How does an HST compare in pulling power with the same tractor and a gear trans?

[ptsg]

What's the point of doing test on Low range or even use Low range as an argument? Everyone knows that any tractor with any transmission can do well in low range.

But, in the real world application, is a field plowed in Low range? Do you go on the road in low range? No...

Just bare tractor, no loader or implements, the HST will slow down significantly on a slight hill, where the Gear just keeps going at full speed. If the grade of the hill increases, the HST will most likely have to stop in the middle of the road to drop to Medium range and the Gear will just drop a gear or two on the move and keep going. There is your difference between the two transmissions.

Low range proves nothing other than that both transmissions can spin the wheels, unless that's a thing too...

PS: I have nothing against HST, in fact, would be the right transmission for my use but it would have to be special ordered at a much higher price tag.

 

[Slowpoke Slim]

The only thing I have against it is Neil from Messicks deliberately set up that "pull test" to fail.

If you're going to try to measure how much a tractor (any) can "pull" against a stationary object, you don't put it's trans in high range. That is just stupid.

What you're saying Ptsg, makes perfect sense to me, and I agree with you about climbing hills, etc. That's fine. And if that is what the "test" is supposed to show, then they need to do that specific "thing" during the test. But pointing to the HST opening up it's relief valve because some MORON put it in high range to pull against a fixed object as somehow is "proof" that a gear is better than a hydro is just plain silly, and insults the viewer's intelligence.

Hook both tractors up (one at a time) to a wagon pulling a load up a hill if that's what you want to "test". That's fine.

Intentionally tanking a "test" to somehow "prove" something just wastes everyone else's time, and makes the video producer look like an idiot.

Seems to me Messick's must have had a bunch of gear tractors on the lot they were trying to unload that month, and he needed some "help".

 

[crazyal]

No need. There have already been Nebraska drawbar HP tests of identical tractors with HST and gear. Gear always higher HP to the wheels. Tested on dry pavement pulling test rig.

I guess if you need to pull a plow on pavement then gear is the way to go. All kidding aside the fact is that almost everyone has different conditions. For me spinning tires is a much bigger issue than HP. Gear could get an extra 1000hp to the wheels but if they are going to spin then what's it matter. I've watched a friend with an old Ford gasser slam the front end on the ground after popping the clutch while trying to pull a log. He suddenly was looking at blue sky and in went the clutch. That lead to backing up slightly and trying a gain only to see sky. On my property he would have dug some holes.

To me the places where gears shine are too few to justify the downside of a geared tractor. I like gears. I like shifting. But even I have gave in to the power of an automatic transmission in cars. Sure a geared vehicle is going to get better fuel economy but there's things like hill starts, parking, etc that life throws at you. I'll buy an extra few HPs and burn some more diesel to be able to use the loader on my tractor without having to deal with a clutch.

 

[milkman636]

It would be nice to see that messicks test repeated with both tractors in lowest gear setting so we could have a better picture of the HST performance at both ends of the curve.

Another factor that comes into play in this video with the gear transmission is torque rise as the engine slows down. The HST transmission goes into relief before that rise happens in High range.

 

[RickB]

I guess if you need to pull a plow on pavement then gear is the way to go. All kidding aside the fact is that almost everyone has different conditions. For me spinning tires is a much bigger issue than HP. Gear could get an extra 1000hp to the wheels but if they are going to spin then what's it matter. I've watched a friend with an old Ford gasser slam the front end on the ground after popping the clutch while trying to pull a log. He suddenly was looking at blue sky and in went the clutch. That lead to backing up slightly and trying a gain only to see sky. On my property he would have dug some holes.

To me the places where gears shine are too few to justify the downside of a geared tractor. I like gears. I like shifting. But even I have gave in to the power of an automatic transmission in cars. Sure a geared vehicle is going to get better fuel economy but there's things like hill starts, parking, etc that life throws at you. I'll buy an extra few HPs and burn some more diesel to be able to use the loader on my tractor without having to deal with a clutch.

Nebraska tractor tests and similar European controlled condition testing are intended to answer the exact question the OP posed. If you want to change the question then the test conditions may have to change as well.

 

[crazyal]

Nebraska tractor tests and similar European controlled condition testing are intended to answer the exact question the OP posed. If you want to change the question then the test conditions may have to change as well.

It's like the comment about tractor pulls. At a tractor pull there's equipment that grades and compacts the tract after each pull. It's done so each puller has the same conditions. My point is that we don't all live on a tractor pulling track and the question shouldn't be "which one can pull more" but "which one is right for the tasks I plan on doing".

 

[Mat4644]

Any way you slice or dice it the HST will always have less torque available to the wheels.

 

[ptsg]

The only thing I have against it is Neil from Messicks deliberately set up that "pull test" to fail.

If you're going to try to measure how much a tractor (any) can "pull" against a stationary object, you don't put it's trans in high range. That is just stupid.

What you're saying Ptsg, makes perfect sense to me, and I agree with you about climbing hills, etc. That's fine. And if that is what the "test" is supposed to show, then they need to do that specific "thing" during the test. But pointing to the HST opening up it's relief valve because some MORON put it in high range to pull against a fixed object as somehow is "proof" that a gear is better than a hydro is just plain silly, and insults the viewer's intelligence.

Hook both tractors up (one at a time) to a wagon pulling a load up a hill if that's what you want to "test". That's fine.

Intentionally tanking a "test" to somehow "prove" something just wastes everyone else's time, and makes the video producer look like an idiot.

Seems to me Messick's must have had a bunch of gear tractors on the lot they were trying to unload that month, and he needed some "help".

I do wonder if those new Branson tractors with 4 Range hydrostatic transmissions, will benefit from the 4 range to make up for that slight loss in efficiency.

 

[k0ua]

True.

But if you actually watch the video, good old Neil there put the hydro trans in high range for the test.

That is what K0ua was talking about in his first post.

Only a MORON would do that.

Put BOTH tractors in their lowest gear, or range, and it will be which one holds traction the longest. Which comes down to weight of machine and tread type of tires.

That's kind of the point.

Good ole Neil had a glut of gear tractors to sell that month. That is all I can figure. No one with a brain would put a hydro tractor in Hi range for a pull test. That was very duplicitous.

 

[k0ua]

It's like the comment about tractor pulls. At a tractor pull there's equipment that grades and compacts the tract after each pull. It's done so each puller has the same conditions. My point is that we don't all live on a tractor pulling track and the question shouldn't be "which one can pull more" but "which one is right for the tasks I plan on doing".

Now you are on to something.