Buying Advice Advice on L3400 Purchase

[swampvol]

Anyway....the l3400 will do what you want, and a l4400 will do the same in less time.

 

[rcteel5]

I looked long and hard at the L4400 before deciding on the L3400. Decided on the 3400 because of the HST. If the 44OO came that way, I would have gone with the bigger muscle.

 

[Shimon]

The L3400 HST has some PTO issues. You may want to consider a gear driven L3400 or maybe a B3030.

Check out this thread for more info

 

[familyman]

Spend the extra $5,000 and get a Kioti DK45 hydro, or some equivalent. Buy it with a Woods BX90-X and don't look back. The L3400 is a great machie, but I think you'll hit its limitations very soon compared to the DK45. These are NOT toys, and once you're past the learning stages you'll want more machine on a property that size. A 45 hp tractor will do verything faster and more easily. Spend it now, or spend more later.

 

[Shimon]

Reading back through this thread, I have to agree with familyman.

I think you need something bigger than an L3400HST. I have an L3400 (gear driven) and it's a pretty good tractor but it is an economy model so some of the features are cheap. The three point lift is very jerky (can be upgraded but even then it's still not great) and the HST uses an over-riding clutch for the PTO which I think would be a show-stopper.

If I were you, I would be looking in the 40-50HP range for a tractor that is built a little tougher than the L3400 (all you L3400 guys...don't bash me...it's just my opinion and I think it's a fair opinion considering I own one of these). Good luck with whatever you get!

 

[swampvol]

I looked long and hard at the L4400 before deciding on the L3400. Decided on the 3400 because of the HST. If the 44OO came that way, I would have gone with the bigger muscle.

If you already purchased the l3400, ignore the last couple of posts, congratulations and enjoy.

Also in the thread about the l2800/l3400 pto, it appears kubota changed the cams in the pto in the new tractors, so hopefully thats a fix.

 

[canoetrpr]

Reading back through this thread, I have to agree with familyman.
I have an L3400 (gear driven) and it's a pretty good tractor but it is an economy model so some of the features are cheap. The three point lift is very jerky (can be upgraded but even then it's still not great) and the HST uses an over-riding clutch for the PTO which I think would be a show-stopper.

I know this is an old thread. Came up on a search I did about something. I'm responding because I think that it ended up on a note which is really unjustified in my opinion.

The L3400 is designed to be a basic no frills machine providing probably the best value for the $$ in this range.

There is no argument that Kubota should have never shipped the original 3pt hitch and could have given people less hassles about getting the replacement. I have yet to hear of someone that did not get the replacement eventually.

My 3PT valve is perfectly fine after the change - so I don't really know what you are talking about. From talking to the Kubota rep that I dealt with, the replacement valve is the same valve as was on the L3010 tractors. So it's certainly as good as the grand L valve just a generation or two ago.

I think that the general notion about features being "cheap" is misleading. Yes you have a right to your opinion. Cheap compared to what?... to something it wasn't trying to compare to. This tractor was designed to have simple features. There are no digital guages and other niceties - like telescopic links, a better seat etc. etc. But to some there is also beauty in simplicity.

Pointing to the thread where one poster discusses HIS issues with a broken PTO on his L2800 and concluding that the "PTO has issues" on the model in general is utter nonsense and completely irrational. There is no question that the poster on that thread has had an unfortunate situation that none of us would like to be in - however, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever at any widespread problem with the PTO on this tractor of any kind. All there are are ASSUMPTIONS that stem from what is no doubt an unfortunate situation that has affected ONE owner. There have been a LOT of 2800/3400 tractors sold.

I have no clue why the ORC would be a "show stopper". Non independant PTOs have been around a LONG time and are simpler (in the general vein of this tractors design).

I have chosen not to go and argue with Kubota for the new style CAMs without the ORC that others have gotten. The fact is that NO ONE really knows why Kubota made a change to the PTO CAMS. There are lots of reasons why there are changes in models from year to year and you just cannot assume. I'm willing to bet that the biggest complaint that Kubota had on this tractor is the noise when the ORC rachets. We don't really know if this isn't the only reason Kubota changed the CAMs.

Unlike the 3PT valve where there was an issue which was addressed under warranty (warranty repairs do happen on ALL models of ALL tractors from time to time), my opinion was that it was not worth it for me to press for a change of parts which required splitting my tractor unless I was darn sure that there was a problem that needed to be fixed.

The L3400 is basically equivalent IMHO to the best of the tractors you could find a couple decades ago..... with the addition of HST. It is priced at the correct price point and competes well with other no frills machines (JD790 and TC30)... and tends to attract a lot of buyers.

I think is a great tractor and has done what I have expected of it and more.

