CTyler
Veteran Member
I can carry water from the well to the toilet and fill it faster than the new fangled things thay got these days. Real men don't need indoor plumbing...poooeee /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
Tractor Tranny Tracking: From HST to GST to ...
- Thread starter DAP
- Start date
- Views: 6918
slowrev
Elite Member
Art,
Are those big tractor transmissions really Hrdrostatic or maybe a type of automatic transmission. They are very different.
Are those big tractor transmissions really Hrdrostatic or maybe a type of automatic transmission. They are very different.
Ole_Hickory
Silver Member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 169
Art,
Excellent post,I wonder how many people would like to have tractors without power steering ? I thought it was great when I drove my 1st tractor with power steering , I did not think it could get any better,until I drove my 1st tractor with a hydro tranny.
Excellent post,I wonder how many people would like to have tractors without power steering ? I thought it was great when I drove my 1st tractor with power steering , I did not think it could get any better,until I drove my 1st tractor with a hydro tranny.
rambler
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2003
- Messages
- 1,994
- Location
- MN
- Tractor
- Ford 960, 7700, TW20, 1720; IHC H, 300; Ollie S77
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( ART ... well said and to the point of intent in this thread. The gear-users and the "REAL machine operators" all tout their old technology and are immediately offended, hyper sensitive and over defensive when a contest erupts. These contests may get boring and repetitive but sometimes they garner a fresh viewpoint.
My case is an argument for technology growth and its trend and your post expresses what I may have failed.
/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif )</font>
My problem with technology since the 1980's is that it is used to promote the seller (lower production costs, lower materials cost, advertising gimicks, and the like) and actually do nothing or a re a negative to what the sellers needs.
I don't like to purchase something for $20,000 that is 'disposable.' Cars they build to rust & totally disentigrate in a decade or so, so little one can do about it. A tractor is a tool, and I view one as such. It should last, it should be rebuildable, and it should do some work.
I suspect many new compact buyers no longer view a tractor as such.
And so, the arguments......
I personally much prefer a regular shifting tranny - I can get a _LOT_ more feedback & work from one. I know what the tractor is doing, what is happening, how hard it is pulling, etc. I cannot get those types of feedbacks from the other trannies, and I lose something in the process. I spend about 1100 hours/ year on my various tractors, and they must earn a living for me, not decorate the lawn, sit for long periods in the repair shop waiting for parts, or have a lot of down time. Obviously, a manual tranny is better for _me_, and you can't agrue any different.
I should not be telling anyone else what type of tranny to get either, tho. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
For me, a hydro steals hp, loses efficiency, does not provide feedback, and is far more costly in original cost, maintenence time, & down time than any other tranny. For some rare uses they are real handy, but have proven time after time to be a poor choice for a real tractor. The biggest is lost efficiency - using 10% more fuel might not be a big deal to you, but 300-400 gallons a year is a big deal to me, and I'm a pretty small scale farmer.
Second is the downtime. Most breaks on a regular tranny give some warning signals. You get to pick when you get it fixed before it breaks. A hydro tranny more often just dies, and there you sit. If you are only putting 100-200 hours on a tractor a year, you might never know what I'm talking about. Do it for a living, and it's second nature.
A power-shift was invented 45-50 years ago on production tractors, and has made that line a poor seller in the resale market.... With time & experience & refining, modern power-shifts have become fairly dependable in a convienience vs cost context. The other tranny types have yet to prove their mettle, and in the current corporate climate, I doubt they will get the chance.....
Personally, a good gearshift & clutch is far more productive & ecconomical. I shall look down upon the plastic parts & glitzy trannys & such on the new tractors as being totally impractical for real, hard, tractor work.
Doesn't mean those things aren't right for someone else tho! /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
--->Paul
My case is an argument for technology growth and its trend and your post expresses what I may have failed.
/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif )</font>
My problem with technology since the 1980's is that it is used to promote the seller (lower production costs, lower materials cost, advertising gimicks, and the like) and actually do nothing or a re a negative to what the sellers needs.
I don't like to purchase something for $20,000 that is 'disposable.' Cars they build to rust & totally disentigrate in a decade or so, so little one can do about it. A tractor is a tool, and I view one as such. It should last, it should be rebuildable, and it should do some work.
I suspect many new compact buyers no longer view a tractor as such.
And so, the arguments......
