Compact Tractor Horsepower Comparisons

   / Compact Tractor Horsepower Comparisons #41  
My 2 cents. I reckon having same size of piston displacement, same rpm and whatever the pto is turning (in case of Transmission driven) or 540 (in case of independent) should yield HP number for any given brand in that class. Obviously this number is the least important when you compare to the quality, design, material and host of other important indicators.
 
   / Compact Tractor Horsepower Comparisons #42  
It would be nice if the dealers were more willing to let you test drive their products for a day or two to make a better decision-maybe like vehicle dealers. Maybe then we wounldn't have to rely on just the numbers. Personally, I try to get the most for my money. I know some people that only run deeres or kubotas because in their minds their brands are the best. I my location, both brands are about the same price. I have had the chance to run both brands(not at dealerships) and this is what I've seen. A 3430 kubota with a 723 loader (80 hours on it) will not move as much rocky fill dirt as a 4310 with a 430 loader (60 hours on it). Both tractors had a 72" bucket, they were working the same pile and loading in the same truck. We switched operators and the outcome was the same. The weight of the tractors is different but, the best performing tractor was the JD. The kubota is rated at 3 more HP but it needed more to keep up with the JD. Four months later this same 3430 was running a mx6 cutter along side a 4410 with the same mx6. the 4410 had loaded tires so I believe the weights were the same or the JD was heavier. These two tractors were on the same hilly field running the same cutters and guess what?--the JD was nearly twice as fast. The kubota was in A range at 2 mph and the JD was in b range at about 4 mph. The tractors are rated the same HP but one out performs the other. If the Kubota would of outperformed the JD, thats what I would now own. I was lucky to see a real world comparison and make a choice that I feel comfortable with. I think kubota makes a good machine with some great features. Also I thank kubota for keeping CUT prices competitive. Now for some complaining--Any company selling 10 to 50,000 dollar goods should have the price of that equipment listed. I should not have to go to a dealer to get a MSRP of a tractor. Kubota should have their 40+ Hp tractors tested at the Nebraska tractor test lab to verify their claims. When I compared their claims(my real world test), their claims were false. Also, I don't want to hear how great Kubota's new 40 series direct injection engine and electronically controlled HST transmission is. Every time there was a comparison of JD and Kubota, the point of indirect/direct injection was brought up (most kubota users stated indirect was better), and alot of kubota owners thought a elec. controlled HST is just trouble waiting to happen. Ok, I'm just joking about the 40 series stuff!! Seriously though, I have checked Hp and rpm ratings and compared and when you get above 40 hp, the JD(lower rated speed), will have alot more torque than the kubota. Maybe this is the reason kubota is going to direct injection? I'm not trying to irritate anybody, just stating my observations from the past 15 years of operating CUTs and other equipment(L-35,JD650,JD670,pc45,d-21,t300 and more)
 
   / Compact Tractor Horsepower Comparisons #43  
I think what we're seeing here is the difference between a turbocharged engine, the JD4520, and a normally aspirated engine, the L5030.

A normally aspirated engine is at the mercy of ambient atmospheric conditions. High elevation, high temperature, high humidity and even a low barometric pressure will detract from the density of the air-fuel mixture drawn into each cylinder. Hp will decrease accordingly. Sarasota is near sea-level, but the climate there is rather warm and humid.

The boost on a turbocharged engine can be easily set to counteract these factors. The turbocharger will pack just as much air-fuel mixture into an engine in hot/high/humid conditions as it will in cool/dry conditions at sea level. That also explains why the JD HP output stayed relatively constant from day to day while the 5030's varied.

Obviously, a turbocharger has advantages in terms of delivering all the HP paid for all the time. On the other hand, it is an added item of expense; both at initial purchase and in terms of maintenance over the tractor's lifetime.
FWIW
Bob
 
   / Compact Tractor Horsepower Comparisons #44  
AndyMA said:
JD Compacts have come around, but the earlies JD Compacts were no comparison to the Kubotas and Fords. JD had Yanmar who made decent compacts, build tractors to JD specs which were substandard.

Andy


Define John Deere specs!!!

Mr. Yanmar, paint it green and yellow and put these decals on it and it is JD specs!! ;)
 
   / Compact Tractor Horsepower Comparisons #45  
It does seem that the evidence points to Kubota being underpowered.
 
