Buying a first Tractor; HST or not?

JATO_RaT · Jul 17, 2002

Soundguy, I guess my first comment not directed towards you, would have to be WHO CARES if there is a loss in power through the hydraulic medium. If one is that concerned about the power loss, perhaps a fully manual transmission with no hydraulic clutching should be purchased, that means the shuttle shift option is out as is JD's power reverser. To further negate the loss, remove all hydraulic pumps, don't have power steering and don't have a tractor with hydraulic implements such as a loader or 3 pt hitch that has hydraulic action to lift it. Obviously, thats ridiculous, but for the most part so is the discussion about the power loss with HST. No doubt, undeniably, no room for argument that there is a power factor less favorable with hydrostatic then a fully manual transmission to consider. Sometimes an HST transmission even costs more althought when I was about to purchase a Kubota L4610, the manual GST was more expensive then the HST.

I hereby go on record as stating that the hydrostatic drive transmissions have a less favorable power conversion factor then the manual transmission, there, with that said, I also state, I still don't care. I still have all the power I need in my compact tractor, especially to power implements. Perhaps I have overlooked something. I am only familiar with the hydrostatic drive produced by Kubota. PERHAPS part of the problem is that all the other manufactuers are having produced for them such inferior hydrostatic drives that the manual drive folks with nothing but hydrostatic drive experience with JD, NH, etc, are correct, they are not a valuable asset or worth the extra few bucks, but I don't think so.
I think what really needs to be focused on here regarding HST is not so much the conversion factor, but whether it is an asset to have for the typically, non farming, non ranching homeowner that wants a simple, reliable, smooth, proven alternative to the manual transmission standard. One has to ask the question, why does John Deere and Kubota only sell the L48 and JD 110 as well as other tractors with a hydrostatic drive? Are they stupid and ignorant of the needs of people, perhaps. Those of us with many hours of HST experience can tell you hands down, they are not.

tdenny · Jul 17, 2002

Miklos,

I can easily disconnect power to the PTO just as easily by simply standing up or lifting my butt off the seat. /w3tcompact/icons/grin.gif

Soundguy · Jul 17, 2002

I havn't had as much experience with hydraulic actuated clutches, like a powershift would have, but assuming ( whoa! ) that after the clutching procedure was completed, that the powertrain was again directly connected, the power loss during the clutching action really doesn't factor, as a standard gear tractor would also be 'powerless' during a manual clutching action... although in fairness, I soppose there may be a negligible reduction in power available to the pto on a shuttle shift tranny during a shift action.

The other incidental hydraulics like power steering and 3pt lift factor out as equals, as the given scenerio had 'otherwise equal tractors', and the power loss due to power steering would be experienced by both tractor reguardless of transmission setup.

"If one is that concerned about the power loss, perhaps a fully manual transmission with no hydraulic clutching should be purchased, that means the shuttle shift option is out as is JD's power reverser. To further negate the loss, remove all hydraulic pumps, don't have power steering and don't have a tractor with hydraulic implements such as a loader or 3 pt hitch that has hydraulic action to lift it. Obviously, thats ridiculous, but for the most part so is the discussion about the power loss with HST. No "

 think what really needs to be focused on here regarding HST is not so much the conversion factor, but whether it is an asset to have for the typically, non farming, non ranching homeowner that wants a simple, reliable, smooth, proven alternative to the manual transmission standard.

I agree, the tractor should be matched to the driver and the task, with those being the determining factor, rather than an arbitrary hst is better or gear is better, etc.

 One has to ask the question, why does John Deere and Kubota only sell the L48 and JD 110 as well as other tractors with a hydrostatic drive? Are they stupid and ignorant of the needs of people, perhaps. Those of us with many hours of HST experience can tell you hands down, they are not.

Well for one, just like the car market, there are those that would prefer not to deal with a stick shift, and those that just plain can't. Another issue is meerly an observation from an engineering standpoint.

In most cases, an automatic trany costs more to replace than a gear model... they are more complicated, and as with anything, the more complicated the mechanism gets, they easier it is to damage, and generally is more expensive to repair. If I were a dealer that made money off of service... I would deffinately want my buyers to drive and buy a more expensive hst tractor, and when ( if ) the tranny needs repair, there is more cost than for a gear model.. more profit.
As a positive observation for the HST model, since it does have a relief valve in the hydraulic drive, there may be some added protection to the rest of the drivetrain and engine should unexpected obstacles or wheel movement occour, etc. Live 4wd being a subset of that idea as well, considering there is probably no problem of drive train windup with an HST.

wasabi · Jul 17, 2002

I'm buying a first tractor (33-35hp) for mowing, snow removal, dirt drive grading, cordwood, etc. on somewhat uneven terrain.

Grande,

If you would like a little levity and relief from this perennially heated HST vs Gear exchange, however informative and pithy it may be, check out the American-made Power Trac line of tractors....no tin, no flashy styling, no transmission, no clutch, no gear shift, no dealers, no mark-up, no nonsense!!!

You will find logically made, nearly bullet-proof designs that rely entirely on hydraulics driven by your choice (depending on model) of Deutz diesel or Kohler gas engines and an impressive range of quality implements that are well-built, durable, price-competitive and, most importantly, quite easy to exchange (from the tractor seat!) with PT's unique, proprietary "quick-attach" system!

Go to www.power-trac.com or visit the power trac forum here to read up on the pros and cons. ...or, since he is hanging out here, ask Mark Chalkley's opine on these beasts.