I personally much prefer a regular shifting tranny - I can get a _LOT_ more feedback & work from one. I know what the tractor is doing, what is happening, how hard it is pulling, etc. I cannot get those types of feedbacks from the other trannies, and I lose something in the process. I spend about 1100 hours/ year on my various tractors, and they must earn a living for me, not decorate the lawn, sit for long periods in the repair shop waiting for parts, or have a lot of down time. Obviously, a manual tranny is better for _me_, and you can't agrue any different.
I should not be telling anyone else what type of tranny to get either, tho. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
For me, a hydro steals hp, loses efficiency, does not provide feedback, and is far more costly in original cost, maintenence time, & down time than any other tranny. For some rare uses they are real handy, but have proven time after time to be a poor choice for a real tractor. The biggest is lost efficiency - using 10% more fuel might not be a big deal to you, but 300-400 gallons a year is a big deal to me, and I'm a pretty small scale farmer.
Second is the downtime. Most breaks on a regular tranny give some warning signals. You get to pick when you get it fixed before it breaks. A hydro tranny more often just dies, and there you sit. If you are only putting 100-200 hours on a tractor a year, you might never know what I'm talking about. Do it for a living, and it's second nature.
A power-shift was invented 45-50 years ago on production tractors, and has made that line a poor seller in the resale market.... With time & experience & refining, modern power-shifts have become fairly dependable in a convienience vs cost context. The other tranny types have yet to prove their mettle, and in the current corporate climate, I doubt they will get the chance.....
Personally, a good gearshift & clutch is far more productive & ecconomical. I shall look down upon the plastic parts & glitzy trannys & such on the new tractors as being totally impractical for real, hard, tractor work.
Doesn't mean those things aren't right for someone else tho! /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
--->Paul
_RaT_
Super Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2000
- Messages
- 5,813
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Northern CA.
- Tractor
- Kioti 3510-SE HST
"For me, a hydro steals hp, loses efficiency, does not provide feedback, and is far more costly in original cost, maintenence time, & down time than any other tranny. "
Just curious, for what brand of hydrostatic tractor did you have all the down time and maintanance? While I don't question your opinion on efficiency or the "feel" you develop with a manual, I do question your opinion on the hydrostatic transmission of which I doubt you have had more then one based on what I have read in your opinion here. The statistics my Kubota/JD and Kubota/NH dealers have provided regarding durability of HST vary with your findings rather dramatically.
I have personnally developed an incredible feel on a hydrostatic including the feel for the roughness of the terrain and in split seconds can be on or off the pedal as fast as swatten flys. I will gladly pay the estimated 10% extra fuel it takes for HST. At the figures given using 400 gallons and off road diesel at $1.50, that's $60 and for many of us, 400 gallons might be well on the high side of things, after all these are compacts.
I think you will find concensous among the folks here about the point you make regarding not buying a $20,000 tractor that is disposable. It makes me curious though how many folks bought their tractor with that in mind. /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
Just curious, for what brand of hydrostatic tractor did you have all the down time and maintanance? While I don't question your opinion on efficiency or the "feel" you develop with a manual, I do question your opinion on the hydrostatic transmission of which I doubt you have had more then one based on what I have read in your opinion here. The statistics my Kubota/JD and Kubota/NH dealers have provided regarding durability of HST vary with your findings rather dramatically.
I have personnally developed an incredible feel on a hydrostatic including the feel for the roughness of the terrain and in split seconds can be on or off the pedal as fast as swatten flys. I will gladly pay the estimated 10% extra fuel it takes for HST. At the figures given using 400 gallons and off road diesel at $1.50, that's $60 and for many of us, 400 gallons might be well on the high side of things, after all these are compacts.
I think you will find concensous among the folks here about the point you make regarding not buying a $20,000 tractor that is disposable. It makes me curious though how many folks bought their tractor with that in mind. /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
rambler
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2003
- Messages
- 1,994
- Location
- MN
- Tractor
- Ford 960, 7700, TW20, 1720; IHC H, 300; Ollie S77
1. I haven't ever owned a hydro tractor, as they are, frankly, such poor performers. The neighbors have had several, and the efficency, loss of power, & time in the shop is enough to tell a person what is what. Ran several for the neighbors, and they drive fine, if you have a need for it. They do spend a lot more money keeping those hydros running than they do keeping the regular trannies running. And most have torn down & rebuilt their own share of both types. They have no reason to lie to me when they tell me the only reason they keep the hydro is for some specialty job that requires the variable speed aspect. For all other jobs, a regular tranny is a lot simpler & better.