   / Compact Tractor Horsepower Comparisons #46  
eaglemrpaul said:
Kick,
I understand your point, however in this instance we are talking about PTO horsepower at the manufacturers rated PTO engine RPM. 540 RPM is a constant standard of measurement which the printed PTO horsepower statistic represents. Even if different engines require different RPM to achieve it, we use 540 PTO horsepower as a comparative standard / measurement. As you read several of the messages throughout this site HP and or PTO horsepower seams to be a value point among both owners and buyers.
.

I didn't see that 540 rpm qualifier in the original post. for that I am sorry.

if both brands are advertised as having a certain hp at a certain pto speed, then your claim holds water.
 
   / Compact Tractor Horsepower Comparisons #47  
KICK said:
I didn't see that 540 rpm qualifier in the original post. for that I am sorry.

if both brands are advertised as having a certain hp at a certain pto speed, then your claim holds water.


Yes, but they don't claim the same PTO HP. The JD model claims 45 and the Kubota claims 42.5. I'm with the previous poster in that a non-turbo engine will vary with atmospheric conditions.
 
   / Compact Tractor Horsepower Comparisons #48  
N80 said:
I have heard of automakers underrating the hp in a lower line car compared to a higher line model with the same engine. Rumor has it that they both have the same hp but the lower model is underrated to ake the higher model seem like a better buy. True? I have no idea. Possible? Sure. Possible in the tractor biz? Probably.

If I understand what you are talking about here it sounds like the problem GM had a few decades ( god i feel old saying that) ago with buick or maybe it was oldsmobile engines versus chevrolet engines. GM was saying that the same size Buick or oldsmobile engine was putting out more horsepower than the chevrolet engine and chargeing more for the buick or oldsmobile engine. The reality was that it was the same engine. If my memory serves me right GM had to fork out an apology that involved paying out money.
 
   / Compact Tractor Horsepower Comparisons #49  
Bob_Young said:
I think what we're seeing here is the difference between a turbocharged engine, the JD4520, and a normally aspirated engine, the L5030.

A normally aspirated engine is at the mercy of ambient atmospheric conditions. High elevation, high temperature, high humidity and even a low barometric pressure will detract from the density of the air-fuel mixture drawn into each cylinder. Hp will decrease accordingly. Sarasota is near sea-level, but the climate there is rather warm and humid.

The boost on a turbocharged engine can be easily set to counteract these factors. The turbocharger will pack just as much air-fuel mixture into an engine in hot/high/humid conditions as it will in cool/dry conditions at sea level. That also explains why the JD HP output stayed relatively constant from day to day while the 5030's varied.

Obviously, a turbocharger has advantages in terms of delivering all the HP paid for all the time. On the other hand, it is an added item of expense; both at initial purchase and in terms of maintenance over the tractor's lifetime.
FWIW
Bob

Exactly - and that may be all Deere was demonstrating for the sales people - the advantage of the Deere turbo charged tractor against competitor's normally aspirated unit. Again - I'm not naive, I just don't buy into the cynicism constantly shown about something as simple as a tractor demonstration.

Which, by the way, was reported from the perspective of a SINGLE person. His reaction to it cannot be extrapolated to the other people attending the meeting.

If it was a REAL conspiracy, at the very least, I'd expect to hear that Halliburton, a 3-letter government agency, extra terrestrials, or UFO's were involved in some way.

Let me give you an example, and please bear with me.

About 25 years ago I was employed by a company that ran a test range in central Nevada for the US Government. I was asked to design an "overt warning system" for a site at the test range. I flew to Las Vegas, and the next day took the early morning charter commuter flight to the site.

I arrived at the site, met my contact and went out to look at the area. It was a double row of aircraft hangars lined up in a north - south direction. They were oriented so they were facing each other and seperated by a wide taxi lane area.

As all the hangars were the same, I only needed to see the interior and exterior of one hangar. We went into the first hangar. Inside were two F117 stealth aircraft. I found out that the system I had to design was to warn the pilots and crew not to take the aircraft out of the hangar; or if they had the aircraft outside the hangar to get them back inside.

I went back to my office, designed the system and sent the plans to our Las Vegas office. About 6 months later, I got a call from my site contact who asked that I come back and inspect the installation and "tweak it."

