hay making

[Anonymous Poster]

Those old tractors aren't rated conservative, it's just that these "new" compact tractors are "over rated"!!!! I've been saying it for years!!
Compacts just don't have the torque it takes to make a "real HP"!!! Now you know what i've been saying on this board for a long time!
Robert

 

[TresCrows]

No actually both old "row crop" and "general purpose" types (Ford 8N) and new compacts are not underated or overated. The "older" tractors" we are talking about have much larger displacement engines than newer compacts from JD and Kubota, this results in considerably more torque at low RPM's. I think something like a Ford 8N has a 120 cube engine(?) gasoline and whatever the displacement it is quite a bit more than the 70 cubes on my 24 horse Kubota B2410. I nonetheless would prefer the Kubota for general use and the versatility that is built into these machines. I am looking to buy a nice Ford at some point or Cub --just cuz I want one. My neighbor had a Ford 8N and now he has a Kubota. My neighbor at the end of the street has a Ford 8N also--kinda ragged looking and I let him demoe my Kubota and now he is orange with envy and is shopping serious. Both types of tractors have their use, my opinion and the opinion of many homeowner and small acerage users is that the versatility of a small compact with hydro and a FEL and MMM/RMM is best solution and they can run snowblowers and backhoes and tillers and boxblades etc. Just my thought. J

 

[Anonymous Poster]

Hi there TresCrows,
You said "The "older" tractors" we are talking about have much larger displacement engines than newer compacts from JD and Kubota, this results in considerably more torque at low RPM's".

I said, "Compacts just don't have the torque it takes to make a "real HP""

Didn't we kinda say the same thing????

I've owned a 30 PTO HP Deutz ag. tractor for over 15 years. I've used it in front of my 6' Howard Rotavator for over 500 hours. In wetter ground it could use more power, and since has been replaced for that job with an 45 PTO HP Agco Allis. Any way, several years ago i bought a Kubota 30 PTO HP compact. With in 30 minutes of getting it home, i had this tractor in front of this same Rotavator, and i was headed to the field. I could instantly tell it was not going to have the power to run this rotavator, and with in 15 mins., it was headed to over heating!! I went to the shop and checked the radiator for plugging ect.. Well, to shorten the story, it boiled down to the difference of a "Real HP", and a "Compact HP"!! You can think i'm full of BS, but i've seen this same thing many times on different compacts and different tools.

I really liked driveing that Kubota, but a couple years of real farm work, and it was turning to junk, so i traded it off on a new ag. tractor.

Happy tractoring,
Robert

 

[tomt5]

Jerry,

You mentioned that you your 27hp Cub is spinning the baler just fine. Is the baler just running empty or are you actually baling hay? It takes a lot of power to run that plunger, not to mention the additional weight of a wagon that is getting heavier by the minute. Balers usually require around 35HP.

If you are baling a grass hay you will probably get 2 1/2 to 3 tons per acre, per season, with around 40% of your yield taken in the first cutting. Grass hay usually sells for around $85 per ton sometimes less, at least thats how it is in Wisconsin.

A tractor, baler, haybine or sickle, rake, and a wagon or two. It adds up fast!!! A shed for all this equipment and storage for the hay. More expense.

Hay is VERY CHEAP and widely available. Maybe you should consider just buying hay.

The only way I know of to make a buck on hay is to run it through a cow and sell it as milk.

What ever you do I hope it works out okay.

tomt

 

[TresCrows]

Hi, I was not meaning to argue with you, yes we are saying the same thing--except--"real horsepower"--there is no such thing. There is SAE, British *******, and we can go into net and gross and all that but the accepted equation for hosepower which is widely used and easily found in most engineering text does not yield "real" horsepower or "compact" vs "full size" horsepower. A Formual One racing engine makes a real 1,000 horsepower but it is ill suited to pulling loads and a Kubota B2410 makes a real 24 horsepower from 70 cubes but torque and such is the key to useability. By the way, as a fan of turbines, they don't make much torque till you run them through a gear box but trust me on this, a tiny Allison I can hold in my arms will make 600 plus "real" horsepower and if hooked to a tractor would make "real" dirt fly.
Different tractors with different engines etc for different uses, not better or worse, just different.
I guess what I am saying is that a horsepower is a horsepower but that torque curve is what we are interested in.
As to bailing equipment, I imagine if there was a market there could be equipment made for compacts even if some of it was self powered which might not be such a bad idea.
All I ever really wanted was a Turbine Allison powerd B2410 with an Allison tranny from an 18 wheeler. Diesels are for wusses. /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif . J

 

[Anonymous Poster]

Not that I have seen it or know much about making hay, but I notice my Jinma dealer sells Mini balers to go with their 20 & 25 HP Jinma compact tractors. Cant see that they would sell them if they didnt work ok on that size tractor. Only info I have is as follows, no pictures sadly....

