Will the CK27 be "enough" tractor

[psdx]

If your boss will ever use the tractor make sure that the boss at least sits on the model before making the purchase. My significant other definitely had different comfort levels on different brands/models.

Excellent point. Don't forget about "she who must be obeyed"!

 

[Loren49]

I believe the CT235 is the Kioti CK35.

Loren

 

[kiotiken]

The bottom line is that 99% of the time all the obsessing is for nothing in the end when you're talking about 5-8 hp. If you were talking about 1–2 frame sizes and 30 hp difference, yeah that might be a show stopper. But with what you're talking about, go with your gut and don't look back. You'll love the new tractor and it will become normal and you'll enjoy it. Yes, more hp might make the job go faster, but if seat time is therapeutic then is faster always better?

Well, I disagree. With loaded tires, this tractor and FEL is around 5000lbs, WAY more than a Kubota B3030. The B3030 is a 30hp tractor and with FEL comes in around 2800 - 3000lbs. You need a little extra hp, IMHO, to move the extra 2000lbs the OP is talking about. 3-8 hp makes a difference, and, having the CK30 myself, I wish I'd gone for the CK35, and I've yet to use an implement on the PTO.

By the way, the free loader program has been going on for YEARS. It wasn't running last winter for any of the models, but came back in March (that's when I bought mine). I can't guarantee anything, but it'll be back on all the CK models again in the spring if you can wait.

 

[Gittyup]

Well, I disagree. With loaded tires, this tractor and FEL is around 5000lbs, WAY more than a Kubota B3030. The B3030 is a 30hp tractor and with FEL comes in around 2800 - 3000lbs. You need a little extra hp, IMHO, to move the extra 2000lbs the OP is talking about. 3-8 hp makes a difference, and, having the CK30 myself, I wish I'd gone for the CK35, and I've yet to use an implement on the PTO.

By the way, the free loader program has been going on for YEARS. It wasn't running last winter for any of the models, but came back in March (that's when I bought mine). I can't guarantee anything, but it'll be back on all the CK models again in the spring if you can wait.

My 6000+ pound CK25 gear has never been short on power. Moving never a problem, high or low range. Never even close to stalling in low range. It will spin everytime when placed against an imovable object. A geared tractor simply puts more power to the road.

The OP should definitely try both. For pure dragging/pushing tasks the CK27 gear might even outperform the CK35HST. For sure, it won't under perform. BTW does anyone know the torque specs gear and/or HST at the drive wheels?

The CK35 is the only HST version I'd want in the tractor, and only if I needed the HST for things where HST shines: back and forth (loader) or fine movements close to other objects.

 

[psdx]

I didn't realize a CZ27 was 5,000 pounds or a CK25 was 6,000 pounds. Holy cow that is lot different. Wow!

 

[Gittyup]

The difference between the two (5000 vs 6000) is a backhoe. With the backhoe, 18" bucket, loaded industrial tires, loader, toothbar, fuel, both are over 6000 lbs. The CK27/CK25 probably weigh within 100 lbs or so of each other for the tractor alone. And, yes, they are heavy. That's what makes them great diggers and loader tractors.

 

[kiotiken]

My 6000+ pound CK25 gear has never been short on power. Moving never a problem, high or low range. Never even close to stalling in low range. It will spin everytime when placed against an imovable object. A geared tractor simply puts more power to the road.

The OP should definitely try both. For pure dragging/pushing tasks the CK27 gear might even outperform the CK35HST. For sure, it won't under perform. BTW does anyone know the torque specs gear and/or HST at the drive wheels?

The CK35 is the only HST version I'd want in the tractor, and only if I needed the HST for things where HST shines: back and forth (loader) or fine movements close to other objects.

It sounds like you're set up about the same as me for weight, my dealers saying about 6500lbs (I asked because of trailers) for tractor, FEL, Woods BH, loaded tires and cab.

I don't know about the gear version of the tractor because I've never worked with it, but I don't believe this set up will allow you to spin the tires against an immovable object unless you are in a very low gear. I can spin mine in low, but doing a lot of loader work in that gear would be a little like watching paint dry. Also, spinning the wheels again an immovable object isn't showing much, try spinning the wheels into a pile while scooping and lifting the FEL, you'll find that's when you need the extra power.

Yes, the gear versions will give a little more hp to the PTO and maybe a little more to the ground, but come on, the CK27 gear will neither outperform or match the performance of the CK35HST, nor will it out perform the CK30HST.

I think I should clarify my opinion a little. I think the CK line are all awesome tractors that I would chose every time. Spending somebody elses money, I'd go for the CK35HST. I've never though I had too much power and more wouldn't be better and HST is the way to go for sure for me and I would say for anybody who wants to do FEL work. I'm very happy with my CK30HST, but yes if I were to do it again, I'd cough up the extra $ for the CK35HST.

