• Hello.
    In order to download file attachments or view image attachments in full size, you must be registered/logged in and have a level 2 member account.
    No worry, its all for free!
    For more details - click here.

question Zetor Major Transmission/Axles questions

hughbroome2

Member
Level 2
Joined
Apr 30, 2015
Messages
34
First name
hughbroome2
Does anyone know what other tractor use the same transmission/axles as the new Major? I know that it is built by Carraro, but I wondered if other manufacturers used the same transmission and axles?

http://www.carrarodrivetech.com/media/u/sheet_en/2013/AG_Transmissions.pdf

Above is the link to Carraro's transmission offerings, I assumed that Zetor used the T5.5, can anyone confirm this?

I'm just curious about the new Major.
 
Thank you so much. We used to get Farmtrac in the US, but they have withdrawn from the North American Market it seems. Their new tractors look nice. Are they good quality?
 
It is also used in the Deere 5M, but with optional 2 stage powershify or powershuttle

The farmtrac that was sold in the US was an Indian machine. They hooked up with the Polish somehow
 
Thank you zetorfanpl and Renze. I was quoted about $31,500 for a Major 80 4WD. That seemed to be the best price I could find. I just think the way the drawbar is mounted in the US seems really flimsy, but all the new tractors seem flimsy when compared to the Ford 30, 40, and 10 series that my family used to run.
 
American drawbars just -are- flimsy compared to European drawbars. The American type are intended for horizontal pull only, where the European ones are intended for at least 2000kg vertical load on an 80hp.
 
That is true. I've never understood why we don't have the hitch systems like you guys. They seem so much more convenient to hitch when pulling with the drawbar. Here you practically need 2 people to hitch: one to drive and the other to help line up the holes.

 
On big 27.000 liter, 3 axle slurry tankers with a 30 meter Vogelsang drip hose booms, the loaded drawbar weight is 7800kg loaded, at transport position. With the boom folded out to the back, the drawbar load is ZERO when the tank runs empty. Thats why they use an axle lift on the first axle, to make it drivable on the road, with an empty tanker.

Special 110mm ball hitches are made for this purpose. However Fendt 900, Deere 8R or Case Magnum rear axles are only approved by their manufacturers till 11.5 ton, where the unloaded rear axle weight of an empty tractor is already 6.5 ton.

In Europe a 4 ton drawbar load is quite common, on tandem trailers with an average farm tractor of 150-170hp pulling it.
 
Renze JD 5M uses JD axles and gearbox produced in China.
JD 5G, MF 3600, Claas Elios uses Carraro.
 
Ah indeed, the one built by Carraro Agritalia has a New Holland engine and the 5M has a Deere engine.... So its the 5G.
 
Yes, our drawbars are designed for horizontal loads. Didn't MF have alot of issues with the 3600 series?

We don't get the JD 5G or the 5R series here in the US. We get the cheap 5E series and the 5M.
 
Yes, our drawbars are designed for horizontal loads. Didn't MF have alot of issues with the 3600 series?
Which one, the current three cylinder series, or the old heavy 3600 series of the 90s ?


 
The current 3 cylinder series. Do you guys still get the 3600 series in Europe? They stopped selling them here in the U.S. The replacement is the Japanese built 4600 series.
 
The current 3 cylinder series. Do you guys still get the 3600 series in Europe? They stopped selling them here in the U.S. The replacement is the Japanese built 4600 series.

apparently we do: http://www.masseyferguson.nl/producten/compacte-tractoren
and i dont see a 4600 series. MF cooperated with Iseki in the past. So did Zetor , a load of 5511 were also sold as Iseki back in the day.
Lately we had a 3600 in the shop at work, the clutch slipped due to a leaking crankshaft seal. It looks as light duty and compact as it is, on those small wheels.

The Major isnt a bad tractor, actually the cab is quite neat in its class, but an 80hp major of today, is not comparable to a 7745 in strength. The original Major was the 3011 in 1960, and my 3011 is also limited by its chassis, not by its engine power.
 
Well, I think alot of tractor companies build their tractors with much lighter axles and transmissions than tractors from the 20th century. The Zetor Major seems to be a nice balance of build strength, affordability, and mechanical reliability, which intrigues me.

I am also intrigued by Zetor, because they are not a popular brand here in the U.S. With regards to marketing, Zetor is at a position that Kia/Hyundai were at like 10 years ago. 10 years ago, you would only buy a Kia/Hyundai automobile if you couldn't afford anything better. Currently, Kia/Hyundai are building automobiles that are the same, if not better, quality than Toyota or Honda. Due to some talented marketing, Kia/Hyundai are selling so much better than they were 10 years ago; it is all about brand image. Yet with this sales increase, Kia/Hyundai automobiles are still more affordable than the Toyota or Honda cars.

I've seen something similar to this mentioned in other forum posts. Zetor has to fight their image here in the U.S. They need more dealers (the nearest one to me is 210 km away), and those dealers need to be equipped with the proper resources for sales and service. Anyway, I'm sure you know all of this, Renze.
 
The sub 100hp tractors are indeed much lighter than 20 years ago. However the plus 100hp models have only been strengthened. Ford used a 6700kg rated axle in the big field tractor of the 1980s, the 8830. Nowdays they have a 7300kg axle in their T6 utility tractors.

The major, and all of its competitors in that class, are nice haymaking tractors but not suitable for the 10.000l manure tank or 10 ton dumpers we hire from the contractor. The Proxima, or Super series as the basic models will be named soon, would fill those needs. An economy series that holds the middle of of a 7745 and a 8045.

And indeed, Zetor has some work to do before they can get the money paid for their tractors what they are worth.
 
I agree, Renze. Do you know if the US has gotten the new Majors with the Deutz engines, yet? The Zetor North America website still lists a Zetor engine in the specifications. I know you guys have gotten them in Europe, because I've seen YouTube video reviews.
 
The Dutch Zetor importer that took the task 2 years ago, meanwhile sold only 40 tractors. Even the most active dealers seem no longer be willing to take effort with this importer, and perhaps also the reason why Zetor appointed them in the first place, some see it as a slap in the face. So no new Majors here yet, as far as i know.

I dont know what it is, but somehow Zetor UK is having little problems to hire the right, seasoned personnell and aquire new dealerships. They even manage to sell the Forterra HD, even though it is a very odd combination of a basic gearbox of a 60.000 euro tractor, and a premium hydraulic system of a 100.000 euro tractor. I'd say it says more about the inspiration of the sales network, than the market appeal this product has.. I keep at it, that developing the HD was a total waste of resources, which should instead have been spent on modernising the cab of the HSX and Crystal. Zetor management seems to have been stuck in a pipe dream of getting into the higher end of the market where profit margins are higher, though they didnt realise they have a long way to go in refinements, details, and also brand perception by potential customers before they can actually compete in this high end market.... The Crystal is actually the tractor which people are willing to buy from the Zetor brand in specifications, though with prices very close to NH, the cab interior is not aesthetic nor ergonomic enough to get customers to buy a product from the smaller brand...

Anyways, its just this thing between corporate management ideas and the field... I'm not sure Ford ever saw the light and adopted their dealers solution to the awkward, and also unreliable floor button Dual Power control, to the standard Autoparts toggle switch welded on a small bracket to the main gear lever. Dealers modified many of them, for a cheaper and better functioning toggle switch. Then the awkward Spaghetti shift gearbox in the early 80's, it was something so awkward that could have been done so much more convenient, that they changed it in 1985 to a conventional H pattern, two years after introduction. Also Ford missed the trend for 100hp compact six cylinders in the 80's, and it was untill South Es*** Motors, a dealership, took a small frame 7610 and put a downtuned 8210 engine in front of it, to wake up Ford. Ford told their dealer to stop what they were doing and within months, introduced their own 7810 in 1988. Within two years, this single model accounted for 25% of all Ford tractor sales, it was a huge hit.

So, its pretty common for some manufacturers to take a few years before listening to the market, though these manufacturers are no longer independent... For a reason...

The Deutz engine in the Major is not a bad thing. The sub 75hp class is an emission class of its own, and it would take a lot of resources to get a competitive exhaust aftertreatment system for this power range, and when they do, they would have to make it a three cylinder 3.1 liter version of their engine.

Deutz has reasonable spare parts prices (like Zetor) reliable parts availability (Like Zetor) and are affordable too. Its the best option they have right now, unlike the large utility tractor sefment, in the Major class of tractors, price is more important than pedigree.
 
Hmmm... It must Poland or some of the other Eastern European countries that have the new Majors. I think adding the Deutz engine was a smart move. As you say, Deutz has a reputation for reliability. It was definitely a cheaper alternative to developing a 3 cylinder version or a new smaller displacement 4 cylinder.

