types of transmissions

[hondo964]

Can anyone explain to me in not-too-technical terms the pros and cons of the old collarshift transmissions versus the newer hydrostat transmissions (with such things as synch reverser)?

I'm wondering if the newer technology is more prone to problems, is more complicated/sensitive, if it affects pto etc etc. I don't know anything about either one and I usually have found that the older tractors (though a bit less convenient) are more simple, reliable and solid.

 

[pat32rf]

I grew up riding a 9n, then a MH 30hp, then used a Case 60hp for a year. Finally I bought my own used Bota, about 17hp with hydro. Few years later I traded it for a new JD4300 with hydro. It has about 3500hrs of bush work, snow plowing and general FEL "playing " around. So far no problems and I wouldn't be without it FOR MY USE. Might be different if I was doing field work on flat ground but for the pulling, digging and back-hoe work that I do there is NO comparison. I watched my BIL trying to maneuver his stick shift Massey in the snow this morning so he could hook his forks under the edge of a broken snow plow to lift it and just plain felt sorry for him (and his clutch leg).

 

[dex3361]

The Hst or hydrostatic trans is a very reliable transmission. If I were going to pull a plow all day I would get a geared tractor and maybe if I livedon the flat ground. I dont do that kind of work. I use my L4400 Kubota hst on the hillsides while using the FEL and Rotary brush cutting. I feel that the hst offers a level of saftey when you are changing directions on the hills because the trans never lets go like a geared tractor does when it passes through nuetral or when you have the clutch pushed in. The majority will rave about how it makes using the FEL a lot faster and easier. I would have to agree. My first hst was a IH Cub Cadet lawn tractor and it is 37 years old and still gets a lot of use every year.

 

[LBrown59]

Can anyone explain to me in not-too-technical terms the pros and cons of the old collarshift transmissions versus the newer hydrostat transmissions (with such things as synch reverser)?

I'm wondering if the newer technology is more prone to problems, is more complicated/sensitive, if it affects pto etc etc. I don't know anything about either one and I usually have found that the older tractors (though a bit less convenient) are more simple, reliable and solid.

You hain't been here long enough or read enough on TBN to become informed yet.
Do a search and read up and you will learn a lot.

 

[Turbys_1700]

Hondo,

To my knowledge the old collar shifts should be the most robust in terms of mechanical design with gear to gear contact as the main driving force. The synch-reverser should be very reliable but I don not have any personal experience with them.

Our old D-17's Allis-Chalmers used the collar shift transmission with a hi-lo shifter I believe called a power diverter on the right side of the tractor to change ranges. Very robust but needed adjusting at times. You could shift on the go from low to high range but reversing required engagement of the clutch.

 

[Mike058]

Someone could write pages and pages about it. Oh wait, they have. Search for "hydrostatic, gear. shuttle" to start. You'll learn more about transmissions than you probably want.

 

[john_bud]

Collar shift pros - less hp loss in the transmission. (About 1.5 hp typical). Good choice for field work and long straight operations (mowing right of ways, etc).

Collar shift cons - least reliable (factor in cost of clutch replacements and MTBF) and hardest to use (especially with a new operator)


Powershift (glideshift, etc) Pros - small hp loss in the transmission. (about 0.5hp)
Easy to use. More reliable than gear trans (due to less clutch operations needed). Best choice for field work and long straight operations (mowing right of ways, etc) and where some loader work is also needed.

Powershift Cons - Cost more than gear trans. Most complex type of transmission.



HST Pros - Easiest to use. Most reliable. (some will argue that point but ask if they have the DATA to back up that opinion....). Most productive for loader work and utility operations. Highest demand and highest resale in the small tractor market.

HST Cons - loses most hp in the transmission (about 1.5 hp). Will run hotter because of that. Not the best choice for field work where the loss of hp is not repaid by the extra flexibility in directional / speed control. Cost is slightly higher than powershift.


NOTE: Transmision R&R cost of all 3 types will be nearly the same. Don't think so? Call the dealer and ask.

