HST vs shuttle

[patrick_g]

Additionally, unless you can run your brakes with one foot and HST with other, Shuttles are much more precise.

On my HST tractor it is very difficult to get your foot off the HST and onto the brakes before the tractor stops. Only other situation not like this is going full speed in highest gear range of 3 and you stop fairly quick just not as abruptly as in mid range or low range. Going down a steep hill you will creep forward if not using the brakes. I very seldom use the brakes. I unlatched the mechanical connection binding the left and right brake pedals together to try using the "cutting brakes" just to see what happened and they work as advertised. It takes a little contortion to use the cutting brakes and operate the HST at the same time. If you are looking for a meaningful negative to fault the HST with then cutting brakes and HST use at same time is a poster child for inconvenience. I am not inconvenienced but that is because I NEVER in actual operation need cutting brakes.

I have 39 HP at the PTO and do not need more so I don't miss whatever is "wasted" via the hydraulic power transmission. The tractor is about 15 years old or a bit more If I recall when we bought it new. My only repair work was a leaky fuel tank which is hard to blame HST for, a metal hydraulic line I buggered driving over logs and debris (my bad), and a rubber hydraulic line to the FEL that I impaled on a branch while logging. None of these problems were related to HST. The tractor is built around the fuel tank so the cab was removed to allow R&R of the tank. All other unscheduled maint has been due to operator error resulting in breaking expensive glass. I'm on the 3rd battery which is good for 15+ years. Heater is phenomenal, good for extreme low temp operation in shirtsleeves. The A/C is marginal in really hot weather with bright sun as cab is nearly all glass except ceiling. Can't blame that on HST either.

I have seen several posters post negatives supposedly condemning HST. None of these theoretical negatives have ever caused me the slightest actual trouble, remaining theoretical only. Oh, a real negative... HST costs more but worth every penny of it. I work the dickens out of my tractor. I abuse it severely and overload it. For years I have hauled 1000 lb round bales on the front end loader hay spike with another 1000 lb round bale on the rear spike. I have a PENOCCHIO attachment that is a pipe into which I put the pallet forks while adjusted to the center (close to each other) position. A chain runs from the end of the "nose" to the pallet forks guard. This downgrades my lift capability from around 1800 lbs on the forks and requires serious ballast on the 3PH but allows lifting things up high in the air. Micro-positioning these loads using the HST is so far above doing it with other transmissions as to defy adequate words for the comparison.

I am soliciting disappointed HST users to speak out. Who out there has legitimate gripes about HST. Anyone starved for power due to the nasty power robing HST? How about abnormally high maintenance due to HST? What about tight pants, squeaky shoes, upset stomach, night sweats, ED, fainting spells or other evil descended upon you due to HST?

Patrick

 

[ovrszd]

Patrick you must consider that the uses of tractors here on TBN is beyond your scope of reasoning. An example would be if you never need your brakes for precise positioning and/or direction change.

My brother had an HST+ L3240 that was absolutely aggravating and powerless in completing work tasks. Great tractor for putting around. Horribly underpowered for it's size and drive system.

 

[patrick_g]

My brother had an HST+ L3240 that was absolutely aggravating and powerless in completing work tasks. Great tractor for putting around. Horribly underpowered for it's size and drive system.

Apparently no one did proper requirements analysis prior to purchase. If you wrong-size a tool and then blame the tool you are not dealing with reality. I'm sorry he had a bad experience but blaming it on the technology is not moving you forward toward a solution. I'm sure there are folks who have wrong-sized all sorts of equipment and were quite disappointed with the results but that does not necessarily indite the technology.

There are a number of HST users on this site. The majority seem to be quite satisfied. There are a number of folks here with other transmissions who are pleased with their results. In some cases a little ignorance is bliss might be at hand. I'd be more inclined to listen to someone who has actually had extensive experience operating the technology they are railing against and not just making claims about theoretical differences in efficiencies. If there were several folks complaining about HST that would weigh heavily with me as well but very few complaints about the HST technology have been made here by actual users.

