Go BottomHP tradoff on Hydros
 | wildbill
Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 36 Brandon, MS 
|
2003-12-12 70986
Here I am again. I test drove a JD4310 eHydro today and realy liked it. I have narrowed down my new tractor to either a Kubota 3430 hydro or a JD 4310 eHydro. But, the HP spec on the Kubota is higher only slightly. Is it worth the extra money to go with a JD4410 for the extra HP or not. Anybody have experience with this issue?
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoHP tradoff on Hydros
 | kwschumm
Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 5764 NW Oregon 
 Pics
|
2003-12-12 70988
I faced this question when shopping. The 4410 is a great machine but you pay dearly for the extra 3 hp, another $1500. Torque is where it's at and the 4410 has more torque than any of the other 10-series machines except (I think) the 4610. But I still found it hard to justify the extra $1500. So I went with the 4310 and have yet to wish for more power. ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoHP tradoff on Hydros
| wildbill
Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 36 Brandon, MS
|
2003-12-12 70990
I agree. I was shocked at the price differential between the two models for just 3 PH. I know the the JD uses a Yanmar engine which is very good and the Kubota uses their own. How do these compare torque wise? ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoHP tradoff on Hydros
| kwschumm
Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 5764 NW Oregon
Pics
|
2003-12-12 70992
It's kinda hard to compare torque figures because the Kubota brochure doesn't list them.
As far as JD goes, the 4310 has 73.10 foot-lbs and the 4410 has 81.0 foot-lbs both at 2600 rpm. I was wrong - the 4410 has more torque than any other 10-series tractor except the 4710. Still, for the extra $1500 you could buy more implements, always a good thing :) ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoHP tradoff on Hydros
 | Chief
Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 4297 Southwest MiddleTennessee
Pics
|
2003-12-12 71000
Kubota measures horsepower at a different rpm and does NOT advertise torque and for good reason.
Using the formula for torque: torque = horsepower x 5252/rpm
Kubota L3430 35.1 hp 35.1 x 5252/2700= 68.3 ft./lbs. torque.
John Deere is all over the map when it comes to publishing technical specifications. Ken has already posted the torque output posted on Stoneham's web site.
If you go by the above formula the 4310 torque figures out to 65 ft./lbs. torque. The John Deere owner's manual states 57.9 ft. lbs. torque.
Bear in mind that the L3430 and 4310 comparison is NOT a valid apples to apples comparison. The 4410 IS and carrys the bragging rights for torque if that means anything. Had I not gotten the VERY good price I paid on mine I surely would have purchased the 4310. I find it hard to justify the $1,500 price tag for 3 hp and about 9% more torque.
The fair and valid comparison for the 4310 is the L3130. In this comparison the 4310 leads in hp & torque.
Kubota uses the comparisons like the L3430 vs JD 4310 to present data in an advantageous light. If you move all the Grand L comparisons to the JD 4000 Ten Series down 1 tractor in size; the comparisons are most accurate and valid and tip in John Deere's favor. Both make a great tractor. Just remember to compare apples to apples.
This should make things clear as mud now? Right? ;-)
....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoHP tradoff on Hydros
| kwschumm
Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 5764 NW Oregon
Pics
|
2003-12-12 71002
I've never heard of Stoneham's web site. I got those numbers straight from the JD 10-series brochure.
....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoHP tradoff on Hydros
 | Billy
Join Date: Oct 1999 Posts: 975 Southeast Oklahoma 
Pics
|
2003-12-12 71008
Ken, that was one of JD's famous misprints, about the 4410 having more torque than the 4510 and 4610.
Below is torque values at 1,700 RPMs
4510...92 lb-ft
4610...95 lb-ft
4710...108 lb-ft ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoHP tradoff on Hydros
| Chief
Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 4297 Southwest MiddleTennessee
Pics
|
2003-12-12 71010
test ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoHP tradoff on Hydros
| Chief
Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 4297 Southwest MiddleTennessee
Pics
|
2003-12-12 71012
http://www.stonehams.com/midcut.html ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoHP tradoff on Hydros
| kwschumm
Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 5764 NW Oregon
Pics
|
2003-12-12 71013
Billy, thanks for the correction. Where did you get those numbers? Is 1700 the correct rated rpm? The books all show 2600. ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoHP tradoff on Hydros
| Chief
Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 4297 Southwest MiddleTennessee
Pics
|
2003-12-12 71014
http://manuals.deere.com/cceomview/OMLVU13193_H2/Output/OMLVU13193_H216.html#181695 ....
