What tractors are in the same class?

[gladehound]

I've noticed here on TBN that many people classify tractors by horse power. I guess it makes sense for mowing. But other than that, it seems like a lot of new tractors don't have the weight to effectively use the horse power they have.

If I were going to buy a new tractor, I would directly compare any machine of similar price. And as a buyer, that is the category that trumps all.

After price, I would consider weight and lift capacity as the most important category. Then maybe hp.

I'm guess I'm saying is tha comparing tractors by HP is often comparing apples to oranges yet it seems the most common way that tractors are categorized.

Does this make sense or am I smoke'n someth'n? :confused2:

 

[Marveltone]

Whatever you're smoking, I must have the same stuff! Seriously, you make a valid point; whereas HP can be a good indicator what equipment the tractor can be capable of powering, it's far from telling the whole story. Weight is definitely your friend, and even tire size can be a factor. Ground engaging equipment needs all that power to get to the ground all the way to work.

So then, how do we categorize these tractors so we know what we're comparing? We already have SCUT, CUT, the venerable UT, then we get into the bigger professional stuff. Even then, there seems to be some confusion within these classes themselves. My observations, which may very well be totally wrong, are that the older models of a given horsepower were built heavier than they are today. Are they a different class or have the rules just changed?

Unfortunately, I have no answers and have only served to further confuse the issue. It seems, all things being equal, nothing is equal. :confused2:

Anyone else?

Joe

 

[gladehound]

Just to illustrate how bad this has gotten. A coworker was very proud of his tractor purchase last year. It was a JDX530 (which is an 800 pound lawn and garden tractor 2x4 with diff lock - I looked that up, they didn't know). I ask them to describe it and the first words out of their mouth were "it's 26 hp!". I asked a few more questions about it, nodded my head in approval. I was happy they were happy. But then they started talking about how they could use it to pull logs out of the woods (hmmmm... I thought but said nothing). They finally said, "you have a tractor right?" I said yea. They said what hp do you have. I said "it's just 19 hp". No point in saying more. They were happy (for now) and the purchase was done. Chaulk another win up to the HP salesmen. :confused2:

 

[BethesdaEC]

Just to illustrate how bad this has gotten. A coworker was very proud of his tractor purchase last year. It was a JDX530 (which is an 800 pound lawn and garden tractor 2x4 with diff lock - I looked that up, they didn't know). I ask them to describe it and the first words out of their mouth were "it's 26 hp!". I asked a few more questions about it, nodded my head in approval. I was happy they were happy. But then they started talking about how they could use it to pull logs out of the woods (hmmmm... I thought but said nothing). They finally said, "you have a tractor right?" I said yea. They said what hp do you have. I said "it's just 19 hp". No point in saying more. They were happy (for now) and the purchase was done. Chaulk another win up to the HP salesmen. :confused2:

There is no comparing gas power to diesel power. Gas engines seem to bog down very quickly and lose power under load where as diesel maintain said power. Personally I believe that when comparing the two you should probably cut the rated power of the gas by a factor of two to level the playing field.

 

[roger4400]

I had a 42 hp gas tractor and now a 43 hp fuel tractor.....not the same, diesel engine have a lot more torque.and seem like never loosing power compared to a gas tractor.....to compare tractor a few hp will not make any difference (hp goes with the type of work you are doing). Compare standard equipment. Concerning weight it depends what you will do with it..for mowing weight is an ennemy to plow or field work, weight is your friend....and if you do both well make your decision :laughing: Rename brand and to get parts to fix the tractor is important.
It all depends what do you need, a 25 hp tractor will not do what a 45 hp tractor will do, what are your needs light ,medium or heavy field work ( plowing, mowing ,pulling logs etc,) good luck.Roger

 

[TripleR]

I've noticed here on TBN that many people classify tractors by horse power. I guess it makes sense for mowing. But other than that, it seems like a lot of new tractors don't have the weight to effectively use the horse power they have.

If I were going to buy a new tractor, I would directly compare any machine of similar price. And as a buyer, that is the category that trumps all.

After price, I would consider weight and lift capacity as the most important category. Then maybe hp.

