Rutwad....What exactly do you intend to use the tractor for.??
In other words....Why the need for the "big" HP.??
fwiw & imho,
This comment is in response to the concept of "enough" HP to get it done versus "big HP" which is relative. I am new to the modern concepts of compacts though we used a Case 485 as a drain digging tractor in modest sized AG. However, the one thing I learned from the beginning was that there was little that a larger machine would not do, however, there was quite a bit(and nothing more frustrating) that a small tractor will not do and not having the power and weight.
GRANTED, atleast in AG, you don't want to size a 200 HP tractor for an 85 HP job PERMANENTLY as the tractor winds up being hard on the implement due to the extra weight and power. That said I also learned there is nothing more frustrating that having a tractor that was/is SHORT HP for a particular job and NOT being able to do it properly.
This may not transfer from my experience to yours, however, I would almost always rather have more HP as there is little to nothing it cannot do while the converse is not necessarily true. Granted I'm not talking about 72" Cat 1 Mower on a 180 HP Cat 3 Tractor. I am only saying that in like sized machines, within reason, I'd rather use a 180 HP primary machine to do jobs that range from 120, 140, to 165 HP than work a smaller tractor to death trying to get the job done.
I will only suggest you look at the number of 4840s, 180 HP, used on eastern grain farms. While they made 4040s, 4240s, 4440s, 4640s, AND 4840s the latter IS the most common tractor STILL used roughly 30 years after it was built(atleast around here and by a mile). I've had this discussion with many farmers and found they agree the 4840s were rarely ever "turned up" and many actually came from the factory closer to 4640 HP numbers(160-165 HP). Hence the tractor was never really strained by trying to get that last HP out of the engine size and chassis. Further it loafed along fine doing work intended for 4240s and 4440s.
Apple to oranges, however, HP that you have that you don't use does not really cost you all that much. HP and weight that you don't have can and will work the tractor harder than need be. In the end the fact that so many 4840s are in the field working says something about the concept of "to much tractor". IMHO, YMMV, and FWIW...
Some will come to a fuel argument of using more tractor than you need. Afterall you are carrying more weight and producing more power whether or not you need it. That said I've never found that to be that accurate. A 140 HP tractor doing a 140 HP job and being worked to capacity at all times is not really going to "sip" that much less fuel than bigger machine with a bit of reserve to spare.
I have never met a farmer who admitted to buying to much tractor. I HAVE run into quite a few did not buy enough and there seems to be little more bitter in the long run than money put out that does not perform up to expectation...
Compare the number of JD 4000s to JD 4020s still running. Please have the good manners not to bring up MY 4020
. In short they cut the weight and put in the same engine with the aim of doing less work just as fast. For whatever reason it did not stick as a concept and no one wants a 4000 over a 4020 who knows the difference... Again IMHO.
Regards, Matt in Virginia.