2. I use 3-4,000 gallons of fuel a year, I meant the _waste_ I would have is about 400 gallons, or $600-700 a year in innefficiency. Also would need a size larger tractor to make up the hp loss. You are _way_ off on your figures here. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
All in all, this is just a poor performing deal. Hydro is a bad thing if you want to _use_ a tractor & need to make it a paying enterprise.
They are very useful for running a trencher/ tiling machine, for running feed carts or grain trailers, and can be good on a loader tho I'd miss the loss of power myself.
Here in these forums, there has been a lot of discussion of the hydro tractors going into bypass, & not moving. I want a tractor that will lock up the drivetrain & move the rear wheels in low gear, not sit their roaring & spitting oil through the bypass and not moving me out of a situation....
Certainlty to each their own, but if your concern is power, performance, and ecconomics, then a hydrostatic tranny is the _poorest_ choice. If you just want a fun toy to mow lawns, none of my comments apply - and I tried to state that from the start. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Likewise, I much prefer a manual tranny on a pickup. I have one. My wife has an auto on hers. I can't back up to a trailer, get a feel for moving in wet grass, or manuver worth a darn near the buildings & trying to hitch things up. Add that a manual is often more durable & gives you 2-3 mpg better ecconomy. The auto tranny is, frankly, just _aweful_. But if you never drove a stick, then it is a difficult learning curve, and you will say the opposite. You get along better with an auto, & just have no idea how much more in control you are with a stick tranny. It's a difficult learning curve, you need to develop a real feel for the pressure plate, and real good motor skills in your knee. But _wow_ is it a lot easier to feel what you are doing. There is no way to explain that to someone who never drove a stick tranny, tries it for an afternoon, kills the engine 1/2 the time & squeals the tires the other 1/2, gives up on thoise 'hard to use' manual trannies, and proclaims an auto tranny in a pickup as much easier & better to use..... No, no. Just what one is familiar with. The manual is more durable, more efficient, cheaper to repair, and gives a much better feel of what you are doing. Just like a hydro vs manual tractor tranny. Doesn't matter what the dealer is telling you, they will never knock their own product now, will they??????
Now, am I the pot calling the kettle black here? Because I have less experience with a hydro tractor? Possibly. But I learned to drive a tractor when I was 7, started plowing 4-5 hours a day when I was 8, been running a _lot_ of seat time in all kinds of ag machines for 35 years now. I need to carefully research my ag purchases & make $20,000 dollar used (well used) machines pay their way, so I pay a lot of attention to what works & doesn't work for others. I can shift the combine ~500 times a day. (Now, there is good application for a hydro, but I can't afford to pay the premium for a machine I only use 20 days a year....)
In all my research, the regular shifting trannies make a better tractor for the $$$$, for real work.
So, what are you basing your beliefs on? What is your experience? Like you, just curious, don't want to make anything of this, just enjoy the discussion. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
--->Paul
2. I use 3-4,000 gallons of fuel a year, I meant the _waste_ I would have is about 400 gallons, or $600-700 a year in innefficiency. Also would need a size larger tractor to make up the hp loss. You are _way_ off on your figures here. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
All in all, this is just a poor performing deal. Hydro is a bad thing if you want to _use_ a tractor & need to make it a paying enterprise.
They are very useful for running a trencher/ tiling machine, for running feed carts or grain trailers, and can be good on a loader tho I'd miss the loss of power myself.
Here in these forums, there has been a lot of discussion of the hydro tractors going into bypass, & not moving. I want a tractor that will lock up the drivetrain & move the rear wheels in low gear, not sit their roaring & spitting oil through the bypass and not moving me out of a situation....
