Manual or hydro

[wikket 0]

I was wondering which is better on a Wheel Horse, manual or hydro?

which will last longer?

Thanks,

[kpinnc 10,743]

Far too many variables to consider with that question. There are several different versions of both types of transmissions that were produced over the years.

I personally own 40 year-old hydros that are excellent performers, but have seen them less than 10 years old that were destroyed.

Mechanical trannies tend to last a long time (in Wheel Horse years at that), but they can fail just as easily.

Bottom line- The life expectancy from either type will be directly related to the use of and proper service performed or not by the previous owner... AND the new owner.

Kevin

[Docwheelhorse 2,560]

The manual transmission will outlast the hydro.... The reason being is that the manual can stand up to the neglect of not having the fluid changed, they also don't generate tremendous amounts of heat. About the only things that kill manual transmission equipped Wheel Horse transaxles are 1) WATER and 2) LOW OR NO gearlube. The shifters can loosen/wear with time but are easily repairable.

Hydros aren't my thing.... I'm not trashing them but they are a mechanical assembly with close tolerances (the pump). If you don't keep the fluid and filter clean and full you are already headed for trouble. Then throw in 10/20/30 or more years of the pump spinning at 3600 and it just wears out... Even the best maintained Kohler Engine succumbs to many hours of running.

The manual transmissions just plain don't wear out.

Tony

[WHC-125 4]

Tony,

I couldn't have said it any better myself :whistle:

[wikket 0]

that is some great information.

Resquare members rock

Thanks again

[pfrederi 17,147]

Anything mechanical can ultimately fail. To me the big difference is that I can fix just about any mechanical tranny failure for not too much money...Hydros when they fail are an expensive proposition.

[hodge 6]

It is hard to be impartial with this question, because we all have our personal preferences. For me, I think that because the maintenance regimin for a manual tranny is more forgiving and not as demanding, that the manual is more durable.

[TT-(Moderator) 1,127]

With a few exceptions, you can't tell me that removing & replacing a drain plug and a filter, and refilling the transaxle with oil is beyond the capabilities of the members on this forum. An occasional cleaning and adjustment isn't any different on a hydro transmission than working on anything else as far as I'm concerned, so what's the big deal?

A gear drive transmission also requires oil changes. (seriously! ) They're just more forgiving when it comes to the inherent laziness of the owner/operators who believe in the theory of "if it ain't broke - don't fix it" As long as it moves when you put it in gear and dump the clutch, it's fine, right? That means the oil is still good and there's enough in it. Before the dipstick was added to the gear drive transaxles, how many people do you suppose actually checked the level on a regular basis? I'll bet it wasn't too many! We also know that a gear drive is not sealed completely, unless you count the shifter boot as a credible moisture barrier. Moisture and dirt will get inside no matter how good that boot is. Bearing and bushings will wear out regardless of what transmission type they are used in, and dirt and moisture will only accelerate the wear process. When you factor in the repeated forward to reverse shifting when trying to get unstuck or changing direction (and belt slipping) when trying to mow around obstacles, you get wear of shifter rails and forks, gear teeth, shafts, etc. How many of the old 3 speeds pop out of third gear?

I'd bet that over 50% of the bad reputation of hydros come from fear of the unknown - the same reason most guys will attempt to repair a manual transmission in an automobile but won't touch an automatic. Sure there are more intricate parts and closer tolerances in the pump and motor, but there are less parts in the actual reduction gear / differential case. Tear apart one of the early ATF equipped Sundstrand units and they're spotless inside - I don't care how old they are. (providing they have been serviced correctly) As far as a "pump spinning at 3600" is concerned - they don't. The engine should only turn around 3400 rpm @WOT and the ratio of pulleys put the pump input shaft speed at approximately 3000rpm. It is imperative that the pump is operated at that speed or the system pressure and flow will decrease below the manufacturers engineered settings and the check and relief vales will not function as designed. Improper pump speed also increases heat build-up - which is another killer of a hydro / hydraulic system. Reduced pump speed also results in erratic operation which promotes increased wear on gear teeth, bearings, and bushings.

Here's a message to the guys who don't run the engine at full throttle when using a hydro tractor: YOU'RE KILLING IT! Ground speed is controlled by the DCL, not the throttle. Operate it like it's designed to be operated, or don't operate it at all.

The "which one is better" question is an easy one for me to answer based on my use of MY tractors.

Whether it's mowing the yard, plowing or throwing snow, dragging wounded vehicles around, backing up a trailer, or just going for a ride, the hydro is much better and more efficient than any gear drive tractor I have ever owned - and that includes a 520-8. If you're mowing a large open field there might be a difference, but chances are you'll still need to do it in second gear - unless your field is like a golf course green. I can actually support my "argument" on this using a side-by-side comparison of two similar tractors that I currently own; a 1990 416H and a 1992 416-8. I can also compare the 416H to the 520-8 and provide the same results. It takes at least 20 additional minutes to mow with either gear drive tractor than it does with the hydro. I can also clear the snow much quicker with the hydro, regardless of the hydraulic lift luxury.

The only advantage I will give to a gear drive would be in the pulling category. Lower parasitical loss and virtually no slippage does make them better suited to that activity, and I have also witnessed that for myself on several occasions.

:whistle:

[refracman 166]

Have to agree with TT on this one. My daily tractor and the beast are both hydros.

The daily is an 03 and does all grass and snow removal.

I aquired GT14 and put a loader on it in 03 and haven't looked back. It has moved over 400 tn of fill, and any thing else that I could use/abuse it for.

I'm guessing here but in those 5/6 yrs I've put at least 750 hrs on it. Ive changed the engine oil at least 4 times a yr and the hydro I've changed 3 times since aquiring it and runs and drives stong still

Maintainence is the key to equipment longevity. That means keeping everything clean well greased / oiled and repairing before a problem arises. ie. the GT goes into the shop every other winter for a complete tear down and inspection and every winter for inspection. The daily is inspected at least 3 times during the year and into the shop every spring and gone over before mowing season, and cleaned after every mowing.

So yes hydros can last as long as a gear drive with proper care and driveing technique.

[hodge 6]

Hmm... I still like manuals better than hydros.

[TT-(Moderator) 1,127]

Hmm... I still like manuals better than hydros.

That wasn't one of the original questions though. :thumbs:

[Rod(NASNUT) 1]

As far as wich will last longer in my Charger 9 a 1968 I got from my dad it has been used hard and put away wet for a long time and still works find Dad lives by the theory of "if it ain't broke - don't fix it" so not to many oil changes hell when I got it from him it still had a Wheel Horse fillter on it and he never would buy OEM stuff. I have had 2 or 3 8 speeds and had to fix bearing and bushings in them I guess it is whatever you want and what you think is better for you We all have our picks :whistle:

[kpinnc 10,743]

I agree with TT and Steve on this, as evidenced by the first reply to the thread. I have opened a 39 year-old Sundstrand hydro up, and it was the cleanest transmission I have ever seen, with virtually NO wear whatsoever. I only opened it up because I wanted wider axles and an 8 pinion diff installed on it. There have never been ANY service issues with that tranny.

I would also agree that most people who don't like them are more afraid of them than anything else. I have been guilty of this myself, with the Eaton hydros. They are of such a simple design, that it's hard to see how they work so well. Plus, the first one I owned had been neglected by the PO, and was in sad shape. Now that I've got one in my 520, I am a believer. What a joy it is to mow with that machine! Aside from the instant and infinite speed changes, my hydros generally run much faster than any of my mechanicals. Just one more advantage!

Don't get me wrong- Most of my tractors ARE mechanical tranny machines. But all my "Cadillacs" are hydros. They will do anything I ask of them, just as my 4 and 8 speeds do.

Kevin

[Sarge 3,462]

I'd honestly have to pick the hydro here . Given equal treatment/service the simple fact the hydro's stay cleaner is a pretty big factor . Just also the fact that dirt and even metal shavings are kept away from the pump helps them last a very long time . The only real drawback to the early model vane pumps was their weakening over time , again a problem with not getting proper service . It's rare if they just quit or break for no reason, it's generally only after a very high amount of abuse . Manuals share a lot of these same issues , but the end killer is any debris and water that can enter via the shift boot - gets all them sooner or later.

