Any underpowered tractors??
- Thread starter ledebuhr1
- Start date
- Views: 5799
755inNY
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2003
- Messages
- 530
- Tractor
- JD 4310, ehydro, 4WD, R4s
How much time do you have?
Not for the answer but for doing the job. The tractors out there are well matched to the implements specified. So if you think a 72" mower would be allow to mow your acreage faster than the 60" your tractor is rated for, then you might find the tractor underpowered. If the FEL is rated for 1,000 pounds and you want to lift 1500 at one time, you might find the tractor underpowered. So instead of doing the job in one big bite, you may need to take a few smaller bites. But you still get the job done. That's were the "how much time do you have?" comes in.
Of course at the other end of the balance scale from "how much time do you have?" is "how much money to you have?"
The trick to not being underpowered is to understand what jobs you need to do with the tractor, how much time you have to do those jobs, how much money you are willing to spend and then make your selection accordingly.
I usually run out of traction before I run out of power for most of the things I do. I sure would like a tractor with more horsepower but that is because I want to take bigger bites of the job not because mine is underpowered.
Jeff
Not for the answer but for doing the job. The tractors out there are well matched to the implements specified. So if you think a 72" mower would be allow to mow your acreage faster than the 60" your tractor is rated for, then you might find the tractor underpowered. If the FEL is rated for 1,000 pounds and you want to lift 1500 at one time, you might find the tractor underpowered. So instead of doing the job in one big bite, you may need to take a few smaller bites. But you still get the job done. That's were the "how much time do you have?" comes in.
Of course at the other end of the balance scale from "how much time do you have?" is "how much money to you have?"
The trick to not being underpowered is to understand what jobs you need to do with the tractor, how much time you have to do those jobs, how much money you are willing to spend and then make your selection accordingly.
I usually run out of traction before I run out of power for most of the things I do. I sure would like a tractor with more horsepower but that is because I want to take bigger bites of the job not because mine is underpowered.
Jeff
slowzuki
Elite Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2003
- Messages
- 4,156
- Location
- New Brunswick, Canada
- Tractor
- Kubota L5030 HSTC, MF 5455, Kubota M120, Allis Chalmers 7010
Underpowered and undersized are two distinct things.
My lawnmower tractor is underpowered. It needs power to cut grass.
My neighbours tractor is undersized for certain jobs, and it is an ag tractor. It weighs 8000 lb or so and it is still to light to do some stuff.
Like the fellow above says match power to requirments of pto driven implements. Match weight to drawbar loads and loader work.
Loader and 3 point specs could be argued as many have capabilities well above what an average operator should be using.
Everyone likes pushing limits though! Play safe.
My lawnmower tractor is underpowered. It needs power to cut grass.
My neighbours tractor is undersized for certain jobs, and it is an ag tractor. It weighs 8000 lb or so and it is still to light to do some stuff.
Like the fellow above says match power to requirments of pto driven implements. Match weight to drawbar loads and loader work.
Loader and 3 point specs could be argued as many have capabilities well above what an average operator should be using.
Everyone likes pushing limits though! Play safe.
longway5
Silver Member
Like others have said, it depends on what you are trying to do with the tractor. On the other hand, and this is based solely on my experience with the three pieces of equipment at work with loaders, some equipment does feel underpowered.
We have a Kubota BX2200 w/ bar tires, a Kubota L2850 w/ 4wd and bar tires, and a Case 580M with 4wd. We got the BX because of its small size, allowing us to use the loader in tight areas, mostly for snow removal. Since we have it though, we use it quite a bit, whenever we need a loader. Most of the people who use it feel it is underpowered. We've found it is difficult to dig into loam piles that have been sitting for a while. The L2850 has much less difficulty with its larger bucket, and the Case will just about push the pile over if you wanted it to. There are also times when you can load the bucket of the BX2200 full of material, and it isn't able to lift it much past half its total lift. The L2850 has no such problems with the same material and a full bucket, and the seemingly overpowered Case also has no problems.
