HST vs. Shuttle Shift?

[TripleR]

Reminds me of what Adam Smith said in a different context "In the long run, we are all dead".

Pretty much.

 

[BillyCrash]

If you do a lot of tasks which require fine control, slow and fast speeds, direction changes, and the ability to concentrate completely on the task and not the tractor's operation, then HST is the best choice.

This is exactly why I chose HST.

 

[jenkinsph]

If you do a lot of tasks which require fine control, slow and fast speeds, direction changes, and the ability to concentrate completely on the task and not the tractor's operation, then HST is the best choice. Some HST tractors in the 45-55 hp range do not even have a clutch. There's no need for a clutch since you can slow to creep speed, stop, go in the opposite direction with the HST pedal(s). Some HST tractors maintain a clutch just for PTO operation, but many have PTOs that are engaged completely independent of the drivetrain.

In my experience/observation, I find many people with gear driven tractors experience clutch problems because they end up riding the clutch to slow the tractor and do fine work. Shuttle shifting changes direction, but does nothing for you if you need to slow to a creep and then accelerate without changing gears. That's what HST does with ease, but many gear tractor operators (especially those who are new to tractors) will burn out clutches because they slip the clutch to achieve varying speeds. In full-size TLBs used for construction, clutches have been replaced with torque converters, but I don't know of anything similar in the utility sized tractors.

For compact tractors this for the most part sums up the advantages of hydrostatic transmissions quite well. Using a modern hydro tractor enables the operater to concentrate on the implement at hand and do a better job with it. Whether mowing up close to a building, loading my dump trailer or grading a fine finish for a slab with a boxblade the last thing I need to concern myself with is the clutch and shifter.

 

[Dargo]

Keep in mind that some shuttle shift tractors do require the use of the clutch do change directions.

Ah, okay, you said "some". That is definitely correct. On my JD, I can get in the tractor and run all day long, changing gears and all, without ever touching the clutch. Well, maybe you have to push it down to start, I don't recall. I just do that out of habit. With the shuttle shift lever centered, I can change gears as well as changing directions with just flipping the lever. I also have the little knob that adjusts the aggressiveness of the shuttle as well. I think it was like a $40 option; well worth it. For hard FEL use, you want it to hit fast and pretty hard. For mowing, you want it to ease the power to the wheels.

Okay, I just tried it. I don't ever have to touch the clutch if I don't want to. I do have to stop to change gear ranges though. Otherwise, I could run completely clutchless. However, I like to know exactly when and how much power I put to the wheels. Since I started using clutches 45 years ago, I seem to stick to old habits and generally do use the clutch though. Still, this is quite different than my first tractor I had where nothing was syncronized. I had to come to a complete stop to change any gears. I wonder if there are any still made like that? That was a PIA.

 

[US American]

Like anything, its what you are most comfortable with, right? Unless you need power to the ground I would go hst. I needed power to the ground more than I needed surgical capabilities. If the tables were flipped I would have stayed with the hydro. I can use the foot throttle to speed up and slow down for loader work. All clutchless. A reverser that still requires clutching is worthless imho. Might as well just have synchronized 2-R shifting.

 

[canoetrpr]

I'm pretty sure that was Keynes, wasn't it? Btw, he's dead as a door nail, but his stupid-***** policies are being shoved down our throats and are failing miserably - which a blind monkey could have predicted. :mur:

And what does that have to do with this forum you say, well, less money left in the private sector for us to buy tractors with!

My faux pas. You are quite right. It was Keynes.

Not that I want to start something political here but to be honest Keynesian policies were what brought America out of the great depression i.e. it was really WW2 and the massive debt financed government spending that got things going. The problem tends to be that people forget that while Keynes advocated a government running large deficits during recessions, he also advocated surpluses and paying back the debt during good times. The problem occurs when you run deficits during both good times and bad.

 

[BillyCrash]

My faux pas. You are quite right. It was Keynes.

Not that I want to start something political here but to be honest Keynesian policies were what brought America out of the great depression i.e. it was really WW2 and the massive debt financed government spending that got things going. The problem tends to be that people forget that while Keynes advocated a government running large deficits during recessions, he also advocated surpluses and paying back the debt during good times. The problem occurs when you run deficits during both good times and bad.

Not to continue the debate, but I would argue the Keynesian policies only prolonged the depression. Big government spending is not an efficient way to stimulate an economy. It allocates capital based on the decisions of a room full of bureaucrats, with much of the decisions being politically-based, not economically based; and takes a cut of the tax receipts to process and implement the decisions.

If instead they had stimulated by reducing government spending and letting the private sector keep more of the fruits of it's labor, the economy would have rebounded before WWII. Millions of people with millions of individual economic choices always allocate capital better than government, it's true by definition. Works every time if you let it. And Keynesian policies fail every time they are tried.

 

[LMan1967]

Great info, thanks much!

 

[LMan1967]

Hmmm, I have now been told that HSTs are not good in hilly areas, as the power bleed-off from the engine is too great to run attachments (such as a bushhog or other PTO-driven device). Is this an issue? If so, how much "hill" is too much?

