Does HP matter?

[SPYDERLK]

I would simply say that both tractors are able to put the same amount of torque to the ground, but the higher HP one will can do it quicker and with less lugging. That dont necessairly mean at a lower RPM.

Why wont the higher HP be able to put more?

 

[ljohnson778]

LD1 and DarkBlack,

You guys need to speed up your responses:licking: I ain't got al night.:laughing:

Literally laughing out loud...

 

[LD1]

Why wont the higher HP be able to put more?

If the input torque and gearing in the transmission is the same, then the output is the same. Since the OP (way back long ago) asked about two tractors with the SAME tq but differing HP.

In reality, it unlikely to have two tractors with the same torque curve across the board, and differing in HP. Cause the HP curve would be the same as long as the torque curve is the same. The difference may lie if one of the engines has a higher rated speed and achieves their MAX power at that higher speed. Then you could "possibly" have two engines with identical HP and torque curves, yet one may be rated at a higher HP.

 

[SPYDERLK]

I would simply say that both tractors are able to put the same amount of torque to the ground, but the higher HP one will can do it quicker and with less lugging. That dont necessairly mean at a lower RPM.

Why wont the higher HP be able to put more?

If the input torque and gearing in the transmission is the same, then the output is the same. Since the OP (way back long ago) asked about two tractors with the SAME tq but differing HP.

In reality, it unlikely to have two tractors with the same torque curve across the board, and differing in HP. Cause the HP curve would be the same as long as the torque curve is the same. The difference may lie if one of the engines has a higher rated speed and achieves their MAX power at that higher speed. Then you could "possibly" have two engines with identical HP and torque curves, yet one may be rated at a higher HP.

Theres all of it. Thats the info necessary to make the post stand alone.
...larry

 

[jenkinsph]

And IIRC the two tractors in the original post did not have the same torque values, one had 80ftlbs and one had 88ftlbs which is 10% more.

 

[LD1]

Theres all of it. Thats the info necessary to make the post stand alone.
...larry

Correct. But I assumed we were still talking about the OP's hypothetical example. And didnt see the need in spelling it out EVERYTIME. Perhaps maybe I should have.??

And IIRC the two tractors in the original post did not have the same torque values, one had 80ftlbs and one had 88ftlbs which is 10% more.

Correct. I dont know where the OP was getting his numbers at initially, but the two tractors indeed dont make the same "peak" torque. There could be somewhere in the RPM range that they may be the same (or near the same), but peak is peak, and they are not capable of making the same "peak" torque.

 

[EE_Bota]

I think maybe the target of the discussion moved around, perhaps even to tease out nuances. But you fellows made it right clear and I do believe folks who read the thread will be well informed.

 

[SPYDERLK]

Correct. But I assumed we were still talking about the OP's hypothetical example. And didnt see the need in spelling it out EVERYTIME. Perhaps maybe I should have.??




Correct. I dont know where the OP was getting his numbers at initially, but the two tractors indeed dont make the same "peak" torque. There could be somewhere in the RPM range that they may be the same (or near the same), but peak is peak, and they are not capable of making the same "peak" torque.

I think there is alevel of understanding that provides the ability to fill in a blank as it exists in discussion. All do not understand equally. If it is even present in the initial conditions, I know I, and perhaps many have lost sight of the stipulation that torque, gearing, tractor size, weight, load position, and CG are identical in this thot game . The only allowed difference is HP. Establishing this, and maintaining it in the forefront by frequent allusion, will help keep posts pertinent.
larry

 

[LD1]

I think there is alevel of understanding that provides the ability to fill in a blank as it exists in discussion. All do not understand equally. If it is even present in the initial conditions, I know I, and perhaps many have lost sight of the stipulation that torque, gearing, tractor size, weight, load position, and CG are identical in this thot game . The only allowed difference is HP. Establishing this, and maintaining it in the forefront by frequent allusion, will help keep posts pertinent.
larry

Yes, the initial post was asking about the deere 3032e and 3038e and to my knowledge, they are idnetical tractors other than peak HP. The OP mentioned something about the torque being the same. (we now know that isnt the case). But to my knowledge, all other aspects of the tractor, weight, gearing, tire size, etc are identical. Similar to the 2800/3200/3400/3700/3800 kubotas.

And in the OP, he was asking IF added HP in a case where torque and other things are equal, if it would be of benefit.

And the short and simple of it is.....the lower HP machine can do JUST as much work (provide the same amount of force) as the higher HP machine. The higher HP machine can simply do that work at a faster pace.

