Hydro vs Standard Shift?

MossRoad · Aug 15, 2003

You are not anymore right than anyone else on this issue. What works for you doesn't necessarily work for someone else. 

Well said, Doc. I shouldn't have made a blanket statement about all HSTs, just given the facts of the two machines that I know about.

normde2001 · Aug 15, 2003

After reading this thread about the HST, I don't believe I would want one. I think Yanmar's "powershift" trans. beats the pants off it in every respect. It is gear drive, but you can shift without the clutch, forward and reverse, It has both hand and foot throttle so you can set your speed or vary it as you choose. There are a few extra parts and springs and stuff to allow it to shift, but nothing any shadetree mechanic can't handle.

pruntyc · Aug 15, 2003

The reason it gives the rpm at 2000 up is because of it being a gas engine. They have to have higher rpms to have power. Now a diesel gets its power at a much lower rpm, so you could run it at a lower rpm and still have the power. I am a Yanmar owner and like my gear trans. but at the same time, a fact is a fact.

_RaT_ · Aug 15, 2003

I stand corrected Richard, as usual, you are right and I am wrong. Your calm demeanor has prevailed yet again. I should have said: No where, zip, zero, nada does my manual say anything regarding the HST and the RPM associated for it to be run at. Perhaps then it is a Kubota thing. It works extremely well at the lower RPM's. You can very easily use the HST at any RPM, much like you can run your loader and associated hydraulics at any speed. The higher the RPM, the greater the flow.

Now, ARE THERE ANY OWNERS OUT THERE THAT HAVE TO RUN THEIR HST AT FULL THROTTLE? If you do, please state the brand. I'd like to get to the bottom, you know, to see if there is a concensus.

"You are not anymore right than anyone else on this issue. What works for you doesn't necessarily work for someone else."

Now was that necessary? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

RAT...

_RaT_ · Aug 15, 2003

Moss, I think the Cowboy was shooting that zinger at me. You are quite correct and now we have two brands that don't demand full throttle to operate the HST.

DKinWA · Aug 15, 2003

MossRoad - Don't forget picking up the garbage can with the fel without knocking it over /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif That would make a great timed event and no need to get a stop watch. I could just use the hour meter on my tractor /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

CountryBoy · Aug 15, 2003

I sure dont operate my hydro at full throttle and my hydro is not any louder than any other tractor of the same size..

icat · Aug 15, 2003

Jeeze - am I late juming in here or what! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I only use the higher RPM ranges on my L3130 HST when I'm doing heavy work. I have not read anything in the manual that tells me otherwise - but then again I haven't read the whole manual. So for now I'll plead ignorance and say that it seems to me the HST functions well in any RPM range.

I will note that I haven't been playing in this "game" for very long, but it sure seems like the gear vs. HST issue comes up a lot. And it NEVER gets resolved - most likely because the only correct answer is not to play the game. Kinda like Thermal Nuclear War. /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

DKinWA · Aug 15, 2003

I'd like to add something that many of us (including me!) seem to forget at times. Many of us base our opinions on the tractors we own and they all have different maintenance and use histories. While I may offer my opionion on my 2001 TC40 someone else my offer their opinion on their 1985 (insert model here). I'm sure we can all agree that times and technology are constantly changing and what a manufacture recommends for a 2003 model hydro won't be the same as what was recommended for a 1985 model.

For example: machining tolerances are much tighter now for engines and lubrication specs have changed dramatically. 30 years ago I'd never dream of running a 5-30 multigrade oil in my 350 chevy, but 10-30 now seems to be the norm. I also know a lot of folks that have vehicles with high mileage that are spec'd to run 10-30, but they're running heavier oils to account for engine wear. Another example is seal and pump wear. Two identical hydro tractors with one with 100 hours and one with 1000 hours may actually function best at different engine rpm. The tractor with 1000 hours will likely need to be run a little faster to account for seal and pump wear to operate at the same capacity as the one with 100 hours.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is there really are no right or wrong answers in discussions like this. We're all working with different equipment under different conditions and what works for me won't necessarily work for someone else.

CountryBoy · Aug 15, 2003

What a lively thread /forums/images/graemlins/ooo.gif....................this is as good as Democrat or Republician or union or non union. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

_RaT_ · Aug 15, 2003

CountryBoy, just what this place needed /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Of course, I'm getting it now here in CA., you know the Grey Davis VS Arnold thing or the pastey ferret vs the Terminator. It's fun! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif Rat...

MossRoad · Aug 15, 2003

The reason it gives the rpm at 2000 up is because of it being a gas engine. They have to have higher rpms to have power. Now a diesel gets its power at a much lower rpm, so you could run it at a lower rpm and still have the power. 