 

[beppington]

Hmmm, I have now been told that HSTs are not good in hilly areas, as the power bleed-off from the engine is too great to run attachments (such as a bushhog or other PTO-driven device). Is this an issue? If so, how much "hill" is too much?

From all the specs I've looked at from various tractor manufacturers, it seems pretty universal in compact utility tractors that HST transmissions require 1.5 extra HP, so for example a geared tractor with a 40 HP engine might have 33 PTO HP, whereas its HST cousin would have 31.5 PTO HP ... not a huge difference.

 

[TripleR]

Hmmm, I have now been told that HSTs are not good in hilly areas, as the power bleed-off from the engine is too great to run attachments (such as a bushhog or other PTO-driven device). Is this an issue? If so, how much "hill" is too much?

Well someone isn't telling you the truth, I run my L5030 HSTC on steep hills all the time with a Land Pride RCR2672; no problems.

 

[charleyfarmall]

I have both ( actually have had all 4 - 8x4, 12x12 Shuttle, Power Shuttle, HST) and they go in that order. Currently I have a Deere 2720 - HST, 3320 PWR, and an NH TN75D 16x16 Power Shuttle.

Going from the HST to the others turns out to be a pain in the butt. It makes you realize how nice the HST really is. It is so simple and easy to use. It is fantastic for loader work and getting close to vehicles to unload with pallet forks. Getting on the 3320 from the 2720 there are two many levers and choices to set before taking off. When it's time the 3320 will get replaced with an HST tractor.

Another place HST would shine is cutting hay in smaller fields. You can keep the RPMs at cutter speed and slow down perfectly for corners.

I have used HST tractors for all kinds of mowing and tilling and it is not an issue to work a ground implement on an HST tractor as long as the tractor/ implement size is correct.

For most applications on smaller farms the HST is king. Besides, it makes it easier to put someone else on the tractor to work. It's easy to teach someone to drive an HST tractor.

 

[k0ua]

Hmmm, I have now been told that HSTs are not good in hilly areas, as the power bleed-off from the engine is too great to run attachments (such as a bushhog or other PTO-driven device). Is this an issue? If so, how much "hill" is too much?

I operate my HST tractor on some hills that are hard to walk on they are so steep. I operated a gear tractor (B7500DT) for 8 years and have had the HST tractor for a little over a year, the HST rules hands down. much safer to operate, much easier to concentrate on the rotary cutter. I sit turned sideways and looking over my right shoulder and back down the extreme slopes, with my right foot on top of the treadle pedal, and go up and down the slope , ready to move instantly in the opposite direction if I hit rocks. Also keep right hand on the lift lever for same reason.. IMHO the benefits of the HST outweigh any small negatives like small loss of power or whiney noise etc. For loader work it cannot be beat by anything. For working up next to a building, or using forks. the precision control is superb.. no question get the hydro.

James K0UA

 

[sunnyside360]

Is there a reliability difference b/w the two? I envision mostly doing grading, moving gravel/debris/etc from one place to another, and bushhogging range trails and underbrush around trees. The land is mostly level - don't anticipate much mowing since I already have a ZTR for that.

My HP range Im looking at is 40-50 hp.

HST is best for your applications as stated in several different ways above. In addition, I've had numerous tractors over the past 50 yrs, HST and gear/shuttle, and there is no question in my mind HST would be best for you. Don't get me wrong gear/shuttle has it's place too.

As far as reliability, I've had more trouble with gear and shuttle transmissions than HST.

 

[LMan1967]

Great responses, thanks much for the input - you have put my concerns to rest. As I may have mentioned my land is mostly wooded (and will remain so) so Im looking at mostly loader work, bushhogging in close quarters, and grading some range trails that bend pretty tightly around the trees.

Looks like I need to hold out for the HST

 

[beppington]

You can read this "poll" on how pleased owners are with their HST machines: http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/owning-operating/206517-poll-your-satisfaction-your-hydrostatic.html

With 90 responders rating their HST on a 1 - 10 scale, the average is 9.30

 

[slofr8]

I tried a Kioti DS with hyd. shuttle. I made it grind a few times when changing directions. Did not care for it.
I then saw a 45 hp cub cadet with shuttle and comented on my experiance. The dealer said that he prefered hst. but this shuttle wont grind. He moved the tractor back and forth without clutching,in different gears at different speeds and it just keept changing directions as slick as can be. It would even spin the tires while doing it. (wet sealed tar). I ended up buying a Mahindra 4035 hst. but I think that type of shuttle, whatever it was, would be nice as well.
Dan.

 

[US American]

A shuttle like JD's PwrReverser does not grind and direction changes are smooth. Hst does not rob pto HP but it does steal drawbar HP compared to gears. Hst would be best choice based on what the op described.

 

[beppington]

A shuttle like JD's PwrReverser does not grind and direction changes are smooth. Hst does not rob pto HP but it does steal drawbar HP compared to gears. Hst would be best choice based on what the op described.

I don't think that's correct, as I stated in post #31 above. HST's seem to "rob", or utilize, about 1.5 HP more of the engine's HP than non-HST machines.

The exact same tractor as my HST in non-HST format has 1.5 more PTO HP than mine, & I've encountered that same 1.5 HP difference many times.