Certainlty to each their own, but if your concern is power, performance, and ecconomics, then a hydrostatic tranny is the _poorest_ choice. If you just want a fun toy to mow lawns, none of my comments apply - and I tried to state that from the start. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Likewise, I much prefer a manual tranny on a pickup. I have one. My wife has an auto on hers. I can't back up to a trailer, get a feel for moving in wet grass, or manuver worth a darn near the buildings & trying to hitch things up. Add that a manual is often more durable & gives you 2-3 mpg better ecconomy. The auto tranny is, frankly, just _aweful_. But if you never drove a stick, then it is a difficult learning curve, and you will say the opposite. You get along better with an auto, & just have no idea how much more in control you are with a stick tranny. It's a difficult learning curve, you need to develop a real feel for the pressure plate, and real good motor skills in your knee. But _wow_ is it a lot easier to feel what you are doing. There is no way to explain that to someone who never drove a stick tranny, tries it for an afternoon, kills the engine 1/2 the time & squeals the tires the other 1/2, gives up on thoise 'hard to use' manual trannies, and proclaims an auto tranny in a pickup as much easier & better to use..... No, no. Just what one is familiar with. The manual is more durable, more efficient, cheaper to repair, and gives a much better feel of what you are doing. Just like a hydro vs manual tractor tranny. Doesn't matter what the dealer is telling you, they will never knock their own product now, will they??????
Now, am I the pot calling the kettle black here? Because I have less experience with a hydro tractor? Possibly. But I learned to drive a tractor when I was 7, started plowing 4-5 hours a day when I was 8, been running a _lot_ of seat time in all kinds of ag machines for 35 years now. I need to carefully research my ag purchases & make $20,000 dollar used (well used) machines pay their way, so I pay a lot of attention to what works & doesn't work for others. I can shift the combine ~500 times a day. (Now, there is good application for a hydro, but I can't afford to pay the premium for a machine I only use 20 days a year....)
In all my research, the regular shifting trannies make a better tractor for the $$$$, for real work.
So, what are you basing your beliefs on? What is your experience? Like you, just curious, don't want to make anything of this, just enjoy the discussion. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
--->Paul
_RaT_
Super Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2000
- Messages
- 5,813
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Northern CA.
- Tractor
- Kioti 3510-SE HST
Interesting perspective Paul.
Most of my experience is on manual transmissions. My manual International 454D. After that, a Kubota L4850 shuttle shift. I have only about 450 hours time on HST. My last truck sold in 1993 was a 1963 3/4 GMC with a 305E V6 and manual transmission (no rust either).
The epidemic of failures with your neighbors HST transmissions is most unfortunate, myself and my many neighbors with HST fortunately have not suffered any of these issues. Perhaps we are just lucky or your neighbors are just unlucky, who knows.
Jerry G, I hope you are taking note of Pauls post.
Most of my experience is on manual transmissions. My manual International 454D. After that, a Kubota L4850 shuttle shift. I have only about 450 hours time on HST. My last truck sold in 1993 was a 1963 3/4 GMC with a 305E V6 and manual transmission (no rust either).
The epidemic of failures with your neighbors HST transmissions is most unfortunate, myself and my many neighbors with HST fortunately have not suffered any of these issues. Perhaps we are just lucky or your neighbors are just unlucky, who knows.
Jerry G, I hope you are taking note of Pauls post.
Bird
Rest in Peace
Paul, it seems to me that you've heard more about hydro failures just among your neighbors than I've heard from anywhere in the world. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
I disagree with much of what you say and find it hard to understand why you are so opposed to hydro tractors and automatic transmissions in pickups. And while I prefer the hydro for compact tractors and automatic transmissions in cars and pickups, I also understand that there's a place, and need, for both transmissions. I learned to drive with manual transmission vehicles and have owned many different makes and models. I've also got a lot more time on manual transmission tractors than I do on hydros, and of course my motorcycles had manual transmissions, so I'm pretty well familiar with clutches and gear shifting and don't mind using a manual transmission at all. But for most of the jobs that we do with a compact tractor, in my opinion, the hydro has a manual beat, hands down.
For other jobs, such as most field work, I agree that the manual would be preferable. You know I'm so old, I even started in law enforcement before the days of power steering, automatic transmissions, power brakes, disk brakes, and air-conditioning. I was certainly glad when we got all those things in police cars. Now I would still prefer a manual transmission myself for high speed pursuits in the city, but what percentage of a cop's time is spent doing that? /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif The rest of the time, that automatic sure is nice. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( The manual is more durable, more efficient, cheaper to repair )</font>
Cheaper to repair? Maybe, but need repairs more frequently in many cases. More efficient? For fuel mileage, maybe so, but not necessarily so for the efficiency of the operators. More durable? I don't think so. The City of Dallas learned many years ago that overall the automatics, not only in police sedans, but also in wreckers, pickups, and garbage trucks, were cheaper to operate because they required fewer repairs. For wreckers and garbage packer trucks, they went to belt driven hydraulics instead of transmission PTOs.
