Origins of the 'Compact Tractor'

[Mrwurm]

Origins of the \'Compact Tractor\'

Just sitting around and wondering.....

The earliest tractors that I know of that were considered 'compact utility tractors' by the manufacturer was the John Deere 50 series. You know 650,750, 850, 950, 1050. Any thoughts from those of you as to "who" (which company) invented the 'compact' and when did it all start. I recently learned that Kubota does not make any 'BIG' farm type tractors. Did kubota start this compact 'CRAZE'??

Jerry

 

[Mike_Dumond]

Re: Origins of the \'Compact Tractor\'

Check out the M110 and M120

 

[Mark_in_NH]

Re: Origins of the \'Compact Tractor\'

Jerry,
Maybe Muhammad can help answer that. Chapter 4 in his book covers the History of the Compact Tractor. I don't own a copy but I just did a random search on the History of the Compact Tractor and his book popped up.
This website is called the "unofficial history of the Simplicity Garden Tractors, but it isinteresting reading on a variaty of manufactures and the differant models they produced and how they evolved.
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.simpletractors.com/Main/history.htm/>http://www.simpletractors.com/Main/history.htm/</A>

 

[Robert_in_NY]

Re: Origins of the \'Compact Tractor\'

On large farms the M series from Kubota is considered a small tractor or a chore tractor. It would basicly be used to pull wagons or a baler. Small farms it is considered a large tractor but we had a discussion like this on another board and Kubota doesn't have a market share of the ag realated market. Their bread and butter is compacts while companies like JD and CNH make their money off of 100hp and larger tractors. I do remember when compacts started picking up in the US that Kubota was the leading force in that market, then JD had their imports as well as Ford and the rest but I think only Kubota made their own back then so I guess they are to blame.

 

[spencer200]

Re: Origins of the \'Compact Tractor\'

ford built the first 1000 series compact in 1976, if I remember right kubota was a year or two before this and deere followed them

 

[beenthere]

Re: Origins of the \'Compact Tractor\'

If by definition a compact has to have or at least offer 4wd, then the early models such as the Ford (2n, 9n, 8n), Ferguson (TO-20, TO-30), Allis Chalmers, JD (LA, MT, 40, 420, 430) to name a few, do not qualify. But if 4wd isn't the criteria, then these should qualify as the forerunners in some way, shape, or form. Now there is a "compact utility" class in here too that classifies tractors smaller (?) than the compacts - right?

 

[Mark_in_NH]

Re: Origins of the \'Compact Tractor\'

Here is another website with historys of some of the manufactures
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://tractor.edcads.com/histories.html>http://tractor.edcads.com/histories.html</A>

 

[Youare]

Re: Origins of the \'Compact Tractor\'

I have often wondered what makes a tractor a compact, this would seem to answer the question of when and where did they originate.

The answer to what makes a tractor a compact was stated that generally a tractor under a certian horsepower rating, I believe it was 35 or 40hp, falls under the compact class. Over that begins the utility class.

That being the case then my Ford 8N and many others like it fall under the compact class. There is a bit of difference between my Ford 8N and my Kubota L3000DT other than a few horsepower.

I was under the impression a long time a go that a compact tractor was one that was narrower and ligther than those older tractors in the same horsepower range. I believe my Ford 8N can out pull my Kubota in 2 wheel drive. I know it will handle side slopes that are steeper without, as some one has called it "the pucker factor".

If the N-series and those like it are truly "compacts" then the beginning had to be around that time. However if they are in the utility class then the compacts came to us from overseas.

It would make sense to place the old Fords and Fergusons in the utility class, I think that's where they were first introduced.
Just my two cents./w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

Randy

 

[pennwalk]

Re: Origins of the \'Compact Tractor\'

<font color=blue>The earliest tractors that I know of that were considered 'compact utility tractors' by the manufacturer was the John Deere 50 series. You know 650,750, 850, 950, 1050.</font color=blue>

John Deere had those tractors made by Yanmar who had been making very nice small tractors for quite some time. Which is of course why JD had Yanmar make them. JD is superb at identifying good technologies and refining them for the US market and selling them like crazy. Which is why Yanmar was happy to leave the US market to JD.

Chris

 

[JackIL]

Re: Origins of the \'Compact Tractor\'

The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) has a definition of "compact utility tractor" in their SAE Standards. From the Section entitled "Terminology for Agricultural Equipment-SAE J1150 Jul97", Paragraph 3.1.1.1--Compact Utility Tractor--"A small agricultural tractor equipped with a 540 rpm rear PTO and a three-point hitch designed for Category I implements only. These tractors generally weigh less than 1800 kg (3,968 pounds), have less than 30 PTO kw (40.2 PTO hp), and are primarily designed and advertised for use with mowers and light-duty material handling equipment."

As a general rule, PTO-horsepower is approximately 85% of NET engine-horsepower. So 40.2 PTO-hp is approximately 47.3 net or flywheel-hp. (For hydrostatic tractors, PTO-hp is approximately 82% of flywheel-hp.)

Many compact tractors are advertised using the gross engine-horsepower which is the measured without the cooling and exhaust systems in place. Typically the difference is about 2-4 horsepower depending on engine size. Gross horsepower just allows the advertised horsepower to be a larger number and is never attainable with the engine installed for practical usage.

As an example of the above, from the published Specifications for a John Deere 955 which is a hydrostatic tractor, the Gross Engine-Horsepower is 35.3, the Net is 33, and the PTO-Hp is 27.

Note that the SAE definition does not refer to the number of drive wheels nor to the possibility of the use of tracks.

In the SAE definition, the term "light duty material handling equipment" can be generally interpreted as loaders, blades, post-hole augers, etc.