Hydrostatic vs Non

[wolc123]

Hey GM, I totally agree with you on the average "weekend warrior thing". There is no doubt that the hydro is easier and faster to become efficient on, especially for loader work. Even though I grew up on tractors, it took me more than 40 years to come up with the efficient method that I described above, for a gear tractor and loader work. I only posted that, to hopefully save some other gear owners a little time. What I should have said is: "A gear-tractor operator, with lots of experience, may be more efficient on the gear than he would be on a hydro".

As far as lawn-mowing goes, I am trying hard, but do believe that task is impossible to do more efficiently with a gear tractor. I still remember how easy and fast it was to mow with an old Cub Cadet 12 hp lawn tractor that my granddad bought brand-new, compared to the 12 hp, geared, Wheel Horse that I use now. I also enjoyed a couple years "easy mowing" on a 12 hp, hydro, Case, in recent years.

As far as needing the tractors maximum power and traction, that only comes into play when you are dealing with very hard material. such as clay, or packed ground. For that, the extra 6-15% power of the geared machine comes in very handy. This also brings another mistake that I see many compact tractor buyers make - getting R4-type tires. R4 tires provide much less traction force than R1's, and are also more expensive. Again, the R4 tires, like the hydro transmission, are a lot better for lawn-mowing.

It is only those folks who do not use their hydro, R4 tire tractor for lawn-mowing, that I consider are making a couple of mistakes.

 

[jenkinsph]

wolc123,
Most of the weekend warriors don't have the large projects where fuel is a consequence or power loss through a hydro would matter. I would think that for most users ease of operation is a more important choice. I would also add that since these same users are performing a multitude of tasks from mowing to dirt work the R4 tires are a good match too. I agree with you that the R1 tires have more traction in field work, just not sure how important that is for most users. Most construction equipment I see is equipped with R4 tires not R1 tires, I suspect durability with the thicker sidewalls is an important factor.

 

[Baby Grand]

I really like the "power-reverser" that JD uses on their gear tractors. I even find it more efficient than a hydro for doing loader work. My JD "power reverser" tractor has 12 speeds, split into three ranges (A, B, and C). I find that I can maximize loader efficiency by operating the tractor in 9th gear (1st in the "C" range), and the dash throttle set at minimum. That 9th gear is usually just right for transport, where speed can be controlled with the foot throttle. Just prior to stabbing into the dirt or other material pile, I downshift into the "A" range. That puts the tractor into 1st gear, where it's maximum power can be obtained when it is really needed (along with maximum foot throttle if necessary). If I need to cross some rough terrain, I shift into the "B" range, which puts the tractor into 5th gear (just right for crossing ditches, etc.).

This method really simplifies the loader-work task, by only requiring the operation of a single lever with the left hand (no touching of the gear-shift lever, just the range selector). Anyone who has done any loader work will know that there is always one hand available for tasks, while the other is on the steering wheel, so only needing to mess with one left-hand lever is a huge plus.

Prior to, or shortly after backing out of the pile, the tractor is shifted back into the "C" range for transport at optimum efficiency. I do use the clutch for those C range - A range / A-range - C-range shifts, but I am not sure it would be necessary, because the left foot is not busy then anyhow.

I have finally learned how to optimally operate this tractor for loader work but, it's primary function is bush-hogging, plowing and disking, all of which are performed, at various gears, in the "B" range. All of these tasks may require the tractor's maximum available pto and drawbar hp at times. Also, these operations are all best performed at a constant speed which make it no contest, in favor of the gear tractor. I never use the other gears available in the "A" range and the only time I use other gears in the "C" range, is the top (12th), for road transport.

The main reason that this JD gear tractor is more efficient than a hydro, for loader work, is the hydro carries with it a 6 - 15% deduction in available drawbar horsepower. That means that less available power for putting into a pile, a time when all of the tractor's available power and traction may be called upon. Normally, the hydro shines here by providing the optimum speed at all times. I need all the power I can get because my tractor is the lowest powered of it's particular class of JD tractors. I always have had plenty however, and have often wondered why folks fork out all that extra cash for the higher powered machines. I guess a lot of them are making up for the hydro deduction, or perhaps, the extra power needed to run an air-conditioned cab.

The one place that I definitely recognize the superiority of a hydro is for lawn-mowing. I used one of them for a few years. It had the same engine hp and several inches narrower cut than the gear tractor that I use now, yet could always get the lawn cut in considerably less time. Right now, I am shopping for a hydro, zero turn mower, which should solve that problem.

I went through an almost identical thought process when I got the Kubota L3240 GST. It was the lowest powered of it's class and I didn't want to give up any more of that HP to waste heat that I didn't have to. The GST (Glide Shift Trans) is a power reverser that uses wet clutching and requires no clutch pedal action when reversing direction. It took a while to figure out how to best use it, but now that the learning curve is over, it's a pleasure to use and I'm very satisfied with its performance and the overall performance of the tractor. In my case, more power would have been just more power. Even with 4WD & R1 tires I find that traction, not HP, is the limiting factor in what I can move with this machine.

