Hydrostatic vs Non

[CobyRupert]

... I think cars became automatics with the advent of more and more woman drivers when in 1970, laws were passed to allow woman to drive. Convenience is king as is less stocking chaffing.

So women in RI weren't allowed to drive before 1970? Good thing it a small state where everything is within walking distance. :laughing: Although as your legs get shorter it becomes a longer walk.

 

[GManBart]

I have both gear and hydro and each has its place. I think the best transmission any tractor can have regardless of size is a power shift. I had that on my old Yanmar and I could work circles around a similar sized New Holland with HST transmission when we were digging out a dried up pond and transporting the spoils about 100 feet. The NH had to downshift to L range (only has H and L with rabbit and turtle in each) to dig, then stop to put in H to travel while I just power shifted to 1st to load and back to 4th to travel. I never had to touch the clutch as it is all hydraulically controlled.

I don't know why there is not Powershift transmissions in CUT tractors as they are really the best of both worlds. NEXT to a Powershift, an HST seems to be best for everything but tillage work and bush hog work on large pastures. For those activities, I prefer gear drive. For cutting the lawn grass it has to be HST in a Zero turn mower.

Both gear and HST have strong points for use, but for the average CUT owner who can only afford one tractor with todays choice of only gear or HST, I suppose HST is the winner.

Some of that could simply be the tranny in that NH. I'm not a big fan of two ranges with creeper and rabbit setups. Most of the time I run my LS is the middle range, and it has enough power to dig into the pile, and is still fast enough for moving 100ft or so. Some of the newer HST setups would be even better with auto downshifting, etc.

 

[arrow]

So women in RI weren't allowed to drive before 1970? Good thing it a small state where everything is within walking distance. :laughing: Although as your legs get shorter it becomes a longer walk.

No , they were driving anyway because since they got the vote, they had gotten rather uppity and thought they should be able to do anything. They passed the law so they wouldn't have to prosecute anybody and husbands be able to actually live with their wives. Before then, a married couple had to build two houses. I think the lawmakers are doing the same thing now but with other laws.

 

[CobyRupert]

Well, I've watched enough "I Love Lucy" and "Dick Van Dyke" reruns to know that before 1970 married couples slept in two separate beds, but I didn't know they needed two houses?

 

[arrow]

Well, I've watched enough "I Love Lucy" and "Dick Van Dyke" reruns to know that before 1970 married couples slept in two separate beds, but I didn't know they needed two houses?

Cheez, don't you just get sick of the propaganda that was fed to us back then. That was only so they wouldn't have to relocate for camera shots. and then, the concept caught on that couples may not have needed two houses. It helped ruin the economy.

 

[Guesseral]

Well I have always like a gear tractor, and now I have a standard shuttle shift. I really like it a guess mainly because that is how I was raised, it could also be because I am cheep! Now it seems like I need surgery on my back I was using the tractor the other day and my left foot is well sort of numb so driving the standard shuttle really wasn't as fun as usual.

 

[Raised on a Deere]

Might ought to mention that the Yanmar Lx490 has a power reverser that literally will allow you to not use clutch at all if you wanted to not. You can start with everything in neutral, select the range you want, put it in the gear you want and then move the shuttle/power reverser to forward or reverse. Never touch the clutch. Change directions at will without a clutch. It does a smooth stop and then a smooth reverse. Smoother than I can do it manually. Usually for speed of changing gears you would use the clutch when you move shift grears but if you wanted to you could just move shuttle to neutral, change gear and then return shuttle lever to the direction you want. No clutch useage. It is why I bought the Yanmar. Really had settled on a must have for next tractor to be hydrostat but there were some situations with hydrostat I just did not like for my purposes. The power reverser got me a good bucket tractor while still having gears. We will see if it all pans out. Just unloaded the tractor today. No seat time except to make sure that what I just said is true. Hope this helps some poor shopping soul and doesn't drive you even more into consternation

Might add that I am sure I will be using the clutch for fast gear changes but just wanted you to know that you do not need your feet except for brakes if you wanted to drive it that way, such as when you have had injury to a foot of leg or it just is giving out after a hard day. Also the clutch is so easy to push it is easiest to use that I have seen> I don't know if that due to something inherent to having a wet clutch or if it is just the implementation. Anyway it is extremely soft to push and a short stroke. So far I just love this thing.

