DT transmission Vs HST transmissions any drawbacks for longivity ?

[GManBart]

I didn't over simplify anything I just didn't make it more complicated than it needed to be.

You said it yourself, your comparison wasn't apples-to-apples. As soon as that happens, it gets complicated, all by itself. Throw in three or four variable that you think about, and a whole bunch you obviously haven't thought about (like whether both machines have the same final drive ratios, etc), and it's very complicated.

It doesn't matter if the TC33D had R1's it would still only make it up the trail in range 1. Range 1 is too slow to clean the tires and like I said it may have made it up in damp conditions but now way would it make it up the trail in a down pour rain like the gear did.

You're guessing. You never tried it, so you'll never know. It's possible it would have, it's possible it wouldn't have, but we'll never know. Heck, it's possible that even with the additional traction of R1s it wouldn't have had enough power to use all that traction, but again, there's no way to know for sure.

Like I said HST may be right for some and I'm glad they are happy with their choice. I just don't think you should push you preference on everyone else.

I never pushed my preference, because I have both....and more gear than HST. My first post to the OP said that I think for what he's doing, HST sounds like the way to go...nothing more.

Here is my end point. If someone ask our opinion I think we should all say this is why I like what I use and give reasons. And then tell the person asking they should get what makes them happy. Not aggressively push our preference like its the only smart choice.

The OP asked for what sounded like the best choice for him, not what you like for what you do. For some reason, that doesn't register with some folks. I haven't "pushed my preference" in any way, because as I've said, I have both kinds.

You said:
Similar power to weight, with better traction, and R1s isn't remotely a similar comparison.


Oh and how do you think one tractor has better traction than the other besides the R1's?

Do you think the L4400 would still have better traction than the TC33D if they both had R1's?

How would one have better traction than the other besides the R1s? There are a number of names for it, but most folks call it tire loading. It boils down to the weight of the tractor, distributed by the surface area of the tires. The higher the tire loading (more weight for the same given tire size contact patch), the better traction you'll have. When you want more traction for your tractor, what do you do? You add more weight. Unless you put an oddball size set of tires on your TC or L, they would have had 15x24 R4, and 14.9x24 Ag rear tires respectively....that's pretty much the same footprint. Fronts don't make much difference in a situation like this since we're talking drive wheel traction.

The same basic tire footprint with 1,000lbs more weight will absolutely give the L4400 better traction. Throw in a set of R1s, and wet conditions, and it's going to have a mountain more traction than the TC33D with R4s on it.

Yes, the L4400 would have better traction than the TC even if they both had R1s. Physics isn't negotiable.

As I've said, I have two tractors with gear transmissions, and love them. I have one tractor with HST, and love it. I ran both types today, in fact. :drink: Neither one is better for everything, but they are both better than the other for some things. It just depends on what you're doing, and in this case, it sounds like the OP has some pretty serious conditions (like his significant other being able to use the machine) that likely outweigh other considerations.

 

[Fordman1981]

You said it yourself, your comparison wasn't apples-to-apples. As soon as that happens, it gets complicated, all by itself. Throw in three or four variable that you think about, and a whole bunch you obviously haven't thought about (like whether both machines have the same final drive ratios, etc), and it's very complicated.

You're guessing. You never tried it, so you'll never know. It's possible it would have, it's possible it wouldn't have, but we'll never know. Heck, it's possible that even with the additional traction of R1s it wouldn't have had enough power to use all that traction, but again, there's no way to know for sure.

I never pushed my preference, because I have both....and more gear than HST. My first post to the OP said that I think for what he's doing, HST sounds like the way to go...nothing more.

The OP asked for what sounded like the best choice for him, not what you like for what you do. For some reason, that doesn't register with some folks. I haven't "pushed my preference" in any way, because as I've said, I have both kinds.

How would one have better traction than the other besides the R1s? There are a number of names for it, but most folks call it tire loading. It boils down to the weight of the tractor, distributed by the surface area of the tires. The higher the tire loading (more weight for the same given tire size contact patch), the better traction you'll have. When you want more traction for your tractor, what do you do? You add more weight. Unless you put an oddball size set of tires on your TC or L, they would have had 15x24 R4, and 14.9x24 Ag rear tires respectively....that's pretty much the same footprint. Fronts don't make much difference in a situation like this since we're talking drive wheel traction.