 

[arrow]

Yes, the initial post was asking about the deere 3032e and 3038e and to my knowledge, they are idnetical tractors other than peak HP. The OP mentioned something about the torque being the same. (we now know that isnt the case). But to my knowledge, all other aspects of the tractor, weight, gearing, tire size, etc are identical. Similar to the 2800/3200/3400/3700/3800 kubotas.

And in the OP, he was asking IF added HP in a case where torque and other things are equal, if it would be of benefit.

And the short and simple of it is.....the lower HP machine can do JUST as much work (provide the same amount of force) as the higher HP machine. The higher HP machine can simply do that work at a faster pace.

This last post raises a valid point. Just what is the practical benefit of about 6 more hp? the 3038 has a turbo? It costs alot more probably because of this. If a person using their tractor for pushing snow or pulling logs is only able to go just so fast, then in my mind the expense of the 3038 would be foolish. I mean the darn things weigh the same. Cutting grass is another issue all together. If a person cutting 1 or 2 acres of grass is able to do it faster with the additional 6 hp, then I'd want to know what my 3 grand extra is buying in time saved for me to make a informed decision to justify the added expense. This to me is the practical side of this size tractor and for that matter, this thread in general.

 

[LD1]

In traction situations, no the added HP isnt really noticed. But when using the PTO, or when pulling in higher gears, it is noticed.

 

[arrow]

In traction situations, no the added HP isnt really noticed. But when using the PTO, or when pulling in higher gears, it is noticed.

This fact does not escape me. I am questioning the degree of difference . Surely if one is cutting grass with a 5 hp mower and then goes to a 9 hp mower, differences will be noticeable as one is almost doubling their hp. I am wondering if at higher hp's in the range of these JD twins, how much of an advantage in practical terms exists. Certainly if one is able to jump to a 6' mower as opposed to a 5 footer on the lesser hp tractor then that percentage of width of cut would be applied to time saved. As I have never experienced this differential, it would be helpful to get a bit of a handle for those people buying a tractor for pasture or extensive grass cutting where the difference of a 38 hp tractor as opposed to a 50 or 60 hp tractor is rather obvious. My question is when dealing with these amounts of hp, (from 32 to 38) how many additional hp's are needed to really see a difference with rpm oriented attachments. Numerically at the motor there is an 8% difference. I do not think or I should say i do not know this necessarily equates that your work can go 8% faster unless your implement is also that much larger. There is also the added torque that may allow the tractor to go faster in higher grass but again, to what degree? There is a pervasive opinion for some that buying the larger hp motor is always an advantage and when in doubt, buy the larger motor. It is probable that JD is hoping for the same reasoning and attempting to compete with a particular market share. I am questioning this and trying to be more data driven.

 

[SPYDERLK]

This fact does not escape me. I am questioning the degree of difference . Surely if one is cutting grass with a 5 hp mower and then goes to a 9 hp mower, differences will be noticeable as one is almost doubling their hp. I am wondering if at higher hp's in the range of these JD twins, how much of an advantage in practical terms exists. Certainly if one is able to jump to a 6' mower as opposed to a 5 footer on the lesser hp tractor then that percentage of width of cut would be applied to time saved. As I have never experienced this differential, it would be helpful to get a bit of a handle for those people buying a tractor for pasture or extensive grass cutting where the difference of a 38 hp tractor as opposed to a 50 or 60 hp tractor is rather obvious. My question is when dealing with these amounts of hp, (from 32 to 38) how many additional hp's are needed to really see a difference with rpm oriented attachments. Numerically at the motor there is an 8% difference. I do not think or I should say i do not know this necessarily equates that your work can go 8% faster unless your implement is also that much larger. There is also the added torque that may allow the tractor to go faster in higher grass but again, to what degree? There is a pervasive opinion for some that buying the larger hp motor is always an advantage and when in doubt, buy the larger motor. It is probable that JD is hoping for the same reasoning and attempting to compete with a particular market share. I am questioning this and trying to be more data driven.

Not specific to JD, but our experience is quite definite in comparing the 2 Kub Ls. Driving the same 5' bushog the 3450 is much better. This advantage comes in its relative ease in accomodating the natuaral variance in the work. If all work was done on the flat it would be much less noticeable but if youve no, or little reserve the hills slow you down and make the job less enjoyable.
larry

 

[LD1]

My question is when dealing with these amounts of hp, (from 32 to 38) how many additional hp's are needed to really see a difference with rpm oriented attachments. Numerically at the motor there is an 8% difference. I do not think or I should say i do not know this necessarily equates that your work can go 8% faster unless your implement is also that much larger.

38/32=1.1875.....Isnt that an 18.75% difference???

I do understand what you are saying, and really cant say if I know, because I only had enough money to buy one tractor at the time. Otherwise I could have bought a 2800 and a 3400 and test the theory.