We do tend to be hard on equipment, and its clear that the BX2200 isn't really the tractor we should be using, as it really isn't designed for what we use it for. But just based on its ability to use a loader, I'd have to say it seems underpowered, or at least not quite matched right.
We have a Kubota BX2200 w/ bar tires, a Kubota L2850 w/ 4wd and bar tires, and a Case 580M with 4wd. We got the BX because of its small size, allowing us to use the loader in tight areas, mostly for snow removal. Since we have it though, we use it quite a bit, whenever we need a loader. Most of the people who use it feel it is underpowered. We've found it is difficult to dig into loam piles that have been sitting for a while. The L2850 has much less difficulty with its larger bucket, and the Case will just about push the pile over if you wanted it to. There are also times when you can load the bucket of the BX2200 full of material, and it isn't able to lift it much past half its total lift. The L2850 has no such problems with the same material and a full bucket, and the seemingly overpowered Case also has no problems.
We do tend to be hard on equipment, and its clear that the BX2200 isn't really the tractor we should be using, as it really isn't designed for what we use it for. But just based on its ability to use a loader, I'd have to say it seems underpowered, or at least not quite matched right.
art
Super Member
Underpowered tractors? I can think of many that have been over ballasted that turned out short of power. Were they underpowered to start,no! There are things that are built to a job and they can do it well but sometimes we make them so in one way they ae great and for other purposes they are less then desirable.
Slamfire
Veteran Member
My Wheel Horse was underpowered when it was given to me. Then I replaced the engine, with a like one that had NOT thrown a rod through the case, and all was well again. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
centex
Gold Member
I have a 48HP JD 4700 and it is underpowered for the 72" FEL that it came with. It bogs down the engine quite easily. It is also not capable of climbing much of any incline in the high speed range without bogging the engine down and for that matter it bogs down in mid-range too on an incline. I consider this tractor to be underpowered but it is also quite small so not a lot can be expected of it. I would not buy another compact tractor unless I did not have much real work to do with it. They are fine for mowing but kind of expensive for that purpose.
Tractors4u
Elite Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2002
- Messages
- 2,540
- Location
- Athens Alabama
- Tractor
- Deere 4310, Kubota L355, John Deere SST18 Spin Steer, 2006 Polaris Ranger
By chance is your JD 4700 a hydrostatic tractor? I had a JD 855 that was hydrostatic and thought it was awfully weak for use with a loader. I am not trying to start a hydro vs gear war, but everyone that has hydrostatic tractors talks about how great they are and if you are going to do loader work that is the way to go. I reading through the brochures I have, I haven't seen that stated. In particular the brochure I have for the Kubota Grand L 30 series and my JD book for the 4000 Ten series both recommend there shuttle shift tractors for loader work.
jackd
Bronze Member
I had a 4400 that seemed to be matched perfectly, but wanted a little more "pull" (trees out of woods, etc.), so traded for a year old 4600 --which was a real dog...power problems with loader, etc., poor hydraulic performance, etc. and back & forth to the dealer -- so we made a deal on a new 4710. (I kept the same 72", high volume bucket that I used with the 4600). This is a different machine...no power loss (esp. with the power match on /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif) on the loader, good performance with any attachment I've used, etc. These were all hydros -- I think my problem was with the individual machine rather than the model.
JackD
JackD
AndyMA
Elite Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2000
- Messages
- 3,714
- Location
- Windham County, Conn
- Tractor
- Ford 2120 , Kubota MX5200 , Deere X748SE. 1956 Economy Tractor
In the New Holland line, many consider the TN55 to be underpowered. The TN65,70 and 75 have lots of power for their weight. The TN55 while good for some chores, was also just discontinued by New Holland in favor of more powerful models. I think in each series of tractors built on the same chassis, you need to be careful and think about your application if you buy the lowest powered model. It may not be suitable for all tasks that the tractor chassis size can handle. I always go for the largest engine in what ever size chassis I'm buying at the time.
