Compact Tractor Horsepower Comparisons
- Thread starter eaglemrpaul
- Start date
- Views: 13399
66gladiator
Silver Member
Funny thing, At the Kubota National Dealer meeting I attended the 1st week of October, the Kubota Tractors(all series), TLBs, RTVs, ZDs, and Excavators beat or at least matched all the competitors present, be it JD, NH, Komatsu, Bobcat, Kobelco, Terramite, etc.
Did anyone there really expect anything less? Does anybody here expect anything less?
Probably 1/2 or better of the dealers present carry more than one line of equipment and the ones I talked to said that brand X beat the Kubota at brand X's sales meeting.
WOW, imagine that!
*I should clarify my point here, any given tractor can beat any other given tractor at a specific task, under specific conditions, given specific parameters, and operated by specifically trained personel. Go figure.
Did anyone there really expect anything less? Does anybody here expect anything less?
Probably 1/2 or better of the dealers present carry more than one line of equipment and the ones I talked to said that brand X beat the Kubota at brand X's sales meeting.
WOW, imagine that!
*I should clarify my point here, any given tractor can beat any other given tractor at a specific task, under specific conditions, given specific parameters, and operated by specifically trained personel. Go figure.
N80
Super Member
swines said:
Why then, are you reacting with multiple posts of your own to what you consider rubbish? Are you trying to teach us something about the value of info on the internet? Please!
Nowhere did the OP even suggest that the test was to demo the effects of turbochargers at higher altitudes. If that was the point of the demo then he surely missed it!
I guess I'm just confused about what your point is. No one has seriously come up with any conspiracy theories. So no need to inject that at all. Most responses are skeptical of the test. Is that off base? Should we, in your opinion, just be true believers? Always drink the Cool-aid without asking what flavor it is? Seriously, most of us simply suspect the test is one that was stacked in favor of the Deere to pump up salesmen. Do you think it was anything else? Do you think the Kubota test cited above was any different?
3RRL
Super Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2005
- Messages
- 6,931
- Tractor
- 55HP 4WD KAMA 554 and 4 x 4 Jinma 284
The real way to settle all arguments would be like a World Championship battle by rated PTO hp & weight classes...like weight classes.
LOL ... Back the contestants up to each other and hook a solid unbreakable PTO shaft to each and see which one flips or breaks or stalls the other....whatever.
LOL ... Back the contestants up to each other and hook a solid unbreakable PTO shaft to each and see which one flips or breaks or stalls the other....whatever.
MessickFarmEqu
Super Member
I'm going to step out on a limb here, I think the best source of information we have is the printed sales literature. If this information is wrong, and the product does not preform as stated, they sure open themselves up to false advertising lawsuits. You can cook these tests to show whatever you like, and frankly I'm not sure its a good idea that they do these demo's at all. It drives salesmen to be cocky, talk down about other products, and sell their machine by degrading the others -- all things that Deere's dealerships are becoming increasingly known for.
Now if you want to rant about somthing (I'll rant, this is my pet peave) lets talk about the trend towards using pivot pin measurements, and in the latest Deere ad - showing a loader ratting from the pin at 58.5" high -- NOT EVEN AT FULL HEIGHT! Whats happening here is a deliberate shot at consumers ignorance when it comes to reading loader specs. Joe consumer see's 3000lbs in the AD and expects the machine will lift that. Even if he notices the little "*" after the figure he still does not understand the fine print that follows. This guy is going to be real disappointed when he finds that the machine only has half that capacity under a real world condition.
Now if you want to rant about somthing (I'll rant, this is my pet peave) lets talk about the trend towards using pivot pin measurements, and in the latest Deere ad - showing a loader ratting from the pin at 58.5" high -- NOT EVEN AT FULL HEIGHT! Whats happening here is a deliberate shot at consumers ignorance when it comes to reading loader specs. Joe consumer see's 3000lbs in the AD and expects the machine will lift that. Even if he notices the little "*" after the figure he still does not understand the fine print that follows. This guy is going to be real disappointed when he finds that the machine only has half that capacity under a real world condition.
scott_vt
Super Member
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2004
- Messages
- 7,243
- Location
- east wells,vt
- Tractor
- 1986 MF 1040, 1942 Farmall A, 1949 Farmall Super A
N80 said:
Mornin George,
Im with you, I will drink only cool-aid that I mixed !
N80
Super Member
Well, I think what Messick says is interesting. I would also like to think that the published sales data is reliable. The problem is that the average consumer has no way of knowing. I think the auto industry is watched a little more closely in such matters just because cars are so ubiquitous. Everyone has one, everyone is interested (in some way) in them. So, the auto mags, Consumer Reports, consumer groups and extreme competition help to keep them a little bit honest. The CUT market is a little too small for that level of oversight. So all we can really do is assume that the data is at least a close approximation.