But lets compair my L3400 (29HP PTO) to a L2800 (24HP PTO). My L3400 is 20% more power at the PTO. (and since the RPM is fixed, that also means more torque)

IIRC, with a gear transmission, my 4th gear (4H) is 4.3mph and 5th (1H) is 5.1 MPH. So my 5th gear is 18% faster.

Now I dont know, cause I dont own both tractors, but I would like to think that the extra HP would allow me to mow in 5th gear as well as the L2800 can mow in 4th. If the L2800 is mowing in 5th, and hits a patch of thick stuff and has to downshift, maybe the L3400 wouldnt??? I dont know. But 18-20% more power is never a bad thing IMO

 

[arrow]

Not specific to JD, but our experience is quite definite in comparing the 2 Kub Ls. Driving the same 5' bushog the 3450 is much better. This advantage comes in its relative ease in accomodating the natuaral variance in the work. If all work was done on the flat it would be much less noticeable but if youve no, or little reserve the hills slow you down and make the job less enjoyable.
larry

Good comparison anyway Spyder. your 2550 shows 23 pto hp while your 3450 is at 30. This showing a difference of a bit less than 8% and you are still noticing it . Good practical applied info. Thanks

 

[LD1]

Good comparison anyway Spyder. your 2550 shows 23 pto hp while your 3450 is at 30. This showing a difference of a bit less than 8% and you are still noticing it . Good practical applied info. Thanks

I sent you a PM arrow...

But 23 vs 30.....

The 3450 is 30% bigger than the 2550

The 2550 is 24% smaller than the 3450

The 2550 has 76% of the power the 3450 has

The 3450 has 130% of the power the 2550 has


Confused yet??

 

[Marveltone]

I sent you a PM arrow...

But 23 vs 30.....

The 3450 is 30% bigger than the 2550

The 2550 is 24% smaller than the 3450

The 2550 has 76% of the power the 3450 has

The 3450 has 130% of the power the 2550 has


Confused yet??

This is why I hate calculating percentages. Hmm... Which way to go? Which sounds more impressive? Why don't the percentages stay constant? ARRRGGH!!! :banghead::hissyfit:ullinghair:

Joe

 

[LD1]

This is why I hate calculating percentages. Hmm... Which way to go? Which sounds more impressive? Why don't the percentages stay constant? ARRRGGH!!! :banghead::hissyfit:ullinghair:

Joe

Just the way it is. And it is used alot in marketing too:mur:

Which sounds more impressive (or less impressive) depending on what you are trying to do.

The 3038 has 30% more power certainly sounds better if you are wanting the 3038

BUT.....

The 3032 is only 24% less power sounds better if you are trying to justify not buying the 3038

 

[arrow]

I sent you a PM arrow...

But 23 vs 30.....

The 3450 is 30% bigger than the 2550

The 2550 is 24% smaller than the 3450

The 2550 has 76% of the power the 3450 has

The 3450 has 130% of the power the 2550 has


Confused yet??

Yes. thank you. I was interested in correcting it myself and would have. Allow me to do it anyway. The 3450 has 30 pto hp and the 25 has 23. 23 is 76% of 30. Wait a minute…that leaves 24%. How can it be 24% smaller and the 3450 be 30% larger?

 

[LD1]

Yes. thank you. I was interested in correcting it myself and would have. Allow me to do it anyway. The 3450 has 30 pto hp and the 25 has 23. 23 is 76% of 30. Wait a minute…that leaves 24%. How can it be 24% smaller and the 3450 be 30% larger?

Thats percentages for you.:confused2:

Think about EXACTALLY how you are saying it.

23 is 76% of 30. That means that the 23 is 24% smaller than the 30. so you are using 30 as your BASE number. IE: 7hp difference between the two. So 7hp smaller than 30hp is 7/30........which is 24%

30 is 130% of 23. That means that the 30 is 30% larger than the 23. In this case you are using 23 as the BASE number. So...7/23=30%

Its all in what you are comparing. When I am saying that the 23 is 24% smaller than 30, the number 30 is what you are comparing the HP difference to.

When I am saying that the 30 is 30% larger than the 23, the number 23 is what you are comparing the HP difference to.

__________________________________

Let my try a different prespective and see if this helps. Lets forget HP and tractors all together.

Lets say someone weighs 200 lbs and wants to go on a diet. They loose 50lbs. That is 25%. They now weigh 150lbs.

With me so far.....

Now that 150lb person gains that 50lbs back. They just increased their weight by 33%, since the 50lbs they added is 1/3 more than they weighed.

Did that help?? Clear as mud right:laughing: