1445 vs. 1845

[marrt]

I’m interested to get some opinions on the differences between the 1445 and the 1845. I seem to recall that someone (Charlie or Sedgewood?) was trying to gather some data to compare the two tractors. Besides the obvious differences, such as dual wheels and tilt seat on the 1845, some of the differences from the Power-Trac site don’t make sense. For example:

1) Speed: the 1445 is heavier than the 1845 but has a higher rated top speed. Seems like I remember someone stating the 1845 was actually faster than the 1445 because the 1445 has higher torque wheel motors. I would expect the 1845 to have a higher rated speed but that doesn’t appear correct based on the Power-Trac site.

2) Lift Capacity: The 1845 has a rated lift capacity of 1200lbs, vs 1800 lbs for the 1445, even though both have a PTO output of 15 GPM @ 3000. I know the PTO pump is different than the lift pump, however, I assume Power-Trac would use the same pump configuration on both tractors.

3) Tire size: the 1445 offers optional 31x15.50x13 turf tires versus 23x8.50x12 for the 1845. I assume the “31” refers to the diameter of the turf tire? However, the standard industrial tire on the 1445 is listed as “10x16.50.” Any idea which tire, the turf or the industrial, has the largest diameter? In any case, it appears that the 1445 has significantly larger diameter tires than the 1845. This would potentially explain the differences in rated speed. However, this would also suggest the 1445 would put less torque to the ground than the 1845. Therefore, the 1845 should climb better and, potentially, dig better. If this is the case, and given the weight differential, this would suggest the 1445 would seem “under-powered” compared to the 1845.

4) Brakes: the 1445 is listed as having “Wet Disc Brakes- Spring Applied Hydraulic Release.” Any idea how this braking system compares to the Brake Tender system on the 1845?

Any thoughts on these observations is appreciated.

 

[Bob999]

I will take a shot at some of the questions:

1. I have found some of the tech specs on the PT site to be unreliable. As your questions recognize the speed of a particular tractor depend on hydraulic oil volume, displacement of motors, tire diameter, and other factors. I think the best way to get an answer would be to visit Tazwell and compare the units side to side.

2. Lift capacity has much more to do with cylinder size than it does with pump capacity. The 1845 is designed primarily as a mower and 1200 lbs is plenty for that application. The 1445 is designed more as a loader--hence more lift capacity.

3. 10 x 16.5 are about 31" in diameter--the same diameter as the alternative turf tires. As the the rest of your question/comment the factors I listed in #1 apply. I think you will have to compare them side to side.

4. On the 1845 the brakes are spring applied and they are released by hydraulic pressure. The hydraulic pressure is controlled by the valve on the brake tender unit. In the absense of hydraulic pressure the brakes are applied without operator action. They can also be applied manually by the operator. I don't know how the brakes work on the 1445.

 

[MossRoad]

Isn't the slope rating that Power Trac lists for their models for side slopes(going across the hill)? I think we were all assuming it was for up/down the slopes and this lead to some confusion.

 

[Sedgewood]

<font color="red"> I seem to recall that someone (Charlie or Sedgewood?) was trying to gather some data to compare the two tractors. </font>

That was probably me, way back when I was trying to decide whether a 1445 would be a good replacement for my dead 1845. I was beginning to think the 1445 might be a good choice with some modifications and was about to go down to Tazewell and have a look when PT mooted the whole issue by refusing any further contact with me! You can see the results of my efforts at comparing the machines here.

Sedgewood

BTW, that 31 inch optional turf tire size doesn't exist /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif Go figger.

 

[Bob999]

<font color="red"> BTW, that 31 inch optional turf tire size doesn't exist </font>

Goodyear 31 x15.5 15 tires

 

[Sedgewood]

<font color="red">BTW, that 31 inch optional turf tire size doesn't exist </font>

I stand corrected. Thanks Bob.

Sedgewood

 

[Edward_DiMaria]

hey sedgewood - don't understand - what do you mean -they cut off contact with you - what ended up happening with the 1845 - what caused the fire and how many hours were on the machine? I know you are working on it now - but they offered no help????

Hey Mart - As far as the 1845 vs. the 1445 - I don't know much re the 1445 - but I agree with Bob, I think the 1845 will work much better as a mower (for many reasons) but will also tackle other fairly big jobs as Charlie and Sedgewood can attest to.

I would imagine that if utility work, loader work, dirt moving etc is the primary task - the 1445 would be the better choice.

As far as speed, I agree with Bob - there are many factors - I can also tell you that the PT stats are not always correct - I know that my 1845 goes like 12-15mph at full throttle because I took it on a drive one day to my friends house which is three miles away and followed him in his car - he gave me the speed figure (that is with single 26inch turfs)
would be slower but have more torque with 23 or 24 inch tires.