Link:
Click Here
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoHP tradoff on Hydros
| kwschumm
Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 5764 NW Oregon
Pics
|
2003-12-12 71015
Too many numbers! Those specs are a mess. ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoHP tradoff on Hydros
| Chief
Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 4297 Southwest MiddleTennessee
Pics
|
2003-12-12 71016
http://manuals.deere.com/cceomview/OMLVU13194_H2/Output/OMLVU13194_H216.html#560641 ....
Link: Manuals Link
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoHP tradoff on Hydros
| Chief
Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 4297 Southwest MiddleTennessee
Pics
|
2003-12-12 71017
Let me try this. I have taken the time to type two long posts detailing the info. When I hit post the screen came up and said the post was successful and the posts were lost. So I just posted the links to the spec. page in the John Deere manual online. That is REALLY frustrating when this happens. Happened to me 3 time in the last 2 days. ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoHP tradoff on Hydros
| Chief
Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 4297 Southwest MiddleTennessee
Pics
|
2003-12-12 71018
Looks like if you try to post a link the board dumps the post. Looks like we found a BUG Dennis. ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoHP tradoff on Hydros
| Chief
Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 4297 Southwest MiddleTennessee
Pics
|
2003-12-12 71019
Sorry, the first John Deere link above is for the 4310 and the second is for the 4710. ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoHP tradoff on Hydros
| Chief
Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 4297 Southwest MiddleTennessee
Pics
|
2003-12-12 71020
Stick a fork in me! I'm done!!! ;-) I am crossed eyed from looking at so many specs.! TMI! ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoHP tradoff on Hydros
 | Art White
Join Date: Jan 2000 Posts: 6898 Waterville New York
Pics
|
2003-12-13 71022
Boy's, boy's, boy's, Chief those formulas are a great old thought. They just don't cut it unless you also want to go to the horsepower one to to figure that with bore vs stroke! They just don't work with the new injection pumps! We've been able to change torque with the twist of a screwdriver since the seventies! The manufacturers rate the engines at different horsepower because that is where the engines burn clean for EPA as well as for them to offer a good performing engine. From the info I heard this past week the reason of the reduction of horsepower on the 790 was for EPA. Normally as the horsepower goes up on a design the torque goes down just drop down to your local truck dealer and look at the spec's on the same size diesel that they might use for several horsepower ranges and you will see that the torque drops off as the horsepower goes up. Let's be real here!!!!! ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoHP tradoff on Hydros
 | DennisCTB
Join Date: Nov 1998 Posts: 2707 NorthWest NJ
Pics
|
2003-12-13 71049
Chief,
I suggest you use the "Link URL" for links instead of the body of your message. That way people can just click on the link.
Dennis
TractorPoint ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoHP tradoff on Hydros
| TomG
Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 5406 Upper Ottawa Valley
|
2003-12-13 71054
I believe that Art's point as I take it is that it's difficult to compare engines since their performances aren't cast in stone--always have been but now many are screwdriver adjustable. In my mind the formula only states the relationship the relationship between torque and time. HP really is just torque over time. The formula can help comparisons sometimes since some specs are in HP and others in torque. The formula can go back and forth between the two.
I've also used it to estimate torque or HP at rpm's different than published specs. Another point Art's comment may make is that torque curves for modern engines may no longer be straight enough between the end points for that to make decent estimates. If so that's a very good point for me to know and thanks.
....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoHP tradoff on Hydros
 | DRankin
Join Date: Jan 2000 Posts: 5116 Northern Nevada
Pics
|
2003-12-13 71055
Specs for Kubota engines: ....
