Questionable advice on 200 hr. maintainence

[madrone]

Hey folks. I don't post much but check the site often for info (many thanks).
I've a question for you all.
My 3240 has been a workhorse wonder for me this winter and is closing in on the 200 hr mark. I was in the dealers recently for something random and asked about the hydraulic filter change and thoughts on reusing the UDT.
His suggestion was to not bother with the filter this time and instead change both, filter and fluid, at 300. I asked if that could effect the warranty and he said no.
I'm really not a stickler as I know that all smart manufacturers leave buffers for change dates as well as lifting limits, etc, but absolutely don't want to compromise the seals, pump, etc. just to avoid the relatively minor hassle of changing the filter.

I'd appreciate your opinions as well as any thought on the possibility to change the filter w/out draining all the fluid.

cheers, Mark

 

[whistlepig]

I always do the maintenance as the manufacturer recommends. At the proper intervals and with the recommended filters and fluids. Not saying a Kubota is the best brand of tractor made but it is a premium tractor. IMHO I don't think manufacturers of equipment factor in "buffers". It is what it is.

 

[canoetrpr]

I service all my equipment, cars etc. by the book and they have always given me great service.

Not much trouble to change fluids and filters. I always do both. Just don't torque the drain bolts!

 

[RadarTech]

IMHO I don't think manufacturers of equipment factor in "buffers". It is what it is.

I have this flash back to a Star Trek: The Next Generation Episode where Scotty made the statement about engineers adding a "safety factor" to the design specs.

Now I fast forward to my own engineering work. As a computer network design and implementation engineer, I often add a little bit beyond the minumim requirements to the design. This is always a requirement for safety of life systems, and many government systems. Both of those 2 fields will take the spec of the design and push it to 110% of the spec'd capabilities. So you design to support 125%....

We have to protect the end user from themselves. So we build it tougher than the needs. then we don't up the specs given in the documentation..

As an old Radartech-- I can tell you that those specs were always given a little lower than the real specs too! We had a radar that was supposed to do x and it could do x+3. and worked great! that was nice when hunting scuds...
but that is a different story!

Now the moral of the story---
YES, it is quite possible that the specs for the oil change and others tractor specs are conservative based on the knowledge and design of the engineering team.
BUT, and there is always a BUT, the customer facing specs were lowered for specific reasons. Those reasons are not always known. Some are to protect the customer, some are or marketing purposes (2 tractors too close togather), some because field testing revealed that design parameters did not account for x, and lastly the engineering feeling. that one is my favorite.. and It has saved me a few times. (I told the sales guys to say " yea by theory it should do x but for customer a, I suspect it will only do y dependably).


Mind you-- I am not saying to deveate from the manual.. just trying to explain the engineering mindset....

thoughts comments? smart remarks?

Later,
J

 

[whistlepig]

I have this flash back to a Star Trek: The Next Generation Episode where Scotty made the statement about engineers adding a "safety factor" to the design specs.

Now I fast forward to my own engineering work. As a computer network design and implementation engineer, I often add a little bit beyond the minumim requirements to the design. This is always a requirement for safety of life systems, and many government systems. Both of those 2 fields will take the spec of the design and push it to 110% of the spec'd capabilities. So you design to support 125%....

We have to protect the end user from themselves. So we build it tougher than the needs. then we don't up the specs given in the documentation..

As an old Radartech-- I can tell you that those specs were always given a little lower than the real specs too! We had a radar that was supposed to do x and it could do x+3. and worked great! that was nice when hunting scuds...
but that is a different story!

Now the moral of the story---
YES, it is quite possible that the specs for the oil change and others tractor specs are conservative based on the knowledge and design of the engineering team.
BUT, and there is always a BUT, the customer facing specs were lowered for specific reasons. Those reasons are not always known. Some are to protect the customer, some are or marketing purposes (2 tractors too close togather), some because field testing revealed that design parameters did not account for x, and lastly the engineering feeling. that one is my favorite.. and It has saved me a few times. (I told the sales guys to say " yea by theory it should do x but for customer a, I suspect it will only do y dependably).


Mind you-- I am not saying to deveate from the manual.. just trying to explain the engineering mindset....

thoughts comments? smart remarks?

Later,
J

If you are working under a crane that is rated at 40 tons and that crane is holding 50 tons would that be a wise thing to do?

 

[RadarTech]

If you are working under a crane that is rated at 40 tons and that crane is holding 50 tons would that be a wise thing to do?

Ok.. now I didn't say to ignore the specs.. I just said that they specs are conservative...

For the raches we used to pick up six con boxes, there were rated for a set amount and the load for testing was heavier than the rating..

so I bet the 40 ton crane was tested with more than 40 tons..

