Hydro or Shuttle for the long haul?

[the old grind]

I suggest that letting fluid out or rears might reduce acceleration times , but do little or nothing to reduce load on the front axle in any use.

That's the domain of weight placed behind vs weight of or directly over the rear wheels.

 

[rademamj1]

I suggest that letting fluid out or rears might reduce acceleration times , but do little or nothing to reduce load on the front axle in any use.

That's the domain of weight placed behind vs weight of or directly over the rear wheels.

Excellent point, and just amplifies the value of 3pt hitch ballast as a countering weight when using the bucket, and reducing front axle loads and long term wear and tear on that front axle.
In my case, that rear ballast is either a Box Blade or rotary cutter for bucket work.

 

[crazyal]

Well, EVERYBODY would like to have more power. Problem is, once you go above 26 HP you get saddled with DPF, DOC, EGR, or a combination. AND the price tag goes way up.

Tonight for kicks and giggles I chained the tractor to a tree in an area of damp compacted soil to see if the hydrostatic trans and 25 horse engine would generate enough power to spin the tires. I figure if it'll spin the tires with my loader and box blade hooked on and a load pulling off the draw bar, then that's all you can hope for, right? Well, in high range it's a no go. In fact, the tractor won't even maintain full speed in high range on a gravel road. Very disappointing. So high will almost never get used even when driving down the road. Sad. In medium range it would spin the tires in 2WD but not 4WD. Hmm. And in low range it would spin all four with ease. This is with the throttle at 2,300 RPM.

So it appears that any real work with this tractor will require full throttle and low range. A lot of other chores I might be able to do in medium. But, despite the 3 range trans. being a selling point for me, I'm finding that in practicality the tractor is a 2 range machine.

Would a 35 horse engine really change things?

What you found out is how to spin your tires, lol. In the real world you are going to use L and M. It'll depend on traction, how hard what you are trying to pull is, and slope. What the 3 speed transmission really does is make M lower so it's more usable (since it's not the gear you would use to just drive someplace).

It's why a number of us bought the Grand L from Kubota. With a 3 speed transmission and a 2 speed hydro pump you basically have 6 gears. But also a bigger hole in your wallet. Would an extra 9hp make a difference? Most likely yes. I know when I bought my 44hp Kubota the smallest one was 34hp. Not only could you tell the difference but the frame was larger as well as the loader. Kubota didn't even recommend putting a front mounted center PTO driven snow blower on the smaller Grand Ls.

What it really comes down to is speed at which you can do work. The less HP will just mean it'll most likely take longer. Tat just means more seat time playing, I mean working with your machine. Now if you need to runa 15kw PTO generator at full capacity, then yes, you don't have enough HP. It's easy to covet more HP but usually it's more of a want than a need.

 

[5030]

Both mine are just shy of 100 pto and I don't have any emissions junk.

 

[rbstern]

I opted for the the LS MT225E shuttle, which is one model year later than the LS XG3025, but pretty much the same tractor with the same Mitsubishi 25hp engine. After having put nearly 100 hours on the machine, I am glad I opted for the shuttle. With the backhoe on (total weight about 4K lbs), the high range is pretty much limited to first gear only. At full throttle, it will lose RPMs going up modest hills. With the FEL bucket loaded, it's even more pronounced. The tractor could definitely use another 5hp for a small assortment of high range scenarios. Hydro models are worse, I suspect. Turning a BX42 wood chipper, I feel like the tractor has exactly the right amount of power, and I wouldn't want to give up HP to a hydrostatic.

The good news is, in the eight gears that represent low and medium range, the 25 horsepower is adequate for pretty much everything.

Having said that, if I was frequently using a lighter, smaller framed tractor for loader work, or grading a small area with a scrape or box blade, and didn't have to push the PTO to max output, I'd probably appreciate a hydrostatic. It would also make it easier for my wife to use the tractor, since she's an infrequent operator and needs reminders about the three gearshifts on the shuttle each time she uses the machine.

 

[the old grind]

Not referring to anyone specifically I suggest more hp is given up to avoiding Tier IV than to inefficiency.