 

[Bluegill2]

With a gear drive when you shuttle forward to reverse, don't you have to come to a stop and step on the clutch?

With the L3800DT yes I do and it's not a problem.

With the L3750 hydro shuttle, no need to stop or use the clutch.

I like the L3800DT better.

 

[gphil12873]

Well I have been around tractors all my life. I like a hyro in small tractors with a FEL. If you moving dirt the shuttle may be nice, but if you in a really low gear as soon as you have the bucket full and you pull the shuttle lever to reverse (power or syncro) you still in that low gear. With a hydro you can fill the bucket and then reverse at a faster rate. I know I do. I cant stand it on a gear tractor to get the buck full then hit reverse and be creeping back. Now if I'm in a field pulling a disc or something heavy....of course a gear tractor. On other thing is I had a dealer tell me the other day that in 25 years selling tractors he has never been into a hydro tractor. He said you keep the maintenance up like anything else.

 

[Raised on a Deere]

Well I have been around tractors all my life. I like a hyro in small tractors with a FEL. If you moving dirt the shuttle may be nice, but if you in a really low gear as soon as you have the bucket full and you pull the shuttle lever to reverse (power or syncro) you still in that low gear. With a hydro you can fill the bucket and then reverse at a faster rate. I know I do. I cant stand it on a gear tractor to get the buck full then hit reverse and be creeping back. Now if I'm in a field pulling a disc or something heavy....of course a gear tractor. On other thing is I had a dealer tell me the other day that in 25 years selling tractors he has never been into a hydro tractor. He said you keep the maintenance up like anything else.

So do I. slickest thing since sliced bead. New operators wont be tearing up the transmission, wife neighbors, they are truly durable. I have a hydro that has worked hard since 1973 and have driven big and small. It is getting a little slushy now but still strong at full throttle.

My tractor is 49HP doing a 7 foot bushog, and quite a bit of pulling around in the fields up and down hills. Hydros just do not hold speeds real well in a lot of those situations, you have to be paying attention to speed in order to maintain it, Cruise controls just wont take care of up the hill and over down the hill and back up etc. And boy do they whine.

Around the yard, and dirt pile and gravel pit and just plain digging all day, hydro is way to go hands down in my book. But this power reverser tractor will get in there and dig with them pretty well. Even in higher gears at just above idle, it will dig into pile until wheels are slipping, and a coordinated, foot throttle outburst and the bucket is coming up fast, power reverser has made a smooth shift with out me having be coordinated my self, and I am coming backwards as fast as I would want to be moving. This tractor will spin the wheel at just above idle in the 5 mph gear, that much I know, and the gear can be changed on the fly if I want to go even faster once I get to moving forward with the load. Once I realized all that I was willing to make the compromise so that I would not be let down out in the fields, covering the miles with hay rakes, balers, wagons, bushog, and occasional session with a breaking plow. Hydros seem to bet much more tolerant of the jerking and snatching when you are into just about to destroy the loader type of hammering into stuff, like construction equipment has to do when working with rocky or clay with undersized machine. The hydro hangs in there where a clutch gear combo will not.

I know it is hard to settle on what you really need since you need both. I spent a year looking around, avoiding John Deere because of price, but found the Yanmar, the John Deere with Yellow pain,t and it fit what I was looking for. It was a pretty good stretch to give up on the hydro for this particular tractor purchase, and the Yanmar made the stretch for me.

I am not trying to convince anyone. Just want folks to know that a shuttle shift has a lot of different implementations. The Branson has just a forward reverse dry clutch mechanism, like so many of the other shuttle shifts. It would work you pretty hard in a constant back and forth situation, or jockeying into something. This power reverser is a whole nother capabability, f a it is built with durability included in the design and not thrown together to just to meet a price point for that function. Wet clutches, and planetary gears are usually used when drives with durability are in mind. I expect it will hold up to responsible use. I don't expect to having to go inside. I am not going to use it hard enough to tear it up. But we will just have see.