I'm guess I'm saying is that comparing tractors by HP is often comparing apples to oranges yet it seems the most common way that tractors are categorized.

Does this make sense or am I smoke'n someth'n? :confused2:

Weight can more easily be added than taken away, adding and removing weight is common if not universal on Ag tractors.

I have not found price to be a good indicator of much of anything. Some economical tractors will do the work of some really expensive ones. How they are configured and equipped is much better.

Lift can be important for some and not so much for others depending on intended use; already addressed weight.

Comparing HP to HP "can be" apples to oranges, but not necessarily, it just should not be the sole point of comparison.

I hope not, it seems confusion is a constant state for me.

 

[jlsmith]

Most customers base thier buying needs on HP. When a customer comes in and wants to buy a new tractor and he tells me what HP he is looking for, the first thing I ask is what he will be doing with the tractor. Then I can start showing him what he realy needs vs what he thinks he needs. Sometimes they can go smaller and sometimes they need to go bigger. I believe any good salesman will go with that approach and get the customer the best tractor to fit his needs. PS I always try to get the customer to go alittle bigger that what he actully needs for now. Better to have too much than not enough, never know what you might be doing later in life and need a bigger tractor.

 

[art]

At this point knowing where the ag industry is going I prefer to go as light as possible because depending on what the tractor is doing depends on where we are going to put the weight. Haying or mowing tractors we like to set up under 100lbs per horsepower, 110 for light mixed work, 120 for tillage and hay and 130lbs per horsepower for tillage work. Most tillage tractors get parked in the shed for many farmers do to the fuel costs and the additional tire wear!

It is best to weight a tractor for what you are going to do with it!! That doesn't just mean putting it any where!

I look at uses for the classes of tractors!

 

[houstonscott]

HP is only one factor in classifying a tractor. HP, weight, and hydraulic capabilities are major factors. Clearly you could have a popular compact tractor with HP pushing 60hp and only weigh 3600lbs. I think the extra HP in the CUT is mainly to put the upper end of that class into being able to bale hay. You wouldn't dream of doing row crops with with that same tractor. However a 40HP tractor say ford 3900 could do row crop work with a weight near 5000lbs. You need to be aware of HP, weight, and hydraulic capabilities. Decide what you going to do size to fit job. Pick the job that is most likely to task you tractor, baling hay for example, most of the main line balers from the big guys need 40-50HP at the PTO. So if your going to do that job make sure you got it.

HS

 

[bp fick]

Some of this is just the result of our modern age.

Kubota makes 80 models, for example. 80 freakin' models!!! It just blows my mind. With lines drawn between models that makes splitting hairs look like crude work. Guys pour over the minutia of the brochures, comparing things to fractions of inches like their lives depended on it.

I know, I know, old school, but you cannot fathom Ford, Massey or Farmall understanding the need for 80 models back in 1950.

Back then, it was little one, medium one, big one, or biggest one and that was that.

 

[MessickFarmEqu]

Back then, it was little one, medium one, big one, or biggest one and that was that.

Sure would make our inventory control a heck of a lot easier.

 

[RPW]

Back in 1950 there wasn't all the creature comforts that we demand nowdays. Cab on a tractor.....what's that......

 

[JDGreenGrass]

I've noticed here on TBN that many people classify tractors by horse power. I guess it makes sense for mowing. But other than that, it seems like a lot of new tractors don't have the weight to effectively use the horse power they have.

If I were going to buy a new tractor, I would directly compare any machine of similar price. And as a buyer, that is the category that trumps all.

After price, I would consider weight and lift capacity as the most important category. Then maybe hp.

I'm guess I'm saying is tha comparing tractors by HP is often comparing apples to oranges yet it seems the most common way that tractors are categorized.

Does this make sense or am I smoke'n someth'n? :confused2:

You bring up a valid point in that weight effects hp that can be transferred to the ground. Absolutly. But, horsepower is horsepower....