MINI-BALERS PTO-driven, producing mini bales (50cm x 70cm). They can be easily carried manually. A range of twine or net binding can be supplied with the baler, and a plastic film-wrapping machine is available.

 

[cowboydoc]

Drew,
Huge difference between a mini-baler and a regular baler. The mini-balers only make very small bales to begin with and have a very small pickup. What we are talking about are regular size balers that you can make big bales with and have a large pickup.

 

[Anonymous Poster]

Ah ok, Sounds good to me though as I only breed mini ponies mini backaches too huh

 

[Slamfire]

International Harvester tried a turbine once in a tractor, it didn't make the grade. You've almost got it right though torque is a whole lot more important than horsepower.

 

[TresCrows]

"Did not make the grade"--probably an urban legend--kinda like the idea that the M1 turbine powered Abrams tank would choke up on sand. Maybe it did but only after outrunning, flanking and then killing every enemy tank despite severe odds to the contrary. Turbines are expensive, not exactly friendly to duct tape and balling wire "farmer" repairs and can be just a bit fuel thirsty but nothing makes power like a turbine except maybe a rocket. I suspect IH decided time and technology were not on their side and opted out of a turbine unit. For example an Allison 250 (approx 600 SHP) cost about 200,000 dollars and a P&W PT6 (600-1200 plus SHP) could run 250,000 dollars (estimated prices only), wheat may have to get a bit more profitable to justify that kind of cost for an engine not to mention the transmission costs to ahndle that kind of power from 30,000 to 50,000 RPM engines. GM once tried a turbine auto but it did not make the grade either--actually they could not get a transmission that could effectively reduce 30,000 RPM to the wheels. Nowadays this would not be a problem with computer controlled infinitly variable transmissions and ceramic turbine electric vehicles may be a possibility in larger vehicles and trucks and trains were hydrogen fuel cells may not be practical. Williams has a new turbine that is about 6 inches in diameter and can produce over 1,000 SHP, it's power section weighs about 50 lbs I think not including the prop shaft and gear box and accesory case. Typical life before OH is 6,000 hours. Cost, if produced, a measily 100,000 to 150,000 dollars. J

 

[Bird]

<font color=blue>GM once tried a turbine auto</font color=blue>

Not surprising. I would have expected them to experiment, but I don't recall hearing anything about that one. However, I DO remember when Chrysler was showing a turbine "concept?" car at dealerships in the early 60s. I went to see it at a Plymouth dealership when it was in Dallas. The things I recall about it was that it looked more like a Ford Thunderbird than any of the Chrysler products and the guy showing it said the major problem they hadn't found a solution for was the exhaust heat. According to him (and of course I have no idea how much he actually knew), if the exhaust were aimed straight back, it would burn the paint off any car that got within normal distance behind it while stopped at a traffic light and if the exhaust were aimed down, it would melt the asphalt when it stopped at a traffic light.

And for another bit of trivia, I believe that car was used in an Elvis Presley movie in which he played a race car driver, driving that car, but I can't remember the name of the movie.

 

[skent]

And the precision required when operating RPM's exceed 10's of K's per second preclude the ability of being able to repair in the field.

My Case DC had a main drive chain break in the field. You don't move the machine with a busted chain. Having to pull the transaxle apart in 6" of mud in the middle of a field and put it all back together. Drop a bolt - wipe it off on your bib overalls and put it back into service.

Topped with a 255 cubic inch engine with a 5.5:1 compression ratio and a red line of 1350 RPM. Cranks out 33 HP. Yes, I think your typical duct-tape and bailing twine repairs won't work on a turbine.

Me, I like keeping the best of both worlds. The Case for the sloppy work and the Bota for the clean side. Though I would like to hear the sound of a turbine winding up. (Didn't chrysler have a prototype Turbine car back in the 60's?)

 

[Soundguy]

I wish hay were that price around me. We pay 6-7 bucks for timothy or timothy alfalfa mix.. sometimes in the high 5's.. but usually 6.25.

Soundguy

"going to pay for hardware vs what can you by hay for? At $2/bale around me, its going to take a lot fo years to justify hardware. "

 

[Soundguy]

Straw is also expensive here.. upwards of 5.25 a bale.

Just under alfalfa here, and just a bit more or even with costal.

Soundguy

"Around here in Hartwood Virginia, Straw is selling for around 4.00 a bale and up! A lot of farmers seem to be "

 

[Soundguy]

Here are a few observations I have. I have a 1997 NH 1920. It is approx 33 hp, 29ptoand has a 4 cyl / 122ci engine.
The NH TC33 should be the exact match.... 33 engine hp, 29 pto hp. 3 cyl / 91 ci engine.

Both tractors are rated for 33/29 hp... yet the tc33 has a 25% smaller engine.

That means that smallerengine is working harder per cylinder to do the same work. Baring differences in technical advances, etc... I would wager that the 'overworked' tractor will have a shorter usable lifespan.

Another observation with the yanmar tractors. Some models use the same block, and different piston sleeves, and a larger fuel injection ( more fuel ) setup to obtain more hp from essentially the same engine.

My opinion on that is as stated above for the NH...

Soundguy


<font color=blue>"Those old tractors aren't rated conservative, it's just that these "new" compact tractors are "over rated"!!!! I've been saying it for years!!
Compacts just don't have the torque it takes to make a "real HP"!!! Now you know what i've been saying on this board for a long time!
Robert "

 

[Phred]

Soundguy,

Displacement is just part of the story. What are the realtive compression ratios?
A smaller engine with a high compression ratio can out perform a larger low compression engine. That why a modern high end sports car can out perform a 60's mucle car although the displacement in the muscle car may be 2x of the sports car.

Fred

 

[TresCrows]

Well, leaving behind Bunny's plight and moving on to horsepower for making hay, well, I think the horsepower race is another "guy" thing. Engine displacement is a better indicator of the likelyhood of a tractor or whatever having more useable torque. An old saying is that there is no replacement for displacement. The TC 33 may have the same horsepower rating as the other NH but it is nonetheless a smaller tractor by what--30 cubic inches or so. Horsepower is such an easy number to sell and the decals looks so nice stuck on the engine cowl.
Indicated horsepower (IHP)= PLANK/33,000 where P equals Indicated mean effective pressure in psi, L equals Length of the stroke in feet (or fractions thereof), A equals piston area in sq inches, N equals number of power strokes per minute (RPM/2) and K equals the number of cylinders.
From this formula you can see the basic variables that affect horsepower and torque. The 33,000 is like a constant that is defined by 1hp equals ft.lbs per min/33,000. Work is an interesting little ditty ---- Work = Force X Distance thus lifting a 33,000 lb weight one foot in one minute is a power unit defined as 1 horsepower. Oh well, I am getting tired. J

 

[Soundguy]

My comparison data doesn't include compression ratio, or any of the other various suport technologies that are incorporated into the engine.

However, realative compression ratio don't effect my opinion much.... An engine with a higher comp. ratio is 'working harder' than a larger engine with a lower comp. ratio.

I think generated torque is more of an issue.

Soundguy

<font color=blue>"Displacement is just part of the story. What are the realtive compression ratios?
A smaller engine with a high compression ratio can out perform a larger low compression engine. That why a modern high end sports car can out perform a 60's mucle car although the displacement in the muscle car may be 2x of the sports car."

 

[DVerbarg]

<font color=blue>the major problem they hadn't found a solution for was the exhaust heat. According to him (and of course I have no idea how much he actually knew), if the exhaust were aimed straight back, it would burn the paint off any car that got within normal distance behind it while stopped at a traffic light and if the exhaust were aimed down, it would melt the asphalt when it stopped at a traffic light.</font color=blue>

Now that might help in the Ag world! Dry your corn/beans/grain as you harvest, dry the hay as you mo-co and bale the same day! /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif

 

[DVerbarg]

<font color=blue>I was wondering, you seem to be very convinced that a MoCo is the way to go for haying, why? Here in TX, I have never even seen anyone using one, and most of the tractor dealerships do not even stock any. I understand that for certain legumes like alfalfa, it can really cut the drydown time, but around here everyone bales grass (generally hybrid bermuda), and almost everyone just uses disc cutters. </font color=blue>

Here in northern Illinois the MoCo is the accepted way of cutting hay. Dry time seems to be the primary factor. The first cutting of the year is usually the largest of the year and one of the most important yet it falls into a part of the season where rain is a considerable factor. Its tough to "find" a window of 3 to 4 days to cut, dry and bale a field of hay. Without a MoCo it would take an additional 1 to 2 days of dry time and would take a considerable risk of losing the crop to rain.

Just my $.02