The same basic tire footprint with 1,000lbs more weight will absolutely give the L4400 better traction. Throw in a set of R1s, and wet conditions, and it's going to have a mountain more traction than the TC33D with R4s on it.

Yes, the L4400 would have better traction than the TC even if they both had R1s. Physics isn't negotiable.

As I've said, I have two tractors with gear transmissions, and love them. I have one tractor with HST, and love it. I ran both types today, in fact. :drink: Neither one is better for everything, but they are both better than the other for some things. It just depends on what you're doing, and in this case, it sounds like the OP has some pretty serious conditions (like his significant other being able to use the machine) that likely outweigh other considerations.

You said:

The same basic tire footprint with 1,000lbs more weight will absolutely give the L4400 better traction.

Yes, the L4400 would have better traction than the TC even if they both had R1s. Physics isn't negotiable.

Here is where you are wrong we are going up hill so weight isn't alway your friend.

On level ground you're logic makes sense. Up a hill it does not.

You have to have more tire to get that extra wait up the hill you said yourself the tires are about the same size. Your logic is flawed. If we went by your logic everyone that 4 wheels would do it in a diesel truck instead of a jeep or a Toyota or some other light truck. Why do you think these smaller vehicles dominate off road? Answer because you have less weight on the se size tire to move.

You want a more apples to apples comparison in why your logic is flawed. We have to switch to trucks. I had an F250 and a f150 down the same trail the same day. Both had same tires both manual trans. Just a little slick like when the TC33D wouldn't come out. The F150 went up the trail guess what the heavier 250 with more power did not.

I would like to see your answer for this.

 

[NE Tractor]

All I can say is this to the original poster... There are always going to be situations where a gear tractor is going to shine over a hydro and vice versa. I sold tractors for a few years and I can tell you two things... Rarely does someone come back and say they bought too big of a tractor, the common rule of thumb is to get a size larger than you think you need, if you can afford it. When it comes to hydro or gear the fact is (all you need to do is check the Craigs list or Ebay adds and you will see) If you do make a mistake and buy the wrong tractor for your application its easier on your wallet to go from a hydro to a gear than to go from a gear to a hydro. Can you get rid of a gear if you don't like it? yes.... but there are a lot more hydro buyers than gear.

 

[GManBart]

I would like to see your answer for this.

4-wheeling off-road with vehicles that have much higher power-to-weight ratios is completely different...another apples-to-oranges comparison. Heck some of them have a 1-1 ratio....not the case with tractors, and so different as to be a worthless comparison. They have enough power to overwhelm the available traction, and when you get to that point, you have to go with bigger tires....not the situation at hand.

There will always be a balance between traction, and weight, when it comes to hill climbing ability in slippery conditions, but again, that adds a whole bunch more variables nobody can easily account for.

My answer is that I've seen the light, and your apples-to-oranges comparison, which bears no resemblance to what the OP is asking about, is the best comparison ever! :cool2:

 

[Fordman1981]

4-wheeling off-road with vehicles that have much higher power-to-weight ratios is completely different...another apples-to-oranges comparison. Heck some of them have a 1-1 ratio....not the case with tractors, and so different as to be a worthless comparison. They have enough power to overwhelm the available traction, and when you get to that point, you have to go with bigger tires....not the situation at hand.

There will always be a balance between traction, and weight, when it comes to hill climbing ability in slippery conditions, but again, that adds a whole bunch more variables nobody can easily account for.

My answer is that I've seen the light, and your apples-to-oranges comparison, which bears no resemblance to what the OP is asking about, is the best comparison ever! :cool2:

I see now you don't answer specific questions that you can't answer. In you theoretical world where there is no gravity to over come climbing hills your logic is spot on. The more something weighs the more force it will take to overcome gravity climbing the hill. And the added weight to the same size tire is not going to increase your traction near enough to overcome that additional 1000 lbs up the hill.

The fact of the matter is the lighter tractor with the same size tires would have less of a issue coming up the hill on a traction stand point.