 

[IslandTractor]

Pointing to the thread where one poster discusses HIS issues with a broken PTO on his L2800 and concluding that the "PTO has issues" on the model in general is utter nonsense and completely irrational. There is no question that the poster on that thread has had an unfortunate situation that none of us would like to be in - however, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever at any widespread problem with the PTO on this tractor of any kind. All there are are ASSUMPTIONS that stem from what is no doubt an unfortunate situation that has affected ONE owner. There have been a LOT of 2800/3400 tractors sold.

Well, Kubota did change the cam style on that PTO so there is evidence that it was a systemic weakness with that engineering design. Also Kubota changed the part on all new machines rather than just on the "few" broken ones. Still, if the new cam solves the problem then this issue should not be a major barrier to someone looking at a new 2800/3400.

 

[canoetrpr]

Well, Kubota did change the cam style on that PTO so there is evidence that it was a systemic weakness with that engineering design. Also Kubota changed the part on all new machines rather than just on the "few" broken ones. Still, if the new cam solves the problem then this issue should not be a major barrier to someone looking at a new 2800/3400.

IslandTractor. With all due respect I believe that this logic is flawed.

That Kubota changed the CAM style of the PTO is NOT evidence that there was ANY systemic weakness with the engineering design. This is merely an assumption.

Maybe your assumption is correct ... however ... maybe it is not. Widespread failures of the PTO on the many tractors that have been sold would be evidence. There is no such evidence.

I think it is not unlikely the the PTO change is related more to the noise of the racheting action of the ORC. This is an assumption on my part also.

The facts would dictate that nobody really knows why Kubota made this and any other change in production. Bear in mind that there is NO ORC anymore - which makes me wonder what the original ORC was trying to protect and why that protection is not needed anymore.

I'm not suggesting that I know more than you or anybody else regarding this situation.. but... it is incorrect IMHO to state things as fact when they are not.

 

[IslandTractor]

I think it is not unlikely the the PTO change is related more to the noise of the racheting action of the ORC. This is an assumption on my part also.

Well, I definitely am not an expert on this L2800 cam thing but I recall from the TBN discussion that there have been other cam failures and I did think that there was a different fix (?more hydraulic fluid) for the ratcheting noise. The benign ratcheting noise was presumably known to Kubota during product development so I don't understand why they would reengineer the part several years later. It therefore seemed logical to bring up that if the cam had been reengineered it was likely due to some failure. My apologies if my statement implied I had special knowledge.

 

[8226hamer]

IslandTractor. With all due respect I believe that this logic is flawed.

That Kubota changed the CAM style of the PTO is NOT evidence that there was ANY systemic weakness with the engineering design. This is merely an assumption.

Maybe your assumption is correct ... however ... maybe it is not. Widespread failures of the PTO on the many tractors that have been sold would be evidence. There is no such evidence.

I think it is not unlikely the the PTO change is related more to the noise of the racheting action of the ORC. This is an assumption on my part also..

The facts would dictate that nobody really knows why Kubota made this and any other change in production. Bear in mind that there is NO ORC anymore - which makes me wonder what the original ORC was trying to protect and why that protection is not needed anymore.

I'm not suggesting that I know more than you or anybody else regarding this situation.. but... it is incorrect IMHO to state things as fact when they are not.

Do you have proof that there was NOT evidence of widespread PTO problems from the old style PTO cams?
The more I researched the problems that I was having with the PTO system on my tractor, the more I found that I wasn't the only one that has had problems. There are others, but you didn't read about it on TBN.
I hope the change in cams that the new tractors incorporate will fix the problems. I'm sure the ratchet noise was part of the reason for the change, but I'm also positive it wasn't the only reason. There is evidence that old style PTO cams are prone to fail under some types of operating applications. Kubota admitted this to me the second time my system failed. The problem was there and with the new style cams, I hope the problem no longer exist.

 

[canoetrpr]

Do you have proof that there was NOT evidence of widespread PTO problems from the old style PTO cams?
The more I researched the problems that I was having with the PTO system on my tractor, the more I found that I wasn't the only one that has had problems. There are others, but you didn't read about it on TBN.
I hope the change in cams that the new tractors incorporate will fix the problems. I'm sure the ratchet noise was part of the reason for the change, but I'm also positive it wasn't the only reason. There is evidence that old style PTO cams are prone to fail under some types of operating applications. Kubota admitted this to me the second time my system failed. The problem was there and with the new style cams, I hope the problem no longer exist.

Hi 8226hammer.

Surely you see that this argument is not logical. For us to claim that there are widespread problems with this or any tractors PTO design a body of evidence needs to exist to draw a logical conclusion - and not the oppositte.

I'm willing to bet that more people come looking for forums when they have problems rather than when they do not.

Certainly the failures that your machine has experienced are not widespread on this forum as other problems (for example the Kioti loader cracks).

I'd be very interested to know what other information you have about others that have experienced problems. How many? Where the symptoms similar to yours?

To claim that Kubota "admitted" to you that these PTOs are likely to fail under some type of operating conditions, on the basis of ONE Kubota regional SALES rep is misleading. The company is many thousands of employees and the sales reps are generally not experts in PTO CAM design when offering you up a new model as an upgrade. That Kubota sales rep did not offer up the CAM replacement either as a solution so its not clear to me how informed he was.

I'm not suggesting to you that I know something magical that can explain things away. What I do know at this point is that I have not found any real evidence of a widespread problem with the PTO. If you have some then I'd be appreciative of it. I am simply examining the facts and refuting what I think are illogical concusions based on the same set of facts. In my view the facts are these:

- There have not been widespread PTO or other failures reported with the L2800/L3400 tractors on this forum.

- When approached, service departments don't seem to be aware of any widespread problem either. I've talked to several service departments.

- This series of tractors is selling extremly well and rototilling isn't exactly that wierd of an application. Many people rototill.

- Live PTOs have been around for a LONG time and have been used in all kinds of applications.

- ORCs (while better located) have been in use for a LONG time.

- Kubota has been making very reliable tractors for a LONG time. This series of tractors actually tends to use parts from their older models. The 3PT valve is from the L3010. All of the technology here is pretty proven - nothing really novel IMHO.

It may be that you are right and that there is a widespread problem which has escaped this forum. I'd appreciate any information you have regarding this.

 

[canoetrpr]

BTW. While we are at this topic.

Does anybody understand why there might have been an ORC on an HST tractor in the first place? Since this is an HST tractor it is not like the momentum from a disengaged implement would propel the tractor forward even though the operator had disengaged the main clutch.

It is my understanding that ORCs were generally used in older tractors for the above reason.

HST versions of these tractors both have a live PTO and should not be subject to the issue that ORCs were traditionally used for.

This makes me think that the original design with the ORC was intended to relieve pressure on something. Surprising that it is not needed anymore... but that means that when the clutch is depressed, the momentum from the implement is driving something which the original ORC was meant to prevent.

I might be totally off base here... what am I missing.

BTW. Interestingly the spec sheet on the Kubota website still lists the PTO type on the HST versions of L2800/L3400 as Live-continuous with ROC.

 

[RayMunising]

Who opened this can of worms again?

How many owners of L3400/L2800 do we have here on TBN? How many of those owners use a ground engaging PTO implement? I'm willing to bet the number is pretty small.

The factory rep told Hamer the PTO on the L3400 is designed for non-ground engaging implements and recommended Hamer downgrade (my opinion) to a B3030 with an independent PTO for running a tiller. As someone who has not yet purchased a tractor I'm going to take that advice and buy a tractor with an independent PTO ... in my case a GL3240.

There's bigger differences between the L and the GL line then a fancy dash and a comfy seat. Do your research before you buy.

 

[canoetrpr]

Who opened this can of worms again?
How many owners of L3400/L2800 do we have here on TBN? How many of those owners use a ground engaging PTO implement? I'm willing to bet the number is pretty small.

I am guilty of opening up this can of worms. I seen no problem with it. It is intelligent discussion on all sides and information that is worthwhile to someone looking into purchasing one of these tractors - new or used.

I don't think that a rototiller is that wierd of an implement to be honest. Maybe lots more people use mowers than rototillers but lots of people use rototillers.

There is simply an assumption in your point and not fact. Maybe your assumption is correct. Maybe it is not. Given that at least one of Hamer's failures was after using the tiller for something like 20 hours or so - I think that level of weakness in the PTO system would have been visible across the board. We are not talking about something that manifests itself after hundreds or thousands of hours of tilling - something that might have been outside the scope of what Kubota's QA team was able to test.

The factory rep told Hamer the PTO on the L3400 is designed for non-ground engaging implements and recommended Hamer downgrade (my opinion) to a B3030 with an independent PTO for running a tiller. As someone who has not yet purchased a tractor I'm going to take that advice and buy a tractor with an independent PTO ... in my case a GL3240..

I do not believe that Hamer claimed that the rep he spoke to told him flat out that this tractor is not designed to run ground engaging implements. My understanding is that this is what Hamer concluded from talking to the rep. The rep also said other things that were not accurate. I'd be interested if Hamer could clarify this.

One failure and something inferred by what one person who works for Kubota said does not a general trend in poor reliability make.

It is your perogative to do what you believe is best. I think that the the Grand L series are fabulous machines and for what it is worth I think you are getting a lot of tractor for little extra money - particularly when coupled with the L724 loader.

