Compact Tractors are Designed All Wrong

[MossRoad]

Kubota makes something like a PT, the R series: http://www.kubota.com/product/RSeries.aspx but its aimed more at being a loader than an implement carrier (they have a 11-18GPM aux circuit).

Aaron Z

I just saw one of those in a yard that dealt with mulch, stone, landscaping materials, etc... the other day. Strictly loader as far as I could tell.

 

[Garandman]

//6. Because mowing is a primary activity of compact users, these tractors should all articulate. This means they pivot in the middle to promote ease of turning and driving.

7. They should be significantly cheaper than they are. Why should a small compact tractor cost more than a compact car? Tractors are 1930 technology, for goodness sakes, and have relatively few parts. Something is wrong. They are way overpriced.

Pick one.....

 

[SandburRanch]

QUOTE:

1. The 3ph is an abomination. It is an historical industry compromise that, like all compromises, is a mediocrity at best. It is the interface that has launched a thousand hernias (and a googolplex cursewords). It needs to be replaced by the kind of simple, 30-second attachment interface that skidsteers have.
********************************************
I can set on the seat of my WD-45 and hook up any of its implements in about 30 seconds but it was dropped in favor of the Ferguson 3 point hernia system. Some good tractor technology has been around several decades.

 

[MultiMow]

The absolute worst thing about tractor evolution is the front end loader. Especially ag loaders. A horrible bulky thing and you can't even see the business end And the weight resting on dinky front wheels and the steering axle. Why did they not at least put the loader on the back? Probably to leave the 3ph free. Yet another horrible thing, that 3ph.

I would never in my life buy another Ag style loader. In fairness though. I am guessing it came about merely as a (wonderful) alternative to shoveling animal poop by hand.

Property owners who can't afford to buy two separate pieces of equipment, or have no desire to own two pieces of equipment, also use the loader quite often. Moving loose material such as mulch, aggregate, etc., is ALWAYS better with a loader... regardless of how inefficient the degign, it beats the **** out of a wheelbarrow.

 

[MultiMow]

Kubota makes something like a PT, the R series: http://www.kubota.com/product/RSeries.aspx but its aimed more at being a loader than an implement carrier (they have a 11-18GPM aux circuit).

Aaron Z

Don't know if it's a regional issue, or what... but when I followed your link, no "R-series" was found. I also could not find one by accessing the Kubota site directly.

 

[MultiMow]

Funny, how many people pinch every penny when buying a tractor. Heck, even going for the "OFF" (unproven) brands. But then suggesting that they SHOULD have some of the most expensive features and specifications.

It's all out there. Just not in your bargain basement homeowner utility tractor.

It's not so much the features, as the overall design architecture.

For 70-75% of the various tasks compacts/sub-compacts are used... their conventional architecture is poor. Yes, they will get the job done... but at the expense of efficiency, capability, maneuverability, etc.

As far as I know, the easiest reconciliation to the problem, is a reversible operator's station. New Holland's only bi-directional tractor is no longer in the compact class... and the only other options are European (mostly Italian), and they do not have hydrostatic drive.

If somebody wants a one stop, one machine solution to the property maintenance needs... it's pretty much non-existent here in the states, without spending $30k+ (attachments included).

 

[bcp]

Don't know if it's a regional issue, or what... but when I followed your link, no "R-series" was found. I also could not find one by accessing the Kubota site directly.

Worked for me, but here are some photos of the smaller of the two models.

kubota r42s - Google Search

Bruce

 

[bcp]

The LITTLE Kubota articulated loader weighs 7450 pounds, so you shouldn't compare its price to a BX or B tractor.

Bruce

 

[Creamer]

I don't think I've ever seen this thread before! Very interesting.

I've looked at PTs on several occasions over the years. I've always been intrigued by the concept and can see how it would be a better choice over a CUT for many people. I've just never been able to determine if it would be better for me.

While reading the opening points, New Holland bidirectional was screaming in my head - this is by far my favorite design and like many, I wish there was a smaller version of this machine. Even if there was I probably couldn't afford it! Ha!

If I were to go for a PT, it would be the PT-1460. I have no need for a backhoe and the PT-1460 looks to be the most similar in capability to a "large frame" 40-60hp CUTs that are on the market. I really like that it is only 60" wide, the visibility to the loader seems great, the float function for snow seems super useful. I'm a huge fan of articulating frames instead of a steering axle. I almost seriously considered one... But ended up crossing it off my list for several reasons - many of which are unknowns.

Why I didn't pursue a PT-1460...

- I'm a see, touch, use type person. The barrier to experiencing one of these machines was too significant for me to make the effort.
- Lift height. 8 foot is a little low when trying to put stuff up in my loft. My current tractor has 9 foot lift height and that is a little low but I can make it work
- Top speed - I road my tractor quite a bit and wish my 17 mph top speed was faster. I can't imagine roading with a 10mph top speed.
- Seat height. I store my boat in a hard to maneuver to lean to off the back of the barn. I move it back there with the tractor which is tall enough to see over the boat. Not sure I'd have the type of visibility with the PT-1460
- pushing / pulling out trees, stumps - Not sure about gearing and if the PT-1460 generates enough wheel torque for this. Seems like just one 0-10mph gear.
- And finally, no SSQA. I don't like the idea of a one off connection for attachments.

If Powertrac published more detailed (and satisfactory) specifications on the loader and drivetrain and offered SSQA I might have been interested enough to investigate more. The 10 mph top speed might still be a deal breaker as might be price for the initial unit and limited pricy attachments. And hay rides just wouldn't be the same.

I hadn't seen this thread before either. I have to agree with you - conventional is not the way to go for a handy tractor which is why I bought the small Versatile Bi-directional (150 model) - it has most of the features you guys are mentioning. 70 hp, rotating seat and control panel to go either direction, hydrostatic, loader and 3 pt in full view, articulated steering, equal size tires, weighs only 7800 so it doesn't tear up the lawn, quicktach loader, lift height of about 10', etc.

This is a 1980 model so they have been around and probably where some of the concepts that Steiner and PT use came from.

the one thing I am not a fan of is that with the cab between the loader arms it is a little difficult for a big guy like myself to get in and out of.

The price of these is a about the same as a CUT of the same vintage as they are too small for most farmers these days.

Note the direction that she is driving it.

 

[MultiMow]

I hadn't seen this thread before either. I have to agree with you - conventional is not the way to go for a handy tractor which is why I bought the small Versatile Bi-directional (150 model) - it has most of the features you guys are mentioning. 70 hp, rotating seat and control panel to go either direction, hydrostatic, loader and 3 pt in full view, articulated steering, equal size tires, weighs only 7800 so it doesn't tear up the lawn, quicktach loader, lift height of about 10', etc.

This is a 1980 model so they have been around and probably where some of the concepts that Steiner and PT use came from.

the one thing I am not a fan of is that with the cab between the loader arms it is a little difficult for a big guy like myself to get in and out of.

The price of these is a about the same as a CUT of the same vintage as they are too small for most farmers these days.
View attachment 487717
Note the direction that she is driving it.

7,000+ may be "light" by ag standards... but it's nowhere near the compact utility class and will EASILY tear up turf. Lastly, the overall size of the unit makes it a no-go for low clearance tasks.