But to be honest, I would not work under it..

my whole point is the specs are usually a conservative figure set by an educated individual or group of folks, and since it is conservative a little overage may work- BUT don't test it..

J

 

[whistlepig]

Ok.. now I didn't say to ignore the specs.. I just said that they specs are conservative...

For the raches we used to pick up six con boxes, there were rated for a set amount and the load for testing was heavier than the rating..

so I bet the 40 ton crane was tested with more than 40 tons..

But to be honest, I would not work under it..

my whole point is the specs are usually a conservative figure set by an educated individual or group of folks, and since it is conservative a little overage may work- BUT don't test it..

J

I understand that these specs can be a bit conservative by the engineering folks. Engineers are just doing their job like good engineers should. But I don't think maxing these specs out every day is what the engineer had in mind.

 

[madrone]

I have this flash back to a Star Trek: The Next Generation Episode where Scotty made the statement about engineers adding a "safety factor" to the design specs.

I'm fairly sure Scotty must have been plenty dead by the time 'Next Generation' rolled around. But back in his hay-day Kirk and the crew made it a point to always push the limits. "I jus Caant Hold it any Longer Kaptn!" (imagine a scottish accent......ok,, maybe not)

I don't want to 'boldly go where no Kubota owner has gone before'.
I just wonder if this dealer (who I add works at a huge, very successful dealership) is giving me good advice.

And all that I've heard from here so far is appreciated.

 

[Skyco]

On my stuff I always do what the book says OR BETTER. YMMV.
In my world it is false economy to stretch maintenance items, unless you don't keep your stuff long.
My dad knew a guy that never changed oil in his cars, he was well off and bought a new one every year, so he didn't care.

 

[Baby Grand]

Speaking as a design engineer, safety factors (I'll call them "x") are applied based on cost, risk and understanding.

Cost: If the product costs too much, then no sales, so consider lowering x.

Risk: If the product is not robust and could be unreliable, consider increasing x. If the product is borderline unsafe, then increase x until it's safe. Nobody wants to be responsible for a dead or maimed customer.

Understanding: This is a big one. Contrary to what many people think (including many design engineers) "lifing" a product is a SWAG (Scientific Wild Ashed Guess). Good designers know that there is a limit to how closely each calculation approximates reality. Each calculation introduces a bit of uncertainty (error) that varies based on many factors. Many calculations involve multiple approximations, in which case the error of each approximation accumulates - sort of like compounding interest. So for a complex calculation, or a calculation of something that is new (no experience) or not well understood, apply a big x.

Change the filter w/out draining all the fluid? If your dealer says it's okay, and you trust your dealer, then do it.

-Jim

 

[madrone]

Understanding is the big one, for sure. An average number that figures wear and tear for a machine like a Kubota tractor that is sold and shipped to all corners of the globe with different landscapes, users, and maybe even different oil types must have a HUGE variance.

Change the filter w/out draining all the fluid? If your dealer says it's okay, and you trust your dealer, then do it.

You should re-read my first post. My dealer said 'wait till 300 for both, udt and filter.' I don't know my dealer enough to trust him completely with my machine. For what it's worth, I don't trust anyone here any more but just want to get opinions to mill about in my own head. (i paid for it after all).

My thought about changing the filter w/out draining just seems to make sense, if it's possible, as the manual does not say to change the fluid anyway.

 

[lawn_king]

We for the most part follow the manufacturer pm specs with the exception of the first full hydraulic service. Kubota specs call for the first full hydo service at 50 hours, this is overkill! We preform the first full hydro service at 150-175 hours.

 

[Altex]

...but absolutely don't want to compromise the seals, pump, etc. just to avoid the relatively minor hassle of changing the filter...

"madrone", I would go by what your Operator's Manual says and Not the Dealer's suggestion of waiting for another 100 Hrs. Just tell him what you Want him to do, and be Firm! After all, you're paying for it. Then you'll have "peace of mind", which seems to be what you are looking for.

 

[madrone]

"madrone", I would go by what your Operator's Manual says and Not the Dealer's suggestion of waiting for another 100 Hrs. Just tell him what you Want him to do, and be Firm! After all, you're paying for it. Then you'll have "peace of mind", which seems to be what you are looking for.

thank for the thoughts. I actually do all my own equipment maintenance so It's not about what HE does or not.

 

[Baby Grand]

You should re-read my first post. My dealer said 'wait till 300 for both, udt and filter.' I don't know my dealer enough to trust him completely with my machine.

Sorry, my mistake - I should have read your original post more carefully. Your scepticism with your dealer is well understood. I was lucky and got a good one who I feel I can trust and he told me they just change Hyd filters at 50 hrs, but not the Hyd oil until the recommended hrs. Wish my car dealer was so concerned for my wallet.