One thing that concerns me re the 1445 and larger machines is the length - I would want shorter like the 2445 and more even front and rear sections length to reduce crabing - I think a more even section size would help.

The 45hp is plenty of power for either machine - it is how the power is applied - (geared etc) check out Kubota - when you get into 45hp tractors they are usually large machines with weights of 6000 to 7500 pounds (see the R420 and 520).

I love the brake system on the 1845 and I think PT should make it standard on all units - it is simply great - not sure about the 1445 brakes

 

[marrt]

Ed,

I think your observations about the intended use of the 1445 vs the 1845 are absolutely correct.

Coincidentally, I test drove a 1445 and 1430 at the factory yesterday. It was an unplanned trip and, as usual, I was really pressed for time. Unfortunately, I did not get to test an 1845. The ones I saw at the factory all had very small narrow tires. I think these tires may be new for this production run as they were even smaller than the ones on my 425. Made the tractor look like it had been “slammed” as they say in the city.

Anyway, the 1445 is a monster. I was able to drive one with the huge 31” H by 16” W turf tires. Very cool look and probably would result in minimul ground pressure per square inch. Some other observations:

- Every joint on the loader arms, that I could see easily, has a grease zerk.
- The 45 HP Duetz is very smooth and powerful. Even with the throttle barely cracked, there's plenty of power available. I was able to easily bury the bucket in the gravel pile to the point where the arms would not lift unless I curled the bucket first.
- The turning radius is amazingly tight for such a big tractor. It is long...but very maneuverable. Certainly much better than any conventional tractor I have driven.
- For only $3K more than the 1430, there is absolutely no comparison. Without knowing the price difference, and based on the pricing strategies of the big three, I would have guessed it would cost 50% more. In the Kubota world, this would be like comparing a B7500 to a L3130 in terms of size and capability difference.
- I like the size of the 1430 much better for my needs. Even though I don’t much care for the sound and vibration of the 2 cylinder, the tractor itself performs well. My observation, seeing the 1430, 1845, and 1445 side by side is that the 1845 looks physically like it positioned in the middle between the 1430 and 1445. The 1445 is noticeably bigger than the 1845.
- The speed of the 1445 was faster than I expected. It’s about the same as my 425 and the new 425 I briefly drove. I thought it would be slower due to the high torque wheel motors.
- The engine cover on the 1445 is much bigger, proportionally, than the covers of the other models. It seems too tall. I made a comment on this and a couple people agreed that it should be 4 inched shorter. No one knew why it’s so tall.
- It appears that Power-Trac has firmly positioned the 1845 as a slope mower only, with the 1445 designed to appeal to customers desiring a step up from the 1430.
- The brakes on the 1445 are activated by a simply toggle switch.
- There’s no minihoe available for the 1445.

Overall, I was favorable impressed. However, due to the size and weight of the tractor, its really too big for most homeowner’s needs in my opinion. The 1845 will get you the nice 3 cylinder engine is a package that more manageable. However, due to Power-Trac’s current pricing strategy for the 1845, that’s an expensive option. Also, even though the price of the 1445 is only $3K more than the 1430, this is somewhat deceptive. Because Power-Trac has decided to create dedicated attachments for each tractor, buying attachments for the 1445 can get very expensive. For example, buying a set of forks for my 425 is only $300. Buying forks for the 1445 is a $1500 investment. A PHD for the 425 is $600, vs $1600 for the 1445. Once you add a stable full of attachments for the 1445, it’s a lot of money. However, I still can't get the sound of that sweet German 3 cylinder Diesel out of my head.... /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[smartguyz]

Hey Marrt!

What differences did you see between the old 425 and the new one?

-Rob

 

[Sedgewood]

Ed: <font color="red"> hey sedgewood - don't understand - what do you mean -they cut off contact with you - what ended up happening with the 1845 - what caused the fire and how many hours were on the machine? I know you are working on it now - but they offered no help???? </font>

Power Trac was quite helpful. Until my insurance company started making noises about suing them to recover their loss that is. Then, on the advice of their attorney (so they say), they declined to talk with me any further or to sell me a new tractor. There's a series of pages at my web site about the fire loss and the rather lengthy process leading to an insurance settlement that includes some discussion of PTs withdrawal of support (browse through here). I'd much rather have PT rebuild the tractor, or sell me a new one, but in the end, without any other viable options, I decided to have a go at rebuilding it myself. The hoses are replaced, the engine is back in, and I'm now working on the wiring. I think I have all the Deutz parts in hand that I need so if all goes well, I may be able to get it running this weekend. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

There were 307 hours on the tractor at the time of the fire. I've decided that the fire investigator's conclusion about a wiring defect that caused the fire, which I agreed with at the time, is not correct. In the course of all my poking around, I've haven't found any obvious cause for the fire so I suspect it was something along the lines of that old mouse-nest-on-the-muffler scenario.

Building a junction box,
Sedgewood