Hydro vs Gear Trans?

[cowboydoc]

Rat,
By no means did I mean to say that I farmed the whole place with the 4600 just that it is one of the tractors that is used to help with it. I just traded my Massey away for a 4020 that does the big work like discing fields and such. I also have the deutz too. I do use the 4600 for things like planting grass and alfalfa as I've just got the smaller seeder and can't justify buying a bigger one. I can pull my square baler with it and it works great for my corn picker and my feed grinder too. It's a nice little buddy to have but would no way take care of all of this.

 

[raptor]

MattCole:

You've been given lots of good advice here, but I'll throw in my 2 cents anyhow.
Hydro tranny = hobby tractor, no SERIOUS pulling capabillity, and extensive horsepower loss at the rear wheels. I believe hydraulics are fantastic when used in the proper application. But powering a tractor with a hydraulic pump and motors leaves me cold.
To me (again my opinion) a gear drive tranny can't be beat! Both in terms of longevity and performance.

Terry

 

[MossRoad]

My International 2500B is a hydro and it has plenty of serious pulling capacity. It is hardly a hobby tractor. It is an industrail strength loader with a 3pt hitch. Step on the forward pedal to go forward, reverse pedal to back up. Power steering for tight quarters. It is not meant to be run at constant ground speed over great distances like an agricultural tractor, although it could. It has a great draft control. In my opinion, a compact utility tractor is a compromise between an agricultural tractor and an industrial loader, combining some of the best features of both. Anyone considering a new tractor purchase should first consider what type of work they are going to do now, and what would they want to do in the future.

I bought my 2500B used for the purposes of excavating a road, clearing out alot of trees, brush hogging between rows of trees in a plantation for a few years until they grew up over the weeds, then selling it. That is all I wanted out of it. A smaller compact utility tractor could not have done the job in the amount of time that I wanted to devote to those projects. My intention was to sell it after completing those projects and buy a smaller compact utility tractor.

My needs in a compact tractor now, and in the future are listed in order of frequency below:
1. mow the lawn around my house once a week.
2. plow the snow in my driveway in winter.
3. mow the trails on my property several times a year.
4. haul logs out of the woods several times a year.
5. rototill the garden several times a year.
6. occasionally excavate flower beds.
7. maintain my road.

I see no need for a gear transmission in any of these activities. I believe that a hydro with power steering will fit the bill perfectly and in 20 years my knees, shoulders and wrists will thank me.



<font color=green> MossRoad </font color=green>

 

[MChalkley]

Terry - Preferences are one thing, but misinformation is quite another. Since you obviously didn't read the links I referred to, here's a pertinent quote from one of them.

<font color=blue>As far as tractive force is concerned, consider this: My tractor (an L4310HST) has 19.5" wide Michelin XM27 radials on the back aired down to 9 psi with about 50 gallons of ballast in each tire, 11" wide Michelin radials on the front, a double-weight 4-in-1 bucket on the loader, an overhead canopy/console, a 2,000 pound Bradco backhoe on the back, and all kinds of extra weight in accessories. Still, I can put the bucket against a tree and dig 4 holes in normal ground with the tires. What would I do with more power?</font color=blue>

With all the modifications I made to that L4310HST before I sold it, the HST was one of the few things left untouched - it was completely stock. As I said in the above quote, just exactly what would I do with more tractive power? If it's pulling for an extended period of time you're talking about, the same L4310HST would scarify hard red clay soil to a depth of 12", something my father's neighbor with several large 2wd tractors was willing to bet it wouldn't do. It not only did it, but it did it for 3 hours straight on a 90-degree day. Dad's neighbor said he wouldn't even dream of trying to do it with his 55-hp farm tractor. Admittedly, it's 2wd, with smaller tires, but if anything that would just show up the weakness of my HST transmission. Except that there wasn't any to show up.

As I said, opinions are fine. Praise gears all you want, feel free to like whichever you want, (Scruffy, I respect your choice completely... /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif), but if you choose to attempt to elevate the status of gear transmissions by denigrating hydrostatics, only the facts will do - but I'm afraid they won't serve your purpose at all.

