TYM T574 ok at higher altitude?

[Balazar]

Ok, I've been shopping around. I'm looking for a tractor with loader and backhoe around 50-60hp. I'm building a house and starting a homestead on a 40 acre plot in the Colorado Mountains. The elevation is 8,400' above sea level. I plan on making a driveway, installing a septic system, generally doing lots of dirt work, land clearing and moving materials. For a little background: I have worked on drilling rigs and at mines for a very long time. I have been a heavy equipment mechanic. I can fix stuff.

I have looked at Kioti, LS, and now TYM. I really like the TYM T574 with the Kukje A2300 turbo diesel motor. One of the draws for me is that it has mechanical fuel injection with very little computer control and an emissions system that is separate from engine management. The other tractor that I am considering is the slightly more expensive T554. It is essentially the same tractor with a Yanmar 4TNV86CT turbo diesel motor. The Yanmar is a little more compact so the hood is shorter and slopes down providing a little better view. It also has an ecu with fuel maps and common rail injection. The Yanmar has a hydraulic implement flow of 9.5 GPM compared to the Kukje's 7.66 GPM

I know that the common rail Yanmar should do a little better at my altitude of 8,400' than the Kukje. The question is how much better? Is it worth it for the little extra umpf and extra hydraulic flow? I have never operated equipment this small before. Will the hydraulic flow make a big difference on what implements I can use? Obviously it will be slower running the backhoe. If the answer is yes common rail will make a big difference, I will probably take a second look at Kioti and LS before making a decision.

Here is a link to the TYM site. There is a comparison of the specs of the two machines a little bit down the page.
T554

 

[LittleBill21]

I was under the impression turbo's made altitude a non issue.

 

[Balazar]

I was under the impression turbo's made altitude a non issue.

That has always been my experience working at a mine, though I never ran any equipment with mechanical fuel injection vs computer controlled common rail injection up there. Fuel injection pumps can generally be adjusted to compensate, though just like efi on a car vs carboration, the efi will always perform slightly better than a carb and get better economy. Though the efi/or common rail diesel also has a myriad of censors and much more expensive injectors to accomplish this. When they wear out they are costly.

 

[Bavarian]

I guess the hydraulic flow might not really matter as long as you don't run the side by side.
In my opinion, the quality of hydraulic valves and controls are more important. In heavy equipment, you can run the engine wide open and can still handle it very accurately. Closed center hydraulics are part of it.
Smaller equipment doesn't have that high end hydraulics and can makes things quite jerky. That might force you to lower down your rpms and there they go those extra gallons.
From my personal experience, the Yanmars and the Kubotas are extreme good cold starters.
Other than that, I don't know which one I would choose if I were in your situation with a slight tendency to Yanmar.

 

[ptsg]

I would go for the simpler Kukje/Cummins engine. Good old mechanically inject engine, with no electronics at all.

 

[fried1765]

Ok, I've been shopping around. I'm looking for a tractor with loader and backhoe around 50-60hp. I'm building a house and starting a homestead on a 40 acre plot in the Colorado Mountains. The elevation is 8,400' above sea level. I plan on making a driveway, installing a septic system, generally doing lots of dirt work, land clearing and moving materials. For a little background: I have worked on drilling rigs and at mines for a very long time. I have been a heavy equipment mechanic. I can fix stuff.

I have looked at Kioti, LS, and now TYM. I really like the TYM T574 with the Kukje A2300 turbo diesel motor. One of the draws for me is that it has mechanical fuel injection with very little computer control and an emissions system that is separate from engine management. The other tractor that I am considering is the slightly more expensive T554. It is essentially the same tractor with a Yanmar 4TNV86CT turbo diesel motor. The Yanmar is a little more compact so the hood is shorter and slopes down providing a little better view. It also has an ecu with fuel maps and common rail injection. The Yanmar has a hydraulic implement flow of 9.5 GPM compared to the Kukje's 7.66 GPM

I know that the common rail Yanmar should do a little better at my altitude of 8,400' than the Kukje. The question is how much better? Is it worth it for the little extra umpf and extra hydraulic flow? I have never operated equipment this small before. Will the hydraulic flow make a big difference on what implements I can use? Obviously it will be slower running the backhoe. If the answer is yes common rail will make a big difference, I will probably take a second look at Kioti and LS before making a decision.

Here is a link to the TYM site. There is a comparison of the specs of the two machines a little bit down the page.
T554

That is rather anemic hydraulic flow!
My Kubota 48HP L48 has 25.9 GPM.