 

[john_bud]

I have to chuckle, this discussion has been ongoing and still boiling for years and years.

I know what I like and why. Doesn't mean anyone else has to like the same thing... all personal preference.



And with that said, hst is still better. :silly: except for where gears are better.

 

[SPYDERLK]

Much of what you describe for loader work can now be done with the newer HST setups without the need to change ranges....they do it for you.

Also, many of them have setting for constant ground speed, and most also have cruise control, which accomplishes much the same thing.

>>>> I totally don't get your comment about needing all the machine's available power when digging into the pile....I can fill my bucket completely without using even close to it's available power and traction.<<<<

I have both hydro and gear machines, so I'm not against either type, but for the average weekend warrior, it's almost no contest....they'll be more efficient, and happier with a hydro. After reading a lot of comments, I'm convinced that a many of the people who say they prefer gear have never actually owned, or used, something similar with a hydro tranny.

Not that you mentioned it, but when I see people claim an HST setup will cost more in maintenance over the long haul I have to sort of chuckle....if filters and fluid every couple of years is a big deal, I guess I'm not that cheap. On the other hand it seems like more machines get new clutches than rebuilt hydros over time.

Perhaps you would get it if you used the machine a little harder. My 7520 with 4 loaded AGs and counterweight weighs more than 12K# and I need every bit of available traction frequently when using the loader. I cant use near all the power at that weight.... Even with the extra 2 tons added by a full lift push condition.
larry

 

[GManBart]

Perhaps you would get it if you used the machine a little harder. My 7520 with 4 loaded AGs and counterweight weighs more than 12K# and I need every bit of available traction frequently when using the loader. I cant use near all the power at that weight.... Even with the extra 2 tons added by a full lift push condition.
larry

You didn't read very carefully. My reply was that I didn't understand how someone could need all of the available power their machine had when digging into a pile, so I said:

"I totally don't get your comment about needing all the machine's available power when digging into the pile."

You just said you can't use all the power you have because you're limited by traction.

Those two statements agree with one another.

I'm not sure how I could work my machine any harder than filling full buckets as fast as possible....maybe have the pile push back out of spite? I'll have to look into that...

 

[b3wizzard]

Hey, john_bud, thanks for your reply. I wish I would have known more than I know now, (sound familiar?) when I retired in the mountains of North Carolina!
I'm still learning, as I hope we all are, but it's always beneficial to learn from those who know more than me; and that's what I've been doing since I've been
here. I called the certified John Deere dealership in Newland, NC, a few days ago, and talked to a man who taught me quite a bit. (at least about J.D.'s).
He told me that the model I bought from Lowe's in Marion, is built by Deere especially for Lowe's, and is cheaper, ($1800), and certainly not meant for anything
but light duty; flat, normal size lawns, and will go out in about two years! Brutally honest for an employee. Basically he was saying that you get what you pay for.
I asked him about the HST vs. Manual transmission, and he said that the cheaper manuals had plastic gear teeth! That blew my mind! He also said that more
tractors will be HST and manuals will be phased out eventually; at least as far as Deere is concerned. It seems to me that without product knowledge, one could
be turned totally against the brand of John Deere, or any other brand. Someone is dropping the ball, in so far as salesmanship is concerned; which naturally is hard
to find in places like Lowe's. To make a long story a little shorter, what I gained from our conversation, is that even though I will pay more, in the long run quality
will prevail and a good investment will be made.

