Hydrostatic vs Gear Transmission Tractor

[Atimm693]

Hydrostatic is great for constant direction changes like loader work. There is some efficiency loss because it is a fluid drive. A hydrostatic trans is surely up to the task of constant heavy loads if it is designed right, they hold up quite well in log skidders, bulldozers, etc.

Their downside is cost, complexity, and maintaince. If taken care of with high quality oil, regular filter changes, clean coolers, etc they are good systems.

A gear tractor is hard to beat for being cheap and fairly reliable.

Are those really hydrostatic though? It was my understanding that those were more of a powershift style trans with a torque converter instead of a clutch.

Were there any big hydro tractors made besides the IH Hydros? 1066H, 186, etc.

 

[BobbyLummus1]

Im gonna tell you .. they've come a long long way since then . I have hands on experience with most every kubota and deere hydrostat , cant speak for the others . A good portion of tractors today under 60hp are sold with loaders and the hydros are better for those applications likely 90% of the time

 

[chevytaHOE5674]

The equipment I listed is a true hydrostat. There is no mechanical connection from the motor to the drive it is all fluid driven. There is no torque convertor or clutch, generally just a fiber disk that drives hydraulic pump or pumps.

I too have hands on experience in a few newer hydrostatic machines and while things have changed over the years many things are the same and the costs are also the same. When they work they are great but like anything WHEN things go wrong they are more costly to repair than a gear drive machine that's a fact.

I'm not anti hydro by any means they are handy as heck and can be good machines. But compared to a mechanical gear trans with or without a reverser it's no question in my mind which is more robust and likely to be running around in 50+ years.

 

[chevytaHOE5674]

You cant beat the productivity of a hydro thus the reason so many machines are heading that direction. But for a small time operator who is generally buying older used equipment a guy has to be more cautious.

I've serviced 400,000 dollar pieces of logging equipment with 30,000 to 40,000+ hours and never any hydro troubles. Those guys use good oil, filter cart the oil, change filters religiously, keep coolers cleaned out, watch oil temps, etc.

On the flip side I just helped my buddy put a reman hydro unit in a piece of logging equipment at 8k hours to a cost of 45k dollars. The owner uses garbage oil that looked like a milkshake, filters probably never changed, cooler plugged solid, etc.

 

[Nesikep]

I've serviced 400,000 dollar pieces of logging equipment with 30,000 to 40,000+ hours and never any hydro troubles. Those guys use good oil, filter cart the oil, change filters religiously, keep coolers cleaned out, watch oil temps, etc.

That's a rare logging outfit, most of the ones I've seen are more like the second description!