New tractors on the dyno. Which brand does best?

[screamin400]

Any tractor manufacturer advertising X power, but deliver less, is committing consumer fraud and would be subject to a class action law suit.

If new tractors were tested on a carefully calibrated dynometer, as in the Nebraska Tractor tests, I feel confident new tractors would hit at least the promoted number with some variation over the promoted number.

I believe you are right. I wonder if one goes over more often than others? I have no reason to not believe anything I have seen in a long time but years ago they were all over the place.

 

[jeff9366]

I have had many tractors over the years. Most have been on the dyno one time or another. I will be looking for something in the 75 pto hp range. If a certain brand runs 5 under and another brand runs 5 over that is a big difference for the money. I do not want to have to purchase 85 pto hp to make sure I get 75. The Nebraska charts are nice and I had forgotten about them. Thanks above for the reminder. I was hoping to see something for Kubota but nothing really there.

It is improbable any new tractor will dyno under advertised power. I doubt any new tractor will dyno as much as 4% over advertised power. Electronic pollution and injection controls have eliminated almost all variation relative to tractors fifteen years ago. I believe you are pursuing an issue where no issue exists TODAY.

Your question really is about efficiency.

One way to evaluate tractor efficiency is to compare gross engine horsepower to PTO horsepower. Those with less loss will likely be more fuel efficient in PTO work and likely in drawing implements. This data is readily available and variation significant.

A gear transmission will be 5% or a bit more fuel efficient that an HST/pump transmission in field use.

R4/bias ply tires equip most new CUT tractors sold today. Tractor radial tractors grip better than R4s but cost more. Consider radial tractor tires along with traditional R1/ag tires.

"Loaded" rear tires, perhaps supplemented by some form of iron wheel weights, will increase power transfer to the ground for light, powerful tractors but compact the ground and delay entry to wet fields.

 

[Sawyer Rob]

Sawyer...
Back when my dad sold Allis Chalmers, the AGCO ancestor, they always underrated their tractors...A D17 was marketed as a 50 HP tractor...They pull 53 to 54 at the PTO...They had a Dyno and would check them... Typically they were underrated 10 to 12 percent from the actual PTO HP output...At least on your model this is still true...

Thanks for the answer, but incase you didn't know, AC Has nothing to do with my AGCO other than AGCO owning the AC name. Nothing from Allis was ever used in another tractor and although that's too bad, it is the way things usually work when a name is bought.

SR

 

[majorwager]

As the POINT was made above, The Nebraska Tests are VERY EXPENSIVE from the participants perspective. Kubota, and others Market their tractors all over the world. They perform validation tests in their home country as well as the EU and so on. If the issue arises that the farming community is resisting the purchase of the Kubota, or others, large HP tractors, then the Corporations affected will address the matter.


Believe you are pursuing an issue where none exists. Kubota currently has a limited presence in the large HP segment but I do believe they have recently agreed to Nebraska testing on a limited basis.


I f you are paranoid that a manufacturer will deliberately misrepresent their product's abilities, I suggest you write to the factory and solicit the internal testing data. They ALL test their products. Tractor data is another source.

At one point, but admittedly not recently, I read a boatload of Nebraska test results. I can NOT remember a single deficiency where the CLAIMED result was less that the ACTUAL result. I was in the buying market for new 100 hp farm tractors at the time and was interested in those test results. Again, firmly believe NO major manufacturer sees any benefit to cheating.

 

[Milo]

I wouldn't be surprised if many of the tractors marketed to squeak under the 26hp emission tier are actually a bit stronger than 26hp because there are many customers that want the strongest running non-DPF (or other emission control) tractor.

 

[majorwager]

Milo,

Your assumption could be accurate, however the OP is concerned w/ a deficient hp rating. The penalty from the EPA is so extreme, that any benefit in sales would easily erased 10 fold or more by the consequences. Legal fees alone could easily extend into the hundreds of thousands of dollars dependent upon the # of tractors in violation, Kinda serious stuff.....

 

[screamin400]

I own a Mahindra right now that runs fine. I will be looking at Mahindra, ytm, Kubota, Case. I have never heard of a Mahindra or ytm on a dyno. I would think they are reputable. I do not know if they are held to our standards. I would think they are. I have looked at Kioti before. I have owned a Yanmar. Do we monitor them to our standards I guess would be the question?

 

[jeff9366]

Every tractor imported through normal trade channels must meet US standards to be sold here, in the same manner as cars.

All tractors up to about 40-horsepower, maybe more, are imported or assembled from imported parts in the US.

A minuscule number of used grey market tractors sneak in, imported by individuals, often as returning households after foreign residence.

 

[daugen]

In trucks and motorhomes we seem more interested in torque, perhaps due to constantly varying loads.
Interesting that tractors have always mentioned HP, not engine torque. Of course as Jeff mentioned, your weighting and tire choice
is likely far more important for actual use than whether the engine is 3hp shy.

Does anyone know why torque is never mentioned in tractor engines, but seems all critical everywhere else?
Is it because of steady rpm operation, say at 540 pto?
We want torque to come "down low" but most of us get the revs up to 2000 at least, so you have full torque. I think.
I always like studying torque curves.

I think the OP's question is fair. I owned a VW Golf TDI and the car was marvelous.
Not only due to emissions but due to a winter time intercooler icing problem, I've never been lied to so many times
in all my life. I was really happy to see they hauled the CEO of Audi off in handcuffs, at least for the pictures...
You just don't know if folks are being straight with you any more.
If VW can cheat, why can't Kubota?
Remember, VW is the second largest auto company in the world, just behind Toyota, not some bit player.

Corporate and personal morality is the answer there. I don't think the home Asian market would tolerate any dishonesty at all, much less
spread it around the world.
And the answer to the OP is it hasn't been a problem in this industry apparently.
I'd be more concerned whether the loader can lift its rated capacity due to some hydraulic pressure setting, not the hp of the engine.

Interesting to compare gross engine and net pto horsepower. In the hydrostatic Kubota I lose 7hp, in the larger geared Massey I lose 5hp.

 

[jeff9366]

I wouldn't be surprised if many of the tractors marketed to squeak under the 26hp emission tier are actually a bit stronger than 26hp because there are many customers that want the strongest running non-DPF (or other emission control) tractor.

The demarcation is 25-horsepower, not 26-horsepower.

As VW found, cheating on diesel emission standards, such as exceeding the 25-horsepower limit, can cost billions of dollars in fines, further billions in recalls, wiping out years of world wide corporate profits, plus reputation damage.