kubota vs. kioti

[Roadbuilder6]

I am a huge fan of bobcat as company, I had a 335 mini excavator which I loved. I see what you mean with the all wheel steer. My biggest issue with them, is I run iso pattern controls. I can't run the hand and foot control, that normally come with the bobcats. I have had trouble finding a bobcat with those controls

 

[RDrancher]

I am a huge fan of bobcat as company, I had a 335 mini excavator which I loved. I see what you mean with the all wheel steer. My biggest issue with them, is I run iso pattern controls. I can't run the hand and foot control, that normally come with the bobcats. I have had trouble finding a bobcat with those controls

I hate hand/foot controls too. All of the A300's I've seen are joystick controls.

 

[SPYDERLK]

Here is an interesting comparison:

Jd3520 vs 9n ford.

Jd3520 rated 30hp @ PTO and 75 ft lbs torque out of a 91 ci engine.

2n gasser. 23 HP PTO and 84 ft lbs or torque from 120ci.

Aside from them being decades apart and vastly different feature wise, put these engines in two identical tractors. Which will run a bigger PTO implement? The high torque-lower HP one? Or the lower torque higher HP one?

Which one will pull a grade in road great better?

Which would you rather have? 7 more PTO HP? Or 9 more ft lbs of torque?

Gotta have the torquey one. Grunting at a lower pitch gotta count for something. :wink:

 

[GManBart]

Wrong again. Torque does no work. HP gives you a handle on the combinations of force and speed you can achieve. The whole story in one value.
...I took a look at your link. I didnt need it since I know that stuff. "Actual formulas" are not necessary if you understand Energy, Power, and Time and know the E/T equivalent - formulas can make you think you understand cuz you can plug into and get the answer without the proper grounding in concepts. Looks like they were going thru the pertinent points tho. If you have read it, you have not understood it. ... You really need to go talk to a horse.
larry

I never said torque does work. If you "knew all that stuff" you would have known that the "force" in the formula for horsepower is torque, but you didn't.

Still, I'm thrilled that you and LD1 have changed the laws of physics in my favor. As I was driving yesterday I passed a semi, and with a smug little smile thought I'm glad he doesn't know my Tundra can pull heavy loads better than his Kenworth!

 

[GManBart]

Kioti is a fine tractor at 200hrs. At 800, 1000hrs they will start to fall apart. I have had two friends witht them, one the engine threw a rod at 350hrs, the other had the transmission bust, mowing his lawn! Thats not quality. After 5 years, then you will see why people buy John Deere, Kubota, CNH/Ls. They hold up. IF well maintained they will still run like new. A kioti no matter how well maintained and taken care of will start to fall apart after a few hundred hours.

Why did Kubota contract with Daedong to build tractors for them for ten years? Many of those "Kubotas" are still running around BTW.

 

[sd455dan]

Here is an interesting comparison:

Jd3520 vs 9n ford.

Jd3520 rated 30hp @ PTO and 75 ft lbs torque out of a 91 ci engine.

2n gasser. 23 HP PTO and 84 ft lbs or torque from 120ci.

Aside from them being decades apart and vastly different feature wise, put these engines in two identical tractors. Which will run a bigger PTO implement? The high torque-lower HP one? Or the lower torque higher HP one?

Which one will pull a grade in road great better?

Which would you rather have? 7 more PTO HP? Or 9 more ft lbs of torque?

I would rather see the 30 hp Ford 2000 engine vs. the JD
Both nominally 30 hp ratings- but my guess is the 2000 would eat the JDs lunch EVERYWHERE but @ rated speed where it would be a tie....

 

[SPYDERLK]

I never said torque does work. If you "knew all that stuff" you would have known that the "force" in the formula for horsepower is torque, but you didn't.

Still, I'm thrilled that you and LD1 have changed the laws of physics in my favor. As I was driving yesterday I passed a semi, and with a smug little smile thought I'm glad he doesn't know my Tundra can pull heavy loads better than his Kenworth!

I did, but I further recognized that torque when it is combined with rpm provides the distance factor to the force. Torque is not force. It is force thru a lever. You choose or were unable to understand before, but again, : you do not have to have rpm or torque to make HP. You need Force thru a Distance in an amt of Time. Be sure to ask the horse where his torque is.
larry

 

[Poopdeck Pappy]

View attachment 371468View attachment 371469View attachment 371470View attachment 371471View attachment 371472View attachment 371473

I am equally as conflicted as you are.

 

[k0ua]

I am equally as conflicted as you are.

That is not conflicted, those are good choices in their respective class. I have a JD also.

 

[Poopdeck Pappy]

That is not conflicted, those are good choices in their respective class. I have a JD also.

How do you like that high dollar drag I rigged up on my garden tractor? It actually worked decently to level out my yard in preparation for laying sod. It worked better once I added some weight on top of the pallet.

You can see a bit of the before and after here, although I wasn't finished working the soil at this point.

 

[k0ua]

How do you like that high dollar drag I rigged up on my garden tractor? It actually worked decently to level out my yard in preparation for laying sod. It worked better once I added some weight on top of the pallet.

You can see a bit of the before and after here, although I wasn't finished working the soil at this point.

I have you beat, I used a cut down Christmas Tree (cedar) once for a drag, and it worked pretty darn good.

 

[Poopdeck Pappy]

I have you beat, I used a cut down Christmas Tree (cedar) once for a drag, and it worked pretty darn good.

LOL. That's fantastic. Yankee ingenuity, even though neither of us is a yankee.

 

[Poopdeck Pappy]

I have you beat, I used a cut down Christmas Tree (cedar) once for a drag, and it worked pretty darn good.

LOL. That's fantastic. Yankee ingenuity, even though neither of us is a yankee.

 

[LD1]

Still, I'm thrilled that you and LD1 have changed the laws of physics in my favor. As I was driving yesterday I passed a semi, and with a smug little smile thought I'm glad he doesn't know my Tundra can pull heavy loads better than his Kenworth!

No body changed anything. Just using the simple laws that are there and formulas that a 7th grader can figure out. Yet every time we try to apply them laws, or reference the formulas, you claim you already know all of that.

No one that I am aware of ever said a Tundra would out-pull a kenworth (or any other semi) tugging 80k up a hill. Never said that. Its foolish to put them words in my mouth.

We were discussing the tundra "engine". And I said with appropriate gearing behind it.......I aint gonna repeat cause you already know. But never said the tundra (as it sits now) vs the semi that the tundra would win.

And again, YOU sir are the one who went WAY off topic trying to compare tundras to semi's, then steam engines to crotch rockets.

We ARE talking about tractors. And tractors just arent that different. Yes, there are differences, but certainly no mack vs tundra difference as far as engines are concerned.

Most modern tractor engines today have a real similar RPM window. OF what can be had today, maybe 2500rpm to ~3200rpm for tractors. And even expanding back to the 1940's, maybe 1900rpm-3200rpm for tractors. Given that HP is a factor of Torque and RPM, if the HP rating of two tractors are similar, and the RPM's are similar, Its a pretty good bet that the torque will also be similar. Again, the statements that started all of this was my comment that "HP is more important than Torque" (talking about tractor shopping and selecting a size). And again, I still stand by that. Apparently so do the manufactures of tractors and implements, since HP is how they size them, HP is how people shop for them, HP is usually how they define model #'s, and HP is usually how implements are sized, its how hydraulic pumps are sized. How it has been done for the last 80-90 years for tractors. And it is rare to find a torque rating. I had to spend 30 minutes searching before I finally found two similar in HP like the 3520 and 2n example.

So since the MFG's and everyone for the last 90 years has classified tractors by HP, I think you are the minority. In laymens terms, torque is how much work can be done. HP is a measure of how fast it can do it. Torque can be changed with gearing, to do whatever you need. Higher HP gets done faster. Pretty simple stuff. Again, we are talking tractors. With rated RPM,s of only ~1900-3200rpm. for most tractors of the last 8 decades. No need for extreme 15k rpm engine vs 1800rpm engine comparisons.

 

[dragoneggs]

I have you beat, I used a cut down Christmas Tree (cedar) once for a drag, and it worked pretty darn good.

Ha ha... funny, I noticed that too as I dragged my tree down for its resting place near the burn pile after Christmas. it did a remarkable job! :laughing:

 

[ksbrdmkr]

When doing heavy field work the torque rise with a geared tractor is important. My NH TN55 max toque is at 1400rpm which means it will lug down from 2300rpm and slowly pull through some tough going without shifting to a lower gear. When I crunch some numbers the TN55 loses 40% of its' speed and 22% of its hp in the heavy pulling, which is fine for draft work but not for PTO work.

 

[SPYDERLK]

No body changed anything. Just using the simple laws that are there and formulas that a 7th grader can figure out. Yet every time we try to apply them laws, or reference the formulas, you claim you already know all of that.

No one that I am aware of ever said a Tundra would out-pull a kenworth (or any other semi) tugging 80k up a hill. Never said that. Its foolish to put them words in my mouth.

We were discussing the tundra "engine". And I said with appropriate gearing behind it.......I aint gonna repeat cause you already know. But never said the tundra (as it sits now) vs the semi that the tundra would win.

And again, YOU sir are the one who went WAY off topic trying to compare tundras to semi's, then steam engines to crotch rockets.

We ARE talking about tractors. And tractors just arent that different. Yes, there are differences, but certainly no mack vs tundra difference as far as engines are concerned.