Andy
Andy
Andy
Andy
art
Super Member
The first thing that I like to do when there is a problem is to make sure that everything is right. From time to time a tractor isn't running up to snuff. There are some that are just to heavy for the horsepower. Case-IH CX50 is one as well as it's predacesor and the model before that. The rear end is used all the way to what you call 100 horsepower but at fifty it would last 20,000 to 30,000 hours if you weren't in need of a power aggressive tractor.
centex
Gold Member
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( By chance is your JD 4700 a hydrostatic tractor? )</font>
Yes, this is a hydrostatic tractor. I agree that the hydrostatic Transmission is great for loader work but I was supprised how easy it is to load the engine down with it. It has always been my assumption that the engine is underpowered for this size tractor. 48HP is really a tiny engine for a machine that weighs 6000# with the BH attached. Add 2000# of material in the FEL bucket and it is a wonder that it works at all.
Yes, this is a hydrostatic tractor. I agree that the hydrostatic Transmission is great for loader work but I was supprised how easy it is to load the engine down with it. It has always been my assumption that the engine is underpowered for this size tractor. 48HP is really a tiny engine for a machine that weighs 6000# with the BH attached. Add 2000# of material in the FEL bucket and it is a wonder that it works at all.
Tractors4u
Elite Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2002
- Messages
- 2,540
- Location
- Athens Alabama
- Tractor
- Deere 4310, Kubota L355, John Deere SST18 Spin Steer, 2006 Polaris Ranger
48 hp for that size isn't too shabby. The hydrostatic tractor I had was great for everything else and yes hydro is great for back and forth, but when I would use the loader to try to really dig, it would load up the engine and the engine would die. I had better luck before and after with equal hp grey market tractors with loaders. It was rare if ever that I killed the engine doing loader work with those. It really surprizes me though that a 48 hp would bog down like that. Yes there is a hp loss through the hydro trans and you can see it in the specs of the hydro version verses the equivalent gear model, but like I said at 48 hp I would think you would have enough power.
frank_f15
Super Member, Rest in Peace
AT some time or another any tractor is goin to feel underpowered. it is all realative to the task at hand.
art
Super Member
The 4700 you described is heavy at 166lbs per engine horsepower. In ag tractors we like to see 120 lbs on the pto horsepower
BRUSHTAMERS
Silver Member
If the equipment is feeling sluggish and is smoking heavier than usual, make sure to check the air filters.
Soundguy
Old Timer
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2002
- Messages
- 52,424
- Location
- Central florida
- Tractor
- RK 55HC,ym1700, NH7610S, Ford 8N, 2N, NAA, 660, 850 x2, 541, 950, 941D, 951, 2000, 3000, 4000, 4600, 5000, 740, IH 'C' 'H', CUB, John Deere 'B', allis 'G', case VAC
Hard to answer as is. Just about every tractor I have ever been on, is powered for it's frame and size.. for pulling, etc. As in.. you hitch the tractor to something and le tthe clutch out and the object either moves or the tractor tires spin.. I've yet to see an engine 'die' from not being able to spin its tires in place, under load / weight.
Pto is another option... if you run too large a pto load it is very easy to bog down a tractor.
I even bogged down my NH 1920 pulling a 4' rotary cutter ( easilly pulls a 6' ) in 3.5 tall thick wet grass...
Just gotta match implement size to tractor.. and tractor to job.
Small tractors aren't bad... sometimes you need the maneuverability... you loose power and weight.. but it is a trade off.
In short.. I never met a tractor I didn't like...
Soundguy
Pto is another option... if you run too large a pto load it is very easy to bog down a tractor.
I even bogged down my NH 1920 pulling a 4' rotary cutter ( easilly pulls a 6' ) in 3.5 tall thick wet grass...
Just gotta match implement size to tractor.. and tractor to job.
Small tractors aren't bad... sometimes you need the maneuverability... you loose power and weight.. but it is a trade off.
