Comparison Educate me: compact versus utility
- Thread starter frank29
- Start date
- Views: 3939
Joe1
Platinum Member
Deerefan mentioned a JD 790 as a compact tractor. It is also a utility tractor, so it's a compact utility tractor. There are no hard and fast lines. HP on Compact tractors and on Compact Utility Tractors (CUT) overlap.
You're absolutely right, the line between these types is blurred.
You're absolutely right, the line between these types is blurred.
Willman
Gold Member
I believe that before compact tractors were around there were the utility tractors and the row crop tractors with adjustable front axles and reversable rear wheels.
The utilitys being non-adjustable and not considered for crop use.
But I could be wrong /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
The utilitys being non-adjustable and not considered for crop use.
But I could be wrong /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
aesanders
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2005
- Messages
- 981
- Location
- Alachua County, Florida
- Tractor
- LS MT3 42 S HST cab, BCS 830 2 wheel tractor, Gravely Pro-Turn 160 XDZ, John Deere Gator HPX 615e
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Messick,
"Utilities never have a hydrostatic transmission"
Just for the sake of the conversation, (not to be a butthead) how would you classify a Grand L5030HSTC with 853 FEL and an 85 BH? (Besides really nice.) )</font>
Kubota rates the 5030 as a Compact tractor. This is the largest one they make that is considered a compact. It has the same frame size as the 4330 and 4630.
"Utilities never have a hydrostatic transmission"
Just for the sake of the conversation, (not to be a butthead) how would you classify a Grand L5030HSTC with 853 FEL and an 85 BH? (Besides really nice.) )</font>
Kubota rates the 5030 as a Compact tractor. This is the largest one they make that is considered a compact. It has the same frame size as the 4330 and 4630.
MessickFarmEqu
Super Member
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Messick,
"Utilities never have a hydrostatic transmission"
Just for the sake of the conversation, (not to be a butthead) how would you classify a Grand L5030HSTC with 853 FEL and an 85 BH? (Besides really nice.) )</font>
Great question. That one does kinda blur the line since it has a cat 2 3pt. It is however still a light weight tractor, with an HST - so I'd say its still a compact. Its drasticly different than any of the M-Series machines, even though its operating loads are on par with some of them.
"Utilities never have a hydrostatic transmission"
Just for the sake of the conversation, (not to be a butthead) how would you classify a Grand L5030HSTC with 853 FEL and an 85 BH? (Besides really nice.) )</font>
Great question. That one does kinda blur the line since it has a cat 2 3pt. It is however still a light weight tractor, with an HST - so I'd say its still a compact. Its drasticly different than any of the M-Series machines, even though its operating loads are on par with some of them.
riptides
Super Member
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( compact tractor & utility tractor )</font> My friends go by old time thinking, pulling stuff or sitting in fields - tractors.
Stuff in garage or shed - CUTS and lawn mowers.
Thusly, I have attached a blade to mine and let it sit outside. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
-Mike Z. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Stuff in garage or shed - CUTS and lawn mowers.
Thusly, I have attached a blade to mine and let it sit outside. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
-Mike Z. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Another key difference (to add to bunch) is the type of chassis. Compacts are built on steel A frames in which you mount the engine and transmission. Whereas in a utility tractor, you would couple the engine to the transmission to the differential and that would be your integral frame, no external frame. I have found that to be my own indicator to make the distinction.
To me, the HP rating can no longer be the sole indicator as the newer compacts have begun to pump out 55HP. Same for the weights which are increasing pushing the 4000lbs, comparable to low end utility models.
Lets not even go in Front end loader ratings which are measured differently between CUTs and UTs.
To me, the HP rating can no longer be the sole indicator as the newer compacts have begun to pump out 55HP. Same for the weights which are increasing pushing the 4000lbs, comparable to low end utility models.
Lets not even go in Front end loader ratings which are measured differently between CUTs and UTs.
JerryG
Super Member
<font color="blue"> Another key difference (to add to bunch) is the type of chassis. Compacts are built on steel A frames in which you mount the engine and transmission. Whereas in a utility tractor, you would couple the engine to the transmission to the differential and that would be your integral frame, no external frame. I have found that to be my own indicator to make the distinction. </font>
Like some of the other things that differ, what you said is true for some compacts but not for others. Some compacts do use their tranny, rear end and engine for the frame.
Like some of the other things that differ, what you said is true for some compacts but not for others. Some compacts do use their tranny, rear end and engine for the frame.
Soundguy
Old Timer
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2002
- Messages
- 51,575
- Location
- Central florida
- Tractor
- RK 55HC,ym1700, NH7610S, Ford 8N, 2N, NAA, 660, 850 x2, 541, 950, 941D, 951, 2000, 3000, 4000, 4600, 5000, 740, IH 'C' 'H', CUB, John Deere 'B', allis 'G', case VAC
I like looking at the footprint, and 3pt category. cat 0 is scut.. cat 0/1 is on the edge.. and 1 is cut. cat 1/2 is on the edge, and cat 2 is util.. large cat 2 and up are ag tractors.
That's just my opinion.. etc..
Soundguy
That's just my opinion.. etc..
Soundguy
MessickFarmEqu
Super Member
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Lets not even go in Front end loader ratings which are measured differently between CUTs and UTs.
)</font>
To my knowledge that has nothing to do with the classification of the tractor and more to do with particular companies choosing to use the more favorable number in their marketing literature even if it is deceptive.
)</font>
To my knowledge that has nothing to do with the classification of the tractor and more to do with particular companies choosing to use the more favorable number in their marketing literature even if it is deceptive.
