HST efficiency (no, not horsepower)

[Chilly807]

Those are exactly the reasons I like my L4200's GST tranny, except I don't have clutch leg, since I don't have to push the clutch unless I really want to (still can't figure out why that pedal is there).

OTOH, I have a gear lawn tractor, and I hate the transmission. I do a LOT of back n' forth while mowing, and gear is a lousy choice. It probably adds 1/3 to the time required to mow. I'm moving to an HST as soon as I find a good one (I only do vintage mowers).

JayC

I agree with you about the mower, I have a Craftsman YT4000 tractor with hydrostatic drive for mowing. Crude compared to the Kubota, but the HST is very efficient, no time wasted shifting while mowing around obstacles. Toe and heel control, and the revs stay up all the time, but the blades are also loaded 90% of the time, so I don't mind it. It has the K46 TuffTorque transmission, which is no great prize, but they are what they are.

I initially thought to look for a used tractor for mowing, but all that was really available was gear drive, and I drew the line at that. I had used a friend's hydro mower a few times, and liked it.

Sean

 

[dustinfox]

I looked for a pre-existing thread to stick this comment on and didn't find one, so here's yet another thread talking about HST.

I had my first real, extended seat time today, bush-hogging a 3.6 acre field for a neighbor. Took me about 4 hours, which is the longest I've spent in the seat since I got the tractor a month or so ago. Obviously, I really learned a lot.

Since I've never owned a gear tractor, take this with a grain of salt, but I can't imagine wanting to do the job with a gear tractor. There were sections of the field that were steep enough that I had to back down them and then drive up, which seems like it would get really tiresome if I had to clutch each time. But more fundamentally, the HST seemed to really enhance the efficiency of the cutting. I set the throttle so the RPMs rode just a smidge above 2250 (the 540 RPM PTO speed on my tractor) when on the flats. On the hills it would come down to just about 2250. If the hill was too steep, or if I got bogged down in some thick brush, the transmission would go into relief, I would notice the RPMs dropping and back off the pedal until they came back up. Sometimes this slowed me to a crawl, but as soon as conditions lightened up again, I was able to put the pedal back down and speed up again. It's hard to imagine making such fine adjustments with a gear tractor, and I would probably end up just doing the whole job at the lowest-common-denominator speed. But like I said, I've never owned a gear tractor, and obviously people have been getting the job done with them for years, so respect!

Now that I've started another HST-vs-Gear holy war, my work here is done.

I bought my first tractor last year and went through the same debate (with myself) when trying to decide on HST vs gear. I finally decided on the HST and, like yourself, I cannot imagine how much more difficult it would be using a gear driven tractor doing what I am doing. I am sure glad I spent the extra $$$!

 

[rtimgray]

Comparing a HST to a straight gear tractor, in the manner in which the OP posted, the HST probably is more efficient. Comparing it to a shuttle shift gear tractor, that difference is probably diminished. I had a straight gear tractor before my shuttle shift, and I know I can bushhog more efficiently with my shuttle, if for no other reason than being able to go forward/reverse withouot grinding gears. As far as steady speeds, my tractor almost always has plenty of HP go to at a steady speed, whether uphill or downhill, thick or thin vegetation, so that's not too much of a concern.

Of course, it has plenty of HP because it's not wasting any going through a slushamatic HST!

As long as the operator is happy, it really doesn't matter how "efficient" the tractor is.

Good luck and take care.

 

[rtimgray]

Comparing a HST to a straight gear tractor, in the manner in which the OP posted, the HST probably is more efficient. Comparing it to a shuttle shift gear tractor, that difference is probably diminished. I had a straight gear tractor before my shuttle shift, and I know I can bushhog more efficiently with my shuttle, if for no other reason than being able to go forward/reverse withouot grinding gears. As far as steady speeds, my tractor almost always has plenty of HP go to at a steady speed, whether uphill or downhill, thick or thin vegetation, so that's not too much of a concern.

Of course, it has plenty of HP because it's not wasting any going through a slushamatic HST!

As long as the operator is happy, it really doesn't matter how "efficient" the tractor is.

Good luck and take care.

 

[Carl_NH]

All I have are HST now and it is better for what I do - loader/mowing/BH work.

Growing up we only had JD gear tractors on the farm which for steady HP demand, single directional activity like plowing, discing and mowing the gear worked just fine. The one thing it wasnt great at was baling hay - as the windrows got larger/smaller you had to clutch in and slow/stop the tractor for the baler to catch up - that was a pain.

Also for cleaning out the manure from the barn in the spring it was a lot of back and forth shifting but I didnt complain as it beat the pitchfork method, and frankly didn't really know they made an HST tractor until I worked at a IH dealership on the 786/986 series which was sort of the beginning of the "hydro" tractors in my experience.

 

[My Hoe]

OTOH, I have a gear lawn tractor, and I hate the transmission. I do a LOT of back n' forth while mowing, and gear is a lousy choice. It probably adds 1/3 to the time required to mow. I'm moving to an HST as soon as I find a good one (I only do vintage mowers).

JayC

Jay,

I'd have to agree, after having played with a Hydro Wheelhorse GT-14.

I had a LOT of fun putting 50 hours in to getting a friend's 1972 Wheel Horse GT-14 operating. It was my first experience with a hydro, (complete with an ELECTRIC PTO, which actually worked when I rewired it--and 'letcrics are NOT my thang) and I would DEFINITELY have rigged up a foot pedal, as the "speed stick" between my legs ('er, on the TRACTOR) WAS COOL, in that you could INCH your way forward (about 1/4" turn on the 25" rears, at a time, due to an ossified drive belt, with a "lump" in it, that made it jerk in 1/4" increments, but it was STILL WAAAAY more controlable than my 1984, 11hp. GEARED Ariens) and I had to weld the center pulley of the Wheelhorse's deck back onto the shaft, to save my buddy $70., PLUS I "tanked and tuned" his carb--such work is not "his bag"--but I LIKED that mower. All except for no foot control.

Just wondered if you were into the Wheelhorse GT-14's. It's a lot of machine, for an old mower, IMO. Vintage is cool-upgraded vintage, with a foot control, would be cooler yet, IMO.

And for the record, and speaking of "clutch legs," I put 100,000 miles on the (as far as I know) ORIGINAL clutch on my 1977 Ford Granada (got it with 66,000 miles, femalien owned, and I drove it FOR 12 YEARS), junking it at 170,000, with a still-good engine, tranny, clutch and rear end. What a shame....

I feel that putting 100K on a USED clutch, and having it still be GOOD, until the unibody gave up to the Northeast's OBSESSION WITH SALT ON THE ROADS--arRRRRGGHH (I was driving it for a few months where putting on the brakes made it STEER FROM THE REAR, like a FORKLIFT) I feel I have earned the title of a "clutch artist," but I STILL think Hydro is the way to go for garden tractors, or bigger machines, like SCUTS and CUTS.

Of course, had I been born with THREE hands, I might feel differently. But I never understood a HAND control, for the hydro.... It left one of my feet BORED TO DEATH, and both of my hands overworked.

Vintage is cool, however! I have a few 1960's-era Simplicity tractors I will need to divest myself of, if anyone's interested.

Btw--the WheelHorse GT-14 is good for 7.2 mph. The funny thing for me is, I didn't realize that that 7.2 mph was INSTANTANEOUS to pushing the "go lever" forward. With (IIRC) 25" rears, there was no wheel spin--just GO!

Of course, my "friend" took it back, once I was done with my 50-hour "seance," and brought it back from the dead. But he did give me the sweet, Arien's 11hp. gear tractor (with Hi/Lo range, for a total of SIX gears) and with just $200 of parts and a TON of TLC, it has been a great, little lawn mower. Not bad for a 1984 machine--the factory that built the tranny, however, BURNED in 1984, and went out of business (the same year of my Arien's build-date) so I've always been a little nervous, if I ever needed a new tranny. So far, no problems.

