Calling all Gearheads

[JATO_RaT]

Kip, strange enough, I knew next to nothing about "hydrostatic drive". Heck, I thought perhaps I got involved in the wrong forum, one for people much smarter then me. I not only didn't know what it was, but thought perhaps it was something to do with water and a way to drill holes. The more I investigated it, the more I learned. I already own a "geardrive" tractor, use a shuttle shift at work and am quite familiar with torque converter drives. I enjoy using them all, it beats the heck out of my well worn wheelbarrow and shovel. I now own a "geardrive" hydrostatic tractor. The advantages of hydrostatic become apparent after about 16 hours of use. Would I ever consider a "geardrive" again, sure. Am I disappointed with my decision to go hydrostatic, not at all. Are the extra horsepower wasted heating hydro oil a problem, nuh uh. Its going to be a decision you make based perhaps on as much as we say here as with the few experimental minutes trying out the various types at a dealer. I think it takes some hours to recognize where and when the hydrostatic is ultimately superior to a gear or manual transmission. Prior to that, your going to be pretty excited in whatever you use, especially if its your first tractor. If you choose to go with a manual transmission, you will be very pleased with it. They work well, put more of the engines power to the wheel and have been around for many decades. If however, you want to get the ultimate in manuverability, safety and a very simple to operate tractor, you will not find anything comparing to hydrostatic. If a good portion of what you will do is either loader work (nothing comes close to matching a hydrostatic drive for loader work) or small area or obstacle mowing, get the hydrostsatic, otherwise the manual will do you fine. I did not find hydrostatic to be much more expensive then a manual transmission and figuring it may well be a life long investment, didn't really care. Get what you want, get the facts, listen to folks who use both and may offer a more objective opinion. The folks that are purists and feel that even power steering is cheating are few. They exist and several of us here have had our troubles with them. They are certainly entitled to whatever they like, sometimes there reasons have merit. It is not the job of myself or anyone else at TBN to persuade or convince you to get anything except pass on our experiences with what we know. I offer to you and others my experience using almost every type of transmission made, value it as you desire, Rat...

P.S. I get 25% of all tractor sales in this country regardles of brand for all folks that purchase hydrostatic drive. This is why I will so frequently discuss hydrostatic drive and the merits there of.

P.S. P.S. Go KINGS, BEAT LA - If Shaq was really tough, he'd be playing football, but then the NFL doesn't put up with whinners

 

[rf33]

Mark, I am not sure I understand your reasoning behind the comment that the shuttle shift or power reverser give up HP. As I understand it, (and I have a power reverser) all the power reverser does is to engage a wet clutch electronically, and then shift into one or the other direction. As I understand it (I could be wrong here), there is still a direct coupling of the engine and the tires, so I am not sure that I understand your remark. I suppose that while the wet clutch was slipping during transitions between forward and reverse, you could lose some HP, but that is the case with anything with a clutch.

 

[MChalkley]

rf33 - It depends on what type you have, but if you have the ability to shift gears without using the manual clutch, your wet clutch is engaged by hydraulic pressure, and it's this system that costs you hp anytime the clutch is engaged. If you only have the ability to shift from forward to reverse without using the mechanical clutch, then you may have a different system, one that doesn't incur power loss.

 

[wichiwichi]

Thank you. I totally agree with you on the safety issue. When I purchased mine I was looking at it as a 1 time purchase. Reliabiltiy and routine maintenance cost were also big issues. I also am independant and a DIY person. I hate giving dealers or mechanics my hard earned money for stuff that I can do. What is the routine maintenance cost of hydro -vs- gear over the life of the tractor? If it came down to it how many people could work on a hydro -vs- adjusting or replacing a clutch? I wish the manufacturers would put actual Dyno HP ratings out instead of the estimated ones. On my B7500 the book shows an " estimated 1 HP " difference. I'm betting its more than that. One more thing is the hydro whine. My neighbor down the street was using 1 last night and at times you could hear the whine over the sound of the engine. Personally it would drive me nuts if I had to listen to that all day. Well just my thoughts and opininions here.