 

[Keweenaw County Yooper]

Balazar,
I am seriously thinking of upgrading to a new tractor also. I have a TYM T330 now and it has never had any problems in 12 years! NOTHING! I have been shopping and price checking for the last year. I have all the factory brochures and catalogs from TYM, Branson, Kioti, LS and Kubota. The factory brochure from TYM states the hydraulic flow for the T574 is 8.4 GPM but on the web. it is listed at 7.66 GPM and the Kubota catalog states 9.4 GPM not 25.9 GPM. I asked the TYM dealer about this and he said the 8.4 GPM is the correct flow not 7.66 GPM for the T574 and 9.5 for the T554. I have gone to the TYM, Kubota, LS, Kioti and Branson dealers and sat and ran all of them. The specifications for all of them are pretty close. So from my experience with my present TYM T330, if I do up grade it will be to a T574. I think the Kukje engine is the better engine with it's simpler engine control management. ( You know K.I.S.S. ) I just can't justify the almost twice the price of an orange tractor over any of the Korean tractors.
JMHO,
Keweenaw County Yooper

 

[TractorTYMe]

Ok, I've been shopping around. I'm looking for a tractor with loader and backhoe around 50-60hp. I'm building a house and starting a homestead on a 40 acre plot in the Colorado Mountains. The elevation is 8,400' above sea level. I plan on making a driveway, installing a septic system, generally doing lots of dirt work, land clearing and moving materials. For a little background: I have worked on drilling rigs and at mines for a very long time. I have been a heavy equipment mechanic. I can fix stuff.

I have looked at Kioti, LS, and now TYM. I really like the TYM T574 with the Kukje A2300 turbo diesel motor. One of the draws for me is that it has mechanical fuel injection with very little computer control and an emissions system that is separate from engine management. The other tractor that I am considering is the slightly more expensive T554. It is essentially the same tractor with a Yanmar 4TNV86CT turbo diesel motor. The Yanmar is a little more compact so the hood is shorter and slopes down providing a little better view. It also has an ecu with fuel maps and common rail injection. The Yanmar has a hydraulic implement flow of 9.5 GPM compared to the Kukje's 7.66 GPM

I know that the common rail Yanmar should do a little better at my altitude of 8,400' than the Kukje. The question is how much better? Is it worth it for the little extra umpf and extra hydraulic flow? I have never operated equipment this small before. Will the hydraulic flow make a big difference on what implements I can use? Obviously it will be slower running the backhoe. If the answer is yes common rail will make a big difference, I will probably take a second look at Kioti and LS before making a decision.

Here is a link to the TYM site. There is a comparison of the specs of the two machines a little bit down the page.
T554

Get the T574 and don't worry. The Kukje engine with the turbo is a proven engine. The ONLY ECM on the engine is the one managing the Tier 4 system closing the exhaust valve for regeneration.

 

[ericm979]

I don't see why a mechanical FI diesel would perform worse at altitude than a EFI one. With spark ignition engines the fuel:air ratio needs to be within a narrow range for best power. That's not an issue with diesels where engine power output is controlled only by the amount of fuel.

I do agree that the fuel economy could be a little worse with the mechanical FI vs EFI. It's not been an issue for me.

My Branson has 10 gpm for the non power steering side but if it was 7 I'd be fine with that. I'm not running hydraulic motors off it, just cylinders.

 

[rScotty]

I live at 7000 feet in the Rockies and have had a number of tractors used for landscaping and dirt moving rather than farming. Right now we our primary tractor is a Kubota M59 - which is a keeper in this terrain for the work we do for a whole lot of reasons....

I bring up the M59 because it has a motor a lot like that Kukje A2300. Similar HP and displacement, older 4 cylinder design with mechanical injection, minimal electronics, smooth runner. Only problem with the Kubota engine is that it is Interim Tier IV and so it does have an old style EGR valve. I don't know if the Kukje does or not. Interim Tier IV with an EGR valve seems to be aimed at reduced NOx at the expense of more visible smoke. Whatever the reason, the Kubota makes more smoke when changing RPM than I expected. And although it's not a bad fuel hog, it is definitely not easy on fuel either. It does have plenty of power though. Frankly with 50/60 hp on tap on this lightweight (8000 lb) machine all you have to do is push the throttle up and there is plenty of power... along with a blast of smoke as the RPMs change.

Yanmar is top quality, so I can see your dilemma. Old reliable vs newer & better & probably as reliable, but we can't work on them ourselves. Which was part of the fun when I was younger.

Looked at your link, the TYM with Yanmar engine comes with a different tranny? Does that make a difference?

As for the hydraulic flow, both 7 or 9 gpm are plenty for anything EXCEPT a backhoe or hyd. snow blower, but under 15 gpm is still pretty anemic. The solution is that most 3pt or frame mount removable hoes have the option to have their own PTO-driven hydraulics. I've tried it both ways, and the backhoe with PTO-driven hydraulics and separate fluid reservoir is what you want. It doesn't cost much more & takes no more time to hook up.
rScotty

 

[ericm979]

I run my 3725 at 2000 rpm when using the Branson BH76 backhoe. Rated RPM is 2500 but it doesn't need that much flow, at least for me.

I've heard enough bad stories about 3pt hoes damaging tractors to want to stick with a subframe model.

Kukje doesn't have an EGR for tier 4 models, just the DOC+DPF and data recorder.

 

[rScotty]

I run my 3725 at 2000 rpm when using the Branson BH76 backhoe. Rated RPM is 2500 but it doesn't need that much flow, at least for me.

I've heard enough bad stories about 3pt hoes damaging tractors to want to stick with a subframe model.

Kukje doesn't have an EGR for tier 4 models, just the DOC+DPF and data recorder.

