one of two parties employing this very tactic will accuse the other of it but excuse themselves. Insight is a precious commodity. Hypocrisy is epidemic.

Alternatively you declare victory and leave the field, whatever the facts on the ground are and many will believe you won.

You're still here and so am I. Right?

Is ANYONE actually struggling to understand why starters were mentioned? A while back I suggested that electric starters, pneumatic tires, and electric lights are similar in nature to the "old fashioned" gear box and anyone using them while protesting in favor of geared tractors was not being consistent and was a poser, not the real thing.

I understand why you threw that in. It is the oldest diversion in the book. Anyone not star struck by the latest technology is branded a Luddite. I don't understand why you think it is a cogent or even an applicable argument to this discussion. It has no application here. 1) It assumes that someone who does not favor one technology does not favor any technology. That is clearly not the case here. 2) It also assumes that all technology is an advancement. That's not always true either. 3) It also assumes that every advancement is good. That's not always true. 4) It also assumes that everyone should embrace every new technology regardless of need or budget. Again, not true. So the 'electric starter' argument is not valid in this context.

 

[jk96]

if all numbers are equal at the pto between the gear vs the hst, you are at no advantage with the gear over the hst.

William, this thread is definitely an endless argument.

The arguments go like this.

Gearheads - I can put more power to the ground than a hydro.
Hydro - the power loss is so insignificant that either one will be evenly matched pulling the same implements.
Gearhead - But if I'm right on the edge of HP requirements, and I mean right on the edge, your loss of 1.5 HP will make you unable to handle the task.
Hydro - If your that close to the edge your probably working your tractor too hard, shouldn't you just buy a slightly smaller implement, it would be more efficient and faster wouldn't it?
Gearhead - No, my tractor can handle it because its a gear and yours can't, end of story.

Gearheads - My gear transmission will outlast a hydro by years.
Hydro - Can you show me any statistics, examples, etc that show premature failure of hydro transmission, even when doing heavy ground engaging work?
Gearhead - No I cant - but I can neglect my tractor and not do maintenance for years and my gears will still slog through the sludge in my engine while your hydro will fail.

Gearhead - My gear transmission can do everything a hydro can do just as quickly and efficiently. Even loader work, moving pallets, lots of back and forth, etc.
Hydro - Really - I'm impressed. You must be really good because I owned a gear tractor before my hydro and I'm much more efficient with the hydro, and safer too. Have you ever operated a hydro?
Gearhead - No and I don't intend to. But I'm just as fast because I can operate the clutch, brake, gears, and throttle like a monkey on crack. I'm really good.

Gearhead - By the way, you wasted your money on that hydro. I got a bigger tractor by buying a gear. You must be one of those silly city boys that wax your tractor?
Hydro - No, actually I got the tractor that I wanted based on size, type of use, convenience, and price. Although I admit that I did pay extra for the hydro but to me it was well worth it. I do alot of loader work, move pallets, constant speed and direction changes and just flat out like the hydro better.
Gearhead - Wow, you must be a city boy. You still haven't realized that you could have had more HP/$ or an extra implement if you bought a gear. I'm sure glad I'm smarter and more sensible than you.


In the end try them both, I have. I happen to like the hydro much better. I don't care about saving $1500 on the tractor or spending x amount of time vs y. In fact I actually enjoy the seat time. If I'm going to make a $30,000+ investment I want it to be what I'm happier using. If you own a gear and are happy with it than I'm happy for you. Same if you own a hydro. Just don't tell me or someone else that a hydro is a waste of money or cant do x or y without having facts to back it up. Especially if you never owned one.

 

[jk96]

Let me say this again:

1) I have a tractor.
2) It is as much tractor as I could afford.
3) It does everything I want/need it to do in a fashion that makes me happy.

N80 - my point exactly. I think in your case you've summed it up well at the end of #3. If it makes you happy than it does not matter what others think. And I don't care what others buy either. The most important thing is that they are happy with what they purchased for the money they paid.