Most modern tractor engines today have a real similar RPM window. OF what can be had today, maybe 2500rpm to ~3200rpm for tractors. And even expanding back to the 1940's, maybe 1900rpm-3200rpm for tractors. Given that HP is a factor of Torque and RPM, if the HP rating of two tractors are similar, and the RPM's are similar, Its a pretty good bet that the torque will also be similar. Again, the statements that started all of this was my comment that "HP is more important than Torque" (talking about tractor shopping and selecting a size). And again, I still stand by that. Apparently so do the manufactures of tractors and implements, since HP is how they size them, HP is how people shop for them, HP is usually how they define model #'s, and HP is usually how implements are sized, its how hydraulic pumps are sized. How it has been done for the last 80-90 years for tractors. And it is rare to find a torque rating. I had to spend 30 minutes searching before I finally found two similar in HP like the 3520 and 2n example.

So since the MFG's and everyone for the last 90 years has classified tractors by HP, I think you are the minority.
>>In laymens terms, torque is how much work can be done. HP is a measure of how fast it can do it.<<
Torque can be changed with gearing, to do whatever you need. Higher HP gets done faster. Pretty simple stuff. Again, we are talking tractors. With rated RPM,s of only ~1900-3200rpm. for most tractors of the last 8 decades. No need for extreme 15k rpm engine vs 1800rpm engine comparisons.

:thumbsup: Torque is how much force can be applied at a distance from a pivot. Like Force, It does not guarantee work until it moves. Then time becomes inherent and you have HP in a circle to play with. The more the faster as you say. Odd that it has borne so much repeating. :confused3:
larry

 

[GManBart]

I did, but I further recognized that torque when it is combined with rpm provides the distance factor to the force. Torque is not force. It is force thru a lever. You choose or were unable to understand before, but again, : you do not have to have rpm or torque to make HP. You need Force thru a Distance in an amt of Time. Be sure to ask the horse where his torque is.
larry

Wrong again. We're talking about a car/truck/tractor engine and "torque" is the force (the ONLY force) in the horsepower equation. In the U.S. we talk about foot pounds or pound/feet of torque, multiply that by RPM, divide it by 5252 and we get horsepower. The RPM doesn't provide the distance factor to the force, the "feet" part of lb/ft does.

Since we're talking about engines, and not horses, if you don't have rpm or torque, you can't have horsepower. You can measure torque. You can measure rpm. You can't measure horsepower, because it's a derived from the two actual factors in play.

Your horse analogy is beyond poor. Go look up how Watts calculated what "1hp" is. In fact, he started with ponies as I recall.

 

[GManBart]

No one that I am aware of ever said a Tundra would out-pull a kenworth (or any other semi) tugging 80k up a hill. Never said that. Its foolish to put them words in my mouth.

We were discussing the tundra "engine". And I said with appropriate gearing behind it.......I aint gonna repeat cause you already know. But never said the tundra (as it sits now) vs the semi that the tundra would win.

And again, YOU sir are the one who went WAY off topic trying to compare tundras to semi's, then steam engines to crotch rockets.

Talk about going off topic. I asked which would pull heavy weights better....a Tundra with 380hp and 400lb/ft of torque, or a cement mixer with 250hp and 1000lb/ft of torque and you said the Tundra....if you made some crazy modifications to it that would make it nearly as big as a cement mixer.

Yeah, that's a very realistic scenario there.

What I liked best was in post 89 when you said "torque at the engine is irrelevant". Right. Without torque at the engine, there won't be any horsepower or torque anywhere else in the system, but hey, how could that be relevant? :laughing:

 

[arlen4720]

Wrong again. We're talking about a car/truck/tractor engine and "torque" is the force (the ONLY force) in the horsepower equation. In the U.S. we talk about foot pounds or pound/feet of torque, multiply that by RPM, divide it by 5252 and we get horsepower. The RPM doesn't provide the distance factor to the force, the "feet" part of lb/ft does.

Since we're talking about engines, and not horses, if you don't have rpm or torque, you can't have horsepower. You can measure torque. You can measure rpm. You can't measure horsepower, because it's a derived from the two actual factors in play.

Your horse analogy is beyond poor. Go look up how Watts calculated what "1hp" is. In fact, he started with ponies as I recall.

The "foot" in foot-pounds is not movement. The "foot" is the length of the moment arm that the torque is acting on. A torque of 1 foot-pound is 1 pound of force produced on a moment arm of 1 foot.
Work is force times distance moved. Power is the rate that you are performing work. The RPM does in


fact give you the distance component of the horsepower calculation in the form of angular motion. I wish some people would quit trying to pretend to be engineers, it is rather annoying to those of us that do hold engineering degrees, and spent many hours studying the fundamentals of physics.