I recently bought an implement from a rancher that is on his 11th HST tractor. He keeps getting the latest and greatest with a L5740 being the one he was on. He said "only a fool would buy a gear tractor these days". That's his opinion. I tend to agree with him for general UT work. Field work I would choose a powershift. No way would I want to buy a collar shift unless $$$ was the far and away #1 factor. But, that's just my opinion.

jb

 

[froggy]

TractorSmart has a good discussion of the different types on its' web site under information:TractorSmart home page

 

[Soundguy]

Collar shift cons - least reliable

That's a crock of steaming used horse feed.

Plain old gear crashbox tranny is super reliable.. as all the antique tractors running around with them.

Put 70 years on a new hydro, and abuse the fire out of it, and almost never maintain it.. ( like an old gear antique tractor trans ).. and see where you are..

Ald gear trans will run decades with worn leaky seals.. I'd like to see a hydro run with it's seals worn for decades.. on dirty oil, and no filter, and 1.5" of sand and much in the bottom of the trans sump.....

soundguy

 

[Egon]

Ald gear trans will run decades with worn leaky seals.. I'd like to see a hydro run with it's seals worn for decades.. on dirty oil, and no filter, and 1.5" of sand and much in the bottom of the trans sump.....

If these transmissions run for decades who puts the sand and much in the transmission sump??

Next how many hours of run time does that run decades involve??

 

[Valorum]

Posted by another TBN member in another thread some time ago, so just passing it along:

http://www.tractorsmart.com/main/Tractor Transmission Types.htm

EDIT: Oops, didn't realize Froggy's links was to the same site

 

[WilliamBos]

That's a crock of steaming used horse feed.

Plain old gear crashbox tranny is super reliable.. as all the antique tractors running around with them.

Put 70 years on a new hydro, and abuse the fire out of it, and almost never maintain it.. ( like an old gear antique tractor trans ).. and see where you are..

Ald gear trans will run decades with worn leaky seals.. I'd like to see a hydro run with it's seals worn for decades.. on dirty oil, and no filter, and 1.5" of sand and much in the bottom of the trans sump.....

soundguy

I agree, BUT, a gear tranny will not run too long with leaky seals if you don't keep pouring the oil in.

We got 30 years out of our MF 12 hydro, worked the snot out of it, and if we had of known about the internal filter it may still be running today. Of course the heart transplant did not help, from the blown Tecumseh 12hp to a 16 hp kohler Magnum, I am sure that accelerated it a little.

Other than a Crown & Pinion replacement on our trusty 35, it is stil on the original clutch, bought new in early 1960, thousands of hours of hard work later.

Both inline for a resto. 35 first.

 

[Soundguy]

Depends on the design of the trans... many ford trans have the 'proper oil level' at or below the trans input shaft seal level.. thus you don't loose oil out the seal on level ground anyway.

Still.. put a hydro thru that same torture tests that millions of old ger trans have been thru.. and I think you would see some difference.

Even without the hypothetical comparison.. the fact that these old gear trans are still here and going goes to prove they are reliable.. not unreliable.

As for the heckler that wanted to know how dirt gets in the sump.. how about 50 years of dust thru a breather.. or checking the dipstick with a dirty rag.. or a dirty funnel.. or a worn shifter boot letting in water and dirt..

When i got my IH the final drives had packed mud in the bottom at the sump lower covers.....lots of it.. makes ya wonder.

soundguy

 

[WilliamBos]

Depends on the design of the trans... many ford trans have the 'proper oil level' at or below the trans input shaft seal level.. thus you don't loose oil out the seal on level ground anyway.

Still.. put a hydro thru that same torture tests that millions of old ger trans have been thru.. and I think you would see some difference.

Even without the hypothetical comparison.. the fact that these old gear trans are still here and going goes to prove they are reliable.. not unreliable.

As for the heckler that wanted to know how dirt gets in the sump.. how about 50 years of dust thru a breather.. or checking the dipstick with a dirty rag.. or a dirty funnel.. or a worn shifter boot letting in water and dirt..