Until or unless my HST does something bad (it hasn't in 15 years) I will be able to do all I need with it easily and comfortably (except on horrific hot days when the A/C can't keep up and I open the windows.) I have used friends new John Deer tractors (both larger and smaller than mine) with other transmissions. I can operate them as good as their owners but prefer my HST tractor. It is not just due to familiarity. A good shuttle shift is nearly as nice as HST and is far superior to the stop, clutch, shift old fashion tranny which is a real pain moving material via FEL.

Patrick

 

[ovrszd]

Patrick, I bought my first HST tractor in 1979. I've constantly owned one since. Use would total thousands, if not ten thousand hrs. I currently own HST, Torque Converter Shuttle, Mechanical Shuttle and Power Shuttle. The most efficient in power delivery is the Mechanical and Power Shuttle models. Least efficient is the HST.

In regards to my Brother's L3240 HST, it suited him fine. For light chores it was adequate. When more difficult tasks were required he used my L4400. His little engine had no chance under those conditions.

Someone mentioned earlier that HST requires 10-20% more HP. That's significant. If your chores benefit from the comvenience of HST more than the loss of HP then definitely go that route.

 

[Industrial Toys]

I love the left hand power reverser on my Power Quad Deere. I love that automotive style Hydro on my Kubota Loader. It's a hydro but with just a gas peddle and a f/r lever on the steering wheel.

For mowing applications where full rpm is constantly run, you can't beat a hydro. For just driving down the road, Hydro sucks big time! That revving engine and hydro whine!

 

[ovrszd]

I've never ran a Deere power reverser. I've also never heard a complaint about them.

 

[Industrial Toys]

Funny. I thought the worst on the weekend as far as my JD 6200 transmision. I had 1200 litres of water out front on a skid tank and a Harley Rake out back for ballast. It seemed like the tractor was freewheeling downhill. It turns out that I was in 2WD and I guess so little weight on the rear tires that they were just skidding. Another reason, I don't like AG loaders. That load is just so far forward compared to my little Wheel loader.

 

[MossRoad]

10-20% more HP to do what???

If you purchase a 35PTOHP tractor, it's gonna deliver 35PTOHP.

If you purchase a 35drawbarHP tractor, it's gonna deliver 35 drawbar HP.

Spec the tractor from the PTO forward, or the pulling power forward, or whatever your needs are in hydraulic GPM and pressure, etc.... but don't start specing it with engine HP. Get the machine that delivers what you need at the power points.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Yes, if you put a 30HP engine in front of a geared transmission it will generally deliver more power to the rear wheels than the same engine in front of an HST transmission. And it'll probably deliver more power to the PTO, too. So purchase a machine that'll deliver the power to the rear wheels and PTO that you need.

If that means you have to purchase a tractor with 33 engine HP vs 30 engine HP, so be it. Just get the machine you need and stop worrying about all this talk about losses. It's insignificant to the average compact tractor owner. Insignificant.

 

[Industrial Toys]

In a sense, the available HP maybe meaningless. In a hydro, if you encounter tough conditions, you can crawl through the work keeping RPMs up. Maybe not an option on a gear transmission, despite possibly having more HP. Well, maybe at the expense of a clutch.

 

[ovrszd]

Moss I think you are the only one struggling with the HP loss issue.

To date I don't know of any brand that offers the 33hp engine in the HST model versus the 30hp engine in the gear model. All tractors I know of are labeled and marketed based on engine HP at the crank. Then it's up to the buyer to figure out what's actually delivered to the ground. There's also often a larger spread between engine and PTO in HST models.

But we digress. The point of discussion is "does HST require more HP to do a similar task as gear drive"? The answer is yes. No fluid drive system I'm aware of operates more efficiently than gear drive.

In regards to my Brother's L3240 it's basically the same size tractor as Patrick's L4610. With 14hp less. Without using a calculator I'd call that 33% less.

So is it my Brother's fault for buying it or Kubota's fault for offering it?