kubota vs. kioti

[GManBart]

Again I ask, if torque were solo important in the comparison of tractors, why do manufactures not acknowledge that and publish it as a spec, instead of using HP to define their models?

I'm not in tractor marketing, but I would expect it's mostly out of tradition, and the fact that Americans stick with older/less accurate systems rather than deal with change to switch to a better system. The U.S. is one of the few countries that allows HP to be used as the primary/official rating of an engine.

Some tractor manufacturers realize that some buyers want to know and compare torque figures, so they publish them....I recall the Deere 5000 and 6000 series lists torque, and I suspect all the larger models as well, but have never looked.

BTW, the Tundra that pulled the Space Shuttle wasn't modified other than to make an adapter for the hitch pin. Several trucking magazines inspected it, and it was immediately donated to a museum of some kind, and is on display.

 

[LD1]

There are some misprints I think. They gotta both be diesels judging from the compression ratios. ;confused3:

The first engine for each one listed is a diesel. Scroll down. Each link to each tractor lists 2 engines

 

[batwing]

I'm not in tractor marketing, but I would expect it's mostly out of tradition, and the fact that Americans stick with older/less accurate systems rather than deal with change to switch to a better system. The U.S. is one of the few countries that allows HP to be used as the primary/official rating of an engine.

Some tractor manufacturers realize that some buyers want to know and compare torque figures, so they publish them....I recall the Deere 5000 and 6000 series lists torque, and I suspect all the larger models as well, but have never looked.

BTW, the Tundra that pulled the Space Shuttle wasn't modified other than to make an adapter for the hitch pin. Several trucking magazines inspected it, and it was immediately donated to a museum of some kind, and is on display.

Do you think the Tundra is the only 1/2 ton pickup that would pull a Shuttle?

 

[Blade Breaker]

Do you think the Tundra is the only 1/2 ton pickup that would pull a Shuttle?

Yes... Prove that another could do it......

 

[batwing]

Ha ha, I look at weight of truck most torque with same or better horse power, how about a v6 ford!

 

[Blade Breaker]

Ha ha, I look at weight of truck most torque with same or better horse power, how about a v6 ford!

I agree. Not really that big of a deal. Not sure how much power it took to move the shuttle but it was on wheels. Not like it was dragging it.. was a great TV add though.

OK back to what orange tractor can go faster up the hill. Very interesting for us guys driving green machines.

 

[TomSeller]

And sometimes the heavier blades and gearbox can help power through a thick spot, since once at speed, it has more inertia.

Agree. My 6' sometimes seems easier going in thick grass than my 5' does with the same tractor, particularly in clumps of thick grass.

 

[94BULLITT]

Yes those older fords were really built well. I actually have a friend of mine with a John Deere 990 that has 35pto hp and 40 engine hp. My 2wheel drive unit seems to out pull his in 4x4. I give him &$!@ about it every year. We pull a heavy Brown disk harrow. All I can figure is the weight diff of the two machines. He does have the R4 industrial tires though where I have ag tires. I know that's part of it but they have like new tread where mine are 1/2 way wore. Also felt 4x4 would make more diff. He seems to need to wind his out more around 2800 rpms vs me running 1600 or so. Tires seems to spin more as we'll.

I think the old school ag tractors will out pull a newer compact that is the same HP or even more. It is amazing how little 4WD does help when going foward, some manufacturers call it front wheel assist and that is about what it is. Now if you are going backwards a 4WD will go way better than a 2WD. I think I heard in reverse a 4WD tractor has 50% more pulling power than a 2WD.

 

[sd455dan]

Thanks as this is exactly what I was trying to explain earlier. The larger displacement engines normally are better at this. A lot of the older tractors had bigger derated engines with very early torque delivery. Newer compacts just don't offer this. Typically they use smaller engines to save cost and then squeeze every last bit out to meet a specified hp rating. Of the newer stuff I've tried being John Deere 990 and Kubota MX5100 they do fine when at or near rated engine speed but fall flat on their face when much below that during a heavy load. I can actually have both my Ford 2810 and 3910 at idle when I make a turn at end of a row then set in my heavy Brown disk harrow and throttle back up to speed. Both of the other tractors tend to die as they struggle trying to get back up into their comfort range. You can get around this by changing gears on the newer tractors to keep them in the rpm range they like or try to leave rpms up while turning and dropping disk. Only down side to this is more operator involvement for first option and 2nd option running engine at high rpms usually involves more jerkiness in rough terrain. I typically disk at 1400-1600 rpms and the tractor is very smooth in these type situations. Come to end of row pulling throttle down to idle lift disk, turn, and place disk in dirt while throttling back up. The Fords do this great but the other two not so well.

Very well said -
Thank you sawtooth and Spyderlk

for getting the idea across concerning the (personality) of the larger lower revving (torque) engines...

That i guess i didn't do such a great job of trying to explain

There are real world differences- in some tractor engines that have similar (rated) horsepower.

 

[tomato coupe]

The term tractability applies here. Engines having a good amt of torque rise avoid the need for exact gearing in the face of changing load when PTOrpm is not too critical. Lose a little ground speed and "torque" on thru w/o a shift.
larry

1. I agree.

2. I have no problem when someone describes an engine as "having a good amount of torque rise." It immediately tells me that the engine doesn't lose horsepower (as the RPMs drop) as quickly as an engine that doesn't have the same torque rise.

3. I think one reason the "horsepower" vs. "torque" debate is so lively is that some people treat torque as something distinct and magical. It's not. If you know the torque of an engine at a given RPM, then you know the horsepower at the same RPM. Torque (at a given RPM) is no more or less important than horsepower (at the same RPM). Arguing that torque is most important is silly. Your second sentence can be be written (with equal validity) as:

"Lose a little ground speed and "torque" on thru w/o a shift." or

"Lose a little ground speed and "horsepower" on thru w/o a shift.

4. Perhaps you mean "tractor-a-bility" rather than tractability. In mathematics and physics a problem is said to be tractable if it can be solved without the use of extraordinary measures.