I for one wouldn't even try to go uphill in hi range with any transmission in any gear. One finds their limits by experience.

btw, IMO if hp underwhelms, why do some buy a Swiss Army tractor with a built-in power trade off and decry the lack of it?

(got cab, back-hoe, and MMM? :scratchchin

 

[rbstern]

Not referring to anyone specifically I suggest more hp is given up to avoiding Tier IV than to inefficiency.

I for one wouldn't even try to go uphill in hi range with any transmission in any gear. One finds their limits by experience.

Spoken like a flatlander.

If you live in a hilly place, uphill can be as much of 50% of total travel. My 1000' driveway ends with a 600' haul going modestly uphill. There are times when that journey is best served in high range (lightly loaded, of course). If I have to go to a neighbor's place on the public roadway, or the other side of my poperty via the same roadway, it's the same issue. If I'm heavily loaded on those journeys, I accept the slower speed. Just as I accept I can't move 1500lbs. of dirt in one scoop, like a larger machine, and it takes more time to do the same task.

btw, IMO if hp underwhelms, why do some buy a Swiss Army tractor with a built-in power trade off and decry the lack of it?

It's possible to find an application on nearly any machine where HP becomes inadequate for a particular task. Or weight. Or implement flexibility. Or creature comforts. Or purchase dollars. Choices in life are a tradeoff. I actually love the balance of capability vs. technology my 25hp tractor offers. Are there occassions where I think, "gee, another 5hp would be great"? Sure. But I'd make the same purchase again, over and over, given the tradeoffs involved. Incredible fuel efficiency, simple engine, simple maintenance, no regen, no DEF, etc., and the machine can still do a multitude of useful work.

 

[the old grind]

That's Yankee Flatlander, Boss.

Plainsmen and Midwesterners, welcome to mountainbynet.

 

[rbstern]

That's Yankee Flatlander, Boss.

Plainsmen and Midwesterners, welcome to mountainbynet.

Glad you found us.

One other thought: There have also been times when I wished the MT225E was as simple as my 40 year old Yanmar, like when my butt needs to come off the seat to see something going in reverse, but I don't want the engine ignition to die because of the seat sensor built into the MT225E. On the other hand, I haven't had a chance to have that feature on the MT225E save life or limb for me. Maybe I will grow to appreciate it. Hope I never go there.

 

[Blue Mule]

I opted for the the LS MT225E shuttle, which is one model year later than the LS XG3025, but pretty much the same tractor with the same Mitsubishi 25hp engine. After having put nearly 100 hours on the machine, I am glad I opted for the shuttle. With the backhoe on (total weight about 4K lbs), the high range is pretty much limited to first gear only. At full throttle, it will lose RPMs going up modest hills. With the FEL bucket loaded, it's even more pronounced. The tractor could definitely use another 5hp for a small assortment of high range scenarios. Hydro models are worse, I suspect. Turning a BX42 wood chipper, I feel like the tractor has exactly the right amount of power, and I wouldn't want to give up HP to a hydrostatic.

The good news is, in the eight gears that represent low and medium range, the 25 horsepower is adequate for pretty much everything.

Having said that, if I was frequently using a lighter, smaller framed tractor for loader work, or grading a small area with a scrape or box blade, and didn't have to push the PTO to max output, I'd probably appreciate a hydrostatic. It would also make it easier for my wife to use the tractor, since she's an infrequent operator and needs reminders about the three gearshifts on the shuttle each time she uses the machine.

Yeah that's basically my experience too. I think my tractor is the same as yours just rebranded. And mine is hydro. High range is great on flat ground. It hates hills. Medium range will pull my box blade up a hill but the throttle has to be nearly wide open. Without a load being pulled, medium will take the tractor anywhere. Obviously low range will pull anything as long as there's traction. Problem is, I find that low is REALLY low and medium is what I actually prefer for a low range. So I really don't have any higher speeds on this tractor that will work for me.

I posed the question on another forum: Given my exact tractor, but make it 35 HP instead of 25 HP, would my results be different? Most guys said no, there really isn't a lot of real world difference to justify going up and adding cost. If I really wanted to notice a large difference, they said, it's time to shop the 40+ HP units.