I really like Zetor and admire their willingness to stay true to their brand's heritage, which is to make reliable, mechanical tractors. However, I do agree with you that they need to work their ergonomics and interior design. With that said, I really like the new Crystal's exterior design. It hasn't been introduced to the North American market, yet. I assume it will be introduced in the upcoming months. With the introduction of the Crystal, I assume the Maxterra project has been trashed?

With regard to Zetor's prices, I think that they are increasing, yet they still aren't as expensive as NH, JD, or MF. I think the increasing price of steel has affected every manufacturer. I've seen Forterra HSX140s listed for about $80,000 USD. A comparable NH T6.145 has a base price of $103,000 USD. I do agree with your statement that is about the inspiration of the sales network. Zetor tractors can be sold as solid, reliable workhorses. Alot of farmers do not appreciate the complexity of the newer JD, NH, and MF tractors. Especially where I live, in Mississippi, we have wooded areas. One branch on the ground that is tossed up by the front wheels can destroy circuitry and cost thousands of dollars in repair.

I actually like the Forterra HD; for a time, I thought it would be Zetor's flagship tractor. I hope they allow that interior to move down to the Forterra HSX or offer it as an option. I do agree with you that customer's in the Forterra HD horsepower segment expect more refinement and details for that price.

I am aware of the Ford 7810 and the dual power issues. My family has ran Ford tractor since the 1960s. My grandfather's first Ford was a 640. Then, he had 2000 and a 4000, followed by a 2600 and 6600. That was followed by a 3230 (only available for the North American market) and a 7740. We lost both of those tractors in a barn fire. My dad rebuilt the 3230 and purchased a 5610 Generation II. My grandfather purchase a NH TT75. I have been unimpressed with quality of the TT75, which is a Mexican built tractor.


 
With the introduction of the Crystal, I assume the Maxterra project has been trashed?

Originally they were planning a Maxterra range with a ZF 6x4 semipowershift, and a Forterra 6c with a 5x4 powershift, based on the 5x3 powershift of the "forterra power" which we now know as the Forterra HSX. Meanwhile the market has moved up in horsepower, 135 and 145hp six pots are no longer middle of the market machines, but those would be six pots in 4 cylinder territory. Also it would be pointless to add an extra powershift step to the 5 speed main gearbox, because with the wide powershift overlap it would have, you would still be shifting the 5 speed all the time because these steps are still small.

Thats where the Crystal came in. A basic workhorse, with some luxury one expects in this horsepower class, but not too much complexity.

For the Maxterra, if you search the internet you can find Zetor has patents on an arrangement of the dual clutch gearbox like used in Volkswagen, audi cars and John Deere 6 and 7R tractors (DirectDrive) Also a Czech government subsidy office website says they are getting an R&D subsidy for a project called "dual path transmission" for 2012-2015.

So it is very unlikely that Zetor will put money in building a Maxterra with an outdated ZF 4 stage powershift, when they are developing a modern 8 stage dual clutch gearbox for themself.

If they have this 8 stage dual clutch gearbox, and the bugs worked out, they would give New Hollands PowerCommand gearbox a serious competition, because New Hollands powershifts that shift up to three clutch packs at the same time, arent the most reliable gearboxes because to make three clutches shift smoothly at the same time, a lot of slipping occurs. When you dont calibrate a TM or T7 gearbox regularly, it is trashed and ready for a full rebuild in 3000hrs.

The DSG gearbox however, is brilliantly simple: a countershaft for the even gears and a countershaft for the odd gears act upon the very same mainshaft. A computer pre-engages the synchro clutch for the next gear, when the signal comes that the gear is preselected, the computer releases the clutch on the odd countershaft, and engages the one on the countershaft for the even gears.

The development risk is much lower than that of New Hollands PowerCommand, but at NH history dictated this awkward solution: they started with the mechanical gearbox with 3 ranges and 4 gears, of the Fiat 1300 of 1969. Then 10 years later in the 1180-1880 models they added a mechanical splitter gear. In the 90 series, 115-90 to 180-90 of 1984 they changed the synchro splitter for a 2 stage powershift. in 1987 a 4 stage powershift was developed out of this transmission. Then in the M100-160 (8160-8560) of 1996, the Ford engine was put into the Fiat 80 series, first with the two stage powershift (dubbed Dual Command) and later with a six stage powershift called Range Command. This Range Command was essentially the 2 stage powershift, with a three stage powershift behind it. after shifting from one to two, the two speed shifted down while the three speed shifted up. 2 times three is six, hence the 6 speed with 5 clutch packs.

Now, in the 2002 PowerCommand fullpowershift for the TM 175 and 190 models, they kept adding to this 1969 Fiat 1880 gearbox by also making the ranges shifted by clutch packs. So when shifting from 2 to three, the two speed powershift part shifts down and the three speed shifts to 2nd. As well as when shifting from gear nr 4 to 5. Now, in the PowerCommand, when shifting from 6 to 7, the two speed powershift section shifted one gear down, the three speed powershift section shifted three gears down, and the 3 speed range section shifted one gear up.

Off course in 2002 this had to shift slick because customers wouldnt accept the bumpyness of 1970 anymore, even though the differences in shaft speeds during this shift from 6 to 7 made it hard to control for a dataprocessor, and totally out of whack when the calibration of the clutch packs was off.... Hence the rebuilds at 3000hrs when the 500hr recalibrations werent done...

Therefor, i really am in love with the dual clutch gearbox: The technology has all the time in the world (half a second, which is a lot of time for solenoids to do their job ) to preselect the next gear, and when its time to break traction and engage another clutch, a rather primitive logic controller can switch over to the other clutch pack, just like the old torque amplifier or dual power of the 80's. Its just wonderful how many engineering risks and trouble are avoided by detaching the actual gear change, from the milliseconds of drive interruption during the power shift.

When we first got our Ursus C-385A (polish built Zetor 8045) when i was 10 years old, it was the first time i got to know this torque amplifier. Back then, after careful deliberations about this interesting gearbox i had only hear about and now got to drive, i already told my brother, i dont see the point. I can only shift down when driving in hare. When the going gets tough when i drive in tortoise, i still have to stop and lift the cultivator a bit to get going again. So it only works half of the time. It would be much more useful if there were two gearboxes inside, so i could change the other gearstick to the desired gear at ease, and then quickly flip over to that gearbox with this little lever under the steering wheel....

Back at that time i had no idea how a gearbox actually looked from the inside, and more knowledgeable people around me said that the tractor would become too heavy if it had two gearboxes so i ditched the idea... ;) :love:

I am not sure, but i think Buhrer from Switzerland (now a Zetor dealer, formerly a high end tractor manufacturer) had a transmission like that: a primitive dual clutch gearbox which was manually preselected. The history on their website just doesnt give a clear description of what this phenomenal gearbox, which Fendt wanted to buy from them, actually was, but it might be an early dual clutch gearbox from what i read.

Also the Agriomatic S gearbox in the 1950's IHC built in Neuss, Germany also had a similar concept: the Agriomatic S was an overcenter lever that operated the two speed splitter, under load. But you could also shift this low speed of the splitter into reverse, so it would become a powershuttle gearbox instead...

Actually thats what the Zetor dual clutch gearbox patent is all about: They are sort of using the Agriomatic S principle on a DSG gearbox ;) :D

The Agriomatic S disappeared, and when IHC went broke in 1985, Case introduced the IHC developed powershift in the Magnum, and the David Brown developed powershift in the Maxxum.... Engineering history isnt allways written by marvelous inventors ahead of their time, its often written by those who knew to make the right move at the right time...

Anyways, the power split CVT (or leistungsverzweigt, as the Germans say) isnt new either. Voith had the DiWa gearbox for city buses, it wasnt a mechanical path and a hydrostatic variator coupled by a differential, but a torque converter and a mechanical path, coupled by a differential (Differential Wandler in German)

....anyways, enough tales for today ;)


I've seen Forterra HSX140s listed for about $80,000 USD. A comparable NH T6.145 has a base price of $103,000 USD.
If you add the options to the HSX to meet the T6, there is no price difference. the T6 has a bigger oil pump, and i believe cab susbension as standard. Add air suspended seat or whatever options, and you'll see that for a similarly spec'ed tractor the price is quite the same.

....and that just doesnt feel good for many Zetor buyers. They were statisfied with a Zetor because they knew they saved money on purchase. The very first 140HSX that went on demo at a long term Zetor customer in Holland, really got this customer into a higher spec'ed tractor. He liked powershuttle and the such. Then the NH dealer came around and gave him a T6 on demo, and offered it for the same price. The customer bought it because the NH had a better cab.... So long for Zetor. The idea that their trusty Zetors had a better resale value and lower parts cost and lower repair bills than the Italian Fords, is something they never thought about because it has never been an issue...


 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top