 

[Gittyup]

It sounds like you're set up about the same as me for weight, my dealers saying about 6500lbs (I asked because of trailers) for tractor, FEL, Woods BH, loaded tires and cab.

I don't know about the gear version of the tractor because I've never worked with it, but I don't believe this set up will allow you to spin the tires against an immovable object unless you are in a very low gear. I can spin mine in low, but doing a lot of loader work in that gear would be a little like watching paint dry. Also, spinning the wheels again an immovable object isn't showing much, try spinning the wheels into a pile while scooping and lifting the FEL, you'll find that's when you need the extra power.

Yes, the gear versions will give a little more hp to the PTO and maybe a little more to the ground, but come on, the CK27 gear will neither outperform or match the performance of the CK35HST, nor will it out perform the CK30HST.

I think I should clarify my opinion a little. I think the CK line are all awesome tractors that I would chose every time. Spending somebody elses money, I'd go for the CK35HST. I've never though I had too much power and more wouldn't be better and HST is the way to go for sure for me and I would say for anybody who wants to do FEL work. I'm very happy with my CK30HST, but yes if I were to do it again, I'd cough up the extra $ for the CK35HST.

Ken,

I guess we will just have to disagree on this one. I've moved over a 1000 tons of fill and have never stalled pushing into a pile. Tires spin first. If you are not in low range and stall, you certainly aren't putting maximum HP to the ground; that can only be done in low range. And preceived when test driving the 30 that the HST would hit relief before it puts all of its HP to ground. Difficult to really know without measuring hp at the wheel. My test drive coupled with all the complaints on here about the HST being a dog during transport made me decide to go gear. My opinion is that the HST is only sufficient in the 35 (not available when I bought), marginal in the 30 and 27. And that for ground engaging tasks (not loader) the CK25 gear will perform as good as the any of the CK HSTs.

A tractor pull would be interesting between gear and HST. Still would like to know the torque numbers. This could be telling, as would how much wheel hp can be developed by maximizing HST relief valve setting. Perhaps this could yield almost all of it's power to the ground.

PTO, that's a different matter entirely. There you'll see the HP difference.

 

[IslandTractor]

I'm very happy with my CK30HST, but yes if I were to do it again, I'd cough up the extra $ for the CK35HST.

I was happy with my CK20 but coughed up the signature to move up to the DK40se. I was focused mostly on loader work and the CK25/27/30/35 really don't add much over the CK20 for that. I appreciate it is a big jump but anyone who is worried that a CK27 might not be powerful enough (other than mowing) really should be looking at the DK series. A CK35 will run a mower more easily than a 27 but I don't see many other advantages.

 

[MtnViewRanch]

I was happy with my CK20 but coughed up the signature to move up to the DK40se. I was focused mostly on loader work and the CK25/27/30/35 really don't add much over the CK20 for that. I appreciate it is a big jump but anyone who is worried that a CK27 might not be powerful enough (other than mowing) really should be looking at the DK series. A CK35 will run a mower more easily than a 27 but I don't see many other advantages.

So you think that a CK27 gear is going to pull a plow through the ground at the same rate as a CK35 gear? Yes they will both pull at the same depth, but at the same speed? I doubt it. The higher HP machine will move the same material at a higher rate of speed.

The same holds true for your DK40, yes it will do all the same things as the 45 and 50, but not as fast.

 

[IndyIan]

So you think that a CK27 gear is going to pull a plow through the ground at the same rate as a CK35 gear? Yes they will both pull at the same depth, but at the same speed? I doubt it. The higher HP machine will move the same material at a higher rate of speed.

The same holds true for your DK40, yes it will do all the same things as the 45 and 50, but not as fast.

I don't think anyone spends any significant amount of time plowing dirt with any CK or even any DK though? I'm planning to do some food plots with my tractor but if I need to plow 10 acres, I'm calling my neighbor up with 3 or 4 times the HP.
Mowing is an activity that some guys do spend lots of time doing with our little tractors, but not everyone needs to mow/brush hog lots of acres either.

I guess for my usage, I'm with Island, its weight and loader capability that I need, and enough hp to move the tractor in low and medium range well. Small differences in PTO hp or even wheel hp aren't really a concern for me so far. Unless I pave my skidding trails I think I will always have more hp than grip in low range...

 

[MtnViewRanch]

I don't think anyone spends any significant amount of time plowing dirt with any CK or even any DK though? I'm planning to do some food plots with my tractor but if I need to plow 10 acres, I'm calling my neighbor up with 3 or 4 times the HP.
Mowing is an activity that some guys do spend lots of time doing with our little tractors, but not everyone needs to mow/brush hog lots of acres either.

I guess for my usage, I'm with Island, its weight and loader capability that I need, and enough hp to move the tractor in low and medium range well. Small differences in PTO hp or even wheel hp aren't really a concern for me so far. Unless I pave my skidding trails I think I will always have more hp than grip in low range...

Poor example on my part :ashamed: and for those of you that have all the tractor that you need that is GREAT. Here is what would be a more common example. Use a box blade. A lot of people use box blades. A CK35 is going to pull a 700 lb 66" wide box full of dirt up hill faster than a CK27. I believe that it will pull it about anywhere faster and easier. I guess what I'm getting at is if the load put on the CK27 requires that the task be performed in low range, gear or hydro then the CK35 will perform that same task in a higher gear simply because there is more power available to be used. I am not saying that the CK27 cannot perform the task, just not as fast.

 

[gilbertmsg]

Good reading, I'm the proud owner of a CK20 and have maxed out the loader many times picking up round bales and stopped it dead in it's tracks pushing large brush piles. I have never been on a 27-30 or 35, but I would want the most hp available on the smallest frame. The CK20 is perfect in size for moving around the barn and moving round bales off trailer into pasture. For 10 acres or less it's a awsome tractor for lifting and ground engagement jobs. If Kioti had a 25 hp engine on the CK20 frame it would be sweet in my opinion. Get the most hp you can afford on the smallest frame and if you like the extra weight, buy the Kioti line.

Eddie

 

[Not Retired Yet]

I've had my ck27hst for about 8 months. I have 13 acres I'm slowly clearing, maintain gravel drive etc. I've pushed small trees over, picked up rocks, brush, tree trunks, etc with the grapple. Scooped a bunch of gravel fixing washes in the drive. Used box blade, disk, and bucket moving dirt. Recently moved a 1000# or more round bale (that my brother said I couldn't move with the front spear - moved it NO problem). I've yet to want or need more hp. It's been great! I'll soon have a bx42 chipper and I don't doubt for a second it will handle it just fine.

 

[IslandTractor]

Poor example on my part :ashamed: and for those of you that have all the tractor that you need that is GREAT. Here is what would be a more common example. Use a box blade. A lot of people use box blades. A CK35 is going to pull a 700 lb 66" wide box full of dirt up hill faster than a CK27. I believe that it will pull it about anywhere faster and easier. I guess what I'm getting at is if the load put on the CK27 requires that the task be performed in low range, gear or hydro then the CK35 will perform that same task in a higher gear simply because there is more power available to be used. I am not saying that the CK27 cannot perform the task, just not as fast.

I understand your point but I wonder how often it matters to anyone other than a commercial contractor whether a tractor moves your hypothetical full boxblade at 2mph or 2.5 mph. The more practical concern is whether a given tractor and implement can do a job at all efficiently. The extra five seconds saved by moving 0.5mph faster on each pass is only of real interest to someone repeating a task hundreds of times. Even then it is likely that the difference will barely be noted. Far more important is whether a loader will lift 1100lbs or 2700lbs. I replaced my CK20 not because it could mow only with a 48" bush hog (which it did easily) but because the loader (1070lift), could not pop out big bushes and six inch trees while a larger tractor would. A five minute "pop out" compared to getting out the chainsaw then using the backhoe to remove the stump saved me many hours of work each day. 27 vs 35hp in the same frame size and loader capacity just isn't anywhere near as significant. Frankly I'd think that for the same $$$, a 27 plus an extra implement would outwork a 35 on a mixed set of tasks. Specialized implements make more difference than hp for anything but plain mowing.

 

[MtnViewRanch]

I understand your point but I wonder how often it matters to anyone other than a commercial contractor whether a tractor moves your hypothetical full boxblade at 2mph or 2.5 mph. The more practical concern is whether a given tractor and implement can do a job at all efficiently. The extra five seconds saved by moving 0.5mph faster on each pass is only of real interest to someone repeating a task hundreds of times. Even then it is likely that the difference will barely be noted. Far more important is whether a loader will lift 1100lbs or 2700lbs. I replaced my CK20 not because it could mow only with a 48" bush hog (which it did easily) but because the loader (1070lift), could not pop out big bushes and six inch trees while a larger tractor would. A five minute "pop out" compared to getting out the chainsaw then using the backhoe to remove the stump saved me many hours of work each day. 27 vs 35hp in the same frame size and loader capacity just isn't anywhere near as significant. Frankly I'd think that for the same $$$, a 27 plus an extra implement would outwork a 35 on a mixed set of tasks. Specialized implements make more difference than hp for anything but plain mowing.

I'm not thinking 1/2 of a mile an hour, more like twice the speed. I'm not comparing the CK to the DK either. I'm comparing same frame sizes and horse power differences in the same frame-weight class.