The other point that Messick makes is interesting too. There's data and then there's data. Consumer's just love big numbers even when they don't know what they mean. The pivot point figures are probably perfectly accurate, they just aren't relevant to any practical application. I suspect a lot of the HP data is the same. The manufacturer probably has a perfectly valid test, but what practical significance do the data have? In the auto industry they rarely talk about rear wheel HP, its always flywheel HP, much of which is gone by the time it reaches the real wheel where it matters. But the bigger number just sounds better. And torque is never discussed outside of pickups. Consumers don't intuitively associate with torque. So even though it is probably the most important unit, it is not useful as a marketing tool. For tractors it probably is the only figure we should care about, max torque at the pto and wheels and at what rpm the torque peaks at.
Scotty, I prefer Tang. Its orange and astronauts drink it! And what's up with the blue Kool-Aid? I see my kids drinking it and I ask them what flavor it is and they say "blue"!
The other point that Messick makes is interesting too. There's data and then there's data. Consumer's just love big numbers even when they don't know what they mean. The pivot point figures are probably perfectly accurate, they just aren't relevant to any practical application. I suspect a lot of the HP data is the same. The manufacturer probably has a perfectly valid test, but what practical significance do the data have? In the auto industry they rarely talk about rear wheel HP, its always flywheel HP, much of which is gone by the time it reaches the real wheel where it matters. But the bigger number just sounds better. And torque is never discussed outside of pickups. Consumers don't intuitively associate with torque. So even though it is probably the most important unit, it is not useful as a marketing tool. For tractors it probably is the only figure we should care about, max torque at the pto and wheels and at what rpm the torque peaks at.
Scotty, I prefer Tang. Its orange and astronauts drink it!
And what's up with the blue Kool-Aid? I see my kids drinking it and I ask them what flavor it is and they say "blue"!art
Super Member
This is interesting as I've worked with more makes of tractors then most people have and being a mechanical nut to a degree I've seen a bit more then I probably should have. Just to turn everything on it's side here, I've seen tractors that had more horsepower on the dyno that couldn't perform with lower horsepower tractors off the same dyno that weighed more. Torque moves things not horsepower. I've seen new tractors that were (dedicated by manufacturer) as demo tractors that had close to double the rated horsepower over the normal assembly line tractor, I just had to tow our dyno to the farm to compare when we didn't stack up! This opened doors for us as the ordered tractors of that brand didn't perform as the demo. I've seen just about everything from bad fuel filters cutting the rated hosepower or normal HP in half when the filters came out of the box bad. I've seen tractors that performed well on the concrete at Nebraska tests but couldn't hardly pull itself over a hill here much less any other load. The set-up of tractors is critical and torque of an engine is critical the same as tire size to the weight and so much more. We built five hundred horsepower plus diesel engines with less then that for cubic inches thirty plus years ago for our farm stock pullers and still do play in that area. I don't use the same connecting rods on an engine designed for 5000 rpm that I do for 8000 rpm. Did you know that there are farm tractor engines that are balanced to spec's exceeding five thousand RPM and there are some that will literally explode at that! There are to many things that go into a tractor to even begin to take them apart as to what they can and can't do. I do take everything that is introduced and all the fancy advertising lightly till I've witnessed it. There is a manufacturer that lists everything it introduces as "new" which is by their past performances only new to them not new to the industry so as long as you only know them then it is new, not the ten year old design that another manufacturer really introduced. Some here have stated that all manufacuters are the same, "NOT" at all true as we've seen everything from what we call three thousand hour tractors to six thousand and eight thousand before running into major chassis repairs or to be able to put a number to it that it costs 3000 a year to keep it running after that. That doesn't include your normal maintence just extra's like hydraulic failures injection failures or some sort of driveline failures. Those are not in all models of those brands built but just a series. Some chores on some models will pull a higher repair incident then another brand. So for all you might have heard, for all that you have seen, given the right conditions a failure to perform can be there at any given time. Hope you all have enough wind in your sails to get back under cover!
MessickFarmEqu
Super Member
N80 said:
Here is another tidbit I learned today. Browse on over to deere.com. In Ag tractor world all anyone cares about is PTO HP. For years tractors have been classed by their power to the ground, this is how its always been. Recently Deere changed to listing all their models by engine HP. Part of the reason for this is because the driveline efficency of other companies is improving at a rate much faster than Deere. Other companies are doing more with less HP than Deere is achieving. So, the quick fix here is just to start dropping your PTO HP spec where convienant, and substitute Engine HP instead.