MarkC

 

[JATO_RaT]

Terry, maybe before you throw in your 2 cents (you overcharged) you should try a hydrostatic. Its obvious, you have not as evidence by your lack of knowledge about it. In fact, as little as you know about the hydrostatic and misleading your thoughts about them are makes me wonder how a computer ever become part of your curriculum, you seem very old school. "No serious pulling ability", well Mark summed it up, argue with him or argue with me, you'll never convince most of us that have both hydro's and gear drive tractors that a gear drive is superior. Folks looking to save a few bucks and don't need the manuverability of changing to forward/reverse or superior control are perfectly suited to a gear drive, don't think of trying to convince me you've added even 2 cents worth of advice to perspective tractor owners, my 2 cents of advice would be to pay no attention to "raptor", Rat...

 

[raptor]

MarkC

To each his own. Obviously it's evident which camp I pitch my tent in. There are merits to both hydro and gear, that's why both are offered, and it's up to the potential buyer to decide which one is correct for his or her application. My needs eliminate a hydro tranny.
Perhaps it's the ubiquitous whine of the hydrostatic transmission that has put me off from them. It sounds like it's destroying itself (IMO), I precieve it to be somewhat stalled, and converting usefully horsepower to heat, and heat to self destruction.
You obviously have facts relavant to support your postion. Bully for you, my thoughts, opinions, statements won't deter you in the slightest. I wish you continued good luck in your agriculture equipment endeavors.

Terry

 

[JATO_RaT]

As usual Mark, your facts have been ignored by the those who know so little about what they say. Terry has a 61 Massey tractor, hardly a tractor to make one an authority with the exceptions of the shortcomings of 2WD and how slow it is to shift from forward to reverse and back again. First tractor I ever drove was a Massey. It was a great tractor and I loved using it. That was back in 1972. Todays 4WD compacts have so much more ability then yesterdays old 2WD "skip loaders". My big ol International 2WD with GEARS, lots of gears and lots more weight cannot compete with my Kubota unless its who can get stuck the fastest. Rat...

 

[JerryG]

Fellow,
We have a very nice forum here. We need to keep it that way. Some of the last few posts are examples how all out flame wars have been started with a lot of very hard feeling. We don't need that. Colors or transmissions, to each his or her own. I like the manual along with some other, but some prefer hydros. We should each be able to give examples or opinions and still be civil and friendly. And that my full 2 cents worth.

 

[raptor]

Rat:

You are obviously very passionate that a hydrostatic transmission is best by far, good for you. There is nothing wrong with a strong belief, stick to it. I'll likewise stick to my preference regarding a gear tranny.
By the way, you correctly analysis me as, "old school", I am, without apology for it. I have a lot to learn regarding the use of a computer as you note, but have capable tutors, and feel they can assist me in my endeavor. Best regards, and happy and safe tractoring.

Terry

 

[MChalkley]

Terry - Well, ok, they do whine and it does take a little getting used to, but they aren't hurting themselves - so you have to get used to it. Unless, of course, you refuse to, which is your option...

And, well, ok, they do convert more energy to heat, but it's a lot less than most people think, they're designed to, can handle it better without damage, and have the ability to control the power that's left so much better that, in most cases, you have more usable power than you do with other transmission types.

I'm really not trying to put too fine an edge on this, but I still disagree with the way you put it your position. Your needs don't eliminate a hydro, your preferences do. You may think your needs do, but I still submit that if you do, you're mistaken - i.e. your impressions of hydrostatics are in error. Again, it makes no difference to me what your, or anyone else's, preference is, but I hate to see someone with a preference based upon misinformation, whether deliberate, or accidental. If I perceive that you're in the latter camp, I think it's my duty, as one who knows better, to correct the misunderstanding. As I said before, like what you want, but please don't attribute your preference to facts that don't exist - as a related issue, it tends to mislead others. (I hate GM products, for example, a prejudice I never try to impose on others because I realize it's completely baseless from a factual standpoint, and so absolutely worthless to anyone but me. It's kind like "what's your favorite (or least favorite) NFL team" if you don't live near one. Arguing over it is pretty stupid, because facts are generally nonexistent or at least irrelevant.)

Or in other words, a disagreement over preference is, I admit, a waste of time, but discussions, disagreements, even arguments, over facts, are the basis of knowledge and understanding.

MarkC