Hydrostatic vs Manual

[MacMurphy]

I am looking at purchasing my first tractor and am reading as much as I can however some things just simply cannot be read and need to be experienced. The most troubling of these issues is the option of transmission, I am looking at a tractor 30-50 hp with FEL and other various 3pl attachments, I have been told that hydrostatic is almost a requirement for FEL use otherwise I run the risk of buring out the clutch witch will cost me more to replace that the HST would have cost in the first place. I have no need for a mid mount mower. It concerns me that HST seems only to be available on the smaller tractors and surely larger tractors use FELs too ? Can a manual operate with a FEL just as well as a HST model and is it simply a luxuary similar to auto vs manual on a car, I like the auto but can drive a manual just as well !!

Thanks

Murphy

 

[OkeeDon]

Hi, Murphy, welcome to TBN. It's fitting that your first post is about the transmission debate, because there's probably been more words written over that than any other subject, with the possible exception of which oil to use. I think you would enjoy doing a search for the past threads -- click "Search" on the menu and enter "hydrostatic manual" or some such.

However, now that I'm here, I'll expound a little. I think that by now, most of the TBN folks have more or less agreed that hydro is better for almost everything except ground engagement (plowing, etc). However, the jury is still out on whether hydro is up to the task of large horsepower tractors. The manufacturers give us a clue when they use various type of shuffle shifters on the bigger tractors -- the best allow going from forward to reverse without a clutch, with the flick of a switch. Either they think the shifter trannies will hold up better in the bigger tractors, or the shuffle shifter becomes a more economic choice when more horsepower is present.

Your range of 30 to 50 HP is probably right on the fence. There are plenty of 30, 33, 35, 40 HP tractors available with hydro; most of the gear versions for the smaller tractors are straight gear and clutch without any fancy shifting gizmos. In the 50 HP range there are fewer with hydro; most have some sort of shifter gadgets (I'm talking newer tractors, here).

However, there are other differences between the top and bottom of your range -- the lower end is probably a smaller chassis with less weight and less capabilities in things like lifting power. The best thing you can do is tell us more about how you plan to use it, and what your terrain is like. It's worth taking the time to get into details, considering the amount of $$$ you'll likely be spending.

 

[JimR]

First thing to ask yourself is, Do you have any problems with your left knee? If not, either machine will do. If you do, go for the HST. I have had both. I also have a knee that acts up from clutch over-use thanks to my old Ford 8N that I use to own. As for burning out a clutch. I don't think so. I had my 8N for 20 years and moved alot of dirt and snow with it. It still had the original clutch in it when I sold it. With the HST you can just keep your foot into the pedal as you dig and lift with the FEL. I love it and I'm sure that many others will agree here that own HST's. I will never own another gear tractor if I can help it. I thought Kubota had a 30+ HST?

 

[Bob_Skurka]

For the most part HST transmissions are very popular on the 35hp and under tractors. There are some manufacturers that are putting them on larger machines. So if you want to find a 40 to 50 hp tractor with HST they are available, but you will be looking at big name tractor brands. (Kubota, Case/New Holland and John Deere all have larger HST units) Most of the minor brands simply have not gotten there yet.

However, that said, there are many different types of gear tractors. Mechanical gear. Syncronized gear. Syncro Shuttle. Etc. And then some brands have their own names for their more advanced gear machines.

You can work a loader on an antique tractor with mechanical gears and you can work a loader on a modern tractor with HST. One will be more efficient than the other, but both will do the job, one will be slower and harder. If I was you, based on what you wrote, I'd be looking at the more advanced syncro shuttle types of transmissions. Many of the JD owners swear by theirs.

 

[JerryG]

Mac,
If you want a standard with out the clutch wear, get a PowerShuttle or a power shift. These are standard transmissions with hydraulic clutches that last almost forever.

 

[kensfarm]

Welcome to TBN!! There are plenty of threads comparing the Manual, Hydrostatic, and the Shuttle shift.

Since this is your first tractor.. the Hydrostatic will offer ease of operation and a safety factor for a first time operator.

"things just simply cannot be read and need to be experienced."

This is exactly right.. go out there to the various dealers and test drive different colors.. different trans.. you will know what to expect when delivered.. and you'll be happier w/ your purchase in the end!

As far as FEL work.. experienced operators on both types of machines can become efficient at various tasks.. but I do believe the hydrostatic offers an advantage for continous "forward & reverse" tasks.

Try a NH TC35-45DA delux series.. hydro.. w/ a FEL.. joystick control.. the joystick also has low/high range buttons at your finger tips. Then go sit on a manual w/ FEL.. you'll see right away.

 

[dmccarty]

Murphy,

JD also has a PowerReverser tranny. Its a gear tranny with a clutch as one would expect but it also has a lever on the left side of the steering wheel that has three positions, foward, netural, and reverse. You don't have to change gears/clutch to go from foward or reverse you just have to move the lever. Of course under the covers the clutch is depressed buy YOU don't have to do it. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I do LOTS of FEL work. I don't feel a need for a hydrostatic tranny at all. I don't think I have many place on my land that is flat. I work in the woods, with holes, rocks and stumps. Its not a good place to have a tractor sometimes. I LIKE the fact that I have to THINK about which gear to use. It forces me to slow down just a tad. I know its prevented accidents. I can't stomp on the go pedal and go faster I can just make the engine RPM increase which is not going to make me go much faster.

I also have a manual in my truck. I wanted the same setup in the tractor just so I would have some commonality between the two. That may not sound like a big deal but you do develop muscle memory and in a lurch it may keep you out of an accident or it might cause it if things are not like the muscle expects.

On more than on occasion after a very long day on the tractor, I would get into the truck to go home, put the truck in gear, and need to back up so I would grab my turn signel stalk.... Just like I was still on the tractor. My truck really needs a PowerReverser tranny. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I'm not saying that HST are not as safe as a gear tranny but that for me, what I do, and the equipment that I have the PowerReverser is the better choice for ME. I don't think that either of the trannys are better than the other. They are choices for you to make. One might be better for YOUR use and that is the one you should get. Drive the different trannies at the dealer and get the one you want.

One very slight advantage that gear trannys have over HST is that they have slightly more HP. That was somewhat important to me since I might run a PTO generator one day. But it is a very small advantage for me.

Good Luck and have fun buying!
Dan

 

[Ledgemere Farm]

Having grown up on Collar Shift farm machines (need to stop to change gears), my first experience with the John Deere Power Shift was quite intersesting... The second new tractor I bought was a Syncro Range, which meant you did not have to stop between shifts within that range. The cat's meow is the new Kubota Glide Shift. You have (12, I think)gears in line and you needn't clutch except to go from F to R. I got spoiled last summer when I bought my new John Deere GT 225 with the Twin -Touch Hydrostatic. For mowing and trimming, you cannot beat a hydro. For row crop work, a gear shift is fine since you want to maintain a certain speed.

I do not believe having a gear-shift/loader combo is excessively hard on your clutch as long as you don't "ride" it.
For a number of years, we loaded manure with an old John Deere 50 and a hand trip bucket. The clutch never slipped a bit. Hydros are a little easier (less hands) for loading, but with practice, you can be quick with the gear.

I know this is confusing, but both have advantages/disadvantages. The gear will probably be cheaper up front, but should you want to sell it later, the hydro will command a higher resale and may be more marketable.

I think the best advice anyone can give you is to think about all the things you want to do with your machine and go try one of each.

Let us know what you get! /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[timb]

Folks here will be better able to share some insights on the tranny choice if you can elaborate more on what chores you expect to perform with your tractor. I think you'll find that for a relatively small number of select uses one type is definitely better than the other (and it goes both ways) - but for a lot of things it really won't matter all that much.

A hydro will cost you a little power on the PTO, and a little more power at the wheels compared to a manual. Worst case - if you're doing some heavy ground engaging duty - or pulling maximum weight trailers, you might want to go to the next more powerful model in the manufacturer's line to get the same power at the wheels. If that's true for you - then you'll want to keep the total 'hydro' cost to you in mind.

However - if your needs are different - for example if one of the 3-pt implements you have in mind is a tiller - that may really point you towards a hydro. Many gear trannys just can't run as slow as you may need when you're running the engine at PTO speed.

 

[Youare]

I have a gear transmission and a FEL on my Kubota, had the same thing on the 8N I use to own. My preference is gear transmissions. My guess is the HST would be quicker than a GST.

The only negitive I have heard from users of both is the HST uses a few horse power to run the hydraulics.

Randy

 

[sbrem]

You definently don't need a Hydro for loader work. Gear works just fine. Does the Hydro make it easier? Of course. I would also say the vast majority prefer hydro for just about any type of work. Myself, I have a manual and if I had to do it again I would buy another manual. Its just what I prefer. Both my pickups are manual as well. You should try out both types and see what you like better.