As with many things, there are some pretty extreme opinions on both sides, and in my opinion, you've overstated your case. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
I disagree with much of what you say and find it hard to understand why you are so opposed to hydro tractors and automatic transmissions in pickups. And while I prefer the hydro for compact tractors and automatic transmissions in cars and pickups, I also understand that there's a place, and need, for both transmissions. I learned to drive with manual transmission vehicles and have owned many different makes and models. I've also got a lot more time on manual transmission tractors than I do on hydros, and of course my motorcycles had manual transmissions, so I'm pretty well familiar with clutches and gear shifting and don't mind using a manual transmission at all. But for most of the jobs that we do with a compact tractor, in my opinion, the hydro has a manual beat, hands down.
For other jobs, such as most field work, I agree that the manual would be preferable. You know I'm so old, I even started in law enforcement before the days of power steering, automatic transmissions, power brakes, disk brakes, and air-conditioning. I was certainly glad when we got all those things in police cars. Now I would still prefer a manual transmission myself for high speed pursuits in the city, but what percentage of a cop's time is spent doing that? /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif The rest of the time, that automatic sure is nice. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( The manual is more durable, more efficient, cheaper to repair )</font>
Cheaper to repair? Maybe, but need repairs more frequently in many cases. More efficient? For fuel mileage, maybe so, but not necessarily so for the efficiency of the operators. More durable? I don't think so. The City of Dallas learned many years ago that overall the automatics, not only in police sedans, but also in wreckers, pickups, and garbage trucks, were cheaper to operate because they required fewer repairs. For wreckers and garbage packer trucks, they went to belt driven hydraulics instead of transmission PTOs.
As with many things, there are some pretty extreme opinions on both sides, and in my opinion, you've overstated your case. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
JerryG
Super Member
<font color="blue">Jerry G, I hope you are taking note of Pauls post. </font>
Yes, I have been following it. I am also, some what an anomaly here. Like Paul, I am not convinced in the HST debate. I have driven several hydros and just don't like them. I much prefer my power-shuttle and the quite control that I have. It is much like my view of automatic vs standard in vehicles. If I am just running around, an automatic is fine. If I am doing any work, give me the standard. I want to make the decisions, not the transmission. And Yes I know that a automatic is totally different than a hydro. I might own a so called non-standard if they were it same as a Fendt CVT. The hydros in these compact are not the same as a Fendt CVT. I would give them another chance it it was. Anyone that doesn't know about the Fendt tranny, check it out at the Fendt site.
Yes, I have been following it. I am also, some what an anomaly here. Like Paul, I am not convinced in the HST debate. I have driven several hydros and just don't like them. I much prefer my power-shuttle and the quite control that I have. It is much like my view of automatic vs standard in vehicles. If I am just running around, an automatic is fine. If I am doing any work, give me the standard. I want to make the decisions, not the transmission. And Yes I know that a automatic is totally different than a hydro. I might own a so called non-standard if they were it same as a Fendt CVT. The hydros in these compact are not the same as a Fendt CVT. I would give them another chance it it was. Anyone that doesn't know about the Fendt tranny, check it out at the Fendt site.
OP
DAP
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2001
- Messages
- 1,180
- Tractor
- JD LX288 and a B7800
Well OKee ... exusing the macho ME FARMER - YOU NOT FARMER chest thumper dribble ... these tranny debate threads always find some new clothes to wear, even if it's the same wolf.
Kinda amazing what lengths people will go to to justify their stand (don't forget folks, the auto tranny cars and trucks have a lot more than just park, backward and forward on those columns.)
But I digress (s'ok, so has the thread ... big surprise there). Usually at TBN when a thread reaches just about the length this one has, it starts being only skimmed or ignored all together.
That being the case here, REF, let's close this one down, take a breather ... and enjoy the next tranny debate when it inevitably comes up, which it of course will.
Last parting shot ... RAMBLER "whachusmokin"?
/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Kinda amazing what lengths people will go to to justify their stand (don't forget folks, the auto tranny cars and trucks have a lot more than just park, backward and forward on those columns.)
But I digress (s'ok, so has the thread ... big surprise there). Usually at TBN when a thread reaches just about the length this one has, it starts being only skimmed or ignored all together.
That being the case here, REF, let's close this one down, take a breather ... and enjoy the next tranny debate when it inevitably comes up, which it of course will.
Last parting shot ... RAMBLER "whachusmokin"?
/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif