Bigger HST machines.

[cdaigle430]

HST is smooth and efficient, it also allows for easier operations because most equipment is not just drive only. There are several things going on.

Those saying HST is problematic or cause power loss are living back in the 60s.

Take for example the Komatsu D71-24...this is an HST off a 271 hp motor. Dozers are notorious for extreme hard work at slow crawl speeds.

To many negative uneducated opinions here on the HST subject.

In my opinion...HST is not offered on alot of bigger machines because of the initial cost.

 

[Barker806]

I have a Yanmar TY359 with a CVT after having a Kubota Grand L5740 . I can tell you that I will never own another bigger hydro for what it is worth... You have SO much more power to the wheels!

 

[arrow]

I have a Yanmar TY359 with a CVT after having a Kubota Grand L5740 . I can tell you that I will never own another bigger hydro for what it is worth... You have SO much more power to the wheels!

That's not this discussion.
The op doesn't need "power to the ground". He needs convenience and you are not going to beat an hst for that or for his particular needs.

 

[MHarryE]

I think every manufacturer has tractors with CVT's similar to the Fendt Vario. Even AGCO used different versions on their lines such as Massey-Ferguson although MF may now use the Vario design. At least one of my dealers, selling AGCO and Kubota, tells me that. I have a Kubota M7 KVT which uses a Z-F transmission as do some of the other major manufacturers. Operationally, the difference in my L6060 and my M7-171 is the shuttle lever on the M7 for direction control. Otherwise it is seamless from a stop to full speed. In the case of the M7, it will creep once the shuttle is moved forward unless applying the brakes. List price was $4,000 more for my KVT over the 24 speed power shift but having been used to power shift JD's and New Hollands, I thought it was well worth the extra and am not in the least disappointed. Now my combine has 270 HP going to its hydro but except when roading, most of that 270 goes to threshing. Lots of construction equipment use hydros larger than CUT's - hydraulic excavators, pavers, compactors for example. But they need functions like precise ground speed control. In addition, its easier to transfer power to tracks on a excavator through a swivel coupling for hydraulics than mechanical methods (although it will probably all be replaced by electrical methods).

For power loss in the hydro, an International Hydro 186 has 105 engine hp, 80 drawbar hp. The mechanical equivalent 986 has 105 engine hp, 90 drawbar hp. In the Nebraska test, the Hydro 186 used 8.1 gph while delivering 80 drawbar hp and the 986 used 7.1 gph while delivering 90 drawbar hp. A neighbor of mine still uses a Hydro 186 for his loader work and loves it - no significant issues in a 40 year old workhorse.

 

[DieselBound]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that we're going to see a lot more of these kinds of machines pushing into the market.

Agriculture | Merlo

They need to get PTOs on their smaller units. However, I'd think that hydraulic powered implements could be more of an end solution: I know that being able to reverse augers (drilling holes/post holes and such) is a good thing.

 

[Bavarian]

I didn't read all the comments, maybe someone mentioned it.
There are bigger machines on the market. But you need to open your wallet.

Fendt is starting it's product line with the 207 Vario. It's 70 hp. But I think it's not sold in the NA market. The Vario line goes up to 500 hp with the 1050.
I think Massey is selling the same transmission under the name Dyna VT.
AGCO seems to fill your needs.

 

[LD1]

I didn't read all the comments, maybe someone mentioned it.
There are bigger machines on the market. But you need to open your wallet.

Fendt is starting it's product line with the 207 Vario. It's 70 hp. But I think it's not sold in the NA market. The Vario line goes up to 500 hp with the 1050.
I think Massey is selling the same transmission under the name Dyna VT.
AGCO seems to fill your needs.

Dont want, nor do I need a 80hp 9000 pound machine.

Yes, you can get CVT's, IVT's, KVT's whatever. And yes their operation is very similar to HST. still have a forward and reverse selector but pedal intuition is gonna be about the same.

The problem is those all come on tractors WAY bigger than I want.

One size up from a MX or 4000-series deere is what I am after. Not 3 sizes up.

A simple 5000# tractor with 20 or 24" fronts, not the 16" wheels.

Like I said....M6060 or M7060 kubota or a 5065/5075 deere would be perfect. But a tractor that size is not offered in any type of variable transmission or HST. Only banging gears and shuttle. But I dont sit and browse the dozens of tractor MFG's so for all I knew someone already had an offering or something in the pipeline. But that dont seem to be the case thus far

 

[Hermio]

I do a lot of work in the woods. I have a Mahindra 5035HST, 4wd. It is nominally 50 Hp, and weighs about 11000 lb when I have it set up for bushhogging, about 10,000 when I have it set up for logging. I would not have a gear drive in the woods. Too much danger of flipping on an unseen stump or other obstacle, or of getting impaled by a branch that pops up. I did add underbelly armor, but I do not have a tree sweep, FOPS or a cage. I agree that for field bushhogging a 2WD gear drive would be more fuel efficient, unless the grass density is highly variasble, in which case variable speed can actually improve productivity: speed up where the mowing is easy, slow down for the tough spots.

 

[Red Eye]

HST for loader/grapple work, but for field work go Gears.

 

[streamin]

I do a lot of work in the woods. I have a Mahindra 5035HST, 4wd. It is nominally 50 Hp, and weighs about 11000 lb when I have it set up for bushhogging, about 10,000 when I have it set up for logging. I would not have a gear drive in the woods. Too much danger of flipping on an unseen stump or other obstacle, or of getting impaled by a branch that pops up. I did add underbelly armor, but I do not have a tree sweep, FOPS or a cage. I agree that for field bushhogging a 2WD gear drive would be more fuel efficient, unless the grass density is highly variasble, in which case variable speed can actually improve productivity: speed up where the mowing is easy, slow down for the tough spots.

I have the same tractor, I also have owned a Kubota 32 and upgraded to a 50 hp Kubota all HST. I agree though for loader work and in the woods nothing beats hst. Sadly I never owned gear tractor, mainly because of what people say about them for log and loader work, so can't make a comparison.