GC1710 VS GC1720

[Fiziksgeek]

Greetings Fiziks,

Everything I've heard to date is that the pump was tweaked to increase flow. If rpms was all that was needed . . why would they need to tweek the pump ?

I'm not convinced, that's all. It's very well possible that its a different pump, or the same pump just "tweaked", etc, but increasing the rpm would also explain the increased flow also. They might have tweaked the pump to give the same pressure at a higher rpm...? Besides Iseki engineers....who knows....

 

[AxleHub]

I'm not convinced, that's all. It's very well possible that its a different pump, or the same pump just "tweaked", etc, but increasing the rpm would also explain the increased flow also. They might have tweaked the pump to give the same pressure at a higher rpm...? Besides Iseki engineers....who knows....

When I first looked at th massey line up I was surprised about this "same engine" thing too. Throw in a word like "turbo" or "supercharger" and that's a different engine to me. Or change the compression ratio and de-tune or etc. etc. and that would sound more logical too. But now I've been seeing recent "same engine" concepts in other Japanese engines.

Normally rpm design is determined based on a safety margin percentage of the wear/failure curve of the engine design and power/torque drop off as revs increase above certain points. If the engines were the same . . then the owner of a 22.5 hp model could just rev their engine up to 3000 from 2600 and they'd have a 25 hp model. But that would mean either the 22.5 hp engine is de-tuned or the 25 hp engine is over-tuned. But neither would make efficient or proper engineering sense.

Rather . . I'm thinking Iseki has some different parts for one engine over the other that are same sized. It could be the cases are the same size but have different channeling of pocket gas areas. It could be different internal parts are made of different metals etc. .

If a person had the entire parts lists for each engine . . I would think something would reveal itself.

 

[jlgurr]

Its a 1300$ difference at the dealer Im working with. Im having a hard time deciding myself. 1300$ for 2.5hp or a 4' rototiller?

I have the tiller but not the 2.5HP... I'd vote for the tiller WITHOUT hesitation.

Sent from my iPhone using TractorByNet

 

[madhatter]

Back when I started this thread I was on the fence between the two and decided on the 1710. From what I read and my dealer told me, the extra HP is only at full rpms and that included the hydraulics extra flow rate. I do a lot of mid and rear PTO work so I figured I would rather run it at a lower rpm on the 1710 to get the required 540/2000 rpm on the pto. I do wish I had the 1720 seat ( much nicer ) as I think the 1710 seat is not great.Problem is, the seat was like $500 from the dealer ! I did order the rollbar light protectors that the 1720 has though. I don't regret the decision. Too each their own though.....

 

[AxleHub]

I don't regret the decision. Too each their own though.....

Exactly madhatter. Investing in something and then regretting it is not a pleasant or desired thing. Just as overspending is something to be avoided.

I thought long and hard between the 4 models of gc1700 and chose one . . I'm glad you made a good decision . . I'm sure you'll be quite happy with it.

And I'm quite pleased I've been able to work in cooperation with a couple implement builders so they can create some products that our units can benefit from that are not duplicated by anyone else. 2016 should be a fun year with the tractor and added capabilities.

 

[scsbronco]

So much good info on here. Thanks guys. Hopefully Wednesday for the purchase.

 

[jc21]

Its a 1300$ difference at the dealer Im working with. Im having a hard time deciding myself. 1300$ for 2.5hp or a 4' rototiller?

I say go for the tiller. That extra 2.5 hp is reduced to only .9 hp at the PTO ... I'm not sure how noticeable it would be. imho the extra .9 PTO horsepower, seat, work light, light guards and different pedal covers of GC1715/GC1720 fall under the "nice to have but not necessary" category. I found the GC 1705/1710 seat quite comfortable, more so than some other tractors I've looked at.

 

[Clipse3GT]

So much good info on here. Thanks guys. Hopefully Wednesday for the purchase.

Had to make the same decision few weeks ago. GC 1710 vs GC 1720. I knew that I would regret my decision not getting the GC 1720 if I had a chance to get one. Biggest reason was more power on tap if ever required for certain tasks. The machine would be used for plowing snow, mowing, heavy fel work and use of the backhoe for some stump removal. Having a bit extra hydraulic flow and extra power on tap was the biggest reason to go with the GC 1720. Again people state reliability going with 1710 lower rpm. However, I would state that going with any engine these days as long as a quality syn motor oil is used and filters are changed with a clean air filter as needed and do not overheat the motor. The engine should require little maintenance running for a few thousand hours. If you use the machine so much you wear out the engine they make oversized pistons for at least 2 more rebuilds. I doubt most residential owners will wear out the engines. Most common cause for failure is overheat, poorly maintained fluids and filters, and loss of oil viscosity and degrading of the additive package. I doubt 400 rpm will create much less reliability, I would think rather insignificant wear. Iseki/Kubota/Yanmar diesels ranked to be the some of the best.

Then why would Iseki/MF create a machine that is top of the GC 1700 line and create it to be less reliable? Makes no sense from a engineering perspective.

Also, I prefered the GC1720 seat much more to the GC 1710 park bench.

 

[AxleHub]

The idea an engine designed to run 3000 rpm is less reliable than one running 2600 is not a logical concept when you view kubotas bx rpm requirements and their longevity records.

I might also point out that a gc1715 or gc1720 can operate quite well at 2000 rpm or 2500 rpm because it has dual pumps . . And a BX pretty much had to run at higher rpms all the time because it has just 1 pump. I'm not stating this to be negative about the bx products . . but rather to show that its not logical to claim that the lowest "top end" level of rpm makes a unit more or less reliable on its own.

Also lets remember that tractors are designed with mean-time-to-failure averages . . . So its highly likely a gc1710 is designed for xxxx number of hours at 2600 rpm while a gc1720 is designed for the same number of hours at 3000 rpm.

And the significance of that statement is . . . the Massey hour counter is based on rpm hours . . not time operated hours . . So if the gc1710 and gc1720 are each operated at 2500 rpm . . the mean-time-to-failure on the gc1720 will be longer (not shorter) if the rpms are run the same on each unit.

 

[Fiziksgeek]

Does anyone know how hours are counted on each machine? I *thought* my GC2400 counts at 1800 rpm, meaning 60 minutes of operation at 1800 rpms will put 1 hour on the clock? So do the GC1705/10 and GC1715/20 count hours the same way?