 

[Modn]

In the end try them both, I have. I happen to like the hydro much better. I don't care about saving $1500 on the tractor or spending x amount of time vs y. In fact I actually enjoy the seat time. If I'm going to make a $30,000+ investment I want it to be what I'm happier using. If you own a gear and are happy with it than I'm happy for you. Same if you own a hydro. Just don't tell me or someone else that a hydro is a waste of money or cant do x or y without having facts to back it up. Especially if you never owned one.

My point exactly. In fact I do own both ('56 Ford 860). Actually that is why I bought my L5030HST due to it being almost identical in size and HP.

 

[N80]

Just don't tell me or someone else that a hydro is a waste of money or cant do x or y without having facts to back it up. Especially if you never owned one.

Who would tell you that? Has anyone in these 25 pages told anyone else that they had wasted their money? And how would never owning one matter if the only admissable argument is: drive what makes you happy, (which I agree with, byt the way)? I could spend 6 years on an HST and hate it and that argument would still be sound. So, in this case, my experience isn't particularly relevent to your opinion of your tractor.

I think that the biggest problem here, the reason this thread won't end, is that the HST folks are pretty much unwilling to concede that there is any reason for a geared CUT to exist. That is what is so galling to me. If you read my posts you will find that I agree with virtually every point made about the advantages of HST. All the while, the response from the HST if I/we gearheads respond that we think our machines can approximate what an HST does, or god forbid, do something better or be more economical we are branded as technophobes, hard headed, bombastic, mean, inexperienced and irrational.

 

[Egon]

Gearhead - Wow, you must be a city boy. You still haven't realized that you could have had more HP/$ or an extra implement if you bought a gear. I'm sure glad I'm smarter and more sensible than you.

Sounds like a very good observation!

And maybe add!
And I can handle two gear shifts, an accelerator, the brake, the clutch, the two speed axle control and steer all at the same time. Yup, I am Good!

 

[jk96]

Has anyone in these 25 pages told anyone else that they had wasted their money?

N80 - the very strong implication is that a gear is a better value since you get more HP/$. A contention that you have made over and over. I would argue its a better value if and only if your looking at HP/$ only. Add in the convenience factor and type of use and the gear begins to look like an even better value or much worse value depending on what that use is.

And how would never owning one matter if the only admissable argument is: drive what makes you happy, (which I agree with, byt the way)?

Never owning one matters very much when the person who is arguing the value saved by buying a gear is not offset by the convenience or productivity of a hydrostat. If you've never owned one, your arguments that the money saved is more important than the time or satisfaction of the owner holds no weight. I will admit that the convenience factor is very subjective and hard to measure and varies from person to person.

I think that the biggest problem here, the reason this thread won't end, is that the HST folks are pretty much unwilling to concede that there is any reason for a geared CUT to exist. That is what is so galling to me.

Never said that. For heavy ground engaging work or brush hogging large areas at constant speed I would agree that the extra cost of HST would be a waste. However I don't see too many CUTS being used for large amounts of tillage work. Usually a larger ag or at a minimum utility tractor is used, which is why HST is probably not normally offered in the larger tractors. The advantage here goes to gear. This is also the reason that HST far outsells a gear tractor in the CUT or Sub-Cut frame. For the type of works they are usually doing, the HST wins hands down.

All the while, the response from the HST if I/we gear-heads respond that we think our machines can approximate what an HST does, or god forbid, do something better or be more economical we are branded as technophobes, hard headed, bombastic, mean, inexperienced and irrational.

I do agree that your gear can do everything that my HST can. I have no doubt about that. I do not agree that you can do the amount of work I accomplish with it in near the amount of time or as easily. I state that because I have used both and for tight qtrs, constant speed/direction changes, and loader work, and stacking pallets it is not even close. Go out and try to buy a bobcat with a gear tranny.

 

[N80]

And I can handle two gear shifts, an accelerator, the brake, the clutch, the two speed axle control and steer all at the same time. Yup, I am Good!

Some have it. Some don't.