Stephen

 

[slowrev]

You don't have to have a Hydro for loader work , but is is much easier on your left leg and you have better control. I have a 1968 IH tractor that has been used as a loader tractor all it's life and has only had the clutch replaced one time.
the current cost for replacing the clutch is about $1,500 parts and labor at a reasonable shop. Hydros are fun and easy to operate, but I believe most still have a clutch, so you wont be doing away with that just not using it much during normal operation. If you are not familiar with operating clutch type of equipment I would say that you will like the Hydro better, and probably so even if you are familiar with clutch driven equipment /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Ben

 

[beenthere]

I won't try to argue with either choice you make, but if me, I'd go with the HST. I have had both, and don't burn out clutch's either. But the HST is the way to go, and the best of the two choices, IMO. Not many stick shift cars left anymore, and fewer and fewer holdouts too, again IMO.
Welcome to the forum. You will get a lot of good information to sort through.
Test drive the HST before you buy, would be my recommendation. Enjoy whatever you get.

 

[Grassgod]

I have a Gst which in my honest opinion is the best of both worlds. It can act & be as fast as a hydro only using the hand but you do have a clutch for the trecherous moments when your working in a tight spot of would like to have the clutching abitities & the best part about the GST is you dont loose any engine HP! I vote GST, I love mine!

 

[PM1]

My tractor size and capacity needs are similar -- 40 to 50 PTO horsepower in a utility tractor. For me, the decision of hydro vs. gear (and 2wd vs. 4wd) was entirely about how much I was willing to spend vs. the importance of the feature for my applications.

I certainly found an emotional draw toward both HST and 4wd -- there is no doubt they both provide benefits in certain uses. For me, however, spending $25,000 or more on a tractor wasn't an option. We have an unlimited list of wants (college for our children, fencing and stables for horses one day, remodeling the basement) in which we have to make trade-offs given our limited budget.

My 130 acres are flat to gently rolling, so 4wd wasn't a safety issue. While I'd love to have 4wd (would "feel" good knowing it was there), there are only a few real instances a year where I find myself thinking "this is a case where 4wd would really help." Even loader work isn't a problem most of the time -- a utility-sized tractor with fluid-filled ag tires and a bush hog mounted on the rear does pretty well. It easily drives into and scoops heaping bucket loads of clay, topsoil, gravel, heavy stone, and other materials. When digging or smoothing with the loader, the front wheels are often lifted from the ground as you put down pressure on the bucket, which means 4wd would become 2wd anyway.

That much said, I can't drive into the woods facing down a steep hill when the ground is wet, load a full bucket of firewood, and then back out uphill. 4wd would make this task easy. So in those few instances, I either load 1/2 bucket at a time, or I back into the woods and hand carry wood around the tractor to load the bucket facing uphill.

Similarly for HST, I would love to have it. It would make bushhogging in tight spots easier and would give more control and speed during loader work and grading. When I was honest with myself, however, I realized that the hours spent on my tractor were distributed something like this:

30% Transport (either going somewhere to do work or carrying things back and forth)
30% Bushhogging in open fields
15% Actual loader-engaging work (does not include carrying things long distances in the bucket -- see Transport for those)
15% Tractor idling (try not to idle too much, but I end up sitting and thinking about a task I'm working on, or hopping down for a minute to hook something up -- and those minutes quickly add up during a day)
10% General maintenance (includes PHD work, box blade work, etc.)

When I looked at those, I realized that while I knew HST would be an advantage in the loader portion (and a small portion of bush hogging), the vast majority of the time I didn't have my foot near the clutch and therefore wouldn't notice the difference.

When I put those doses of reality together, I realized that while I'd love to have both 4wd and HST, I wouldn't be willing to pay a signifant premium for them. I found that I could buy a new JD utility tractor (53 engine, 47 PTO HP), 2wd, gear transmission, and loader, from my local dealer for $15k, vs. $25k or more for similar size and power models from any manufacturer with 4wd and HST. For my land situation and my needs, I couldn't justify the extra $10,000.

If my topography or my usage were different, I would value those features differently. If I had to spend every weekend moving 25 loads of material from one pile to another, I wouldn't hesitate to add HST to my list of must-haves. If I had very hilly terrain, 4wd would move up as well.

I don't have any advice for you, but I've found that sometimes hearing how other people have approached their decisions can help you make a better one for yourself.

Parker