Link:
Click Here
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoHP tradoff on Hydros
| DRankin
Join Date: Jan 2000 Posts: 5116 Northern Nevada
Pics
|
2003-12-13 71056
Specs for Yanmar engines: ....
Link:
Click Here
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoHP tradoff on Hydros
| Chief
Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 4297 Southwest MiddleTennessee
Pics
|
2003-12-13 71061
Dennis, that was the problem. I was using the URL for posting links and when I hit post; I would get the page that pops up and says the post was successful and it would dissappear into oblivion. The only way I it would let me post was to cut and paste like I did, otherwise my posts would get lost. ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoHP tradoff on Hydros
| Chief
Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 4297 Southwest MiddleTennessee
Pics
|
2003-12-13 71062
Art, horsepower is a function of rpm. Raise the rpm and you raise the hp. A lot of auto manufacturers are doing this.
The entire comparison thing got started more or less because Kubota advertises a scewed and inaccurate comparison with their Grand L tractors. In a nut shell the correct comparisons are:
L3130 compares to 4310
L3430 compares to 4410
L3830 compares to 4510
L4330 compares to 4610
L4630 compares to 4710
L5030 is the big Kuhoona for this class of tractor
These are fair and objective, valid comparisons as they match up cubic inches, hp, bore & stroke, as well as approximate sizes & features.
All the manufacturers are guilty of "massaging or presenting data in a favored light" to some extent including John Deere. I wish they all would cut this out.
Getting back to the original question before the technical figure explosion; ;-).....I personally feel that John Deere's ehydro does the best job at maximizing the hp & torque with the ehydro and it accompanying features. )i.e. LoadMatch, MotionMatch, SpeedMatch, Cruise Control, etc.) Both the Grand L Series and 4000 Ten Series are VERY nice tractors and I would not feel the least bit slighted with either one. In fact I think the L 5030 packs a lot of punch for the dollar in a CUT and wish John Deere would market a competitive model. With whomever's brand of tractor you go with, I think you will quickly realize that whatever minor amount of hp the hydro/ehydro transmission consumes; the amount of work and reduced clutching, stopping, starting, and ability to instantly change speed FAR out weighs any hp loss. As far as pto hp requirements; there is not getting around that. You need the minimum required pto hp to operate whatever attachment you are using. ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoHP tradoff on Hydros
 | harvey
Join Date: Sep 2000 Posts: 1550 Moravia, NY 
Pics
|
2003-12-13 71086
Chief Art is correct. If you change the fuel ratio on a diesel you change the HP and keep the same rpm. If you change the timing in concert with the fuel adjustment you can change the torque.
On a diesel there is no point in changing the rpm unless you just wanna go faster at the top end.
You are correct with the rpm thought BUT HP does not move the load Torque does.
Will the folks ay EPA be proud of you? NOPE! ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoHP tradoff on Hydros
| Chief
Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 4297 Southwest MiddleTennessee
Pics
|
2003-12-13 71087
harvey, you are actually partially correct. "If you change the fuel ratio on a diesel you change the HP and keep the same rpm. If you change the timing in concert with the fuel adjustment you can change the torque." Up to a point and beyond only with a non-naturally aspirated engine induction system. None of our tractors are.
The discussion got started as I said above due to the inaccurate comparison Kubota uses on their website and they post no torque figures so I was trying to approximate as best I could. Bottom line: the Grand L is a damn nice tractor but very little difference between them and the 4000 Ten Series when compared properly apples to apples until you get to the L5030.
....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoHP tradoff on Hydros
| kubotaguy
Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 360 Shepherdstown, WV
|
2003-12-13 71095
Well you guys are way over my head in all the changes to increase this and that. The way I look at it, if you want hydro and a certain HP, then go up to the next size tractor. I used to have a gear tractor and just purchased the hydro. I don't have a problem giving up the extra HP for the ease of use of hydro. Comparison is only in the eye of the beholder. Each tractor can be made to look superior to the other when certain facts are emphasized and others are not mentioned. That is why boards like these are so important, to cut through all of the brands marketing crap and talk to the end users!!! ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoHP tradoff on Hydros
| TomG
Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 5406 Upper Ottawa Valley
|
2003-12-14 71111
Guy: I think you are expressing Art's point. Neither torque nor HP are very good measures for comparing performances of tractors. Working them is far better. For comparisons, it's better to ask if a tractor will pull 'this' up a hill at 'that' speed. That's pretty much what the Nebraska Farm Tests did. They were legislated a long time ago because farmers couldn't make comparisons on the basis of torque and HP specs that marketers use. The specs game is not a new one.
