hay making

[Anonymous Poster]

Those old tractors aren't rated conservative, it's just that these "new" compact tractors are "over rated"!!!! I've been saying it for years!!
Compacts just don't have the torque it takes to make a "real HP"!!! Now you know what i've been saying on this board for a long time!
Robert

 

[TresCrows]

No actually both old "row crop" and "general purpose" types (Ford 8N) and new compacts are not underated or overated. The "older" tractors" we are talking about have much larger displacement engines than newer compacts from JD and Kubota, this results in considerably more torque at low RPM's. I think something like a Ford 8N has a 120 cube engine(?) gasoline and whatever the displacement it is quite a bit more than the 70 cubes on my 24 horse Kubota B2410. I nonetheless would prefer the Kubota for general use and the versatility that is built into these machines. I am looking to buy a nice Ford at some point or Cub --just cuz I want one. My neighbor had a Ford 8N and now he has a Kubota. My neighbor at the end of the street has a Ford 8N also--kinda ragged looking and I let him demoe my Kubota and now he is orange with envy and is shopping serious. Both types of tractors have their use, my opinion and the opinion of many homeowner and small acerage users is that the versatility of a small compact with hydro and a FEL and MMM/RMM is best solution and they can run snowblowers and backhoes and tillers and boxblades etc. Just my thought. J

 

[Anonymous Poster]

Hi there TresCrows,
You said "The "older" tractors" we are talking about have much larger displacement engines than newer compacts from JD and Kubota, this results in considerably more torque at low RPM's".

I said, "Compacts just don't have the torque it takes to make a "real HP""

Didn't we kinda say the same thing????

I've owned a 30 PTO HP Deutz ag. tractor for over 15 years. I've used it in front of my 6' Howard Rotavator for over 500 hours. In wetter ground it could use more power, and since has been replaced for that job with an 45 PTO HP Agco Allis. Any way, several years ago i bought a Kubota 30 PTO HP compact. With in 30 minutes of getting it home, i had this tractor in front of this same Rotavator, and i was headed to the field. I could instantly tell it was not going to have the power to run this rotavator, and with in 15 mins., it was headed to over heating!! I went to the shop and checked the radiator for plugging ect.. Well, to shorten the story, it boiled down to the difference of a "Real HP", and a "Compact HP"!! You can think i'm full of BS, but i've seen this same thing many times on different compacts and different tools.

I really liked driveing that Kubota, but a couple years of real farm work, and it was turning to junk, so i traded it off on a new ag. tractor.

Happy tractoring,
Robert

 

[tomt5]

Jerry,

You mentioned that you your 27hp Cub is spinning the baler just fine. Is the baler just running empty or are you actually baling hay? It takes a lot of power to run that plunger, not to mention the additional weight of a wagon that is getting heavier by the minute. Balers usually require around 35HP.

If you are baling a grass hay you will probably get 2 1/2 to 3 tons per acre, per season, with around 40% of your yield taken in the first cutting. Grass hay usually sells for around $85 per ton sometimes less, at least thats how it is in Wisconsin.

A tractor, baler, haybine or sickle, rake, and a wagon or two. It adds up fast!!! A shed for all this equipment and storage for the hay. More expense.

Hay is VERY CHEAP and widely available. Maybe you should consider just buying hay.

The only way I know of to make a buck on hay is to run it through a cow and sell it as milk.

What ever you do I hope it works out okay.

tomt

 

[TresCrows]

Hi, I was not meaning to argue with you, yes we are saying the same thing--except--"real horsepower"--there is no such thing. There is SAE, British Bastard, and we can go into net and gross and all that but the accepted equation for hosepower which is widely used and easily found in most engineering text does not yield "real" horsepower or "compact" vs "full size" horsepower. A Formual One racing engine makes a real 1,000 horsepower but it is ill suited to pulling loads and a Kubota B2410 makes a real 24 horsepower from 70 cubes but torque and such is the key to useability. By the way, as a fan of turbines, they don't make much torque till you run them through a gear box but trust me on this, a tiny Allison I can hold in my arms will make 600 plus "real" horsepower and if hooked to a tractor would make "real" dirt fly.
Different tractors with different engines etc for different uses, not better or worse, just different.
I guess what I am saying is that a horsepower is a horsepower but that torque curve is what we are interested in.
As to bailing equipment, I imagine if there was a market there could be equipment made for compacts even if some of it was self powered which might not be such a bad idea.
All I ever really wanted was a Turbine Allison powerd B2410 with an Allison tranny from an 18 wheeler. Diesels are for wusses. /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif . J

 

[Anonymous Poster]

Not that I have seen it or know much about making hay, but I notice my Jinma dealer sells Mini balers to go with their 20 & 25 HP Jinma compact tractors. Cant see that they would sell them if they didnt work ok on that size tractor. Only info I have is as follows, no pictures sadly....

MINI-BALERS PTO-driven, producing mini bales (50cm x 70cm). They can be easily carried manually. A range of twine or net binding can be supplied with the baler, and a plastic film-wrapping machine is available.

 

[cowboydoc]

Drew,
Huge difference between a mini-baler and a regular baler. The mini-balers only make very small bales to begin with and have a very small pickup. What we are talking about are regular size balers that you can make big bales with and have a large pickup.

 

[Anonymous Poster]

Ah ok, Sounds good to me though as I only breed mini ponies mini backaches too huh

 

[Slamfire]

International Harvester tried a turbine once in a tractor, it didn't make the grade. You've almost got it right though torque is a whole lot more important than horsepower.

 

[TresCrows]

"Did not make the grade"--probably an urban legend--kinda like the idea that the M1 turbine powered Abrams tank would choke up on sand. Maybe it did but only after outrunning, flanking and then killing every enemy tank despite severe odds to the contrary. Turbines are expensive, not exactly friendly to duct tape and balling wire "farmer" repairs and can be just a bit fuel thirsty but nothing makes power like a turbine except maybe a rocket. I suspect IH decided time and technology were not on their side and opted out of a turbine unit. For example an Allison 250 (approx 600 SHP) cost about 200,000 dollars and a P&W PT6 (600-1200 plus SHP) could run 250,000 dollars (estimated prices only), wheat may have to get a bit more profitable to justify that kind of cost for an engine not to mention the transmission costs to ahndle that kind of power from 30,000 to 50,000 RPM engines. GM once tried a turbine auto but it did not make the grade either--actually they could not get a transmission that could effectively reduce 30,000 RPM to the wheels. Nowadays this would not be a problem with computer controlled infinitly variable transmissions and ceramic turbine electric vehicles may be a possibility in larger vehicles and trucks and trains were hydrogen fuel cells may not be practical. Williams has a new turbine that is about 6 inches in diameter and can produce over 1,000 SHP, it's power section weighs about 50 lbs I think not including the prop shaft and gear box and accesory case. Typical life before OH is 6,000 hours. Cost, if produced, a measily 100,000 to 150,000 dollars. J