My K-maintenance schedule specs Hyd filter change at 50 hrs, but says change the Hyd fluid at 400 hrs, so I decided to re-use.

My wife donated a big, clean, rubbermaid container for a drain pan. Before draining the Hyd Fluid I cleaned off the underside of the gbx so as not to knock any grit into the tub. I drained the fluid & gave it a good look & sniff - it was clear and still smelled uncooked. I put on a new filter and loaded the old fluid back into the gbx, using a cloth on the funnel to filter the fluid as I poured it back in.

-Jim

 

[big bubba]

On my 8540 changed the hyd fluid/ filters at 50 hrs. At 200 I intend to change filters (2) only. Will park it on a slope with filters uphill to avoid excessive fluid loss. Will prefill filters before installing, then run system extending all hyd components for several minutes before using....then top off if necessary. say what you will, that's my plan. I would not be comfortable about draining then refilling with same fluid, think you can be quick with the filter change. bb

 

[PILOON]

I believe that the early fluid changes (as compared to longer work intervals) is mainly to catch those small metal particals that are part of break-in process.
Moving parts (rings, bearings bushings) could burr and chip ever so slightly until properly seated or adjusted to each other.

Also could flush particals the factory cleaning before assembly missed.
Remembering that many tractor engines come from offshore sources, I believe that the early changes (flushings?) are not a bad recomendation.

Besides oil is cheaper than a crank or pump.

 

[KeithInSpace]

Besides oil is cheaper than a crank or pump.

As an engineer, I can relate to factors of safety...but I'd like to take it in a little different direction:

A crane is rated for 40 tons and it picks up a 40 ton load. How is that possible? How can you guarantee it is ONLY 40 tons taking into account wind swinging the load or bumping the load into something (pretty bad with a 40 ton load, I agree)? How do you account for the weight of the wire? How do you know what type of lifting rig they have, how much of a wind sail it is, and how much extra it weighs? What if 140 of the 20,000 individual braids of wire that make up the cable are frayed? What would that do to the load bearing capacity of the crane?

All of these things play into the safety factor. It is your "bridge" from the theoretical to the real. If you rate it for 40 tons, it MUST lift 40 tons SAFELY given reasonable conditions. And those conditions don't contemplate PERFECTION.

Back to the OP: I don't see any amount of money saved in re-using the fluid or filter being worth the possible risk. If you're a bible salesman and put 10,000 miles on your car a week, you could realize real and tangible savings in skimping on this particular item. And who cares? You're buying a new car every 6 months anyway.

Relating THAT to the crane: If you operate your tractor in an airplane hanger with no dust, dirt, or contaminants, and use it to move office furniture and the occasional secretary, perhaps you operate in an environment closer to "perfection" than the engineers had contemplated. In that isolated case, perhaps you can stretch certain service items beyond the recommended.

I have my tractor serviced every 100 hours. And at every one of those services, I have them change...remove...replace...do away with and refill...EVERY fluid on the tractor. A "complete" service. What does it cost me? $300. How many times have I had it done in 4 years? Twice. How good do I feel about my tractor lasting my functional lifetime? GREAT!

I say stick with the manufacturer's recommendation. They're not THAT stupid.

 

[Yankee Clipper]

Madrone,

I liked the allusion to Scotty on the old Star Trek - it does apply here as well as provide some comic relief.

My view as an interested bystander is the drain intervals are important and should be followed especially the 50 hour and the 200 hour. All the crap (technical term) that is generated by gears lapping in and possible left over manufacturing stuff (blasting grit, machining chips, etc) left in from time of production is circulating with the fluid and the hydraulic filter will load readily. Nothing is wrong when you find stuff in the filter pleats - the filter is doing what it is supposed to do. So it is important to get cleaner fluid and a new filter in there at the right intervals.

The old Fram ad about pay me now or pay me later applies here - a new hydro is a lot more spendy than two complete oil changes and filters.

I hope this helps with the understandling of the "why".

Good luck!

 

[BXRICK]

I'm not sure the safety thing applies here, really.
Not chnaging il, or re-using it, or changing only filter, is not going to affect one's personal safety in the same way lifting capacities do.
It could affect the longevity of the tractor and engine.
But you'll never be able to prove that it did or didn't, as so many other factors (exact usage patterns, weather, random manufacturing tolerances) also affect longevity.

I try to follow the book, but usually fail a bit, assuming a little conservatism on the part of the manufacturer.

The manufacturing tolerance thing is interesting to me. The idea that on an engine assembly line, the block and pistons (for instance) are pulled from bins and assembled. If you happen to get a whole engine's worth of pistons that fir perfectly, and weigh exactly the same, the egine will run smoother and longer than an egine that got slightly mismatched ones. And this carries over to all parts where fit and weight matter.