I still find it useful to compare tractors on the basis of torque or HP at their respective pto rpm's and these formula can help make those comparisons. The formula just convert from one version of energy to another and they are true by definition. No sense arguing with them, if you have torque at a particular rpm then you also have hp and it's not an estimate. They are only measures of energy output and not well connected to performance though.
By the formula torque and HP aren't independent and one can't change unless the other one does (or rpm is different). Both express energy and torque probably is a better version for expressing ideas like 'force' while HP is better at 'work.' However, you always have both, and saying you use one for this job and the other for another type work makes for foggy discussion. ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoHP tradoff on Hydros
 | Peters
Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 3034 Northern AL
Pics
|
2003-12-14 71116
Well Dennis, Ken and I are trying to collect the data on the new tractors to allow easy comparison.
I am not entirely sure that the published manufactures figures are correct.
For example the Evinrude/Johnson 9.9 and 15 hp were identical except for the jets in the carb. The 9.9 actually but out more like 12 hp at the power head, but used the 9.9 designation as many states and provinces did not require a boat with less than 10 hp to be registered.
I guess we would need to perform the Nebraska Tests to confirm.
Most tractors are stuck to the one speed. If you choose the wrong gear then you must stop to choose the other gear. As you know getting started on a hill with a load can be difficult. Backing down with a trailer or heavy impliment is nearly impossible. For this reason a large flat torque band is desirable.
The hydo cost power to the wheels, but you will seldom find that you are in the wrong gear to move the load as you can always go slower. Unfortunately the peddles are counter intuitive, you release the peddle for more power.
From what I gather this is where the E hydro comes in. ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoHP tradoff on Hydros
| Art White
Join Date: Jan 2000 Posts: 6898 Waterville New York
Pics
|
2003-12-14 71117
When doing direct comparisons on identical turf and there are challanges that are met by one and not the other, that tells you where one exceeds in that challange or situation. There is aways going to be differences from brand to brand they all have there strong points. The twin petal system used with the e-hydro system fits you very well and you enjoy it. I enjoy the simplistic system used on the bota's as there are no switches to perfect the system it just does it, the same every time. Maybe I'm just getting to old. I'm trying to learn how to drive a 633 Manitow with a 2&1/2 yard bucket for snow removal with the big snow we are supposed to have at home. I know spring clean up is going to be tough with my handy work so far. This is a blast to drive but I'm not very smooth yet. ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoHP tradoff on Hydros
| DRankin
Join Date: Jan 2000 Posts: 5116 Northern Nevada
Pics
|
2003-12-14 71122
There is another factor to consider about hydro's. I have had two nearly identical tractors with the same tires and implements but different transmissions.
The 4100 Gear was far more prone to slipping the wheels going uphill with a load, even though it had less horsepower. The 4115 HST hardly ever breaks traction.
I think the HST has a little slip built into the drive system that makes a major difference in usable traction in questionable situations.
The gear tranny with its direct drive clutch/connection would spin the wheels anytime the ground speed dropped and the RPM's didn't.
....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoHP tradoff on Hydros
| Art White
Join Date: Jan 2000 Posts: 6898 Waterville New York
Pics
|
2003-12-14 71129
That is true Mark. On the old IH's with the hydro's they normally nearly dry rotted off the tractors with 4000 hours on them vs the gear drives at about 2000 hours. That is also why we suggest in tillage dominated operation like plowing soil and discing we recommend the gear drive to be able to put more horsepower to the ground. ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add Photo
Go Top
Share This