Very good point and I agree completely. However, I'd still like to know what the owner's manuals for modern CUTS say about operating RPMs and HST. Mine's pretty specific.

cowboydoc · Aug 15, 2003

I wasn't shooting anything at you Rat. I was just trying to say that your or my opinion is just that. Somebody else operating the same piece of machinery may have a completely different outlook on the equipment than you or I do. It's yours, mine, Moss's, etc. etc.'s take on how that equipment operates. It isn't right or wrong and it certainly has nothing to do with fact or reaching any kind of consensus. I didn't mean that post to be directed at you or anybody else. It was just a blanket statement as to why there is no consensus. Don't take it personally. It wasn't meant to be any kind of an attack or "zinger".

kensfarm · Aug 15, 2003

What is the largest HP anyone has seen in the HST tractor.. I know they have shuttle shift on some of the big boys.. but what's the HP limit for the HST? Are any of big construction loaders HST?

rockyridgefarm · Aug 15, 2003

( think Yanmar's "powershift" trans. beats the pants off it in every respect. )

Just as soon as you get used to the feeling of a steering wheel getting jabbed into your gut when you shift directions....

Trev · Aug 15, 2003

If you have a tractor which is sitting motionless running nothing but its rear PTO (for example, running a generator 24x7 during a power outage) I've been told you're much better off with a gear tranny.. otherwise the HST fluid would be pumping the entire time. With a gear trans in the same situation, just shut down, change oil and filters, and bring it back up.

Question: Is this basically true, or was I fed a line? /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

slowrev · Aug 15, 2003

Yep very lively,
My final opinion on this thread. If you are planning on trading your tractor in on a new one in several years and aren't planning on using it primarially for draft type of work then a Hydro is ok. If like me you plan on keeping a tractor, then a gear type will be the most reliable and cheapest to maintain over the long haul. Plus the gear ones don't seem to have computer controls for the transmission, something else to break. I like my tractors as simple as possible to get the job done this equals greater reliability and less expense to maintain, plus I can fix it myself.

With that said I do agree that the Hydro's are easier to use and nice for loader operations. Plus the ability to adjust your groundspeed without having to manually shift gears is handy, of course this falls under easier to use /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

BWS · Aug 15, 2003

dont forget saftey[hst will provide] or savings on the hour meter because the hst can do some stuff alot faster.i would not stand in front of a gear tractor with my wife on it and she is the only one to help me when i,m loading stuff or doing chain work with the loader.jmho bws ps i would like to think that the new chevy duramax would be my last truck but i know it probably wont be so would i buy a more simplified truck for longevity,probably not.i want a new duramax with all the gadgets.bws

Skeptic · Aug 15, 2003

I might as well weigh-in here too /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
One consideration is how many drivers of different experience will be using the tractor. When I had my mom try out the clutch and the HST before I bought... well, there was no doubt the HST won. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
So while there are benefits both ways... one consideration is that others may be driving the CUT while you are doing other things (I know... loss of seat time /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif ). There are times that I want someone on the tractor as I rig up something to move or times that I am cutting wood and someone is using the FEL to move the cut wood elsewhere.
So beyond the gear/HST argument... Ford/Chevy, Mac/PC, Coke/Pepsi look beyond just yourself as a driver and what training you might have to give that extra hand. /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Henro · Aug 15, 2003

It's not easy because everything is speculation and personal bias and opinion. Things are stated as fact when they are not. It's opinion that you can run your tractor at lower rpms but the manual and other owners disagree. 

I don't mean to fuel the fire, but everything is not speculation...for example, if you have a manual that states that a specific tractor needs to always be run at full, rated rpm, why not just quote it? No speculation involved then right?

As a matter of fact, my tractor manuals both specifically state not to run at full rated rpm for the first 50 hours...I suppose I should quote that myself! How could I get that many hours on my tractor without using it with manufacturer approval at lower than rated rpm?

It sure would be helpful when any of us make statements, that we back them up with some reference, or simply state it is our opinion without any experience or data to back it up.

Perhaps if we made it a practice to start posts [when it applies] with a disclaimer, something like " I have no experience or any data to back up what I am claiming..." we might just end up finding that we post a little less... /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

Cowboydoc, do you really believe what you wrote?:

 It's not easy because everything is speculation and personal bias and opinion. 

If so I am glad for the astrounauts you don't work for NASA!

My guess, however, is that you were referring to this thread and some of the comments made here, rather than to reality in general... /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

My second guess is that I should have read the remainder of this thread before replying...but the statements in your post were so different from my experience that my fingers just hopped on the keyboard /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif