Describe the Ultimate BX
- Thread starter Tom_H
- Start date
- Views: 14894
ChuckinNH
Elite Member, R.I.P.
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2003
- Messages
- 3,081
- Location
- NH
- Tractor
- (B2620, had BX22) Simplicity Legacy w/48" mmm
Tom, that is an interesting question. I think we need to consider what might be coming in the B7xxx replacements too, since we want to keep that separate market niche that the BX enjoys.
So, what to do? Well, let's make it just a bit wider, say 46"-47" since we want to keep it under the width of implements that work so well with it. Let's increase the tire diameter a couple of inches too, partly to give more clearance, partly to improve the ride, and partly to separate the looks of it more from the larger garden tractors. Keeping that "tough guy" image is important, and functional. I think the backhoe is pretty good for a tractor that size, but with a slightly more stable platform, perhaps the operating pressure could be upped a bit, and perhaps a 14" bucket to better release clay. I'd like to see the swing angle increased beyond the current 140 degrees too. The limited swing makes tractor placement more critical than it should. The pumps for the loader, and bh hydraulics could be improved to give smoother response at lower rpm. The Massey 2310 is very good in that respect, and something similar would be nice. The loader is pretty good for a tractor that size, but a factory qd would be nice in a premium model, and a set of short, lightweight forks to go with it would be a very cool addition. Grapples might be asking for a bit much, but are possible too. I've seen loader mounted qd snow blades mounted on JD 2305's so that is a possibility too. I think the gage cluster was a poor place for Kubota to save a little money on the BX24........ it's way too visable a thing, and certainly a first impression turn off for some. The competition has real tachs, and we should expect the same...... for example. The basic machine is pretty bullet proof as it is..... factory skid plates aside. Does the ROPS really have to be quite so tall, and wide? I was surprised how much room I had (6'2", 220 lbs) on the JD version that is much smaller....... though it doesn't fold, and should. The new seats are a huge improvement, and the operator's station in general is quite good now I think....... the only thing I might move would be the tph lever. It's a little low now if you are looking over your shoulder running a box blade, or something that needs tweaking off, and on.
Well, we could go on here, but those are some thoughts that come to mind.....
Chuck
So, what to do? Well, let's make it just a bit wider, say 46"-47" since we want to keep it under the width of implements that work so well with it. Let's increase the tire diameter a couple of inches too, partly to give more clearance, partly to improve the ride, and partly to separate the looks of it more from the larger garden tractors. Keeping that "tough guy" image is important, and functional. I think the backhoe is pretty good for a tractor that size, but with a slightly more stable platform, perhaps the operating pressure could be upped a bit, and perhaps a 14" bucket to better release clay. I'd like to see the swing angle increased beyond the current 140 degrees too. The limited swing makes tractor placement more critical than it should. The pumps for the loader, and bh hydraulics could be improved to give smoother response at lower rpm. The Massey 2310 is very good in that respect, and something similar would be nice. The loader is pretty good for a tractor that size, but a factory qd would be nice in a premium model, and a set of short, lightweight forks to go with it would be a very cool addition. Grapples might be asking for a bit much, but are possible too. I've seen loader mounted qd snow blades mounted on JD 2305's so that is a possibility too. I think the gage cluster was a poor place for Kubota to save a little money on the BX24........ it's way too visable a thing, and certainly a first impression turn off for some. The competition has real tachs, and we should expect the same...... for example. The basic machine is pretty bullet proof as it is..... factory skid plates aside. Does the ROPS really have to be quite so tall, and wide? I was surprised how much room I had (6'2", 220 lbs) on the JD version that is much smaller....... though it doesn't fold, and should. The new seats are a huge improvement, and the operator's station in general is quite good now I think....... the only thing I might move would be the tph lever. It's a little low now if you are looking over your shoulder running a box blade, or something that needs tweaking off, and on.
Well, we could go on here, but those are some thoughts that come to mind.....
Chuck
The Gardener
Gold Member
> Increased ground clearance
> Larger hydraulic pump
> Integral canopy like the one that comes standard with the B26
Beyond those changes, I think you move up to the B-series to obtain more features and greater power capabilities.
The Gardener
> Larger hydraulic pump
> Integral canopy like the one that comes standard with the B26
Beyond those changes, I think you move up to the B-series to obtain more features and greater power capabilities.
The Gardener
Volfandt
Veteran Member
1) 2 hydraulic pumps, 1 to decrease the GPM for steering and another to increase the GPM for the 3PH, FEL & BH. The idea is to increase all capacities without effecting the steering system.
2) do away with the HST cooling fan and go to a separate radiator for the hydraulics. -or- a factory skidplate to cover all vitals.
3) relocate the hydro filter up and away from it's present location. (see part 2 of item #2)
4) Analog tach w/an integrated hr meter.
5) shorter ROPS for the TLB's and have them fold a full 180 degrees.
6) tilt steering w/a deep dish steering wheel
7) Toolbox
2) do away with the HST cooling fan and go to a separate radiator for the hydraulics. -or- a factory skidplate to cover all vitals.
3) relocate the hydro filter up and away from it's present location. (see part 2 of item #2)
4) Analog tach w/an integrated hr meter.
5) shorter ROPS for the TLB's and have them fold a full 180 degrees.
6) tilt steering w/a deep dish steering wheel
7) Toolbox
-Faster more powerful bh
-analog tach
-less vunerable belly relocate and/or redesign systems so they aren't so.
-make parking brake with audable warning or so strong it must be disengaged to move about.
I'm leary of making overall machine larger or wider because of storage issues and overall mission creep, ie loss of compactness.
-analog tach
-less vunerable belly relocate and/or redesign systems so they aren't so.
-make parking brake with audable warning or so strong it must be disengaged to move about.
I'm leary of making overall machine larger or wider because of storage issues and overall mission creep, ie loss of compactness.
RayCo
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2005
- Messages
- 1,039
- Location
- Chester County, PA
- Tractor
- Kubota BX24, Case 580 Super L
Obivously you can't get ridiculous, so here are a few relatively simple things I'd love to see.
- I'd like a transmission temp guage and to see the guages relocated to near the cupholder or somewhere in that area so that I can monitor them regardless of which direction I'm facing. (May be odd to put the guages not in the dash, but I figure moving them is cheaper than figuring some other way of monitoring them while facing backwards.)
- I agree about the bigger wheels and tires. My one 20HP Wheel Horse has 15" wheels and looks more rugged than my BX.
- A horn
- ROPS height reduction to fit under a 7' garage door.
- Accessory key position
- Guage cluster on the BX24 is pathetic and should be replaced with a true cluster of analog guages (in the dash or elsewhere)
- A factory thumb option
MessickFarmEqu
Super Member
Adding features costs money, are you all going to pay $$$ for this mystical tractor too? Capacity should be reserved for the B-Series.
Frankly, I think the 26hp BX is stupid. There is no need for that kinda power in a subcompact. Its all because of the HP race between companies and the customers focus on that rather meaningless number.
Frankly, I think the 26hp BX is stupid. There is no need for that kinda power in a subcompact. Its all because of the HP race between companies and the customers focus on that rather meaningless number.
ChuckinNH
Elite Member, R.I.P.
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2003
- Messages
- 3,081
- Location
- NH
- Tractor
- (B2620, had BX22) Simplicity Legacy w/48" mmm
Adding features does cost money, but several of the features mentioned are included in the models that competitors are fielding. Tire size aside ( I understand there would be mower interferrence issues) all of the items mentioned are available in the competition. MF has 6 1/2 digging depth, and gages, JD has gages, smaller ROPS, and the width, etc. Most of the competition can even include dual loader cylinders.... :d
Since this is all hypothetical, I hope everyone is taking my comments in the light manner they are intended. Lean manufacturing is driven by the needs, and desires of consumers, so companies need to know what we like. If an item you want isn't available, and is important to you, it never hurts to let the manufacturer know that it is influencing your purchase decision. ( I worked for a manufacturing company for many years, and was deeply involved in all new product introductions, and upgrades. The last two years I was involved in the transition to "Lean" manufacturing)
Since this is all hypothetical, I hope everyone is taking my comments in the light manner they are intended. Lean manufacturing is driven by the needs, and desires of consumers, so companies need to know what we like. If an item you want isn't available, and is important to you, it never hurts to let the manufacturer know that it is influencing your purchase decision. ( I worked for a manufacturing company for many years, and was deeply involved in all new product introductions, and upgrades. The last two years I was involved in the transition to "Lean" manufacturing)
KeithInSpace
Veteran Member
The BX series of tractor is a certain size and that is the best feature (or worst feature, depending on your perspective). To make the tractor larger would defy the intended purpose. The only reason a larger engine would be beneficial is to increase pump VOLUME, not pump pressure. Capacity is at a maximum for the size of machine we're talking about. But I'd like to swing the BH bucket at the same time I'm raising the boom, for example. I'd like to work the existing engine a little harder before we add more money for a larger engine, though. The thing doesn't even break a sweat!
As far as replacement of the fan with a radiator, accessory key position, gauge cluster improvements, transmission temp gauge, etc., I don't see why all these improvements can't be incorporated into an updated BX with a price increase of, say, $500 or $800. For that matter, why were they not incorporated into the latest iteration?
As for larger tires and more ground clearance, that would be desireable, but it would defy, again, the intended "sub-compact" niche that is being filled here. Bigger is sometimes just bigger. Bigger is B.
As for armoring, Bro-tek should start selling his units to the factory. They should be mandatory on every tractor.
And I never understood why the BX22/23/24 ROPS is so freakin' huge. the ROPS on my machine is fine. I'd understand that the 'big and tall' set would like it 6" taller and an inch or two wider, but it really is perfect. Wouldn't mind the flexibility of folding it...even the small one. And it folding 180 degrees would be a positive to get it out of the way when you need to.
As far as replacement of the fan with a radiator, accessory key position, gauge cluster improvements, transmission temp gauge, etc., I don't see why all these improvements can't be incorporated into an updated BX with a price increase of, say, $500 or $800. For that matter, why were they not incorporated into the latest iteration?
As for larger tires and more ground clearance, that would be desireable, but it would defy, again, the intended "sub-compact" niche that is being filled here. Bigger is sometimes just bigger. Bigger is B.
As for armoring, Bro-tek should start selling his units to the factory. They should be mandatory on every tractor.
And I never understood why the BX22/23/24 ROPS is so freakin' huge. the ROPS on my machine is fine. I'd understand that the 'big and tall' set would like it 6" taller and an inch or two wider, but it really is perfect. Wouldn't mind the flexibility of folding it...even the small one. And it folding 180 degrees would be a positive to get it out of the way when you need to.
DiezNutz
Veteran Member
In that case, you really want a mini-ex. Fwiw, you're not going to get the functionality you dream of without multiple (variable-displacement) pumps and more than one hydraulic loop. That's major rework of the existing machine and $$$. Just increasing the flow rate isn't going to do anything but make what you have now move faster.KeithInSpace said:
MessickFarmEqu said:
Neil, I have never heard you take this sort of combattive attitude before. If you were standing in front of my face, would you tell me that my conversation was "stupid"? (I know, you're referring to the 26hp as stupid, but we're discussing the ideal BX, as a variant on the BX2650. Your statement infers, to some degree, that our conversation is also stupid). Normally, you give very level headed insight and you have earned customers from your interaction on this board. I think coming here today and calling our conversation "stupid" will not win any new customers today. This is a dream list and we are just having fun talking about ideas, hypotheticals, and possibilities. I have no illusions that Kubota will adopt all these suggestions; they probably won't even read them. Still, it may be possible that one or two solid and practicable ideas may come out of this. Pointing out trade-offs in a logical manner is something most males handle well. Start using the word "stupid", and nothing constructive happens. Concentrate on what is positive, not on what is negative. I hope the rest of your day goes better.
escavader
Veteran Member
I really thought they were on their way to the perfect bx with the 24.They tweeked the power,had curved loader and hoe arms,then they went and put plastic fenders on it!
a 24 with metal fenders,and mabey an optional KUBOTA THUMB,and you got the perfect bx.until then ill keep my 23.
ALAN
a 24 with metal fenders,and mabey an optional KUBOTA THUMB,and you got the perfect bx.until then ill keep my 23.
ALAN
MessickFarmEqu
Super Member
Tom_H said:
Sorry for the misunderstanding. In no way did I intend to say that this conversation, or anyones desire for a 26hp BX was stupid. I do think that the BX2650 is totally unnessesary, and frankly stupid.
It will sell, and I understand why they are doing it. Its simply playing off the fact that a vast majority of people have no understanding of torque and get impressed by big horsepower figures. It won't be a better of months till Deere and New Holland up their machines as well.
Now if they offered a 72" Mid mount mower to go with it, then we're talking. At least then you can make some use of all that power.
KeithInSpace
Veteran Member
DiezNutz said:
Really? I would have thought they would back down on the control orifice diameters to each of the movements to compensate, thereby making the corresponding movements the same "speed" as they are now wilst diverting a smaller ratio of overall flow capacity to each individual movement, thus making more flow available to other movements. That would provide the opportunity for similar speed and pressure AND provide flow to more than just two simultaneous movements.
Not trying to be a smarty pants...seriously, this is how I thought it could be done. Not an expert, that's for sure.
And I'm not sure why a single pump couldn't meet the need...certainly, there is sufficient power to drive the machine and operate the FEL. That is not in dispute. The issue is the huge volume used by the BH, which is normally run when stationary (no flow to the FEL or HST).
As for a mini-ex, you know as well as I do that this would look a little silly in a rur-urban (rural urban home...near enough to the big city, but you need to drive past some cows to get to it...) garage. I'm not suggesting I'm irked enough with my setup to blow $20k on a single purpose machine...in the spirit of the thread I just thought it would be nifty to have more nimble movement of the BH cooked into our Dream BX.
KeithInSpace
Veteran Member
Not a big deal, Mr. MessickFarmEqu. The issue is that this word is normally (and should be) reserved for Hollywood stars that can't stay out of rehab for 2 weeks without hitting the sauce/powder. And for truly gifted and spectactular athletes that, despite making more in a year than most of us will likely make in our lifetimes, feel compelled to even HINT at involvement in illegal activities. I really hope it isn't true.MessickFarmEqu said:
Those folks are stupid. As a couple examples.
The BX2650 (if it is so called) is just another example of "super size me" America. If there is a bigger one, it usually doesn't follow a genuine NEED (1,000 calories in one sitting doesn't work, but maybe 1,800 will do the trick), but folks will get it because it's THERE.
I didn't get the BX1830 because the BX2230 was only $500 more. "Stupid" to not pay the $500 (~3% of my initial investment) for 20% more power, right?
Kubota is betting that folks will pony up for 26HP if it is available. Necessary or not.
My prediction is that Kubota will win on their bet. Stupid or not.
And yes, a 72" mower would be imperative for this to even HINT at being a reasonable upgrade. With a 6' deck (if the wheelbase is not increased), this would be as near a 4-wheel ZTR as any other machine possible.
DiezNutz
Veteran Member
Really? Yep.
I would have thought they would back down on the control orifice diameters to each of the movements to compensate, thereby making the corresponding movements the same "speed" as they are now wilst diverting a smaller ratio of overall flow capacity to each individual movement, thus making more flow available to other movements. That would provide the opportunity for similar speed and pressure AND provide flow to more than just two simultaneous movements. Not trying to be a smarty pants...seriously, this is how I thought it could be done. Not an expert, that's for sure.
The spools in our BHs work by diverting the high-pressure port to a work cylinder, cutting the rest of the spools in that block off in the process. What doesn't go into a cylinder passes through the center of the spool block and out the return port. What simultaneous action you're able to get now by feathering two controls can't be improved on a whole lot with this setup. So you jack up the flow rate to control two cylinders... now how does one cylinder behave when it's getting full flow? No matter what tweaking you did in the hopes of getting more simultaneous control, you'd always have the problem of two cylinders interacting with each other in annoying ways. That's why true excavators have multiple pumps on independent circuits. Think how nice the BH would be to operate if it had the smooth range of control that the HST does - that's what the V/D pumps buy you.
As for a mini-ex, you know as well as I do that this would look a little silly in a rur-urban garage.
Bet you have a neighbor who's driven past your BX several times and is scheming to one-up you. Probably online researching mini-ex's right now...
I would have thought they would back down on the control orifice diameters to each of the movements to compensate, thereby making the corresponding movements the same "speed" as they are now wilst diverting a smaller ratio of overall flow capacity to each individual movement, thus making more flow available to other movements. That would provide the opportunity for similar speed and pressure AND provide flow to more than just two simultaneous movements. Not trying to be a smarty pants...seriously, this is how I thought it could be done. Not an expert, that's for sure.
The spools in our BHs work by diverting the high-pressure port to a work cylinder, cutting the rest of the spools in that block off in the process. What doesn't go into a cylinder passes through the center of the spool block and out the return port. What simultaneous action you're able to get now by feathering two controls can't be improved on a whole lot with this setup. So you jack up the flow rate to control two cylinders... now how does one cylinder behave when it's getting full flow? No matter what tweaking you did in the hopes of getting more simultaneous control, you'd always have the problem of two cylinders interacting with each other in annoying ways. That's why true excavators have multiple pumps on independent circuits. Think how nice the BH would be to operate if it had the smooth range of control that the HST does - that's what the V/D pumps buy you.
As for a mini-ex, you know as well as I do that this would look a little silly in a rur-urban garage.
Bet you have a neighbor who's driven past your BX several times and is scheming to one-up you. Probably online researching mini-ex's right now...
KeithInSpace
Veteran Member
DiezNutz said:Bet you have a neighbor who's driven past your BX several times and is scheming to one-up you. Probably online researching mini-ex's right now...
A statement painful in its truth.
As I said, not an expert. Thank you for the insight.
Then I hereby alter my previous ULTIMATE BX request: I want two hydraulic pumps. Maybe that way I can have the BONUS FEATURE of simultaniously curling and raising my FEL. Hot diggity dog! Of course I'd never be able to get one. Probably have the 2230 'till I kick the bucket. Not the FEL bucket...the REAL bucket.
Well, here are the things I would like to see:
Better filtering system in front of the radiator
Smaller & full folding ROPS (Neil-not every request is for something bigger)
More hydro pressure to the bh so it can dig in ultra hard hardpan
Three range HST, not for higher speed, but so I can get more torque in low range and more easily pull subsoiler/ripper
I understand what Neil is saying re. an entry level tractor having too many features and thus being too pricy. Therefore I would like to see the following offered as factory options offered by the manufacturer:
Skid plate
FEL bucket grapple
BH arm to have small welded base where folding thumb can easily be attached or detatched and not interfere with hyrdo couplings/lines
End of bh optional implements: ripper tooth, hydro-pressure powered root cutter (like a bolt cutter)
Rear remotes for downpressured PHD and top N tilt for small box blade (The BX is a nice size for small landscaping jobs. A 36"-42" box blade with Top N Tilt would be fantastic
4 in 1 FEL bucket
In my wildest dreams I'd love a removable cab and an air conditioner for those 115 degree days when I'm brush hogging in toxic Russian Star Thistle. Of course I realize that's going too far in reality, but it's still fun to dream.
Better filtering system in front of the radiator
Smaller & full folding ROPS (Neil-not every request is for something bigger)
More hydro pressure to the bh so it can dig in ultra hard hardpan
Three range HST, not for higher speed, but so I can get more torque in low range and more easily pull subsoiler/ripper
I understand what Neil is saying re. an entry level tractor having too many features and thus being too pricy. Therefore I would like to see the following offered as factory options offered by the manufacturer:
Skid plate
FEL bucket grapple
BH arm to have small welded base where folding thumb can easily be attached or detatched and not interfere with hyrdo couplings/lines
End of bh optional implements: ripper tooth, hydro-pressure powered root cutter (like a bolt cutter)
Rear remotes for downpressured PHD and top N tilt for small box blade (The BX is a nice size for small landscaping jobs. A 36"-42" box blade with Top N Tilt would be fantastic
4 in 1 FEL bucket
In my wildest dreams I'd love a removable cab and an air conditioner for those 115 degree days when I'm brush hogging in toxic Russian Star Thistle. Of course I realize that's going too far in reality, but it's still fun to dream.