But as you say--geared is NOT as EASY, or FUN, as a Hydro, in my humble opinion, of course. People with hundred horse "Big Ag" tractors may have very valid reasons for preferring geared tractors, but for lawn mowers, I would definitely like a HYDRO, IF it was FOOT-OPERATED.

My Hoe

 

[JoeinTX]

No doubt modern hydro transmission are wonders of engineering. But, if you grew up with a geared tractor and that's how you learned to work and understand a tractor, they have a "dead" feel about them. I learned to drive a tractor feeling the vibrations and hearing the sounds it would make. You "felt" the tractor as much as anything else. You knew the tractor literally by the seat of your pants.

I've operated modern HSTs (primarily Kubota) and the lack of feedback I felt from the tractor bothered me. I had less of idea about how the tractor was operating. Maybe it's just me (and it probably is just me) but I prefer to have more feedback from the tractor. And I may not be expressing myself completely well here either.

 

[Chilly807]

No doubt modern hydro transmission are wonders of engineering. But, if you grew up with a geared tractor and that's how you learned to work and understand a tractor, they have a "dead" feel about them. I learned to drive a tractor feeling the vibrations and hearing the sounds it would make. You "felt" the tractor as much as anything else. You knew the tractor literally by the seat of your pants.

I've operated modern HSTs (primarily Kubota) and the lack of feedback I felt from the tractor bothered me. I had less of idea about how the tractor was operating. Maybe it's just me (and it probably is just me) but I prefer to have more feedback from the tractor. And I may not be expressing myself completely well here either.

I understand you perfectly...but then I'm another gear guy

Sean

 

[k0ua]

No doubt modern hydro transmission are wonders of engineering. But, if you grew up with a geared tractor and that's how you learned to work and understand a tractor, they have a "dead" feel about them. I learned to drive a tractor feeling the vibrations and hearing the sounds it would make. You "felt" the tractor as much as anything else. You knew the tractor literally by the seat of your pants.

I've operated modern HSTs (primarily Kubota) and the lack of feedback I felt from the tractor bothered me. I had less of idea about how the tractor was operating. Maybe it's just me (and it probably is just me) but I prefer to have more feedback from the tractor. And I may not be expressing myself completely well here either.

Interesting observation. I grew up with geared tractors, and my First tractor that I owned was of course a geared tractor, and not some fancy shuttle either. Just an old geared Long 2360. By the way I learned FEL control on the old Long with 2 stick control too:shocked: But you see I feel more "one" with the tractor with hydro. It seems the tractor moves without conscious thought. It just moves by itself and I can concentrate on operating the loader with right hand always on the loader control, left hand on the wheel, and the right foot takes care of the rest without my intervention. The left foot has the day off. To each his own.. but I am not going back to that old Long.. ever! It served me well for several years, and when I traded it off for a New Holland TC33DA with hydro, Wow is all I can say..

James K0UA

 

[ddb123]

And for the record, and speaking of "clutch legs," I put 100,000 miles on the (as far as I know) ORIGINAL clutch on my 1977 Ford Granada (got it with 66,000 miles, femalien owned, and I drove it FOR 12 YEARS), junking it at 170,000, with a still-good engine, tranny, clutch and rear end. What a shame....

I feel that putting 100K on a USED clutch, and having it still be GOOD, until the unibody gave up to the Northeast's OBSESSION WITH SALT ON THE ROADS--arRRRRGGHH (I was driving it for a few months where putting on the brakes made it STEER FROM THE REAR, like a FORKLIFT) I feel I have earned the title of a "clutch artist,"

My Hoe

I have 180,000 miles on the original clutch in my 2002 Honda Civic and it still feels like it has another 100,000 in it, easy. I guess that makes me the da Vinci of clutch artists