The reason why the lighter tractor wouldn't come up the isn't because of traction it was because of getting power to the ground. The 3 append hydro can't do this near as effectively. Maybe the HST + kubota offers would do better because you have 6 ranges. The hydro tractor wouldn't pull the hill in 2nd range only in first so you couldn't get enough momentum. The gear tractor would come up the hill in 3 and 4 low and 1,2 and 3 in high.

You are the one that picked my post out to say I was wrong but I am done debating this and derailing the thread. You are good at that by the way I see you do it all the time. I usually just watch threads but felt I should speak up for once when the gear vs hydro debate was in swing once again.

One last thought think of how a hydro is designed. You have to lift your foot as power is needed and you are slowing down as you lift your foot correct? A gear is not this way it keeps full power to the wheels and full speed. So you have more momentum which is very good for climbing hills. Face it my original point is solid a hydro vs a gear for climbing a hills like the one I'm talking about is at a dis advantage.

 

[GManBart]

I see now you don't answer specific questions that you can't answer.

I did answer your question. I said that your two new examples are, once again, apples-to-oranges, and simply don't relate to the situation at hand. I could have picked them apart individually, but it's simply not worth the time. Did you list the final drive ratios of the trucks, do you know the individual gear ratios they have? Were the tires identical? How much did each one weigh exactly? Did they both have the same setup as far as limited slip, or locker rears? Were the tire pressures set identically? Etc, etc, etc....all things you almost certainly can't answer, and it's still a silly comparison, because high tractors aren't high horsepower to weight machines like trucks and off-road vehicles are.

In you theoretical world where there is no gravity to over come climbing hills your logic is spot on. The more something weighs the more force it will take to overcome gravity climbing the hill. And the added weight to the same size tire is not going to increase your traction near enough to overcome that additional 1000 lbs up the hill.

You've already accounted for the additional force to overcome gravity with the extra horsepower, for the extra weight. You don't know how much added traction there would be with an increase in weight....unless you're a tire scientist in disguise who just happens to have tested that theory.

The fact of the matter is the lighter tractor with the same size tires would have less of a issue coming up the hill on a traction stand point.

Another guess.

The reason why the lighter tractor wouldn't come up the isn't because of traction it was because of getting power to the ground. The 3 append hydro can't do this near as effectively. Maybe the HST + kubota offers would do better because you have 6 ranges. The hydro tractor wouldn't pull the hill in 2nd range only in first so you couldn't get enough momentum. The gear tractor would come up the hill in 3 and 4 low and 1,2 and 3 in high.

Hydro gets power to the ground just fine, but it soaks up more of the engine horsepower, so you have to start with more to get the same to the ground. Some HST models don't have enough ranges/gears to make effective use of the power, but that becomes a matter of model selection more than anything. The tires don't know whether the power is coming from a hydro tranny, or a gear tranny....period.

You are the one that picked my post out to say I was wrong but I am done debating this and derailing the thread. You are good at that by the way I see you do it all the time. I usually just watch threads but felt I should speak up for once when the gear vs hydro debate was in swing once again.

I commented because your comparison was apples-to-oranges, and wasn't even remotely similar to what he was asking about. That sort of stuff can confuse people who are new to tractors, and trying to figure things out.

There wasn't any derailing of the thread....we're still talking about hydro vs. gear right? Last I looked, that's the title of the thread. Yes, you spoke up, and it was all "gear is better", because you get upset that some folks say the opposite...sort of the pot calling the kettle black. I have never once said one was better than the other....which is why I own both, and appreciate both for their relative strengths.

One last thought think of how a hydro is designed. You have to lift your foot as power is needed and you are slowing down as you lift your foot correct? A gear is not this way it keeps full power to the wheels and full speed. So you have more momentum which is very good for climbing hills. Face it my original point is solid a hydro vs a gear for climbing a hills like the one I'm talking about is at a dis advantage.

I don't recall having to lift the pedal to get more power....but maybe I bought a tractor that has enough power to get up the hills around here without a problem.

Did the OP ever say he has to climb a bunch of big, wet hills? Oh wait, he said "1.8 acres that are flat scrub brushy". I thought I remembered something like that!