To be honest, if I were to do it again I might have gone Grand L as well but not because of reliability worries. There is just not enough evidence IMHO to suggest that. You know at the time I was looking at tractors and deciding between the L3400 and the L3130 and others there was a guy that was having an incessant problem with his L3130 not having enough power. It was but one situation. Bad news tends to get a lot of mielage. I was concerned enough at the time that this drove me towards the simpler tractor among other reasons. It was wholly unwarranted. You can't generalise until there is adequate evidence.

One can come up different assumptions here to be devil's advocate. One could say that the 40 series are brand new tractors with major HST changes and they have a lot more complexity about them and that maybe that makes them less reliable over all than the "economy" series. Thats about as valid assumption as anyone making general statements about the L2800/L3400 reliability after a single occurance of a problem. Live PTOs have also been around a long long time and have been quite reliable. Of course I believe you are in safe hands - they are new but it is a Kubota and you've got a warranty and hopefully a great dealer...

There's bigger differences between the L and the GL line then a fancy dash and a comfy seat. Do your research before you buy.

Agreed. Despite being a L3400 owner I think that the GL line is a better buy. You get lots more for not much more money. Plus you get the benefit of Kubota not referring to your tractor as an 'Economy' model. I may have spent the money for that alone . Based on the evidence that is out there however, I don't think that there is any reason for anyone to think that the L3400 will be more or less reliable than the Grand L. Lots of people have the "economy" series tractors from previous generations and there is no suggestion yet that they are any less reliable.

 

[RayMunising]

I am guilty of opening up this can of worms.

You'll get no more argument from me. All I'm saying is do your research before you purchase. You generally hear the economy L just lacks some of the bells and whistles of the GL but that doesn't tell the whole story.

I'm well aware of the RAMON49/GL3130 saga. He certainly had issues and I'll leave it a that.

I have no concern about the reliability of the new HST-Plus in the GL series ... I want a FST trans with the optional creeper gear.

 

[canoetrpr]

I can't disagree with you on the doing your research part Ray.

The difference is definately more than the dash, comfy seat, telescopic links etc. The PTO is hydraulic independant vs. live continuous, the loader is stronger on the GL and hydraulic pump capacity higher and of course the extra weight. New with the 40 series is of course the HST+ compared with the simple HST in the L2800/L3400 which from time to time requires that you depress the HST pedal to shift between ranges (I imagine that the GL does not require this).

All that said, the L2800/L3400 are STILL great bang for the buck.

I can't agree that the B3030 should be considered as a downgrade. The B series tractors have different strenghts period. The extra weight of the L is not useful if one of your primary applications is mowing. If anything I would think that the B series are designed a lot more with the average acerage owner in mind and the L with the hobby farmer.

.

 

[RayMunising]

I can't agree that the B3030 should be considered as a downgrade. The B series tractors have different strenghts period. The extra weight of the L is not useful if one of your primary applications is mowing. If anything I would think that the B series are designed a lot more with the average acerage owner in mind and the L with the hobby farmer.

.

You are missing the point. If an L size tractor is the correct size tractor for the applications it was purchased for then going from an L series tractor to a B series tractor would be a downgrade.

 

[canoetrpr]

You are missing the point. If an L size tractor is the correct size tractor for the applications it was purchased for then going from an L series tractor to a B series tractor would be a downgrade.

Guess we will agree to disagree Ray.

The physical size of the tractor is only one aspect of it. For all intents and purposes the B3030 is very much a premuim tractor for the kinds of applications it was meant to excel it. It's got a lot of goodies that the bare bones L2800 does not - independant PTO, racheting turnbuckles, telescopic links and so on. Heck it even costs more. I'm sure as heck not suggesting it is an upgrade and while there is lots of grey area where the L series and B series can do about the same stuff - you can't consider a tractor as a downgrade because it is smaller physically.

Realistically neither of us really know why Hamer went with the economy L originally over B. Considering that his previous tractors where B series (B2910) and he is doing the same kind of work with it, all we are entitled to is our own interpretation of these things.

 

[RayMunising]

Guess we will agree to disagree Ray.

Fair enough.

It sounds like the L3400HST was the right choice for you and I agree you get a lot of bang for your buck. It's the tractor I was sold on and I doubt I would have been disappointed with it but I decided to spend a little extra to get the GL. I have no interest in the bells and whistles but I do believe the independent PTO is worth the additional price and with the GL I can get a fully synchronized gear trans with a creeper gear which is the trans I prefer.

Besides I don't want to spend $20K on an economy tractor! Just kidding.

Someone needs to tell Kubota to lay off that economy talk. It certainly doesn't sit well with me and I don't even own one.