 

[HEC]

When I was trying to choose between the two for my m5700 the dealer rep happened to be at the dealership. When I told him that I would useing a 3 bottom plow and cultivators etc. , he said " do not get hst " . When I told him I wanted to use a snow blower on the rear he said " go with creeper gears " . I did get the creeper gears and hyd. reverser which is GREAT . I have never been sorry for my decisions . I would think it holds true for smaller tractors , it depends on what it will be mostly used for . I have used my 5700 for loader work and would think hst would be much better . I just bought a b2650 with hst ( no choice ) so that will be a new experience . It hasn't been delivered yet .

 

[k0ua]

When I was trying to choose between the two for my m5700 the dealer rep happened to be at the dealership. When I told him that I would useing a 3 bottom plow and cultivators etc. , he said " do not get hst " . When I told him I wanted to use a snow blower on the rear he said " go with creeper gears " . I did get the creeper gears and hyd. reverser which is GREAT . I have never been sorry for my decisions . I would think it holds true for smaller tractors , it depends on what it will be mostly used for . I have used my 5700 for loader work and would think hst would be much better . I just bought a b2650 with hst ( no choice ) so that will be a new experience . It hasn't been delivered yet .

You will enjoy the HST in your new B2650.. If you don't. please come back here and tell me I am wrong.

 

[terryknight]

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 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.

having read this i figured i would add my comments. and most have to do with the above. i prefer gear. i have a couple thousand hours on gear CUT and utility size tractors, i only have a couple hundred hours on hydro CUT tractors most of these on a kubota with the **** rocker pedal which I hate. i would much prefer the side by side pedals. i have never had the luxury of the fancy new hydro like kubota's or deere's nor have i gotten to use cruise. maybe these would change my thinking, but i am familiar with gear tractors

as for skid steer the nice ones have a foot throttle

how many people who run hydros have time on gear machines? i feel that most people buying a newer CUT don't have much if any. and how many of those clutches needing to be replaced because of operator error? i do think that for most people it is much easier with a hydro, not for me i'm stuck in my ways

 

[k0ua]

having read this i figured i would add my comments. and most have to do with the above. i prefer gear. i have a couple thousand hours on gear CUT and utility size tractors, i only have a couple hundred hours on hydro CUT tractors most of these on a kubota with the **** rocker pedal which I hate. i would much prefer the side by side pedals. i have never had the luxury of the fancy new hydro like kubota's or deere's nor have i gotten to use cruise. maybe these would change my thinking, but i am familiar with gear tractors

as for skid steer the nice ones have a foot throttle

how many people who run hydros have time on gear machines? i feel that most people buying a newer CUT don't have much if any. and how many of those clutches needing to be replaced because of operator error? i do think that for most people it is much easier with a hydro, not for me i'm stuck in my ways

For sheer number of hours, I have many many more hours on gear machines than I have on Hydro machines.. BUT I prefer hydro for most of the things I do now. Mostly loader/grapple/fork work.. For these type of operations, no way would I trade my hydro equipped machine for any gear machine.

 

[jenkinsph]

having read this i figured i would add my comments. and most have to do with the above. i prefer gear. i have a couple thousand hours on gear CUT and utility size tractors, i only have a couple hundred hours on hydro CUT tractors most of these on a kubota with the **** rocker pedal which I hate. i would much prefer the side by side pedals. i have never had the luxury of the fancy new hydro like kubota's or deere's nor have i gotten to use cruise. maybe these would change my thinking, but i am familiar with gear tractors

as for skid steer the nice ones have a foot throttle

how many people who run hydros have time on gear machines? i feel that most people buying a newer CUT don't have much if any. and how many of those clutches needing to be replaced because of operator error? i do think that for most people it is much easier with a hydro, not for me i'm stuck in my ways

On hydros I have just over 2500 hrs but on gear tractors several times that. It helps to have been in both types with the power shift and reversers added in. I liked the hydraulic reverser with high/low forward gear in my old dozer too.

 

[mjstef]

I can't figure out why people think a hyro is better for loader work. I don't want to hear the motor wound out tight all day and it has to be to make the loader work fast. I have spent 25 years running heavy equipment and the only hyro's in heavy eq. i have run are rollers and skid steers and Bobcat has a foot feed for the throttle which is nice. Watch this guy load this truck. Notice the engine is only wound out when needed, not all the time like it would be with a hydro. You can get this type of operation with a Gear shuttle or a Power Shuttle, NOT a hydro unless you going for the hand throttle every few seconds. EXPERT OPERATOR KOMATSU WA430-6 WHEEL LOADER LOADING 17 CBM DAF TRUCK - YouTube

 

[MHarryE]

FYI Caterpillar small wheel loaders are now hydrostatic. By going to hydros they decreased engine speed from 2400 to 1800 rpm, improved cycle time, and claim an overall 25% fuel savings. Small means the largest one is only 37,000 pounds and 182 HP. Mediums and large are still power shift - hydro technology not yet up to that size capability.

 

[mjstef]

FYI Caterpillar small wheel loaders are now hydrostatic. By going to hydros they decreased engine speed from 2400 to 1800 rpm, improved cycle time, and claim an overall 25% fuel savings. Small means the largest one is only 37,000 pounds and 182 HP. Mediums and large are still power shift - hydro technology not yet up to that size capability.

I have a friend in Peoria Illinois whose job is to try and break transmissions at Cat. I know this is out but it's NOTHING like a CUT Hydro. It allows independent control of ground speed and engine speed for efficient operation of hydraulically powered tools. You can hear the variable engine speed in this video...... CAT 938K Wheel loader working - YouTube

 

[jenkinsph]

I can't figure out why people think a hyro is better for loader work. I don't want to hear the motor wound out tight all day and it has to be to make the loader work fast. I have spent 25 years running heavy equipment and the only hyro's in heavy eq. i have run are rollers and skid steers and Bobcat has a foot feed for the throttle which is nice. Watch this guy load this truck. Notice the engine is only wound out when needed, not all the time like it would be with a hydro. You can get this type of operation with a Gear shuttle or a Power Shuttle, NOT a hydro unless you going for the hand throttle every few seconds. EXPERT OPERATOR KOMATSU WA430-6 WHEEL LOADER LOADING 17 CBM DAF TRUCK - YouTube

The hydro vs. non hydro discussion here is related to small tractors not dedicated purpose wheel loaders. Most of the larger wheel loaders have a button on the joystick to release the transmission from gear as you approach the truck allowing you to rev the engine to raise the loader. While this works well for this application most small compact and ag tractors don't have this feature. Most wheel loaders while set up very well for their intended purpose don't work well with a brush mower either.

Most users in a non commercial environment don't need to have the hydro machines wound up tight all day either. Mowing is about the only thing I do with the throttle set at high rpms'. The auto throttle on my Deere CUT works well enough for most jobs and allows the engine speed to vary as needed. My point is that it isn't necessary to run a hydro tractor at full rpms all the time.

 

[Gary Fowler]

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.

 

[jenkinsph]

Gary,
I have to agree that in some cases the powershift would be a great choice. I have been moving lots of dirt this past week and a powershift would have been the perfect transmission for this job. Making long pulls in low range with the box blade and then having to change to high range to get back to the starting point over and over all day. I did manage to move about 800 yards this way and am ready to dig the pipeline as of yesterday.

Like most people on the forum I can't afford to have every machine with the perfect set up for all the jobs I do so I compromise.

 

[arrow]

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.

I'd have to agree along the same lines as most cars are automatics. People don't care about "power loss". They didn't with automatics. 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. As our arms and legs get shorter and shorter through lack of use, we need stuff that happens more automatically. At one time, Tyranosaurus had 8' arms but as his head got bigger and bigger, he didn't need arms of such lengths. The same thing is happening to us. So hydro or gear... you decide.

 

[k0ua]

I'd have to agree along the same lines as most cars are automatics. People don't care about "power loss". They didn't with automatics. 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. As our arms and legs get shorter and shorter through lack of use, we need stuff that happens more automatically. At one time, Tyranosaurus had 8' arms but as his head got bigger and bigger, he didn't need arms of such lengths. The same thing is happening to us. So hydro or gear... you decide.

Now wait a second here!.. are you saying my head is too big and my arms are too short!:shocked:

 

[jenkinsph]

I think he is saying that some body parts get shorter if they aren't used. I thought their being short caused them not to get used enough. I need to figure this out.

 

[TripleR]

Gary,
I have to agree that in some cases the powershift would be a great choice. I have been moving lots of dirt this past week and a powershift would have been the perfect transmission for this job. Making long pulls in low range with the box blade and then having to change to high range to get back to the starting point over and over all day. I did manage to move about 800 yards this way and am ready to dig the pipeline as of yesterday.

Like most people on the forum I can't afford to have every machine with the perfect set up for all the jobs I do so I compromise.

No real disagreement as I operate both, but to me changing ranges is little to no different to me than changing gears and the HST+ narrows the gap even more. I'm a little long in the tooth, so I use my sons' experience and input as sort of a means to gauge my advice or opinion. When I put one in the M8540HDC and another in the L5740HSTC, they will pretty much do bucket for bucket, but the one in the 8540 is going to be much more tired at the end of a long day. Now if they did that for a living the results might change, but few of us are professionals.

 

[adventure bob]

HP is prbly not a good decision point neither is use. A JD 8rt with 245HP designed as a row tractor, i.e. dragging BA ground implements all day has a hydro on it.

 

[arrow]

I thought their being short caused them not to get used enough. I need to figure this out.

Never in a selective process world. I haven't used my height much and I'm getting shorter. And James, not at all am I saying your head is too big and your arms are too short, There is a test however: The next time you go out with friends and your pockets seem farther away when its time to pay up and then you use your head to think: "but I didn't order any drinks", then you know you are being effected.