When i got my IH the final drives had packed mud in the bottom at the sump lower covers.....lots of it.. makes ya wonder.

soundguy

Would you know if the MF35 was designed the same way?? I will check it out when we pull it apart for the heart transplant.

When we did the crown&pinion in Dad's 35, I was amazed at all the crap in the belly of it. We also rebuilt the pump at the same time, so while it was apart, we cleaned it up.

I would bet a hydro trans like the one in our 1523 would last too long with crap like that in the system. I would be amazed if it did.

 

[Soundguy]

I'm not up on MF.. but the early fergy tractors would likely be similar to the early fords..

ditto on the junk that I've seen come ut of old machines. My JD B took 4 oil changes / flushes to get all the waeter and gooey gunk out of the crankcase...

soundguy

 

[Egon]

[QUOAs for the heckler that wanted to know how dirt gets in the sump.. how about 50 years of dust thru a breather.. or checking the dipstick with a dirty rag.. or a dirty funnel.. or a worn shifter boot letting in water and dirt..

TE][/quote]

Hey thats me you are referring to but heckler I'm not. Just a poor old soul asking pertinent questions that the Sounde Man does not seem able to answerer without reverting to personal attacks!

You must remember I was familiar with and operated some of this equipment when it was new! Right, brand spanking new straight from the Dealer!

Now as for dust through a breather would that not be bad design?

Is the dirty rag or the dirty funnel or the worn shifter boot insinuating that all the previous owners were incapable of proper maintenance?

This seems to be one of your favorite comments so can we assume Sounde Man is the only one capable of proper maintenance? Did all those real farmers making a living with these machines not know how to maintain their equipment?

 

[WilliamBos]

I'm not up on MF.. but the early fergy tractors would likely be similar to the early fords..

ditto on the junk that I've seen come ut of old machines. My JD B took 4 oil changes / flushes to get all the waeter and gooey gunk out of the crankcase...

soundguy

We used low sulfur diesel fuel conditioner, and it took care of any condensation in the oil.

KLEEN-FLO

New shifter booties also helped.

 

[Soundguy]

Now as for dust through a breather would that not be bad design?

Not the greatest.. but then.. I don't see many filtered breathers on hyd or trans / diffy sumps of machines of that era.

Proper periodic maintenance and cleaning would sure help cut down on the accumulated crud.

Is the dirty rag or the dirty funnel or the worn shifter boot insinuating that all the previous owners were incapable of proper maintenance??

I'd have to say.. YES. I've bought tractors from owners that told me the oil was the same oil they got with it... I'm not saying ALL owners abused their machines.. but I am saying alot of machines got abused by their owners.

This seems to be one of your favorite comments so can we assume Sounde Man is the only one capable of proper maintenance? Did all those real farmers making a living with these machines not know how to maintain their equipment?

Look.. I don't hunt you down then misspell your handle.. and I didn't insinuate anything about my maint skill sbeing better than any other fictional person.. however.. by observation.. I've opened up lots of dirty tractors that.. well.. were not maintained well.

As for the farmers not knowing? .. I'd say it was more of no time.. or no money or resources.. or plain apathy.. vs not having the knowledge.

soundguy

 

[Egon]

Olde English my goode fellow. Some of us from the Frozen little towns in the Frozen North use the Queens English to communicate you know. We have to make use of whats at hand to get by.

So what I gather is that almost all the old tractors were not serviced properly by busy apathetic Farmers who despite the busy apathy make a living and some of them even went on to buy newer and bigger tractors and more land and so on!

Wonder why the newer Hydros are not filled sand and gunk?

Oh, my name is not heckler or did you not know that! Nor is it Peanut Gallery!

 

[WilliamBos]

Olde English my goode fellow. Some of us from the Frozen little towns in the Frozen North use the Queens English to communicate you know.

ColoUr, favoUrite, and my favoUrite, the letter Z(pronounced zed ).

How's about that, eh??