 

[b3wizzard]

Hey, john_bud, thanks for your reply. I wish I would have known more than I know now, (sound familiar?) when I retired in the mountains of North Carolina!
I'm still learning, as I hope we all are, but it's always beneficial to learn from those who know more than me; and that's what I've been doing since I've been
here. I called the certified John Deere dealership in Newland, NC, a few days ago, and talked to a man who taught me quite a bit. (at least about J.D.'s).
He told me that the model I bought from Lowe's in Marion, is built by Deere especially for Lowe's, and is cheaper, ($1800), and certainly not meant for anything
but light duty; flat, normal size lawns, and will go out in about two years! Brutally honest for an employee. Basically he was saying that you get what you pay for.
I asked him about the HST vs. Manual transmission, and he said that the cheaper manuals had plastic gear teeth! That blew my mind! He also said that more
tractors will be HST and manuals will be phased out eventually; at least as far as Deere is concerned. It seems to me that without product knowledge, one could
be turned totally against the brand of John Deere, or any other brand. Someone is dropping the ball, in so far as salesmanship is concerned; which naturally is hard
to find in places like Lowe's. To make a long story a little shorter, what I gained from our conversation, is that even though I will pay more, in the long run quality
will prevail and a good investment will be made.

 

[SPYDERLK]

I totally don't get your comment about needing all the machine's available power when digging into the pile....I can fill my bucket completely without using even close to it's available power and traction.

Perhaps you would get it if you used the machine a little harder. My 7520 with 4 loaded AGs and counterweight weighs more than 12K# and I need every bit of available traction frequently when using the loader. I cant use near all the power at that weight.... Even with the extra 2 tons added by a full lift push condition.
larry

You didn't read very carefully. My reply was that I didn't understand how someone could need all of the available power their machine had when digging into a pile, so I said:

"I totally don't get your comment about needing all the machine's available power when digging into the pile."

You just said you can't use all the power you have because you're limited by traction.

Those two statements agree with one another.

I'm not sure how I could work my machine any harder than filling full buckets as fast as possible....maybe have the pile push back out of spite? I'll have to look into that...

You have misquoted yourself. I addressed your connected pair of sentences expressing the platforms adequacy for your use. If used a little harder you would soon reach a point where traction was inadequate to accomplish the task. Adding weight would help at that point. Even with a heavy platform with aggressive tread it is not unusual to use all traction. Finally, after increasing traction, power would be the limiter. The pile, or anything else, always pushes back. Its out of Physics, not spite.
larry

 

[GManBart]

You have misquoted yourself. I addressed your connected pair of sentences expressing the platforms adequacy for your use. If used a little harder you would soon reach a point where traction was inadequate to accomplish the task. Adding weight would help at that point. Even with a heavy platform with aggressive tread it is not unusual to use all traction. Finally, after increasing traction, power would be the limiter. The pile, or anything else, always pushes back. Its out of Physics, not spite.
larry

Larry, this is still nothing more than a reading comprehension issue. I didn't misquote myself at all...I only cited the pertinent part.

I said I didn't get his comment about needing all of the available power when digging into the pile. <break>

I then said that I don't run out of either power OR traction (traction being something he didn't address, because it's MY situation, not his). See that now? I didn't say my situation was the same as his, just that I didn't get how he could be using all of the available power.

You then tried correcting me to point out that in most cases machines run out of traction before power when digging into the pile. Great....that's why I said I didn't get how he was using all of his available power.

If I'm hitting the pile, and filling the bucket full in one shot, I'm not sure how I could work the machine any harder....at least it wouldn't be any more productive. I did add 1,400lbs of weight to the 3pt (more if you add in the hydraulic top link), so I have lots of rear wheel traction...maybe that's the difference, I don't know.

The pile can't push back...that whole Newton's law stuff that most folks put that under the "physics" category. Resistance to movement isn't pushing back.

 

[mike35549]

I have used both quite a bit. If you are getting a tractor with a bucket for general use around the house, hunting land etc just general use get an HST, you can thank me later. If you are farming row crops get you a regular geared tractor.

 

[k0ua]

I have used both quite a bit. If you are getting a tractor with a bucket for general use around the house, hunting land etc just general use get an HST, you can thank me later. If you are farming row crops get you a regular geared tractor.

That just about sums it up nicely.

 

[radios1]

here's some good info. https://agriculture.papemachinery.com/blog/choosing-a-transmission-hydrostatic-vs-manual also, a gear transmission does better climbing hills in high gear..