May I ask then, if different implements are so important (which I agree that they are) then you feel that it is better to have the different implements than to be able to use said implement to its potential? Or to be able to use a bigger implement because you have more power to pull the implements. Forget about mowing, we all know that more PTO horse power means larger mower capability. But say if the CK27 pulls a 60" BB well and the CK35 pulls a 72" BB well, that the 20% difference in capability is negligible?

Do you feel that top and tilt cylinders are a waste of money? Some very big tractor dealers do. But if they allow you to get the most productivity out of your tractor and implements and you don't have to get off of your tractor, why is it a waste of money? If a person wants the maximum productivity that is possible, then the maximum horse power available in that frame size is what you need.

Everyone does not need these capabilities, but to say that they are negligible is wrong IMO.

Just my :2cents:, others disagree and that is fine, but to think that so many fit into a single catagory is :confused2: at best.

 

[kiotiken]

I understand your point but I wonder how often it matters to anyone other than a commercial contractor

MtnViewRanch, Bingo, you hit the nail on the head. Many times I could ALMOST pull my box blade full of dirt in mid range with ripper teeth down and I'm betting the CK35 would have been able to.

IslandTractor, I'm no commercial contractor and being able to get the job done in mid range is important to me. I have 3 kids and the oldest one is 4 along with a full time job, seat time is precious and limited, I don't have time to work in low range.

 

[DK35vince]

The HP differances really show up when running PTO attachments.
If a CK27 can run a 6' finish mower, but the CK 35 will run a 7' finish mower at the same speed or faster it makes a big differance.

 

[IslandTractor]

MtnViewRanch, Bingo, you hit the nail on the head. Many times I could ALMOST pull my box blade full of dirt in mid range with ripper teeth down and I'm betting the CK35 would have been able to.

IslandTractor, I'm no commercial contractor and being able to get the job done in mid range is important to me. I have 3 kids and the oldest one is 4 along with a full time job, seat time is precious and limited, I don't have time to work in low range.

I'd like to see evidence that a 35 could pull a boxblade with teeth down through soil when a 27 could not. There might well be marginal cases where the 35 would win but in general we pull boxblades in low gear or we have too small a boxblade (when the rippers are down). Tractors are generally designed to work in low range when in a true ground engaging task. If you are doing it in midrange you might have too small an implement.

I also think that people over estimate how much time they save by moving faster. If you consider a tractor task from the time you leave the house until you return, only a fraction of that time is spent actually engaged in the work. I seriously doubt MtnRanch's "double the speed" estimate but even if that were true it would save at most about a quarter of the time or less for most general tractor tasks. If speed increases it is likely to increase at most in proportion to the increase in horsepower. To use an obvious example, if a 27 can swing a 5ft bush hog and a 35 can run a 6ft hog, then the 35 would be at most 15-20% faster on the actual mowing so you'd save maybe ten minutes an hour. That is something but mowing is the best case scenario for the 35. For loader work there would be zero difference. For any work that did not require full PTO hp out of the 27 there would be essentially zero difference in time saved even if the 35 did the work at lower rpm. As the set up and putting equipment away would be identical, that means that considering a variety of typical CUT tasks that the 35 would have an average overall advantage of only 5% or perhaps three or four minutes an hour. I can think of few times that such a difference is worth getting excited about.

This is essentially the same argument as whether to get a basic pickup truck or a high powered version of the same model. If your general tasks are doable by the basic pickup the high horsepower model is just a waste of money. Who needs a hemi in a quarter ton pickup? If you need significantly more power etc then get the next bigger frame size, eg DK series tractor rather than CK.

 

[Gittyup]

Twice as fast? Really? I doubt it would be any faster at all for most uses. I pull a 6' very heavy gannon box (~900 lbs) behind my CK25 gear. Pulls it with no problem while cutting virgin compacted soil. Impossible to work it any faster and still maintain control. Maybe if just moving around some loose, sandy stuff on flat, straight terrain, you could go real fast. But, I couldn't. It would be neither effective nor safe.

There is something about the CK HST's where it doesn't seem the full power is reaching the ground. Not sure if it's relief settings or simply losses in the tranny. In my test drives the geared tractors were distinctly stronger. The HST's just seemed to be "stifled" in my test drives. Maybe they get better after breakin, but my gear got stronger after breakin too. I wanted HST given the amount of loader work I had planned, but decided after driving that gear was the best choice in this tractor. I've since become accustomed to the shuttle and can operate pretty efficiently even for loader work. I'm happy with the tractor's performance and more HP wouldn't have ever benefited me during the 470+ hours of work I've accomplished so far. No chore would have gotten done faster or better, no matter how qualified. Now, I haven't needed to do any tasks requiring a lot of PTO HP. Here, it would be different; I suspect. I have run a 12" auger post hole digger and a 5" chipper on the PTO with no need for more power. But, chipping 5" branches would probably be a tiny bit faster on the 30/35 machines.