How much would I notice 11 extra PTO HP?

[MtnViewRanch]

Thanks tog...

Guys, there's NO difference in size between my MF 1648 & the Kioti NX 6010. It's just a turbocharged tier4 3cyl, and is actually a smaller engine than what's in my tractor.

I'm not sure where that idea of the other one being larger came in...

We're strictly taking operational PTO HP concerns, nothing else. It doesn't matter if we're talking HST or gear or powershuttle, or power reverser, etc. I'm talking rated PTO HP, while stationary, turning an grinding implement, and giving it resistance.

The Kioti is heavier, 4550lbs + loader vs 4068lbs+ loader for the Massey. Weight is weight and I believe would make your jobs easier.

 

[Mark @ Everlast]

You'll need a larger engine turning less rpm even if it develops the sameHp. That is what I'd look for. You have more inertial forces going on and in a grinding operation you are concerned about torque and recovery.

 

[TSO]

MtnV ... Figure in the loader, bucket, everything else all wrapped up, you're talking about two machines around 6000 pounds that are within a couple hundred pounds of each other. That is a negligible difference at that weight. Otherwise, dimensionally, the machines are nearly identical.

Mark ... I would tend to agree with you. That's why I would love to find a Massey 1652, which has about a 20 percent larger engine rated at a much higher torque curve, lightly lower rpm, yet still around 4 horsepower more at the PTO. The problem is I don't think there are any left, especially new. One of my biggest concerns should I go to the Kioti would be the relatively small engine turning out 60 horse. That's a small 3 cylinder that's tuned up for higher horsepower. I wonder about its effectiveness to maintain power throughout the powerband, as well as longevity.

 

[RG1]

This doesnt really address what I said. I was comparing power output wheel to wheel and pto to pto for gear and HST.
larry

I got that Larry.

I have brochures with specs for quite a few different brands of tractors here that are fairly current to over a decade ago, and most of them say basically what I said- the hydro will have less HP at the PTO than a gear trans of any type, and generally on the order of 3-5 hp less.

Most don't show the specs of rear wheel torque. If you have a chart or some other info that does, I would certainly be interested in that.

 

[RG1]

A power reverser is a shuttle shift. It just does the clutching for you. And yes it is easy to change directions, but nothing beats a hydro for inching around and being able to instantly vary your ground speed without changing your engine or PTO speed.

Generally, a a tractor that is referred to as having a shuttle shift requires depressing the clutch and then flipping the reverser switch. The JD doesn't. It is simply a straight/strict reverser trans. I owned one for quite a while and liked it very much. I have owned ans still own hydro tractors. I am very familiar with both types of trans.

 

[RG1]

This is nothing new to anyone, including me, as I have experience with both systems.

I'm not asking which system delivers more HP... I'm wanting to know how obvious the difference will be from 37 PTO HP to 48. What about 37 to 41? The next HP size in my MF would be the 1652 (52/41 HP).

I think you'll almost always see a difference of 3-5 HP. Like someone said though, your Massey you have now may be actually putting out more than it is rated at, or the other machine you were originally talking about may put out less than claimed. Take a look through tractor data.com (especially ag tractors since they are the ones that really get tested good). Most of them put out a lot more than the factory that made them claims when they are actually tested.

 

[Gary Fowler]

One consideration you haven't mentioned is just turning up the 1648 to meet the 1652 rating. I was looking at them briefly when I bought my LS and IIRC they are the same tractor/ engine etc just tuned up a little higher. I certainly wouldn't hurt your tractor to turn up the injector pump a bit or even add a turbo kit on it if you really need that much extra power.

When it comes to power in tractors, we always seem to need more than what we have. I wonder if those guys driving those triple wheel articulated 800+ HP tractors don't feel the same thing as in: "If I just had another 100 HP, I could pull a 10 foot wider implement"

 

[k0ua]

TSO, I think you mentioned the Kioti's lift height was not as high as the Massey? How will that affect your operation?.. I tell you I would hate to see that beautiful red Massey go.. that is such a pretty tractor.

 

[the old grind]

Making good power at lower RPM always appeals to me. There are tractors whose rpm for 540 on PTO is 3k+ while some others are in the low-mid 2ks. Remember that these aren't the gas engines we're familiar with and 'rpm for 540 PTO' or 'rated' speed may not represent peak torque or horsepower, rather a matter of internal gearing.

btw, I did a recent tilling job with the 60" KK II. Couldn't go near my NH's 2600rpm for 540 PTO without shaking and rattling like the tiller would wreck itself. That said, it did a fine job breaking new ground at 2100rpm (tach). My point? A lot depends on what actual PTO speed the 'stumper' works best at, or maybe what you're comfortable with for a long run.

TSO, I kinda knew you'd go 'pro' with this. Not promising referrals but seeking them for you, esp East of here and closer to you. Got contact # if I run up on a potential customer?

 

[TSO]

One consideration you haven't mentioned is just turning up the 1648 to meet the 1652 rating. I was looking at them briefly when I bought my LS and IIRC they are the same tractor/ engine etc just tuned up a little higher. I certainly wouldn't hurt your tractor to turn up the injector pump a bit or even add a turbo kit on it if you really need that much extra power.

When it comes to power in tractors, we always seem to need more than what we have. I wonder if those guys driving those triple wheel articulated 800+ HP tractors don't feel the same thing as in: "If I just had another 100 HP, I could pull a 10 foot wider implement"

I wish! No, the 1643/1648 have the 135 ci engine, while the 1652/1655/1660 use the larger 180 ci plant.

KOUA ... I'm not sold yet. I actually got some seat time in the 6010 yesterday, they were some things I liked and some things I didn't. The loader lift difference is about 5 inches, and I would say that the loader strength is probably very similar. As of right now I am still leaning red. I might search for a 1652 and see if it would be worth the swap.

TOG ... pm coming. ;-)