In short.. I never met a tractor I didn't like...
Soundguy
slowzuki
Elite Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2003
- Messages
- 4,156
- Location
- New Brunswick, Canada
- Tractor
- Kubota L5030 HSTC, MF 5455, Kubota M120, Allis Chalmers 7010
To tractors 4u, I'm curious about your technique.
Are you operating the engine at high enough rpm?
When digging, are you trying to push the hydro pedal down to dig harder? With a hydro this effectively shifts the tractor to a higher gear and can force the pressure relief to dump fluid, killing loader performance.
The local dealer tell me the only hydros they have repaired are owners who won't use anything but high range for everything and those who try to "step on the gas" by pushing the hydro pedal harder going up hills when they should be backing off or increasing the throttle.
Are you operating the engine at high enough rpm?
When digging, are you trying to push the hydro pedal down to dig harder? With a hydro this effectively shifts the tractor to a higher gear and can force the pressure relief to dump fluid, killing loader performance.
The local dealer tell me the only hydros they have repaired are owners who won't use anything but high range for everything and those who try to "step on the gas" by pushing the hydro pedal harder going up hills when they should be backing off or increasing the throttle.
Tractors4u
Elite Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2002
- Messages
- 2,540
- Location
- Athens Alabama
- Tractor
- Deere 4310, Kubota L355, John Deere SST18 Spin Steer, 2006 Polaris Ranger
It has been a while since I had the Deere hydro. I ran the throttle up to operating speed and never push with the peddle all the way down. My comparison was between a Deere 855 25hp and a grey market Hinomoto E2304 gear tractor at 26 hp. The Hinomoto would dig circles around the 855. The thing I was really curious about was that most pro hydro folks on TBN talk about hydro being so great for loader work yet the brochures I have from Kubota and Deere push their shuttle shift gear tractors as being ideal for loader work or where forward to reverse work is being done. I will admit that a hydro would be super convienent for anything in that you free up a hand from shifting, but by reducing your h.p. by going hydro do you feel you are sacrificing anything? I am not trying to start a hydro vs gear war, I am just wondering whether there is a real advantage or is it convienence? I guess convienence could be an advantage.
CTyler
Veteran Member
I'm not sure how the shuttle shift works so I can't comment on it. I love the hydro. Its' nice being able to have the RPM's up for faster loader response/power and creeping foward as though your idleing for example. The instant forward/reverse just seems more productive and convienient.
I can say that if you try to use the hydro peddle like a gas peddle you'll run out of power in a hurry. And you'll be unimpressed with it. It took me a few times of nearly killing the engine to figure it out. Didn't take long.
I haven't noticed the loader having less power while using the hydro to move at the same time, If indeed there is a difference.
Having a little more HP would be nice. My driveway is long and has a good slope to it. Driving up in meduim range it barely hangs on to 2000 RPM with the loader and BB. Pulling a 65" BB, rippers down and a full box really slows it down but it pulls.
The only time I have truely run out of power was when we got the CAT 613 scraper stuck driving off a slope. The L3130 would spin the tires a bit then bog out. Spent about 10 min digging with the loader then pushed it out while the CAT was spinning the tires.
I can say that if you try to use the hydro peddle like a gas peddle you'll run out of power in a hurry. And you'll be unimpressed with it. It took me a few times of nearly killing the engine to figure it out. Didn't take long.
I haven't noticed the loader having less power while using the hydro to move at the same time, If indeed there is a difference.
Having a little more HP would be nice. My driveway is long and has a good slope to it. Driving up in meduim range it barely hangs on to 2000 RPM with the loader and BB. Pulling a 65" BB, rippers down and a full box really slows it down but it pulls.
The only time I have truely run out of power was when we got the CAT 613 scraper stuck driving off a slope. The L3130 would spin the tires a bit then bog out. Spent about 10 min digging with the loader then pushed it out while the CAT was spinning the tires.