 

[dex3361]

On a HST lifting your foot to get power is more like down shifting a geared transmission tractor. So a real life comparison would be for both types of tractor to start up the hill in low range. Put the geared tractor in the highest gear in low range and on the HST tractor hold the HST to the floor(full speed low range). So when you start up a steep hill with a geared tractor you will have to shift down but on the HST you will just roll back on the pedal. I have run both geared and HST tractors and they both have their place. Get what fits your need and makes you happy.

 

[Fordman1981]

I did answer your question. I said that your two new examples are, once again, apples-to-oranges, and simply don't relate to the situation at hand. I could have picked them apart individually, but it's simply not worth the time. Did you list the final drive ratios of the trucks, do you know the individual gear ratios they have? Were the tires identical? How much did each one weigh exactly? Did they both have the same setup as far as limited slip, or locker rears? Were the tire pressures set identically? Etc, etc, etc....all things you almost certainly can't answer, and it's still a silly comparison, because high tractors aren't high horsepower to weight machines like trucks and off-road vehicles are.

You've already accounted for the additional force to overcome gravity with the extra horsepower, for the extra weight. You don't know how much added traction there would be with an increase in weight....unless you're a tire scientist in disguise who just happens to have tested that theory.

Another guess.

Hydro gets power to the ground just fine, but it soaks up more of the engine horsepower, so you have to start with more to get the same to the ground. Some HST models don't have enough ranges/gears to make effective use of the power, but that becomes a matter of model selection more than anything. The tires don't know whether the power is coming from a hydro tranny, or a gear tranny....period.

I commented because your comparison was apples-to-oranges, and wasn't even remotely similar to what he was asking about. That sort of stuff can confuse people who are new to tractors, and trying to figure things out.

There wasn't any derailing of the thread....we're still talking about hydro vs. gear right? Last I looked, that's the title of the thread. Yes, you spoke up, and it was all "gear is better", because you get upset that some folks say the opposite...sort of the pot calling the kettle black. I have never once said one was better than the other....which is why I own both, and appreciate both for their relative strengths.

I totally call BS on this below.



I don't recall having to lift the pedal to get more power....but maybe I bought a tractor that has enough power to get up the hills around here without a problem.

Did the OP ever say he has to climb a bunch of big, wet hills? Oh wait, he said "1.8 acres that are flat scrub brushy". I thought I remembered something like that!

That is how a hydro works. You are telling me you have never had to let off the forward pedal when climbing a hill? Do you go everywhere in first range?

Ask every HST owner on this forum when your HST tractor starts to bog you have to let up as needed on the forward pedal. Again unless you have a feature like auto throttle like on the HST +. I am done with this discussion.

HST transmissions have their strengths I have never said other wise. But in situations like I had with the land in question and logging and such a gear is better. This reminds me of I think his name in his is arrow. Everyone was telling him how much better a hydro was and for his needs mostly logging he felt the gear was better because he could pull the logs faster. With the exact same model tractor just one was gear the other was hydro.

I hate to keep going on this but stuff keeps popping out at me as far as the power of the TC33D it was the most power you could get in that new holland frame at the time. A few years later they offered a TC35D I think.

 

[Fordman1981]

On a HST lifting your foot to get power is more like down shifting a geared transmission tractor. So a real life comparison would be for both types of tractor to start up the hill in low range. Put the geared tractor in the highest gear in low range and on the HST tractor hold the HST to the floor(full speed low range). So when you start up a steep hill with a geared tractor you will have to shift down but on the HST you will just roll back on the pedal. I have run both geared and HST tractors and they both have their place. Get what fits your need and makes you happy.

I too think everyone should choose what makes them happy.

My biggest gripe with all the HST vs gear debates is the gear people will say yes the HST does some stuff better but most HST people won't say yes the gear is better at anything such as pulling bigger loads better and climbing hills.

Why would you want to handicap the gear? Let it pull the hill In whatever gear it can without downshifting. It's not as simple as you make it if you start up the hill in range two on and HST and you run out of power you have to stop and down shift too.

I'm going back to being a spectator of this forum.
Have a good one guys.

 

[Gale Hawkins]

If I looked at my age and ages in the obituary section longevity questions that up to much of remaining time.

I knew a guy back in the day that put on the heavy clear vinyl seat covers to protect them and they did. The new owner ripped them off and enjoyed the new seats.

At some point we all will put on a roof that last a life time.