 

[JATO_RaT]

TBone, while you are correct that shuttleshift, synchroshift, powerreverser or whatever a brand is using to identify this very easy to use transmission is the difference between night and day, the difference between hydrostatic and shuttleshift is years and light years when it comes to use. With far more hours of experience on shuttle type tractors, I can attest to the abilities of it as well as my relatively new hydrostatic with a mere 125 hours. When doing loader work, there is no comparrison between the two. I suppose it is why they offer only hydrostatic on the Kubota L48 TL/TLB and JD 110 TLB.

Contrary to whats being said here in this thread and at various other times here at TBN, it seems to be the passion of some of the folks with gears to only offer fault with hydrostatic while singing the praises of manual or manual with shuttle. To say that hydrostatic consumes more HP is accurate, does it make much difference that a few HP is lost to this convenience, no. Heck if they are that concerned, remove the hydraulic pump, it uses HP you know, get a set of come alongs and big screw jacks and run your loader and 3 pt hitch manually, you get more HP to the wheels this way. Silly, sure, it demonstrates my point though. Is hydrostatic the only way to go, no. Should those of us with hydrostatic not tell folks considering the purchase of tractor to consider it or what we feel the merits are to hydrostatic? What about those of us with all three types of transmissions, should I stop telling folks my experiences with them? Is hydrostatic whine an issue with some tractors, I suppose, not mine, it's actually quieter then my gear drive International. Is a geared shuttle shift cheaper then a hydro, maybe, not always, depends. If its Kioti, it is sort of. They don't have hydro the last time I checked. With Kubota, the L4610 I considered, HST was actually cheaper by a few hundred dollars then the shuttle and GST counterpart. Its not a forgone conclusion that shuttle is cheaper.

If value is what you want, price is only one way to evaluate it.
If a cheap price is what your after, buy a chinese tractor, stay away from SnapOn tools and for that matter buy all your tools from China.
If your needs don't involve large amounts of loader work, you don't consistently stop and go, switch between F/R and will not have inexperienced folks use your tractor, a shuttle shift will be fantastic. I really like my L4850 shuttleshift
If you have need to do any of the mentioned motions or are concerned about a inexperienced person using your tractor especially on slopes (its not unheard of for sons, daughters, wives and friends to use a tractor to cut some grass), then hydrostatic offers a fantastic choice. It took a number of hours for me to realize all the benfits of hydrostatic, but they actually do exist. Working at my home the benefits of hydro on the steeper hills is second to none. I'd really like to see what some of the manual transmission folks as well as the hydro folks have done with their compact tractors, if its half of what I've done here at my place, I'd be impressed. With 112 hours on my L48, I have now removed approximately 700 yards of material, leveled, and moved it all to a new location, all on a slope that makes many folks pucker. My loader bucket is shiny bare steel now and my boxscraper even shinier. In the end, its going to boil down to show me what you've done don't tell me what you got. Rat...

 

[Rick Jay]

Hi Kip,

I'm not a gearhead...I only have a hydro, but I'll give you my $0.02 worth.

One advantage of the hydro is that it is easier to teach someone else how to operate the tractor. There have been a few times when I have had my wife operate the tractor (when I use it as a diesel wheelbarrow, for instance) and she does it without a problem. I don't think she'd even attempt it if she had to use a clutch.

That said, I also think that the simpler operation of the hydro implies that it can be safer to operate ( A corollary to the K.I.S.S. principle.)

One other point...we often see comparisons between a gear/hydro tractor to that of a gear/automatic transmission on a car. Although in terms of ease of operation, the comparison is similar, there is one other important difference. Even with an automatic transmission in your car, the vehicle's speed is mostly set by the accelerator, the transmission just figures out what gear is best for the operating conditions. With the hydro on the tractor, you can set the throttle anywhere you want and independently set your groundspeed and direction solely by the position of the hydro pedal. Very helpful. Full throttle and the tractor can just creep along.

Good Luck in your decision. You will be thrilled with whatever you get, but as you've found out, the decision isn't quite as easy as it might seem.

Rick

P.S. I do have to question your budget reasoning a bit though. If I understand you correctly, you're cutting into your tractor budget to help pay for cabinets for the house? In 30 years, you'll be on your second (if not third) set of cabinets, but your tractor, with good care, will most probably still be running strong. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif.

 

[TBone]

Rat,

I think we basically agree on everything you said. I was not concerned about the HP loss on the hydro, I was not concerned about the extra cost (if indeed there was any) of the hydro, I was not concerned about inexperienced persons being more comfortable with the hydro because I don't have inexperienced persons operating my equipment.

I was only concerned about getting a good dependable tractor that suited my needs. I don't have a fel, I don't do a lot of work in small cramped places where I have to change directions constantly.

My property is 3/4 of a mile long and I do mostly rotary cutting, road improving, etc. I can literally go for miles without reversing. There's only one place on my land that a hydro would be helpful and that's working around a 1 acre pond with the cutter. I usually back the cutter out over the water to get the vegetation in the edge of the water. The shuttle is nice when I do that. A hydro would probably do it better but that's only a small percentage of what I use it for.

Like some others, the whine that I have heard on some hydros would drive me nuts. I got rid of a one year old tractor with 120 hours on it mostly because of the noise.

I'll concede this to you and all the other hydro lovers out there. If i owned a couple of acres of land and had a compact tractor, I would probably look real hard at hydros. For my use on an ag tractor I wouldn't have one.

TBone

 

[JATO_RaT]

Actually TBone, when I make a reply, I sometimes make the mistake of pulling a reply from someone and then using them as the example. In your case, I actually read yours and felt, heres a level headed person who makes sense to me. Your reply to mine was right on. Most of the comments were actually addressing replys to others and not specifically yours. I really do enjoy the shuttle shift on the L4850. Its a wonderful idea. Believe it or not, there are those that believe even that is much to nice to have and feel the only true tractor is one with manual steering, gear shift and stop, change gears, stop, reverse stop, forward etc. I wonder if they also mail in their responses to TBN, after all the computer is kinda like hydrostatic drive, its just to high tech and easy. Rat...

 

[TBone]

Hey Rat, Thanks for the re-reply. I think we are in agreement - Some things are done much better with a hydro while some are done (maybe not necessarily better) just as well with a gear tractor.

As I age gracefully I find the high tech stuff (power steering/shuttle shift/rubber tires) more and more appealing. I have a neighbor that has an old 135 Massey Ferguson with manual steering and if I had to drive that thing very much I would have to hire my tractorin done. I guess something is wrong with it but it takes all the strength in both arms to turn it!

WAY DOWN DEEP I'm afraid if I spent a few dozen hours on a hydro I couldn't live without one./w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif/w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

Have a happy and safe Memorial Day.

TBone

 

[Anonymous Poster]

<font color=blue>...has an old 135 Massey Ferguson with manual steering and if I had to drive that thing very much I would have to hire my tractorin done...</font color=blue>

Be nice now... /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif

If you had nothing... then you'd be telling us how much you loved it... /w3tcompact/icons/blush.gif

I've had a couple MF135s through the years and loved everyone... next to the Ford 9n/8n series... I'm told the Massey 35/135 is the next most owned throughout the entire world...

Remember... everything in life is relative... /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

 

[Kelvin]

kiphorn,
Here's my 2 cents worth.

Live PTO: Regardless of which transmission you get, make sure you end up with a live PTO for your rotary mower work. You'll desire that feature greatly when you do your "back and forwards" mowing around the pond. I may be wrong, but it seems like a lot of the "under 30hp" gear drive tractors do not have live PTO.

My Setup: I have a 16hp Kubota gear drive (w/o live PTO) and a 24 hp Kubota hydrostatic tractor (both 4wd, which I strongly recommend). I bought the gear drive model first and was reasonably happy with it's performance, except I had a few areas like you that required back-and-forth mowing over the edge of a river bank. I knew that that kind of mowing would wear out the clutch very fast (continuously stopping and starting the tractor and rotary mower) so I shopped around until I found a good deal on the hydrostatic model.

Now that I use both tractors regularly, I can say that when mowing, the hydrostatic model has the advantage when (1) I want to slow down for the turn-around at the end of each pass and (2) when I mow in a back-n-forth pattern. When mowing in a box pattern in the wide open areas, there isn't much difference. If I had to have only one tractor, I'd strongly prefer the hydrostatic model.

For mowing 2-3 acres and keeping snow off of an 800' driveway, I feel that a 16hp Kubota B7100/B7300/B7400 HSD with FEL would probably be the minimum that you would want to do the job (no power steering though...). The 21hp B7500 HSD would be what I would recommend for long-term happiness, or anything larger that your budget would allow.

Kelvin

 

[RoyJackson]

"I knew that that kind of mowing would wear out the clutch very fast (continuously stopping and starting the tractor and rotary mower) "

Why would you think that?
Have you had to replace your clutch? As long as one doesn't "ride" the clutch, even a lot of stop and go won't wear one that much, or that rapidly. My dealer rarely has to replace a clutch unless the tractor belongs to a rental company or is used by several different operators (who could care less about longevity). One user tractors...go a long time between clutch replacements. Friend of mine with a gear Deere 850 has gone over 12 years going up and backing down a slope. Still the original clutch...
These are pretty heavy duty clutches, even in smaller tractors.

As far as the thread...gear or hydro: go for the deal that suits you the most. No matter which tranny, it'll do the job.

 

[Kelvin]

Roy,
Why would I think that "continuously stopping and starting the tractor and rotary mower" would wear the clutch out faster? I first need to re-assert that my statement applies only to tractors with non-live PTOs (typical of small compact tractors).

My response to your question is, "Why not?". Unless I am missing something, it seems common sense that the more a friction wear item (such as dry-plate clutches and brakes) gets used the faster they wear out. And operation under heavy load conditions accelerates that wear.

I guess that I relate it to the clutch wear on a truck. Stop-n-go city driving conditions will wear a clutch faster than highway driving. And a heavily loaded truck will wear the clutch out faster than an empty truck.

I would also say that your local dealer doesn't have that many clutches replaced because (my guess...) most of the gear drive tractors are the larger type that have "live" or "2-stage" clutches which allow the operator to change gears without continuously stopping and starting the PTO driven equipment. And those that don't have live PTOs (like mine) probably don't use the tractor for "continuous starting and stopping of the tractor and PTO equipment" duties. Note that I have no problem using my gear drive tractor with a PTO driven rotary mower in open fields; I still prefer my hydrostat tractor though.

Another issue for "back-and-forth" mowing with my gear drive tractor without live PTO (or 2-stage clutch): After depressing the clutch to change from a forward gear to a reverse gear (and vice-versa), I have to wait approximately 15-30 seconds (seems like several minutes) for the PTO driven mower to slow down enough for me to shift the transmission into the new gear (I don't like all of the grinding noises when I try to shift into the new gear too soon). With a hydrostatic transmission (and I assume the glide-shift/power-shift type transmissions) you can change directions easily and without stopping the 3-point equipment.

Your friend's gear-drive JD 850 probably has a live PTO clutch in which case my statement doesn't apply. I don't know how the JD "70" series compares with the "50" series, but I have a sales brochure on the JD 670-1070 series, and the 670 (19.3hp)/770 (21.0hp) has a single stage dry clutch with non-live PTO, but they had optional 2-stage clutches with continuous live PTOs (standard equipment on the 4wd models). The 870 (28.7hp), 970 (35hp) and 1070 (40.9hp) all came equipped with 2-stage clutches and continuous live PTOs.

I still stand by my statement that for "back-and-forth" mowing, a person will HIGHLY DESIRE a tractor with live PTO and/or a 2-stage clutch. However, I am still willing to learn...

Kelvin

 

[RoyJackson]

"Why would I think that "continuously stopping and starting the tractor and rotary mower" would wear the clutch out faster? I first need to re-assert that my statement applies only to tractors with non-live PTOs (typical of small compact tractors)."

My 670 has the single stage clutch, hence "non" live PTO. When I have to shift (my property demands a lot of back and forth mowing due to the slopes...although this is lessening somewhat due my increasing tolerance for minor slopes), I don't have to wait at all. The transmission shifts between a forward and reverse gear with no clashing whatsoever. I do have to wait a few seconds if I'm engaging the PTO lever. But that is only done when first starting the mowing operation, or if I take a break (at which time, I shut the tractor down).

Granted, I'd rather have the live PTO or dual stage clutch (which was optional on the 670 mfwd models), but this has nothing to do with the longevity of the clutch. Since the clutch disengages the PTO (stopping the mower), I have to do a little more movement to cut the grass missed during the shifts. This is more of a technique to mow, by the way...living with the limitations of the design.
If you have to wait 15 seconds or so to prevent gear clash during shifts, it sounds like your tranny is non-synchromesh, or the synchros have gone bad.

In retrospect, I'd rather have the dual stage clutch...I'd also rather have purchased the 770 due to it's 4 more horsepower (at the PTO).

As far as hydro vs. gear...didn't really come into the purchase decision at all. If there had been a Deere 755 (comparable power and size to the 670 model) setting in the dealer's lot...I'd be running a hydro today, maybe.
I did talk to the dealer about longevity of these tractor components...his comment about clutch longevity was on the x70 series, 790 series and smaller 4xxx series tractors, not the bigger units.

If I'd done the deal today...on a brand new tractor...I'd still probably go for the gear drive. I just don't think the hydro is worth the extra money (or the power loss). Teaching others to operate isn't a factor here at all.

I would, however, go for the dual stage clutch...but, again, I don't see longevity being an issue.

BTW, Kelvin, you were right...the 850 has an independent PTO.

 

[Kelvin]

According to my JD brochure, your 670 has a "sliding gear" transmission, which as you say results in easier shifting than an older style gear transmission. So it appears that with the way you describe your tractor operation, clutch wear with your gear transmission would be significantly less than the clutch wear on my gear transmission (since I have to wait until my PTO nearly stops turning before I can change gears). Stated otherwise, when mowing in "back-and-forth" movements with my gear drive I have to continually stop and start the mowing deck where you do not; thus, I feel there is a lot more clutch wear where you feel there is not. This whole converstaion is starting to make some sense to me now.

Based upon all of this conversation, I am developing two biases, which may also be the bias of some of the people that post on this board. With regard to the compact tractors (<30hp), in comparing JD and Kubota,

(1) Kubota probably makes the best hydrostatic transmission, and
(2) JD probably makes the best gear transmission.

If this bias has validity, then
(1) that would explain the high emphasis on hydrostatic transmissions by Kubota drivers,
(2) the high de-emphasis on hydrostatic transmissions by non-Kubota drivers,
(3) the high popularity of hydrostatic transmissions over gear drives in the Kubota lineup, and
(4) the significantly less popularity of hydrostatic transmissions in the JD lineup (disclaimer: this is my assumption based upon limited information).

I will add that I don't have any experience in the larger tractors and their specific features (I did spend quite a few hours in the seat of a MF 165 over 25 years ago, but never did any mowing with it...).

Kelvin

 

[TBone]

Agreed, John. Everything is indeed relative. There are probably more 135s around here than any other single tractor model and if I had one I would be proud of it. If I had this one though I would be retrofitting it with p.s. for sure.

This particular one has a serious problem. My neighbor hardly ever uses it for anything except to dig postholes. He has a new 80hp NH to do all the real work. I guess he just hates to part with the old 135.

I remember an old IH we had when I was growing up that that had at least a round of slack in the steering wheel and I thought it handled like a cadillac!/w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif/w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

TBone

 

[kiphorn]

I've been busy with the new house and the family and haven't had an opportunity to respond to the many comments that were generated to my post.

The hydro vs. gear debate continued with no clear winner. Many good points were thrown out in favor of either choice and I thank all that responded with their thoughts.

MikePA's comment, brings up another question: <font color=blue> Kip, a third alternative is to get what you need/want but buy used. </font color=blue>

I did some searches but really didn't find the answer I was looking for to the following question: How many hours on a tractor are too many?

I realize that's a tough question, but I had to ask. I don't buy the line "It was owned by a liitle old lady who only cut her grass on Sunday." Were they hard hours or easy hours? Was the tractor serviced regularly or not? I'm sure there are a hundred and one questions that could be asked about used tractors.

Hours being the easisest to get a handle on, what is the consensus on hours. Is 500 to many? I've looked at some regular contributers and they aren't racking up a ton of hours. Harv mentioned 60 hours in his post. I'd feel relatively comfortable buying a tractor with 60 hours on it, but my comfort level decreases proportionally as the hours increase.

I asked my wife if we could put a card table in the dining room and use the beach chairs in the family room so that I could buy the tractor I want. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif/w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif Her response wasn't very positive. I don't understand. Women just don't seem to get why we men need these tractors./w3tcompact/icons/hmm.gif (No offense to the female TBN'ers)


Kip

 

[RobS]

Kip, my two cents on used/new from a similar situation three years ago...

I started looking used but didn't want something too old/worn out. I knew I'd barely have time to use the tractor much less try to bring one back to life. I concentrated my search on tractors less than 5 years old and found them to be either beat or priced nearly what a new one was going for. I quickly concluded that for just a bit more money I could afford new and not have the worries of what the previous owner did or didn't do to the machine. Also got that new tractor warranty. I did save by getting the 790, one of Deere's "economy" models. Thus the gears, though if I had more money to spend I still would not have gone for HST. Maybe power-reverser /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

 

[knucklehead]

Kip

We're in a similar place as you. Started looking at older tractors, got all the way up to new ones; now we're in a cool off period of assessment. We have other things we want to do, too, and keep the debt down.

We decided (this week /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif) to go for a single purpose tractor and have a smaller garden tractor for mowing around the house, etc.. That way we don't get into the Great Tire Dilemma, and we can concentrate on looking for more of a hulking behemoth than a dual purpose machine. It just makes things simpler. We're looking at garden tractors in the +/- $1500 range for older decent ones.

About synch & power reversers, here's my quick & technically dirty view: with synchros, you still have to clutch & nearly stop moving, but not wait for the internal gears to stop moving, so it's quicker when changing direction. Regarding direction, you also get the same speed in reverse for all gear/range combinations, so you have as many forward speeds as backward. The power reverser is sort of the same setup, speed selection-wise, but lets you change direction w/o physically clutching, as that is done via hydraulically modulated clutches (correct me, mechanics). You still have to use the clutch to stop. Obviously, the 'hydro is the true automatic.

I'd go no less than the syncronized unit. In experience as well as other's opinions, the straight gear is better for operations where there are fewer direction changes, slow reverse speed isn't a nuisance, or for a patient person, like all of our honorable straight geared brothers out here. Us small tractor users make more direction changes (especially when we're shopping for that tractor /w3tcompact/icons/grin.gif).

Regarding hours, it's more a matter of maintenance. I withdrew a low offer on a fairly new tractor with less than 200 hours on it, because there are a few physical clues that point to careless use at the very least, and service records can't be found. I may go back if I get more information. A tractor with 1500-2000 hours wouldn't bother me if it had a good service history and proper use. And was priced right /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif. You also need to decide how much work you want to do yourself. I don't want to change a clutch or rebuild an engine on something I need to use regularly, but I will do most external work, like tune ups and parts replacement.

Just my $0.02 - at this rate, you may save enough pennies for a new one!