Mow or plow once with a hydro and it's hard to go back ...

Sarge

[kpinnc 10,743]

The only real drawback to the early model vane pumps was their weakening over time , again a problem with not getting proper service .

That's the second post I've seen you refer to vane pumps on. Which pumps would those be?

Kevin

[Rideawaysenior 25]

TT has it right. I also have a few of each version. My D160 is hydro and that machine is an animal. I plow my drive and small dead end street with it. I till 3 acres I lease as a hobby farm with it, and I even mow with it not to mention all of the other things that get done asing from work that are play related. I use ot as a pull back tractor for our local lawn and garden tractor pulls. Ever see a hydro pull a 5,000 lb stone boat with no mods? I'll post a video of it this summer so you can see. It takes proper maintenance for the upkeep. The play I do is a little extreme but because it's only done at very infrequent intervals I don't really consider it abuse although some may differ.

I would say that I do prefer a manual for tilling. The only reason is, for me it's easier to control my ground speed. I have a 312-H that I have a tiller with. The tranny on that is super tight but I still am constantly fiddeling with the motion lever to find the right speed. My C125 with the 8 apeed is my choice of tilling machines. Pop it in low second or third depending on the soil conditions, and away I go. The only thing that is not so good about the C125 is with the amount of ground I till it would sure be nice to make my 50in tiller work off of that machine.

[Sarge 3,462]

I can't remember now, it's either '68 and later or '73 and later hydro's used the piston-piston pumps . The hydrogear itself is shaped a bit different, that's how I can tell them apart anyway . Piston-piston types can produce much more pressure and are a fair amount more efficient than vane pumps . Not to mention they don't wear from just plain use , it takes foreign objects to hurt a piston-piston type .

I'm sure TT or someone else could give a better description .

Sarge

[Rideawaysenior 25]

Sarge,

You got it right. Slipper piston pumps are the way to go. My 69 Charger 10 has the gear pump, and D series and a couple of newer have the slipper piston Sundstrand style pumps. Super tough hydros. I find that with the D, I run out of motor before the transmission dumps especially when plowing. That big 56in. blade sure can take a good bight of snow.

[kpinnc 10,743]

I'm sure TT or someone else could give a better description .

I was just not sure what you meant Sarge. I have a couple Hydrogear models, but had never heard them called "vane pumps".

I personally can't tell the difference in performance from a Hydrogear to a Piston-to-piston setup. But, that's just my opinion.

Kevin

[TT-(Moderator) 1,127]

To my knowledge, the pumps were all the variable-displacement piston type pumps since WH began using the Sundstrand in 1965 until 1980 when the Eaton replaced them. The major Sundstrand change came in 1973 when the gear motor was replaced with a fixed-displacement piston motor.

[Sarge 3,462]

Hmm, now where did I read that early versions of the Sundstrand were vane pumps ? I have noticed the difference in the gear motors on later models , didn't know it was a change to fixed-displacement piston motors .

So, how is the difference in pressure between early and late models ?

Sarge

[Rideawaysenior 25]

Big difference is in pulling. I don't think there is an application anywhere aside from conpetition pulling where someone would ever tax out any pump that Wheel Horse used but I had a 198? 418-A which when hooked up to a stone boat of 4,000lbs wouldn't budge it. I've got an warly 70's WHeel Horse 10 that pulls that weight with some effort, and then my D160 which when working the motion lever easily doesn't seem to ever have enough weight on the sled. The Eaton has a gear rotor pump if not mistaken, and the 10 and D use the slipper piston style to a piston type motor. The piston motor in my opinion is a much more efficient means of power transfer.

Now to stick up for the Eaton 1100 on the 418-A, I used it and my dozer blade to level grade a 1,500 sqft portion of my neighbors yars. I put 100lbs of weight on the front of the A arm of the blade for down pressure. I was amazed what that machine would push. All I had on it was my arse.