 

[rScotty]

Yes, add-on backhoes are tough on tractors.
I don't know if any of the Tier 4 models have an EGR. Many of the Interim Tier 4 models did.

 

[Balazar]

I think, at this point I'm set on the Kukje A2300. Simplicity wins out. As long as I have a turbo I believe I will be fine. If I can get a backhoe with it's own PTO driven power unit, I will go that rout. That kind of has me thinking about putting a diverter on the backhoe's power unit to get some hoses to the loader for a snow blower. Well that's one of many thoughts that include getting a hydraulic thumb going. I'm having trouble finding any info about the Backhoes that TYM is using. It seems they have just revamped their website and now all info for Backhoes and Loaders is nonexistent.

 

[ericm979]

These days it's only the cheap chinese 3pt BHs that have their own pump. Maybe that's a legacy to work with older tractors that didn't have as much hydraulic flow as modern CUTS. No current CUT manufacturer thinks that the system flow is not sufficient to run their BH. Many people with those units run their tractor at a low rpm because at full rpm the BH moves too fast! (do a search on this web site)

Try out the factory BH when you test drive the tractor. I bet it will move more than fast enough for you. And with it you will get the benefit of a subframe mount that does not put all of the BH's substantial forces through the 3pt alone like the 3pt mount does.

 

[Balazar]

These days it's only the cheap chinese 3pt BHs that have their own pump. Maybe that's a legacy to work with older tractors that didn't have as much hydraulic flow as modern CUTS. No current CUT manufacturer thinks that the system flow is not sufficient to run their BH. Many people with those units run their tractor at a low rpm because at full rpm the BH moves too fast! (do a search on this web site)

Try out the factory BH when you test drive the tractor. I bet it will move more than fast enough for you. And with it you will get the benefit of a subframe mount that does not put all of the BH's substantial forces through the 3pt alone like the 3pt mount does.

I think a subframe BH is a must. Many users here have commented that using a 3pt backhoe may void your warranty. I know there are a few companies like Woods that give you the option for a subframe and pto pump on their BH85 backhoe. They say ask for a quote instead of listing the price. That translates to "this will be really expensive".
BH85 - Woods Equipment
It seems the dealer provided TYM branded backhoe will probably be the best option cash wise. Looking through the manufactures sites and then looking at alibaba, it would seem that most of the tractors marketed in the US have Chinese backhoes that are painted and branded to match (with subframe mounts of course).

 

[ericm979]

Branson used Ansung BHs from Korea. That's who made the used one I bought. The current model is made by another Korean company, to the same design. My only complaints with mine are about the Italian made valve stack.

 

[DK35vince]

These days it's only the cheap chinese 3pt BHs that have their own pump. Maybe that's a legacy to work with older tractors that didn't have as much hydraulic flow as modern CUTS. No current CUT manufacturer thinks that the system flow is not sufficient to run their BH. Many people with those units run their tractor at a low rpm because at full rpm the BH moves too fast! (do a search on this web site)

Try out the factory BH when you test drive the tractor. I bet it will move more than fast enough for you. And with it you will get the benefit of a subframe mount that does not put all of the BH's substantial forces through the 3pt alone like the 3pt mount does.

Yes, most CUTs made the past 20 years or so have plenty of hydraulic flow to run a backhoe.
No separate pump needed.
My 2001 tractor (35 HP) has all the hydraulic flow and pressure it needs to run my 8 1/2' backhoe.
Anything over 2100-2200 RPM and the backhoe gets to fast for my liking.

 

[Balazar]

What do you not like about the valve stack?

 

[ericm979]

What do you not like about the valve stack?

Some of the valves are too abrupt. It's nearly impossible to raise or lower the boom without jerking the entire machine around disturbingly hard... that valve does not "feather" easily. I added two one way restrictors to the cylinder (two so I can adjust it in both directions) and that made it about 90% better when adjusted so it still moves fast enough. When I curl the bucket with a load it in, the bucket soimetimes slams into the stop and ejects much of the material. I think part of that is due to how the linkage leverage works- the bucket speeds up as it nears the end of its travel. I can get it to work ok some of the time, that valve is not as bad as the boom one. I have another restrictor to add there to see if that will help. Operating three motions at once helps these problems but does not fix them.

Part of this is my lack of experience as a BH operator. But when I got to try out a Kubota mini ex with electric over hydraulic controls I had no problem operating it smoothly and making it do what I wanted (once we flipped the sae/iso switch to make the controls work how I'm used to). It's not really fair to compare a $60k mini ex to a much cheaper BH attachment, but it indicates that the problems I have with my BH isn't just me.

My Branson's loader valve is similar. I find it nearly impossible to raise/lower and curl at the same time. I had no problem doing that with my old Kubota even though it was my first tractor and the joystick linkage was worn out on that used machine. Feathering the loader is difficult but not impossible. (Branson changed how they run the cables on the new models and that may have made an improvement). It's not a huge issue, I can work around it.

I think a lot of this is the quality of the valves themselves. Kubota's known for making especially good ones. Theoretically I could adapt quality aftermarket valves but that's some work and I don't know whose valves are good and whose are not. The valves I have are made by well known companies.