What tractors are in the same class?

[gladehound]

I've noticed here on TBN that many people classify tractors by horse power. I guess it makes sense for mowing. But other than that, it seems like a lot of new tractors don't have the weight to effectively use the horse power they have.

If I were going to buy a new tractor, I would directly compare any machine of similar price. And as a buyer, that is the category that trumps all.

After price, I would consider weight and lift capacity as the most important category. Then maybe hp.

I'm guess I'm saying is tha comparing tractors by HP is often comparing apples to oranges yet it seems the most common way that tractors are categorized.

Does this make sense or am I smoke'n someth'n? :confused2:

 

[Marveltone]

Whatever you're smoking, I must have the same stuff! Seriously, you make a valid point; whereas HP can be a good indicator what equipment the tractor can be capable of powering, it's far from telling the whole story. Weight is definitely your friend, and even tire size can be a factor. Ground engaging equipment needs all that power to get to the ground all the way to work.

So then, how do we categorize these tractors so we know what we're comparing? We already have SCUT, CUT, the venerable UT, then we get into the bigger professional stuff. Even then, there seems to be some confusion within these classes themselves. My observations, which may very well be totally wrong, are that the older models of a given horsepower were built heavier than they are today. Are they a different class or have the rules just changed?

Unfortunately, I have no answers and have only served to further confuse the issue. It seems, all things being equal, nothing is equal. :confused2:

Anyone else?

Joe

 

[gladehound]

Just to illustrate how bad this has gotten. A coworker was very proud of his tractor purchase last year. It was a JDX530 (which is an 800 pound lawn and garden tractor 2x4 with diff lock - I looked that up, they didn't know). I ask them to describe it and the first words out of their mouth were "it's 26 hp!". I asked a few more questions about it, nodded my head in approval. I was happy they were happy. But then they started talking about how they could use it to pull logs out of the woods (hmmmm... I thought but said nothing). They finally said, "you have a tractor right?" I said yea. They said what hp do you have. I said "it's just 19 hp". No point in saying more. They were happy (for now) and the purchase was done. Chaulk another win up to the HP salesmen. :confused2:

 

[BethesdaEC]

Just to illustrate how bad this has gotten. A coworker was very proud of his tractor purchase last year. It was a JDX530 (which is an 800 pound lawn and garden tractor 2x4 with diff lock - I looked that up, they didn't know). I ask them to describe it and the first words out of their mouth were "it's 26 hp!". I asked a few more questions about it, nodded my head in approval. I was happy they were happy. But then they started talking about how they could use it to pull logs out of the woods (hmmmm... I thought but said nothing). They finally said, "you have a tractor right?" I said yea. They said what hp do you have. I said "it's just 19 hp". No point in saying more. They were happy (for now) and the purchase was done. Chaulk another win up to the HP salesmen. :confused2:

There is no comparing gas power to diesel power. Gas engines seem to bog down very quickly and lose power under load where as diesel maintain said power. Personally I believe that when comparing the two you should probably cut the rated power of the gas by a factor of two to level the playing field.

 

[roger4400]

I had a 42 hp gas tractor and now a 43 hp fuel tractor.....not the same, diesel engine have a lot more torque.and seem like never loosing power compared to a gas tractor.....to compare tractor a few hp will not make any difference (hp goes with the type of work you are doing). Compare standard equipment. Concerning weight it depends what you will do with it..for mowing weight is an ennemy to plow or field work, weight is your friend....and if you do both well make your decision :laughing: Rename brand and to get parts to fix the tractor is important.
It all depends what do you need, a 25 hp tractor will not do what a 45 hp tractor will do, what are your needs light ,medium or heavy field work ( plowing, mowing ,pulling logs etc,) good luck.Roger

 

[TripleR]

I've noticed here on TBN that many people classify tractors by horse power. I guess it makes sense for mowing. But other than that, it seems like a lot of new tractors don't have the weight to effectively use the horse power they have.

If I were going to buy a new tractor, I would directly compare any machine of similar price. And as a buyer, that is the category that trumps all.

After price, I would consider weight and lift capacity as the most important category. Then maybe hp.

I'm guess I'm saying is that comparing tractors by HP is often comparing apples to oranges yet it seems the most common way that tractors are categorized.

Does this make sense or am I smoke'n someth'n? :confused2:

Weight can more easily be added than taken away, adding and removing weight is common if not universal on Ag tractors.

I have not found price to be a good indicator of much of anything. Some economical tractors will do the work of some really expensive ones. How they are configured and equipped is much better.

Lift can be important for some and not so much for others depending on intended use; already addressed weight.

Comparing HP to HP "can be" apples to oranges, but not necessarily, it just should not be the sole point of comparison.

I hope not, it seems confusion is a constant state for me.

 

[jlsmith]

Most customers base thier buying needs on HP. When a customer comes in and wants to buy a new tractor and he tells me what HP he is looking for, the first thing I ask is what he will be doing with the tractor. Then I can start showing him what he realy needs vs what he thinks he needs. Sometimes they can go smaller and sometimes they need to go bigger. I believe any good salesman will go with that approach and get the customer the best tractor to fit his needs. PS I always try to get the customer to go alittle bigger that what he actully needs for now. Better to have too much than not enough, never know what you might be doing later in life and need a bigger tractor.

 

[art]

At this point knowing where the ag industry is going I prefer to go as light as possible because depending on what the tractor is doing depends on where we are going to put the weight. Haying or mowing tractors we like to set up under 100lbs per horsepower, 110 for light mixed work, 120 for tillage and hay and 130lbs per horsepower for tillage work. Most tillage tractors get parked in the shed for many farmers do to the fuel costs and the additional tire wear!

It is best to weight a tractor for what you are going to do with it!! That doesn't just mean putting it any where!

I look at uses for the classes of tractors!

 

[houstonscott]

HP is only one factor in classifying a tractor. HP, weight, and hydraulic capabilities are major factors. Clearly you could have a popular compact tractor with HP pushing 60hp and only weigh 3600lbs. I think the extra HP in the CUT is mainly to put the upper end of that class into being able to bale hay. You wouldn't dream of doing row crops with with that same tractor. However a 40HP tractor say ford 3900 could do row crop work with a weight near 5000lbs. You need to be aware of HP, weight, and hydraulic capabilities. Decide what you going to do size to fit job. Pick the job that is most likely to task you tractor, baling hay for example, most of the main line balers from the big guys need 40-50HP at the PTO. So if your going to do that job make sure you got it.

HS

 

[bp fick]

Some of this is just the result of our modern age.

Kubota makes 80 models, for example. 80 freakin' models!!! It just blows my mind. With lines drawn between models that makes splitting hairs look like crude work. Guys pour over the minutia of the brochures, comparing things to fractions of inches like their lives depended on it.

I know, I know, old school, but you cannot fathom Ford, Massey or Farmall understanding the need for 80 models back in 1950.

Back then, it was little one, medium one, big one, or biggest one and that was that.