I flew out on a Sunday with my test equipment to start work early Monday morning. I worked from 7:00am to after 4:00pm for three days. On Thursday, about 11:15am I took a lunch break and went to see my contact. I told him I only had the final two hangars at the south end and the system should be ready for testing on Friday morning.

He then said, "Have you done the other hangar yet?" I replied, "The..'other'...hangar?"

With a flat, low voice he said, "I'll show you after lunch."

As we walked down the row of hangars after lunch to retrieve my test equipment - I was dreading having to spend another day at the Nevada-hot facility because of "the other hangar." The hangar that was NOT shown on any of the site drawings I was given, was not part of my test plan, and now appeared seemingly out of nowhere to ruin my weekend.

We rounded the corner of the last hangar at the southwest end of the row, and set back from the taxiway was a huge hangar, at least four times the size of the the other hangars. Terrific, I'd probably be there working over the weekend and at least Monday and Tuesday of the next week.

We stepped through the personnel entry in the hangar door, and in front of me, at least 60-feet in height, was a silver grey aircraft...blimp... I couldn't really tell.

It had curved surfaces in every direction that met in a horizontal edge running around the middle of the aircraft. There were no obvious windows, hatches, or doors.

We walked around the edge of the aircraft following it's contour, and it became evident that the craft was shaped something like a stingray. Wide at the front and tapered toward the back. As we approached the rear of the aircraft I could see writing or a graphic of some kind about half-way down the side.

When I was close enough to see what was on the side of the craft, the hair on the back of my neck stood on end. There on the side of this....whatever...was a yellow rectangle with slightly bowed sides. In the middle of the rectangle was a yellow leaping deer....

Now, that's a conspiracy....
 
   / Compact Tractor Horsepower Comparisons #50  
swines said:
When I was close enough to see what was on the side of the craft, the hair on the back of my neck stood on end. There on the side of this....whatever...was a yellow rectangle with slightly bowed sides. In the middle of the rectangle was a yellow leaping deer....

Now, that's a conspiracy....

Unbelievable !;) :) :D
 
   / Compact Tractor Horsepower Comparisons #51  
scott_vt said:
Unbelievable !;) :) :D

Exactly - and my reaction to the conjecture-based opinions floated in 95% of the thread responses...
 
   / Compact Tractor Horsepower Comparisons #52  
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!:eek:

*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.
 
   / Compact Tractor Horsepower Comparisons #53  
swines said:
Exactly - and my reaction to the conjecture-based opinions floated in 95% of the thread responses...

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?
 
   / Compact Tractor Horsepower Comparisons #54  
N80 said:
Do you think it was anything else? Do you think the Kubota test cited above was any different?

Yes. They were probably serving orange Kool Aid for refreshments during the the Kubota test.

I'm not sure I'd be up for blue Kool Aid at an NH dealer meeting though...
 
   / Compact Tractor Horsepower Comparisons #55  
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.:confused:
 
   / Compact Tractor Horsepower Comparisons #56  
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.
 
   / Compact Tractor Horsepower Comparisons #57  
N80 said:
Should we, in your opinion, just be true believers? Always drink the Cool-aid without asking what flavor it is?

Mornin George,
Im with you, I will drink only cool-aid that I mixed ! ;) :)
 
   / Compact Tractor Horsepower Comparisons #58  
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! :D 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"!
 
   / Compact Tractor Horsepower Comparisons #59  
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!
 
   / Compact Tractor Horsepower Comparisons #60  
N80 said:
The other point that Messick makes is interesting too. There's data and then there's data.

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.
 

Marketplace Items

Bobcat 863 High Flow Compact Wheel Loader Skid Steer (A59228)
Bobcat 863 High...
2013 ORTEQ ENERGY GN182 GOOSENECK HOSE TRAILER (A58216)
2013 ORTEQ ENERGY...
2017 CAT TL1055 (A60462)
2017 CAT TL1055...
Case 950 8 Row Air Planter (A61307)
Case 950 8 Row Air...
1993 Ingersoll Rand 185 S/A Towable Air Compressor (A55973)
1993 Ingersoll...
(2) 6 LUG 5200Ib-74SC-93 HUB FACE AXLES (A60432)
(2) 6 LUG...
 
Top