Kubota vs Kioti, hydro vs gear trans.

[DK35vince]

I meant to say; 'I don't plow any'. But yes Sir we are in the minority.

I'm happy with my gear machine.
I have a Kioti DK 35 gear model. A friend of mine has a DK 35 HST.
I have driven his HST model several times and its nice, but it didn't make me feel the need to go out and buy one.
My synchronized shuttle gear model works real well.

 

[batwing]

I have a stick and HST a friend had a Kubota with a shuttle, I used my friends shuttle to put about 100 yards of gravel on our driveway and thought it was the best thing out there until I got the HST. if I was going to plow very much I would get a shuttle.
Ron

 

[94BULLITT]

Plowing is a power intensive operation. It is slow and takes a lot fuel. Gear transmissions are more efficient, and they produce less waste heat. Hydro transmissions are more likely to fail due to overheating.

For plowing a few or a dozen acres, no problem. Start talking about much more, and the extra power and efficiency of gears would be a must.

I don't plowing with a hydro trans will hurt it. They are designed to be worked.

It would be interesting to see much more fuel efficient a gear was over a hydro.

 

[Fallon]

I don't plowing with a hydro trans will hurt it. They are designed to be worked.

It would be interesting to see much more fuel efficient a gear was over a hydro.

I've heard HST is 15% less efficient than gear, which sounds about right. Compare the HP ratings if you feel like doing the math. It will be a hair more fuel usage for the same work & a hair less max HP.

If you are plowing or farming that 15% can be a lot of fuel & time due to a slower speed. If its a utility tractor, utility & convenience trumps the extra couple of gallons of fuel. The ease of the HST probably makes the HST as fast if not faster on loader type activities.

http://www.tractordata.com/farm-tractors/005/8/6/5865-kubota-l3200.html
Kubota L3200 Power:
Engine (gross):31.9 hp*[23.8 kW]*
Engine (net):30.4 hp*[22.7 kW]*
PTO (claimed):26.7 hp*[19.9 kW]*(gear)
*25.2 hp*[18.8 kW]*(hydro)

 

[jeff9366]

FALLON: Good information at the bottom of your post. I have not seen anything quite like that before.

 

[jenkinsph]

Jeff,
While good information to have what you really want to know is the drawbar hp ratings for a better comparison of losses. Pto ratings are measured with the tractor parked and reflect the hp losses caused by the charge pump drag. Drawbar ratings would reflect the hp developed when pulling against a load or plow. The gear tractor all other things being equal will be able to pull the plow a little faster than the hydro tractor. At the end of a day plowing you could see the difference.

 

[TSO]

Jeff,
While good information to have what you really want to know is the drawbar hp ratings for a better comparison of losses. Pto ratings are measured with the tractor parked and reflect the hp losses caused by the charge pump drag. Drawbar ratings would reflect the hp developed when pulling against a load or plow. The gear tractor all other things being equal will be able to pull the plow a little faster than the hydro tractor. At the end of a day plowing you could see the difference.

The problem with that, is that most manufacturers don't publish drawbar HP ratings ... at least none that I have seen

 

[jenkinsph]

The problem with that, is that most manufacturers don't publish drawbar HP ratings ... at least none that I have seen

Nebraska test reports covers some tractors but not much on the new small tractors. I suspect the drawbar hp ratings are low enough that the manufacturers don't feel it is a favorable selling point. It would be helpful if you had the information though. The numbers are there for the old school tractors in the low hp ranges.

 

[94BULLITT]

I've heard HST is 15% less efficient than gear, which sounds about right. Compare the HP ratings if you feel like doing the math. It will be a hair more fuel usage for the same work & a hair less max HP.

If you are plowing or farming that 15% can be a lot of fuel & time due to a slower speed. If its a utility tractor, utility & convenience trumps the extra couple of gallons of fuel. The ease of the HST probably makes the HST as fast if not faster on loader type activities.

http://www.tractordata.com/farm-tractors/005/8/6/5865-kubota-l3200.html
Kubota L3200 Power:
Engine (gross):31.9 hp*[23.8 kW]*
Engine (net):30.4 hp*[22.7 kW]*
PTO (claimed):26.7 hp*[19.9 kW]*(gear)
*25.2 hp*[18.8 kW]*(hydro)

15% isn't too bad.

I was thinking I might be able to find a Nebraska test of a gear and hydro tractor of the same model and look at the fuel consumption.

 

[MESSMAKER]

+1. Plus, it's great to be able to select the right gear, crank the throttle up, let out on the clutch and go. The advantage of the HST transmission (which I have and love) becomes a disadvantage and a distraction when you're plowing a field for 12 hours.

I doubt that someone buying this sized tractor is going to spend many ,if any, 12 hour days plowing. With a hydro, you can put it in low, set speed control and kick back. I don't see much difference other than the power loss you get with the hydro.