Is 3039R Worth the Cost Over 3033R ?

[bigcut]

Looked at the specs on both. Single largest difference for the 3039R is a few HP over the 3033R. Everything else is pretty much the same.
Question is it worth the few extra thousand dollars $ in your opinion.
John

 

[GManBart]

What brand are you asking about? LS makes an R3039, and a G3033, but they are pretty significantly different in capability. I'm not familiar with a 3033R.

 

[bigcut]

Sorry, the brand is John Deere.

 

[GManBart]

D'oh....wasn't thinking Deere. For what they charge for either of those two I'd get a lot more tractor somewhere else.

Between those two, the extra 6hp (less at the PTO) might let you run one size larger implements....other than that there isn't much benefit.

 

[Fallon]

At times i regret getting my Kubota L3200 instead of a L3800. 2,500lbs otherwise identical tractors with 32 vs 38 hp. Pushing it with the tiller I'm very limited by hp. I have also stalled it more than a few times loading at the pile. HP at the pile wasn't an issue until i loaded my rear tires though. before that i was traction limited. A couple times running a 5' rotary cutter i've had to slow down due to things starting to bog down, but not much.

My HST burns off 15% of my HP compared to a gear drive, but i still prefer HST, even with that hit.

 

[TomSeller]

At times i regret getting my Kubota L3200 instead of a L3800. 2,500lbs otherwise identical tractors with 32 vs 38 hp. Pushing it with the tiller I'm very limited by hp. I have also stalled it more than a few times loading at the pile. HP at the pile wasn't an issue until i loaded my rear tires though. before that i was traction limited. A couple times running a 5' rotary cutter i've had to slow down due to things starting to bog down, but not much.

My HST burns off 15% of my HP compared to a gear drive, but i still prefer HST, even with that hit.

No matter what tractor you have, there will be second guessing and grass greener on the other side. In my opinion, stalling from time to time is something that I can live with. L3200s are nice machines.

 

[bigcut]

Gman,
That's kinda what I was thinking...The specs. are the same...even the lift capacity is the same...so other than having a few additional Horses...I don't see any strong motivation to cough up a few grand more.
JOhn

 

[pmsmechanic]

Just a correction in your figuring though Fallon. You hydrostatic isn't costing you 15% it's only 5.62% which is a huge difference. Tractordata.com has a L3200 hydro at 25.2 pto hp and a gear at 26.7 pto hp. That's only 1.5 hp difference.

 

[MessickFarmEqu]

Just a correction in your figuring though Fallon. You hydrostatic isn't costing you 15% it's only 5.62% which is a huge difference. Tractordata.com has a L3200 hydro at 25.2 pto hp and a gear at 26.7 pto hp. That's only 1.5 hp difference.

That's Kubota driveline efficiency for you
10-15% is about average.

 

[MtnViewRanch]

Actually I believe the larger losses are generally considered at the draw bar. You know power to the ground and all vs a gear drive . So while the PTO horse power loss is not so drastic, I believe that power to the ground is. But then maybe I'm wrong and Kubota has that superior driveline that Messick mentions.

 

[pmsmechanic]

@ MessickFarmEqu Some challenges are a little hard to resist so I calculated the difference the same way I calculated the Kubota for my own tractor. Came up with 5%. That's John Deere efficiency for you. Probably this has more to do with engine size than anything but as I say I couldn't resist.

Also I didn't catch this at first but pto hp doesn't measure driveline losses so the original figure of 10-15% loss is probably correct.

@ MtnViewRanch Someone can correct me on this but from what I understand a hydro can put more power to the ground at slow speeds because apparently the hydro develops more torque.

 

[MtnViewRanch]

@ MtnViewRanch Someone can correct me on this but from what I understand a hydro can put more power to the ground at slow speeds because apparently the hydro develops more torque.

I don't know for a fact, but I would think that a manual trans with a creeper gear system would get more power to the ground simply because of no loss through the hydro???

 

[pmsmechanic]

From what I've read and I didn't really pay a whole lot of attention it's something to do with the hydro having more torque at slower speeds. Again I wouldn't take this as fact it's just something that stuck in my mind when I was reading at one point in time. I'm hoping someone who knows can clarify.

 

[Fallon]

I'm happy with my tractor. I will probably be replacing it with a pimped out grand or equivalant JD or Kioti that has a cab here in a few years though. Sometimes I regret the missing extra ponies, but not that often.

I've repeatedly heard the HST has a 15% performance penalty, but haven't calculated anything myself. I'm assuming the PTO is a direct gear drive, so wouldn't really be affected by HST running gear losses in and of itself. The HST penalty would show up in decreased drawbar HP not PTO HP.

At any rate I think the 15% performance penalty is worth it for the usability of the HST, even more so if its less.

 

[Fallon]

The HST probably gets more torque at low speed. You have the pump putting out full pressure with very low flow giving you a bigger mechanical advantage. I expect the weak link would be the pressure release valve, which is kind of its whole point.