Gone Back To Gear Tractor?

[Lt CHEG]

In the unlikely event that I ever added a second tractor to the stable I'd probably want a gear tractor but it would have to be at least a power shuttle where I could change directions without clutching. I wish that there were more options in terms of power shift tractors like most full size TLB's use for compact tractors. I've never played with MF's Dyna QPS but it sounds promising on paper.

As long as I only own one tractor it will remain a hydro. It will be used for mowing, snow removal and loader work far more than it will be used for any ground engagement tasks. The ability to easily work around objects and change directions with the hydro means that's what I've got to have. As said previously if I had an extra tractor some day it would almost certainly be a gear unit and would be used for whatever ground engaging chores I had.

 

[bp fick]

Quote: "I wish that there were more options in terms of power shift tractors like most full size TLB's use for compact tractors"

Lt. CHEG, What you say is true. In the smaller tractors, the option for gear isn't readily available. It is not unlike the lack of a 5 speed option in many (most) cars. Which is understandable in that no manufacturer can gear up (pun intended) for sales that don't constitute more than 10% of the model's sales.

The only gear option from Kubota in their subs and cuts seems to be a single B2320 model. If I did the math correctly, it does amount to virtually a 10% savings on the tractor price, however. Not chicken feed.

If I read the Deere site correctly, it follows a similar pattern of thought.

 

[pitt_md]

When looking at tractors I went with a gear/Mech. Shuttle tractor to get as much tractor as I could get for my money. HST utility tractors were a lot more money.

 

[Chilly807]

I'm pretty happy with mine (gear). I talked with a friend (HST owner of L3400) yesterday about snaking out logs at idle in low range. His comment was that he'd have to have the engine running about 2000 rpm to get any hydraulic flow to speak of. It got me to thinking I'd really made the right decision for me and my use.

On the back side of things I find I'm waiting for the hydraulics more than I'd like when doing loader work, for example dumping a bucket full of snow takes a few seconds more when you're back to an idle than at working speed.

I think the HST will hold up to 99% of all users. My concern, (call me paranoid here) is that I might not be one of them..

Never owned an HST machine, so I can't say I'd go back. I AM happy to stay where I am, not sorry I didn't get the HST option.

Chilly

 

[bp fick]

Honestly this Gear vs Hydro fight goes on and on, both have advantages and work well in different applications but when it come down to it, it's operator perference, I have a 16x16 shuttle and do alot of loader/ shuttle work that a hydro would be awesome for but the shuttle does the work just the same, and pretty well. Again, a machine is just as versatile and as good as its operator and if your paying for it buy what makes you happy and what you want to operate.

What you said is true, but not really the point of THIS thread. This one is NOT about that old "fight" at all. It is about buying gear, going back to gear and why? A nuance perhaps, but nonetheless....

 

[jdonovan]

What no one has mentioned yet is WAF (wife acceptance factor)

While I can run a 12x12, loader, and 3-point all at the same time just fine, my other half can't. If I'm away on a trip and she needs to push snow, mow etc... I know she operate the machine on a basic level because of the HST.

We used to have an old MF290 and we tried more than a few times to get her seat time and the clutch operation was different enough from her car that it she never could master it and the teaching sessions worked out poorly. Probably took 1000 hours of clutch life off that disk and spent gallons of tears that season. At the end of the year we both decided the next machine needs to be an "automatic" for both of our sanity.

An ideal world would be a small CUT or SCUT for near the house work, and a nice gear utility for the heavy field work.... anyone have this weeks lottery numbers?

 

[Bob_Young]

At the risk of scoring an 'F' for comprehension on this thread, I'd like to relate an issue with hydros that I have some firsthand experience with.

The neighbor has an old IH 1066 Hydro (not HST, I know, but close for the day) that has a very strong engine but a worn out tranny that wimps out when fluid temperature rises. On a warm summer day, that 120HP tractor can barely pull a hay rake.

The cost of getting the 30+ year old transmission rebuilt is prohibitive, so they just live with it and try to limit the tractor to jobs needing a PTO mule. Seems a shame as strong as the engine is and as good shape as the rest of the tractor is, that it just can't pull.

I love the HST on my B7610 and sometimes wish my larger tractors had HST. But 30 years of usage, which is nothing to a gear tranny, could well be terminal to an HST. The parts and expertise needed for an overhaul could be more than the tractor is worth.
FWIW
Bob

 

[wolc123]

For cutting the lawn, you cant beat a hydro, absolutely no contest. I went from hydro to gear, then back to hydro for lawn mowing. I suppose a hydro would be better for loader work also, although I have never done it. My shuttle shift gear trans works well on the loader. For any of the field work I do, including ground engaging tasks and open field rough mowing, gear tractors are best. If you can swing it, it is best to have one of each. A gear tractor with R1 tires for off the lawn, and a hydro with turfs for on the lawn. I have one of each for on the lawn, and (4) gear tracotrs for off. My gear and hydro lawn mowing tractors are equal hp, but the gear has a 6" wider cut. The hydro usually gets the lawn cut faster in spite of the narrower cut because the ground speed can always be perfectly matched to conditions. You can notice the efficiency loss in thick grass however, as the wider gear tractor will never bog down even in real thick grass at high ground speed, while the hydro needs to slow down in such conditions to keep from bogging down. I dont fertilize my lawn much so thick grass is usually not a problem, giving the edge to the hydro. There may be a time or two in the late spring of a rainy year, when the grass is thick, that the gear can get it cut a little faster.

 

[RobertN]

While I feel for you and Spydrlk, this makes two noted HST issues. A search of TBN with multiple search words, really did not bring up much.

So, although you had an issue, it does not indicate a reliability problem overall. I saw posts that indicated folks did not understand HST, some had issues with them centering and a few other minor issues mostly fixed by regular maintenance. This place has had millions of posts, but not many at all that indicate actual HST failures.

So, reliability does not seem to be an issue with either tranny type; hydraulic or gear.

I in no way want to downplay the fact that you and Spydrlk had issues; I would be upset if one of my tranny's had an issue. But, overall, I do not see the reliability issues. Not here. I mean, we're talking 0.00001% reliability issue.

I have driven a bunch of different tractor; mostly for homeowner stuff, and backhoe work. My old Farmall-A was easy to use with it's antique gear tranny. A friend had a 30hp Massey CUT with a shuttle shift(had to clutch to shift, start/stop). Easy to drive. Spent fair time a Kubota L35 GST. Like that tranny, although did not drive a lot; was using the hoe. So, not downplaying gear tractors...

I personally, would probably go gear for a plowing tractor. Like that guy on TV, RonCo, "set it and forget it". Set the tranny in gear, and plow.

Our 2001 Kubota has already suffered an HST failure where the directional control would not return to "N" and transitioning from F to R or vice-versa was an excersize in wheel stands and skidding because the control valve was sticking. This all eventhough the suggested maintenance has been preformed exactly as specified by Kubota. I'm not making degrading remarks toward the Mfg, just stating facts.

 

[dcyrilc]

I'm pretty happy with mine (gear). I talked with a friend (HST owner of L3400) yesterday about snaking out logs at idle in low range. His comment was that he'd have to have the engine running about 2000 rpm to get any hydraulic flow to speak of. It got me to thinking I'd really made the right decision for me and my use.

On the back side of things I find I'm waiting for the hydraulics more than I'd like when doing loader work, for example dumping a bucket full of snow takes a few seconds more when you're back to an idle than at working speed.

I think the HST will hold up to 99% of all users. My concern, (call me paranoid here) is that I might not be one of them..

Never owned an HST machine, so I can't say I'd go back. I AM happy to stay where I am, not sorry I didn't get the HST option.

Chilly

Chilly,
I have found with my JD2240 that I can run the throttle with my heal while my foot is on the brake to speed up the hydraulics while using the loader.