Spec exaggerations: List yours

[beppington]

I'm looking for opinions like: "I love my JD (whatever brand you have) ___ (model), but I'm pretty sure the __ HP PTO rating is too high." Or "... the FEL lift capacity is rated too high."

 

[Runner]

Not really a specification issue, but my 2520 gas gauge does lie to me. Tells me it's "empty" then, only takes 3 or 4 gallons in a 7 gallon tank.

 

[TGF]

Not really a specification issue, but my 2520 gas gauge does lie to me. Tells me it's "empty" then, only takes 3 or 4 gallons in a 7 gallon tank.

The 3038e is the same way as is my dodge dakota. My guess is this is because most modern fuel pumps require a certain amount of fuel to disipate heat during operation, if the tank runs low you burn up the impeller.

As to the OP I have not really tested my FEL or 3-point to max capacity.

I will say the EZTrak 445 I have, I do have an issue with the 9mph ground speed the claim, I don't think its that fast, maybe downhill with a tail wind. My wife and dog can easily out run it.

 

[RoyJackson]

I'm looking for opinions like: "I love my JD (whatever brand you have) ___ (model), but I'm pretty sure the __ HP PTO rating is too high." Or "... the FEL lift capacity is rated too high."

You're asking for subjective data rather then objective data. You won't get spec exaggerations, you'll get opinions rather then facts.

Well, here's my opinion:
This thread is a useless waste of bandwidth...

 

[Soundguy]

Not really a specification issue, but my 2520 gas gauge does lie to me. Tells me it's "empty" then, only takes 3 or 4 gallons in a 7 gallon tank.

heck.. my gmc yukon will do that.. and it's on it's 2nd gauge cluster, wire loom and sender.. been calibrated, and tech dept says it's working.. can show over half a tank, then i can go fill it up and put in 17 gallons... Like I'm -EVER- going to buy GM again......


soundguy

 

[beppington]

... you'll get opinions ...

That'd be great, because I wrote, "I'm looking for opinions ..."

 

[whistlepig]

I'm looking for opinions like: "I love my JD (whatever brand you have) ___ (model), but I'm pretty sure the __ HP PTO rating is too high." Or "... the FEL lift capacity is rated too high."

The only trip up I have seen is that the three point is not rated for the weight of implement the tractor has HP to run of this weight. Yep, we got the power, but don't you dare try to pick this implement up. Somebody has missed something here. I am sure it is me.

 

[Soundguy]

sometimes that's merely a ballast issue.. as hp gets higher and frames get smaller, though, you do get to a point where you can have a tail wagging the dog issue.

soundguy

 

[Turbys_1700]

My NH 1720 states that it has 28 HP. On the engine block, the manufacturer states that she has 26.4 @ 2500 RPM. I doubt that the PTO HP is actually 23.5 as stated by the manufacturer.

 

[ModMech]

As I have been looking (not an active buyer) at new tractors, I noticed a LOT of mis-statements with regard to 3Pt capacities.

A certain Mfgr will list their capacity then that of the others, when you actually look up the specs for all from the sales sheets, you see that the allegedly superior make is truely equal or inferior.

I have also noticed that manufacturers will compare different models of competing products in different areas (HP, 3Pt, Hyd etc) as it suits their marketing agenda.

 

[RickB]

You're asking for subjective data rather then objective data. You won't get spec exaggerations, you'll get opinions rather then facts.

Well, here's my opinion:
This thread is a useless waste of bandwidth...

Here's a misleading specification published and actively promoted by several manufacturers.

"Combined hydraulic flow xx GPM". The sum of the main hydraulic pump's nominal GPM rating and the power steering pump's nominal flow rating. The two systems operate fully in parallel, at no time is the flow from both pumps combined and available for any single function, yet there is a published spec. Totally useless information.

 

[Soundguy]

My NH 1720 states that it has 28 HP. On the engine block, the manufacturer states that she has 26.4 @ 2500 RPM. I doubt that the PTO HP is actually 23.5 as stated by the manufacturer.

I betcha they got that 28hp number via a 'lawnmower' test. Ie.. at a higher rpm, or with no parasytic loads ont he engine.

soundguy

 

[flusher]

I betcha they got that 28hp number via a 'lawnmower' test. Ie.. at a higher rpm, or with no parasytic loads ont he engine.

soundguy

The only tractor hp, fuel economy, drawbar pull, 3pt lift etc. numbers I believe are those that come out of the U. of Nebraska tractor test lab.

 

[RoyJackson]

sometimes that's merely a ballast issue.. as hp gets higher and frames get smaller, though, you do get to a point where you can have a tail wagging the dog issue.

soundguy

How true that is!!!

 

[bp fick]

I betcha they got that 28hp number via a 'lawnmower' test. Ie.. at a higher rpm, or with no parasytic loads ont he engine.

soundguy

There's a lot of this going around. Take the same engine. "Rate it" at 2800 rpm and call it a 23 horse. Wind it up to 3100 and market it as a 26 horse. Fairly common practice. Which is deceptive? Neither? Does it matter?

 

[Soundguy]

Perhaps misleading.

I've seen a few applications where 2 tractors have the same engine.. one is set a couple hundred rpm higher, and / or the injector pump is tweaked a lil.

Is one souped up or the other detuned?

soundguy

 

[Patches]

There's a lot of this going around. Take the same engine. "Rate it" at 2800 rpm and call it a 23 horse. Wind it up to 3100 and market it as a 26 horse. Fairly common practice. Which is deceptive? Neither? Does it matter?

Yes it does! I thought I was buying a 30.5 Hp tractor, paid for a 30.5 Hp tractor, and ended up with a 28 Hp tractor, which has been well documented by several previous posts. The HP figurers were advertised in the corperate liturature, touted by the dealer, (though I think this is no fault of his)and only revised after several E-mails to corperate Kioti. I have both brochures in hand and can verify that they mis-stated the HP figures(purposely, or otherwise), and I can can only assume it was purposely done, as HP costs money:thumbsup:

 

[herringchoker]

On the flip side, I was happy to find the emissions sticker on the engine on my B7800 shows an output of 26.5 KW (about 35.5 HP), while the Kubota brochure and manual advertise 30 HP (22.3 KW). Net, gross and RPM issues aside, Kubota chose to advertise a conservative number. :thumbsup:

 

[brin]

My NH TC-29 is supposed to have 29 HP but the way it works under load I would swear it is 40 HP...It runs a 20KW PTO genny that powers our whole house and when bushogging 3 ft. high grass and brush I go right through it in 2nd speed 3rd gear...never a whimper...it may be 80 HP ...LOL:laughing::thumbsup:

 

[sunnyside360]

Yes it does! I thought I was buying a 30.5 Hp tractor, paid for a 30.5 Hp tractor, and ended up with a 28 Hp tractor, which has been well documented by several previous posts. The HP figurers were advertised in the corperate liturature, touted by the dealer, (though I think this is no fault of his)and only revised after several E-mails to corperate Kioti. I have both brochures in hand and can verify that they mis-stated the HP figures(purposely, or otherwise), and I can can only assume it was purposely done, as HP costs money:thumbsup:

Specifications, especially HP claims, are very important. There is a class action law suite against many lawn mower manufacturers going all the way back to January 1, 1994. Many of us received the "Legal Notice" thru the mail recently. Apparently, many of the manufacturers were exaggerating the engine hp all the way up to 30 hp for both walk-behind and riding mowers. There is a long list of defendants in the case. Most manufacturers are now using "torque" ratings for their products. Look here for more info.
https://lawnmowerclass.com/