You can often add weight to a tractor rather easily. Ballast box or wheel weights for example. So, if you have 30 horses in a light tractor...add the weight to get that horsepower to the ground.:thumbsup:

 

[houstonscott]

You make a very good point for HP at the PTO being a more important consideration than the over all horse power. I would agree with that , weight and HP can be compensated for by adding weight, but if you don't have PTO hp to run stuff you want to do your out of luck.

HS

 

[Johndeere3720]

One thing i noticed is a lot of the onld tractors were all different. They had different frames, engine, all different from the next model in line. Now we have 5-6 models with the same frame, transmission, features, etc. but the only difference is the actual hp. For example, the John Deere 3000 series. You can get
3005 with 28hp
3032e with 32hp
3320 with 33hp
3520 with 37hp
3038e with 38hp
3720 with 44hp

That is 6 models, all the same frame size, relatively close in most capabilities give or take a few. The only difference is the actual hp. there is such a selection that you can get exactly the same frame size with 28-44hp engines. What happened to having 1 tractor that could do it all? The only difference you will see in these tractors are capabilities in hydraulics and the PTO. The pulling power will stay the same.

 

[JoelD]

I agree with others, HP only really matters at the PTO, when you consider gearing and the like, you are most likely going to loose traction before HP becomes an issue for anything other than running PTO implements.

HP also matters when it comes to ground speed, the more HP the more easily you can go fast.

I run a 60 inch, 700lb tiller behind my 30HP diesel tractor with little effort. However, with hoe, in top gear, running up hills on paved road takes every bit of HP and torque my machine has to maintain any rate of speed, and typically if hill is even sort of steep I need to down shift. I'll spin all 3 wheels with hoe on, on anything other than pavement before I think about running out of power.

My previous 12 HP, 2 cyl. Diesel Kubota tractor had more than enough HP to run a pump for the backhoe with which I rarely if ever ran into a bolder I could not get out of the ground.

The lawn tractor HP is a joke in my opinion, and no offense to lawn tractor guys, after all I've got two of them.

I've found my dad's 6.5hp, riding craftsman tractor has more than enough HP to haul him around, up any hill he has traction enough to climb, and spin a 30 inch deck to provide a great cut and bag at the same time.

Anything over 15HP to spin a belt driven gear box and 42 inch deck seems just silly to me.

My old wheel horse 700 has a 6.5 HP gas motor, which spins a 32 inch mower deck and a 32 inch snow blower. The machine probably weighs more than a new 26 HP tractor, the deck definitely weighs more than a 40+ inch deck and blower weighs more than any blower today and the machine will climb vertical with either attachment.

I think the new gas HP deal is a complete joke.

Probably one of the best set ups I've ever had, and I still hate myself for selling (for no good reason other than "time for a change", dopey move) was a snapper LT16 lawn tractor, with 36 inch blower and 33 inch deck and bagger. Had a briggs twin 16hp motor. That machine threw the snow an easy 30 feet. Perfect motor for the job, anything more would've been a complete waste. And that was a two stage blower.

Even with hydro drive I can't imagine a lawn tractor with no PTO implements requiring anything more than 18 - 20HP max.

Joel

 

[Reg]

Cat 3 (I wanna)
Cat 2 ( I gotta)
Cat 1 (I gotta)
Cat 1/0 (I donwanna)
Cat 0/"lawn tractor" (nowayIwanna)

HP is largely marketing nonsense.
For ground engaging WEIGHT MATTERS.
For "productivity" horse power - as a rate of doing work - MATTERS.
For many/most hobby farmers and property maintainers who make up a lot of the TBN membership, "productivity" is a low priority, in fact MORE seat time is a higher priority for some (-:

8N is a good "reference tractor"; as a standard size, weight, power tractor capable of most small scale farm tasks.

 

[art]

Ron, for many the horsepower does make a difference! To mow or till you have little need for weight other then to carry!!!!! Those are two of the main reasons people buy small tractors to get there work done.

Even your doctor will tell you to carry extra weight will kill you! Same as your wallet to have to move a heavier tractor then you need!

That is also why some of the companies build all the models they do so people can buy the most for the job as well as their comfort!

 

[gladehound]

You make a very good point for HP at the PTO being a more important consideration than the over all horse power. I would agree with that , weight and HP can be compensated for by adding weight, but if you don't have PTO hp to run stuff you want to do your out of luck.

