why so few of the (larger) 1600/1700 tractors talked about on here?

[WilliamBos]

A Powershuttle is indeed a better all-around transmission for tractors (IMO), but it does not "work just as good, if not better on a loader" than an HST. The Powershuttle is indeed far superior when it comes to ground engaging tasks and pretty much anything other than loader work, but when it comes to using a loader, nothing is as quick or precise as Hydro.

yes, it is as quick as a hydro. Had both, Powershuttle wins hands down.

 

[Wobblin-Goblin]

yes, it is as quick as a hydro. Had both, Powershuttle wins hands down.

I had a 1540 with the Powershuttle, too. Not quite as quick and even with the Powershuttle, you still had to use the clutch at times, which slows you down and puts wear and tear on the clutch.

Having said that, I think I prefer the Powershuttle over the Hydro, but that's because it's better at literally every thing else (other than loading).

 

[TSO]

With the power shuttle (like on the 1660) ... when you are slowing and coming to a stop, do you still have to clutch to not stall the tractor?

 

[Wobblin-Goblin]

With the power shuttle (like on the 1660) ... when you are slowing and coming to a stop, do you still have to clutch to not stall the tractor?

Depends. It took a while for me to get used to the Powershuttle. Even when I got fairly proficient at it, I still had to use the clutch at times because unless you are filling your bucket from a mountain of sand, not every bucket is consistent with the last one. Also, there is the issue of finding the correct gear in the first place. That can eat up a little bit of time while loading, too. Before I sold the 1540, I got to the point where I could usually avoid clutching, but even then, not entirely.

Even the big construction pay loaders are hydro, not sure why this is debatable.

Again, having said all that, I still think I prefer the Powershuttle over this Hydro (overall). It's just that I use our 1643 for loader work almost all the time and there's no question the Hydro is faster and easier to use in that role.

 

[TSO]

Depends. It took a while for me to get used to the Powershuttle. Even when I got fairly proficient at it, I still had to use the clutch at times because unless you are filling your bucket from a mountain of sand, not every bucket is consistent with the last one. Also, there is the issue of finding the correct gear in the first place. That can eat up a little bit of time while loading, too. Before I sold the 1540, I got to the point where I could usually avoid clutching, but even then, not entirely.

Even the big construction pay loaders are hydro, not sure why this is debatable.

Again, having said all that, I still think I prefer the Powershuttle over this Hydro (overall). It's just that I use our 1643 for loader work almost all the time and there's no question the Hydro is faster and easier to use in that role.

Yeah I agree. The only way I'd even consider the PS would be fire the extra HP of the 1660. If I could get my hands on a 1652, anyone know if that engine can be tuned up to the 1655/1660?

 

[Wobblin-Goblin]

Yeah I agree. The only way I'd even consider the PS would be fire the extra HP of the 1660. If I could get my hands on a 1652, anyone know if that engine can be tuned up to the 1655/1660?

Couple of thoughts:

1. If you want the larger chassis with more hp, why not just get the 1655/60 in the first place instead of finding something you apparently don't want (52hp) and then spending time and money tuning it up?

2. I would think if you are interested in more oomph (power), the 1652 would be a significant step up from your 1648. Look at the torque and hp numbers, the '52 stomps the '48. Really, the jump from your 1648 to the 1652 is HUGE, but the jump from the '52 to the '55 is quite small.

 

[TSO]

Couple of thoughts:

1. If you want the larger chassis with more hp, why not just get the 1655/60 in the first place instead of finding something you apparently don't want (52hp) and then spending time and money tuning it up?

2. I would think if you are interested in more oomph (power), the 1652 would be a significant step up from your 1648. Look at the torque and hp numbers, the '52 stomps the '48. Really, the jump from your 1648 to the 1652 is HUGE, but the jump from the '52 to the '55 is quite small.

Because you can't get HST in the 1655/60.

 

[Wobblin-Goblin]

I think if you are disappointed with the power of the '48, you'd be pleasantly surprised with the 1652. It has a much larger engine and much, much more torque.

 

[TSO]

I think if you are disappointed with the power of the '48, you'd be pleasantly surprised with the 1652. It has a much larger engine and much, much more torque.

I just want to clarify here, its not that I'm disappointed with the power of the 1648, its that I run out of power when I'm doing two specific tasks. Pushing snow in High range, and stump grinding when I run into a big stump.

And, that's why I'm wondering if I should step up to a 60 horse. I agree that the engine in the 1652 is much larger than the 1648, but I wonder if 4 additional horse power to the PTO would make that much difference. That's why I also ask, can the 1652 engine be tuned up to run like it does in the 1655 and 1660?

Another problem that I will run into is finding available 1652 units out there. I'd go to a 1759, but there's no way I could afford that. That's why the Kioti NX 6010 looks so attractive...

 

[Wobblin-Goblin]

I hear ya about finding 1600 series tractors. Seems like everyone had the same idea we had: buy one before they're all gone. As it was, I think I was fortunate to get my hands on this 1643 last November.

As far as your specific question about power, I don't know if the '52s can be tuned up, but then again, the '55s and '60s are the exact same engine, so it must be possible. BTW, I run into the same problem with my tractor not having the power to do much other than travel (unloaded) in high range. That's about all it's good for.