How does an HST compare in pulling power with the same tractor and a gear trans?

[ctgoldwing]

I have owned gear and HST. No idea how much HST costs at the wheels but for many the convenience of HST is worth the loss of power. I happen to me one those who will gladly give up a little HP for the convenience.

THIS ^^^^

 

[BackRoad]

That's what I like about TBN...civil discussion with valuable input and real life experience.

If I interpreted the OP question, it was focused on one comparison - pulling - between a gear drive and HST.

Brilliant, thoughtful responses have been provided by some guys that I've learned to respect just from reading their comments on other threads over several years.

And I've read it 500 times on this forum...

What's the use case?

.
.
There's mention of ground engagement - plowing, disc work...great use of a gear drive.

Is there loader work - buckets of gravel, wood or snow, forks, grapples...great use of an HST.

How about ground maintenance work - box blade, back blade, rake, rotary cutter...great use of an HST.
.
.

My own view - I have both gear and HST tractors, not equal spec'd nor similar by any stretch of the imagination...wouldn't part with either.

But I highly prefer the HST for most everything I need to do around my rolling 35 acre mixed trees and fields.

It's not an HP at the drawbar decision, but one of convenience, ease of use and efficiency.

 

[k0ua]

Is a hydro model heavier on the rear wheels?

In CUT sized tractors the geared models and Hydro models are usually within 100 lbs of each other with the hydro being slightly heavier.

 

[Avenger]

HST are nice and convenient. I've run both in many forms, but nothing that would compare to one another. I can say, that I do prefer the gear tractor over HST. I get a gas peddle, which for me, is nice when doing quick operations, like FEL work or moving things around the yard. The tractor 'idles' (high idle, around 1500rmp due to DPF garbage) when not doing the actual work. I do know there are tractors with a smart/synchronized HST peddle option that will rev up the engine more as your press down more on the go button. See the new LS MT3 series. I am sure there are many more like it.

Also, the HST models have extra filters, which is more money and more of a pain in the long run. Not to mention that buying new, HST are typically more expensive.

But for me, I'd drive an HST, but prefer a gear. And that, I think, is the crutch of the issue: what do you prefer?

That does not address the OP's question though. He wanted to know which tractor would pull better. I dont have a good side-by-side comparison to offer. But driving a gear tractor doing field work is much nicer.. for me. YMMV

 

[zzvyb6]

Thermodynamics is not on the side of the HSTs. Even if 95% efficient, the 5% turned into heat will destroy fluid, seals, and ultimately you run out of radiator capacity. Just set the parking brake and stand on the throttle for 15 minutes. Tell us what color the paint burns to... The geared tractor will stall.

 

[Mat4644]

Getting back to the original post. For equal tractors a gear model delivers more HP to the wheels. Around the 10% more range. Usable traction for conditions utilizing the HP is a separate issue.

Didn't see any questions on ease of use.

 

[dieselscout80]

I wonder how well / durable the two are?

Is a hydro transmission as likely as a gear transmission still going to be working after say 30 years? My IH 424 was made in the 60s and I've owned it for 10 years where its been outside for all but a few weeks and it still runs.

When it comes to PTO work like mowing/bush-hogging/baling hay/ect are all great use cases where hydro transmissions excel at as well as loader work.

 

[Mat4644]

No debate there either. HST will wear faster than a gear transmission and the 10% loss factor will increase over time. This is even with periodic maintenance. Modern HSTs are durable and will last a long time if maintained but will always wear faster than it's gear counterpart. There will be clutch wear and replacement for gear models to factor in.

For most of us not an issue for the amount of hours used. In the much distant future there will probably be a higher percentage of old gear tractors surviving vs HST models.

 

[4570Man]

No debate there either. HST will wear faster than a gear transmission and the 10% loss factor will increase over time. This is even with periodic maintenance. Modern HSTs are durable and will last a long time if maintained but will always wear faster than it's gear counterpart. There will be clutch wear and replacement for gear models to factor in.

For most of us not an issue for the amount of hours used. In the much distant future there will probably be a higher percentage of old gear tractors surviving vs HST models.

Maybe if compared to a bare bones gear trans. What about the more elaborate ones?

 

[Avenger]

I wonder how well / durable the two are?

Is a hydro transmission as likely as a gear transmission still going to be working after say 30 years? My IH 424 was made in the 60s and I've owned it for 10 years where its been outside for all but a few weeks and it still runs.

When it comes to PTO work like mowing/bush-hogging/baling hay/ect are all great use cases where hydro transmissions excel at as well as loader work.

Growing up on the farm, we had an old 1970's International Farmall something too. It was bigger than a IH 424, looking at old photos online, looks like it could have been an 826. I'm not sure, and I dont have any photos of it from my childhood, least not that I know of. That tractor was a hydro tractor. Lever controlled on the left side. Move the lever over and up for forward, left and back for reverse. The last time I drove that tractor was in 2005. That tractor was running strong when I left it.