Kubota Noise and Tippiness

[qed-cat225]

trade it in for this one XR4H << LS Tractor USA

 

[JWR]

I though my L3400 had a pretty generous amount of wheel spacing options on the rear.

Hub can be mounted dish in or out thats two options.

Rim can be mounted two different ways on the hub

And the tabs on the rims are offset, so you can swap sides and get two more options.

2x2x2 = 8 different ways to mount. I think as narrow as 50" or so....out to 63" or so wide.

I dont think there is a huge stability difference between brands, unless specifically purchasing a LCG machine.

How are you operating the tractor? If you have the front loader on, and nothing on the rear......or rear implement in use (like a blade or mower on the ground that dont add much weight to the rear).....I think that could be your issue. The kubotas are real light in the rear with a loader on and no ballast. That puts very little weight on the rear axle, and alot of weight on the front axle that is free to pivot and roll you over.

As others have suggested, loading the tires is a great place to start. Beet-juice...AKA rimguard is non-corrosive and heavy.

1) The L3400 user on my farm added 6" spacers on both sides (over $700) because the wheels would not go out far enough for reasonable use on steep ground. If they only go out to 63" as you say that is NOT very wide. NOT comparable to Deere or Massey in the same size machine. NOT comfortable bush hogging on steep slopes. I call anything over 40% fairly steep and anything over 50% I stay off it regardless of machine.
2) Smaller Kubotas and virtually all of them prior to 2000 were notorious for failure to have enough rear wheel spacing for use on very steep ground. The entire industry knows it as did most customers. It was widely known, accepted, assumed. Not a fresh discovery. Just a fact. People either cope with it or buy something else. Kubota sold well & gained a tough reputation in spite of it.
3) In recent times (since 2000 generally) the larger models of Kubota have offered better, more nearly competitive rear wheel spacing. Still NOT as much as Deere or Massey but probably adequate for almost everyone.
4) The 8 different combos of mounting you listed are the right ones for any normal utility tractor in medium size and above. However if the thing was too narrow to start with that still may not get out to comfortable widths. And many of the smaller Kubotas have no such options. Take a look at any Deere or Massey in the mid utility size range. They go much further out.

Of course any such evaluation depends on what the individual needs, what ground he covers, what he puts on and in the machine, etc. Each person has to decide for himself.

 

[LD1]

I looked at many models when I bought my L3400 new. Including the JD 3320, NH TC33, Massey 1533. I didnt notice any of them being noticably wider than the kubota. Certainly not to the point one would need 6" spacers on the kubota just to equal the massey. The massey may have been a few inches wider???? but certainly not 12" wider.

And it all has to do with market and intended uses. On these ~2500# ~35HP tractors.....lots of people pair them with 5' bushhogs, 6' blades, and 5' tillers. I for one wouldnt want a tractor that had a 72" wheelbase but only enough power to pull a 60" tiller in the garden.

Any one know what the min-max tread widths are on the massey 1533 and deere 3320? Those were the two closest competitors back in 06-07.

I mowed quite a bit right around 25 degrees with my L3400. Which is about a 47% slope. I did add 1.5" spacers either side just for piece of mind....but never had an issue without them.

I could be wrong.....I just dont think a deere 3320 or a massey 1533, or about any other 35-40 hp cut would have faired any differently....unless specifically built as a LCG tractor.

 

[Gary Fowler]

I have to agree with LD1 that tractor manufacturer makes little to no difference in tippiness since they are all pretty much identical in design. Sure some may allow wider stance but unless the wheel width is more on one than the other, they will both tip at approximately the same time if they are identically configured with wheel weights or liquid ballast.
Unless the OP's Kubota is physically incapable of having the tires widened, then I don't see how swapping to a MF could help.

More likely ballasting the Kubota with liquid or Cast Iron (to make Sixdogs happy) would solve the problem. Also if carrying loads with the FEL, you need some kind of rear ballast to offset the weight. If the rear end is light, then it is going to be more tippy in all situations.

 

[sixdogs]

...

... or Cast Iron (to make Sixdogs happy) would solve the problem.

GaryF--That's hilarious. I'm beaming from ear to ear. :drink:

 

[CobyRupert]

I had the tippy feeling at first with my L3901. Once I filled the Ag wheels which added over 500lbs to the tractor it is so much more solid and I have not moved the tires out. Hope to do that soon...

Adding weight certainly makes the tractor feel "more solid" and of course affects traction a lot. However, fluid in the tires has only a small % effect in lowering the c.g. ... In truth, what anyone wants in that regard is not an absolute tip over prevention but rather a better margin of comfort -- the substantiated feeling that you are operating a safer machine and in better control on the steepness of ground you have to work.

Hmm...Individual results vary, but I would think the effect could be substantial. Depending on the (relative) added weight below the c.g.; and the "geometry" that you're adding to.

My question is: When filling tires, but not spacing them out, why does it "feel" more solid? You're still tipped the same amount, at the same height, on a tractor the same width. I don't doubt you, but (IMHO) I wonder it's all psychological? You can't see (or feel?) the center of gravity. (Can you?). Just curious.

 

[adventure bob]

Physics... By adding liquid to the tires, or wheel weights for that matter, you add weight below the OEM CG, effectively lowering the CG read this: http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/agriculture/issues/tar-13-37-2/tar-37-2-10-1103-19.pdf. Page 210, conclusions. There's a ton o math in this but the graphs are pretty easy to follow. The authors ultimate conclusion, in the abstract, is to lower the Flip index, add weight below CG and if possible, widen the track.

 

[LD1]

Not only does it lower the COG some, but it keeps more weight on the solid, non pivoting, rear axle.

If you have no weight on the rear axle, the front is free to pivot quite a bit.

Just having a front loader on, and nothing on the rear of the tractor, greatly reduces the rear axle weight. Throw in the dynamics of hitting the brakes, or going slightly down hill, or hitting a bump.....can easily put all the weight over the front axle and non over the back. Then on even a slight slope, with no weight on the back tires, the tractor will tip to the point that the front axle hits the pivot stops.

For a simple experiment, to prove my point.

Jack the front of the tractor up at a single center point. Notice how stable (side to side) the tractor still is.

Now do the same thing from a single center rear point.

 

[TripleR]

We have filled tires and cast weights or centers on two of our tractors, just can't get enough weigh by one or the other.

One is a Massey-Ferguson.

 

[LD1]

We have filled tires and cast weights or centers on two of our tractors, just can't get enough weigh by one or the other.

One is a Massey-Ferguson.

:stirthepot: