CK20 redesign ?

[Slackdaddy]

Is there ever a news reseale when a "new" model is coming out ?
People have said that the CK20 needs a 3 range hydro to keep up with the
B20 kuboto's, just hate to buy a CK20 and have the "new and improved" model show up on the show room floor a week later.

If the CK20 had a 3 range and an integrated BH (like the B20"s)
I would have bought one last year.

Nick

 

[wallace]

Don't think you will ever see that, The CK20 just had a little face lift this past year. along with the loaders and backhoes.

 

[IslandTractor]

It is dangerous to disagree with Master Yoda Wallace but I think Kioti had better add a 3 speed HST to the CK20 pronto if they don't want to lose sales. The extra one horsepower that got added last year does little to overcome the difficulty the CK20 has going up even a slight slope in high gear while either mowing or just traveling with a BH attached. On a fairly mild slope I work on in front of my house, I literally had to mow uphill in low then change to high range when I got to the top to mow down. Even mowing sideways with the bushhog was mostly done in low.

A middle range for the HST would solve that problem and give new life to the CK20 allowing it to compete more effectively with the B2x20 series. The CK20 is an excellent machine with a best in class loader so why not fix the Achilles heel?

 

[garydc]

I am the happy owner of a 07 ck20 I bought in july to replace an older kubota b6200. So far I love the tractor and I got a very good deal on it, but I think Kioti should look at bumping the horses a couple more and adding a mid range in the hydro in the future to retain sales, as I said I love the little beast but when it comes time to replace if the I,ll possibly be looking at the other orange again. Gary

 

[Dmace]

I don't get it, everyone wants a few more horsepower and another gear. Well then, buy the CK30. It has a three speed HST and 8 more horsepower. What's the point of making two tractors with the same power and capacities but on two different sized frames?

I admit I have found a few things I could not do easily with my CK20HST but what it has done is amazing for it's size and power and if I needed more I would buy a larger tractor.

If everyone makes their smallest tractors bigger every year, the people who don't need the extra power and capacities will have to pay for more than they need. I like the CK20 just the way it is...

 

[IslandTractor]

I don't get it, everyone wants a few more horsepower and another gear. Well then, buy the CK30. It has a three speed HST and 8 more horsepower.

Because there is little advantage to the CK30 over the CK20 for many tasks and the smaller tractor is easier to manuver, weighs less, smaller to store, cheaper (smaller) attachments and matches better with smaller properties.

I know there are lots of dedicated CK30 guys out there but I did not find there was enough of a difference between the two to justify the upgrade. When I did upgrade I skipped over the CK30 to the DK.

The CK20 is a great tractor. The comments regarding 3 speed HST are to make it even better. I am not one who thinks it needs more horsepower, just better gearing.

 

[rimshot]

My CK20 equipped with a hoe and FEL have yet to win an uphill speed race. I guess I shall just have to settle for a different way to take the hill out of play. I will let the CK20 eat it for breakfast.

Here's a picture of the stump that got in the way last weekend. It took all of one and a half hours to remove this stump and it was loaded with a heavy root base bound with gravel.

rimshot

(all this and still making it to the top of the hill to boot)

 

[Dmace]

That's a nice looking stump, rimshot. But how did you ever move it with just 21hp and no third gear...?

 

[Gittyup]

Because there is little advantage to the CK30 over the CK20 for many tasks and the smaller tractor is easier to manuver, weighs less, smaller to store, cheaper (smaller) attachments and matches better with smaller properties.

A 1000 lbs heavier, much higher hydraulic pump capacity, 9-10 more HP (50% more hp), and a 3-range tranny offers many advantages for just about ANY task the CK's would be used for. You argue that loaders are about the same. I think this is the only place they are about "comparable". But, the difference is like 10%, and 10% is not insignificant to me. Further, the better hydraulics means it'll operate more quickly. For just about every other task the CK30 is way more tractor and way more capable. You can run bigger everything, and that translates directly to greater productivity. It'll pull more, push more, lift more on the 3pt, transport faster, clear deeper ditches and ground protrusions.

The same argument about smaller size having advantages also applies to the CK35 vs the DK35 too. But, I wouldn't argue that the DK35 "has little advantage" over the CK35 any more than I'd say the same when comparing the DK35 to the DK40.

For me, even the CK25 was a better choice than the CK20. I didn't layout the extra money for the CK30 because PTO hp wasn't as paramount to the tasks I planned to do. But, all the other "little advantages" made a big difference. I don't think I'd have been happy with a CK20 for my uses. I bought too small once and wasn't about to do it again.

 

[IslandTractor]

A 1000 lbs heavier, much higher hydraulic pump capacity, 9-10 more HP (50% more hp), and a 3-range tranny offers many advantages for just about ANY task the CK's would be used for. You argue that loaders are about the same. I think this is the only place they are about "comparable". But, the difference is like 10%, and 10% is not insignificant to me. Further, the better hydraulics means it'll operate more quickly. For just about every other task the CK30 is way more tractor and way more capable. You can run bigger everything, and that translates directly to greater productivity. It'll pull more, push more, lift more on the 3pt, transport faster, clear deeper ditches and ground protrusions.

The same argument about smaller size having advantages also applies to the CK35 vs the DK35 too. But, I wouldn't argue that the DK35 "has little advantage" over the CK35 any more than I'd say the same when comparing the DK35 to the DK40.

For me, even the CK25 was a better choice than the CK20. I didn't layout the extra money for the CK30 because PTO hp wasn't as paramount to the tasks I planned to do. But, all the other "little advantages" made a big difference. I don't think I'd have been happy with a CK20 for my uses. I bought too small once and wasn't about to do it again.

I just knew the CK30 guys would be touchy about my comments. I'm not knocking the 30 just pointing out that the CK20, even more so if it had 3 speeds, is an amazing piece of machinery. For ground engaging tasks I would certainly agree that the CK30's extra umph would make tasks go faster but for loader work I don't see a big advantage. If I bought a CK30 today I'd get the Woods loader which would be a significant difference but frankly 100lbs of extra lift with the KL130 over the KL120 doesn't amount to much. What's the use of all that extra hydraulic output if the loader can't use it? The CK20 needs three speeds to be near perfect and the CK30 needs a better loader to kick it up a notch.

 

[rimshot]

That's a nice looking stump, rimshot. But how did you ever move it with just 21hp and no third gear...?

==============================

Another gear? Which end do you spose it should go on? Creeper or overdrive? (big griin)

I actually hauled that stump a half mile down the road dumping it at a stump pile in a gravel pit.. I probably could have traveled at high speed but for the heavy load dangling with log tongs from my reinforced front bucket. I moved over graveled road slowly for safety reasons crawlling when necessary so there was no chance of dropping that whopper right in my tracks. Perhaps I should have backed down there until I dumped the thing.

But I got the job done all the same and will sic this thing on another stump soon enough.

rimshot

(Maybe the CK30's bigger but the CK20 drivers do it better) ;-)

 

[wallace]

Well here is my thoughts...........
Get rid of the new CK27 pull that engine and put it in the CK20 and give us a new 3 range 24hp subcompact!

 

[Gittyup]

Well here is my thoughts...........
Get rid of the new CK27 pull that engine and put it in the CK20 and give us a new 3 range 24hp subcompact!

That would be good. But, you left off one more change: Up size the hydraulic pump too.

 

[Gittyup]

Island,

I know you're not knocking the CK30's. But, it's just wrong to say there is little difference for "many tasks". There's a big difference for most tasks. Loader work represents only a small (albeit important) task of a tractor. And even in that regard, one should not underestimate the advantage that the extra weight can bring to bear for loader work: better traction digging into a pile, better stability with a fully loaded bucket. Then there is dump and curl speed and affects of full bucket maneuvering on power steering....... I think I just convinced myself that they really aren't comparable for loader work either

I do agree that the CK30's should have a beefier loader that is more appropriate to the weight of the tractor.

Of course, there are those that want to argue the hp-to-weight ratio thing (which I also don't buy into).

 

[IslandTractor]

Gittyup,

You are right, I am not knocking the 25 or 30. However, I think the 20 does more than 2/3rds of what the 30 can do (using the HP ratio). For example there is almost nothing the 30 can lift that the 20 cannot. In mowing the 30 has an advantage in being able to run a 5ft hog vs 4ft for the 20. That is a 20% difference in size but I'd estimate that in real world terms it amounts to about 10 or at most 15 minutes per acre. Those 10-15 minutes can add up with big acreage (then again that's why I moved to a DK and 6ft mower) but when you consider the total time involved in getting the tractor ready, getting out the field, mowing, putting everything away etc then that 10-15 minute advantage/acre drops in significance. A 3hr chore on a CK20 is still a 2:30hr chore on a CK30 which amounts to only 8% time savings. Not that much.

Traction is really not an issue with the CK20. I did not understand that as well until I got a DK40se where traction is an issue. The CK20 does not like to spin it's tires and it is very effective in putting those 20hp to the ground. I'm sure a CK30 can push a bigger stump but the CK20 can push stumps that are way too big to lift. I never used a box blade on the CK20 but I know people have no issue with either the 4ft or 5ft BB so that situation is similar to the mower. Slight advantage to CK30.

To summarize, I'm not arguing that the CK20 is really exactly as capable as the CK25/CK30 etc but rather that it is an extraordinarily competent and capable machine that comes a lot closer to the capabilities of it's bigger brethran than you might think. It can do just about anything (I cannot think of anything it cannot do other than drive up hill with a load) as well as the CK30 even though it will take a tad longer due to smaller implements. I've always thought that the CK20 was about perfect up to 5 acres of land, I'd guess the CK30 would start to make more sense to me between 5-10 and after that the DKs start looking good.

Shouldn't we be fighting with green, red, blue and pseudo orange tractor owners rather than each other?

 

[dfkrug]

A 1000 lbs heavier, much higher hydraulic pump capacity, 9-10 more HP (50% more hp), and a 3-range tranny offers many advantages for just about ANY task the CK's would be used for. You argue that loaders are about the same. I think this is the only place they are about "comparable". But, the difference is like 10%, and 10% is not insignificant to me. Further, the better hydraulics means it'll operate more quickly. For just about every other task the CK30 is way more tractor and way more capable. You can run bigger everything, and that translates directly to greater productivity. It'll pull more, push more, lift more on the 3pt, transport faster, clear deeper ditches and ground protrusions.

As I have said in other threads, I am a big fan of both CKs (the 20 vs the
25/30/35). The 50% weight diff puts them in completely separate classes.
I have owned and operated both, and I have had the oppy to own & operate
2 other tractors in the CK20's weight class: the B21 and the JD955.
All were hydros, and the most nimble of the three was easily the 33hp
955. I could actually USE the higher HST range on the JD.

The added weight of the CK30 also makes b/h productivity vastly greater
than using the same size hoe on the 2000 lb tractors, from my experience.

 

[MikeInEburg]

I recently bought a Kubota B7800. When looking at Kioti, I REALLY liked the CK20 - many things about it were excellent. For some reason the folks grumbling about the two-range transmission kept echoing in my mind. While the 30 was actually just fine in price, it was just too large of a machine for my needs. I can't say that the trans range was the only factor (dealer 50 miles away while there are 3 Kubota dealers within 25 miles) - but it sure played a major part.
Mike

 

[dfkrug]

I recently bought a Kubota B7800. When looking at Kioti, I REALLY liked the CK20 - many things about it were excellent.

Your B7800 is more like my old 955. You have 30hp and less weight than
the CK20. Same story with the B3030. What makes the CK20 so attractive
is you can buy one for nearly 50% less than those very nice Kubotas. Having
30hp w/ HST is a very good thing, even for CUTs under 2000#.

 

[TBDonnelly]

My previous tractor was a Ford 1220(17hp diesel). The Ford 1220 is similar in frame size to the CK20. I moved up in size to the CK30. The CK30 is a much more stable & smoother (way better) ride. CK30 is way less tippy than the Ford 1220 was. I've sat on a CK20 but my comparison will stop there since I have no real-time on a CK20.

For conversation sake I'm attaching a picture of the CK30 'prototype'. Notice the skinny loader arms. The loader arms on the production models did move up in size.

Don

 

[rimshot]

I recently bought a Kubota B7800. When looking at Kioti, I REALLY liked the CK20 - many things about it were excellent. For some reason the folks grumbling about the two-range transmission kept echoing in my mind. While the 30 was actually just fine in price, it was just too large of a machine for my needs. I can't say that the trans range was the only factor (dealer 50 miles away while there are 3 Kubota dealers within 25 miles) - but it sure played a major part.
Mike

=========================

If a CK20 seems like the right tractor for you potential buyers out there then please don't let this talk of the need for a third gear by itself cause you to purchase a different brand of tractor. I speak from my experience as owner of a CK20.

First of all, the CK20 is a CUT not a Sub Compact Tractor. The CK20 weighs almost twice that of the excellent Kubota BX24 and capabilities are as expectedly higher for that reason. Several larger model from Kubota outclass the CK20.

The two ranges designed into the CK20 have proven sufficient for my needs that conisists of road building and taking an occasional heavy log or stump out of the woods on four acres of property half of which is densely wooded.

I am also equipped to operate a five foot Snowblower and I have equipped the rig to use a set of pallot forks. I can only speak for myself when I say this extra range of gears would be nice but it certainly was no show stopper in my experience. This little giant has exceeded all of my expectations and then some. It is what it is.

The intention here is not to be at all critical of anybody else's perspective as presented here. I just seek to present my idea on this forum.

YMMV

rimshot