Edit: Oops, although I was reading and trying to follow this thread, I confess my eyes glazed over during some of the banter and I somehow missed the fact that MossRoad shot, scored and deserves full credit for his shameless PT plug./w3tcompact/icons/grin.gif....no credit to wasabi for redundant mutterings

2thdoc · Jul 17, 2002

Having owned both gear and now a hydrostatic drive tractor, my vote's for hydro.

_RaT_ · Jul 17, 2002

Prior to buying a tractor with a hydrostatic transmission, I wanted to be sure that they were in fact going to be reliable. The last thing I wanted to do was find out the thing was to be problematic. MChalkley certainly was a bonafide source, but I also wanted it from my dealer. My local dealer sells both John Deeres and Kubota. He brought me to his office, got on the computer and ran all the repairs he ever did. Then he got on JD's dealer website, plugged in a bunch of random serial numbers, some that I made up and gave him and the whole thing was quite educational. Perhaps 60% of the repairs done on the JD's was hydrostatic or the alluminum shifting forks in the MANUAL transmission. To replace those forks required a full split of the tractor. The hydrostatic typically required an external service. The repair of the manual gears was about $2500. The HST was any where from $350.00 to $1000. The figures came from JD and what they paid to dealers for warranty costs. It makes me curious as to why JD renovated the entire lineup in the 4000 series, was there a problem? Now back to his repairs from his service of the tractors they sell. I asked about the reliability of hydrostatic, had any or many come in for big problems, even little problems. Shaking his head, very little, no more then with the shuttle shift tractors. The Kubotas rarely ever had HST problems. The typical service seemed to nothing more then fluid changes, very little warranty work. Its why we sell the daylights out of them here in the foothills where we live.

My comment about the hydraulic clutch of course was tongue in cheek. If the load it required from the engine were even measureable, I'm sure it would be almost negligable, and even at that, only while being activated.

While not trying to convince anyone to buy a hydrostatic, its nice to let them know why those of us with them, really like them. By the way, my International is a full bloodied, lots O gears manual transmission. As great as it is, it's always really enjoyable getting back on my HST.

Great comments Soundguy, Rat...

MossRoad · Jul 17, 2002

It was shameless, wasn't it.. tee hee /w3tcompact/icons/tongue.gif

MChalkley · Jul 17, 2002

Soundguy - If you check the shop manuals for "shift-on-the-fly", PowerReverser, GST, etc. hydraulic clutch transmissions, you'll find that they engage by means of hydraulic pressure, not vice versa. Further, if you talk with an engineer who really knows these systems, he'll tell you that, for that reason, there's a little greater loss between a strictly mechanical clutch driven gear type transmission and the hydraulic clutch type than there is between the hydraulic clutch type and HST. Which, of course, means that HST still "suffers" from greater power loss than the other two, but provides a great deal of insight as to the real reason for gear lover's bringing it up. Those who prefer gear transmissions rarely talk about power loss from hydraulic clutches - it's not important to them. However, when they talk about HST transmissions, it's suddenly a big deal. Which is why, as Rat mentioned also, I have said over and over and over that I feel the intelligent question regarding HST's and power loss is not "Will a XX-hp 9910 have enough power if I go with HST, or should I buy the 9910 in a standard clutch gear model?", but rather "What size HST tractor will have enough power to do the job I need to do?" For me, the advantages of HST (and I have formally withdrawn from debating what they are on this thread /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif) are just that important.

My above comments about power loss being unimportant to gear lovers if they want a hydraulic clutch, but being of supreme significance when they bash HST's, isn't criticism so much as it is an effort to present the facts about human nature - we tend to maximize things that we think defend our position, while minimizing those that destabilize it. The only way to avoid this problem is to make all decisions on purely empirical data. Unfortunately, this doesn't take personal preference into account, so we end up unhappy anyway. As I also keep saying over and over and over, pick the transmission you like for the reasons you want, but don't pretend the reasons are other that what they are. If you pick a gear tranny because you like shifting gears, say so. I have a 5-speed diesel VW Passat because it's more fuel efficient and I can push start it. No, on second thought, I guess that's not true, I have it because I like shifting gears. I'd rather shift gears on my tractor, too, but the infinite speed control, productivity, and safety advantages of HST are more important to me. When the question of relative "superiority" of one transmission type over the other is asked, I can only assume the asker already knows whether he likes to shift gears on not - I certainly can't help him with that. I can also only assume that those issues that are important to me might be important to the user who asked, and it was for that reason that he asked. Therefore, I preach. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

RanchMan · Jul 17, 2002

I refuse to even get involved anymore with folks that discuss hydrostatic as if they knew what they were talking about when its obvious they haven't a good grasp of how advantageous it is.

/w3tcompact/icons/hmm.gif Uhhh - and some folks wonder why some of the "gear guys" get ticked off at some of the "hydro guys" at times.....? /w3tcompact/icons/sad.gif

EdKing · Jul 17, 2002

Uhhh - and some folks wonder why some of the "gear guys" get ticked off at some of the "hydro guys" at times

That's where I'm coming from. I think that if someone likes HST better, by all means, get one. If you like a gear tractor, get that. Just don't hop on here when someone asks and say they are a fool for getting an "inferior" transmission on thier tractor. It boils down to you can do the same work with a gear or with a HST, one is more suited for some jobs, the other for others, but they will both do the job easily, and with a lot less effort than you could do it by hand. If you say one transmission is superior to the other, other than in finite little details, you are just blowing smoke.