Tractor growing prior to purchase, M6060 or MX6000

[mo1]

I won’t disagree with your post, but I see no issue with running a hydrostatic transmission for hours on end running a cutter, especially with cruise control.

The advantages of a hydrostatic drive are clutchless operation and continuously variable speed control. Hydrostatic drives are not as efficient as a geared transmission due to friction losses in the pump and drive motor system that are far higher than frictional losses in a geared transmission. This additional friction leads to additional heat into the hydraulic fluid that needs dissipated and higher fuel use/less available engine power to do other work such as power the implement. Setting a cruise control in a hydrostatic drive unit and going at the same speed for hours at a time uses none of the advantages and suffers all of the disadvantages of this type of drive vs. a mechanical transmission, which is why gear transmissions are generally recommended for this kind of work. The only reason somebody actually could not use a hydrostatic drive for hours on end would be if the cooling of the hydraulic oil was not sufficient for prolonged operation, which I would be very surprised if this was the case.

 

[Torvy]

I only have a bit under 20 acres and I would get something the size of the MX (but a better value)...only my budget contraints are keeping me to something more like a TYM 494. For 80 acres I cannot imagine it being enough in the long run.

 

[jyoutz]

The advantages of a hydrostatic drive are clutchless operation and continuously variable speed control. Hydrostatic drives are not as efficient as a geared transmission due to friction losses in the pump and drive motor system that are far higher than frictional losses in a geared transmission. This additional friction leads to additional heat into the hydraulic fluid that needs dissipated and higher fuel use/less available engine power to do other work such as power the implement. Setting a cruise control in a hydrostatic drive unit and going at the same speed for hours at a time uses none of the advantages and suffers all of the disadvantages of this type of drive vs. a mechanical transmission, which is why gear transmissions are generally recommended for this kind of work. The only reason somebody actually could not use a hydrostatic drive for hours on end would be if the cooling of the hydraulic oil was not sufficient for prolonged operation, which I would be very surprised if this was the case.

If all someone wanted to do was to run a cutter for hours, yes a gear drive is often preferred. But most of us use our machines for other uses too, and hydrostatic transmissions are better for many uses such as loader work and precision maneuvering.

 

[jyoutz]

I only have a bit under 20 acres and I would get something the size of the MX (but a better value)...only my budget contraints are keeping me to something more like a TYM 494. For 80 acres I cannot imagine it being enough in the long run.

I have 20 acres and the MX is perfect for my uses.

 

[Torvy]

I have 20 acres and the MX is perfect for my uses.

Yup. That's why I think he will want more for his 80. I have to keep my tractor/loader combo closer to 30k.

 

[jyoutz]

Yup. That's why I think he will want more for his 80. I have to keep my tractor/loader combo closer to 30k.

It depends on how much of the 80 acres he wants to maintain. He has someone to hay for him. If he wants to mow 40+ acres or hay, he should go bigger. But, if he’s maintaining less acres, the MX could be perfect. I can understand your price constraint. My MX with loader and a few extras was $39k. But I wanted a brand with local dealer/parts availability. That limited my choice to Kubota, JD, or Mahindra. 80 month 0% financing didn’t hurt either.

 

[mo1]

If all someone wanted to do was to run a cutter for hours, yes a gear drive is often preferred. But most of us use our machines for other uses too, and hydrostatic transmissions are better for many uses such as loader work and precision maneuvering.

My original comment was about a gear transmission being preferable for running a cutter for hours at a time, we agree on this. This was the very first thing the original poster mentioned doing on their property. They also mentioned multiple tasks where a physically larger and heavier tractor would be an advantage, so the larger and heavier gear transmission utility tractor would very likely be a better fit than a hydrostatic drive compact tractor in their situation. A regular gear transmission is certainly very usable for loader work and maneuvering in tight spots, so I would not dissuade the original poster from getting a full-sized utility tractor that would otherwise be superior for their usage just because it has a clutch.

The only transmission setup I would really avoid would be a gear transmission with a transmission-driven PTO where it is impossible to clutch the transmission without also clutching the PTO as well. It can be and has been used, but it sure make you plan how you are going to stop and then restart, particularly with an implement like a rotary cutter that takes a while to spin back up. However, the gear transmission discussed here is an electrohydraulically-activated independent PTO unit.