HS

Agree with most of what's been said on this thread. I think the different perspectives mostly relate to how each of us use our tractors. Those who use them to drive large PTO implements are concerned with hp. Those who use them to to dig, push and pull are concerned with weight. For those who are uniformed about tractors, I'm concerned they lean towards hp because they don't know what they need and hp is a marketing leverage point in many markets not just tractors so that is what they are familiar with. I started this tread really just to make people think and I'm well aware of the many good points that people have made.

The one thing I don't agree with is that you can just add weight to a light tractor to make it work as well for ground engagement as a heavy tractor. If you take a 3600 pound, 55 hp tractor and add 1000 pounds of weight you have a 4600 pounds tractor. Now take a 5500 pound 55 hp tractor and add 1000 pounds of weights you have a 6500 pound tractor. Not the same thing at all! Anything you can add to the light tractor you can add to the heavy tractor so it is in a different league to start with. Plus if the structure of the tractor is heavier to start with that allows it to carry more extra weight with less stress on the tractor. My cousin broke a JD4300 in half twice (aprox. every 800 hours) probably due to too much back hoe work for a tractor that was built too light for the implements they sell for it. Had they put a little more metal in the tractor it wouldn't have been an issue.

My perspective is clearly because I almost never use a PTO driven implement anymore and I'm in a situation where I'm trying to get the most push and pull out of a small tractor but don't use it a lot of hours so I'm not not too concerned with bearing wear etc. I move gravel, dig, move snow, clear woods, skid trees and do some other general loader work. Not a lot of hp is needed to get those things done but a lot of weight is or you'll just spin. I have a small property so productivity isn't too much of an issue. I hear the field guys talking about running at 100-130 pounds per hp. I generally run at 240 pounds per hp, which I think is more common for construction or forestry than for ag use. But that is how I use my tractor. You could never achieve this ratio with a tractor that is light for the hp to start with and I could never acheive 100 pounds per hp because my naked tractor is too heavy for that (or has too little hp depending on your perspective).

Bottom line - To each his own. But if you don't yet understand exactly what you need to buy to do what you need to do, then think hard about exactly how much hp, lift, and weight a tractor needs to do what you want.

As for me, if / when I upgrade my tractor, I will go with more weight, lift and hp because I really could use more of all three. But I'll still go with one of the heavier chassis wih higher lift for that hp range because these work better for my jobs.

 

[TripleR]

The one thing I don't agree with is that you can just add weight to a light tractor to make it work as well for ground engagement as a heavy tractor. If you take a 3600 pound, 55 hp tractor and add 1000 pounds of weight you have a 4600 pounds tractor. Now take a 5500 pound 55 hp tractor and add 1000 pounds of weights you have a 6500 pound tractor. Not the same thing at all! Anything you can add to the light tractor you can add to the heavy tractor so it is in a different league to start with. Plus if the structure of the tractor is heavier to start with that allows it to carry more extra weight with less stress on the tractor. My cousin broke a JD4300 in half twice (aprox. every 800 hours) probably due to too much back hoe work for a tractor that was built too light for the implements they sell for it. Had they put a little more metal in the tractor it wouldn't have been an issue.

Bottom line - To each his own. But if you don't yet understand exactly what you need to buy to do what you need to do, then think hard about exactly how much hp, lift, and weight a tractor needs to do what you want.

As for me, if / when I upgrade my tractor, I will go with more weight, lift and hp because I really could use more of all three. But I'll still go with one of the heavier chassis with higher lift for that hp range because these work better for my jobs.

I am too lazy to go back and read all the threads, but I don't remember anyone making this claim, certainly not me. Every Ag tractor I see in my area has weights hanging off and bolted on. Way, way back in my Ag classes, we learned about weight distribution, transfer, wheel slip and all that stuff. Modern metallurgy and design allows lighter components with the same strength once only possible by mass. I have seen a lot of older, heavy components fail.

Agree completely, to each his own, for my uses, I will go with a little lighter weight, add weight where when needed and not pay for the fuel to haul it around all the time.