DX 26/23 vs. 2015 vs. B7610

IslandTractor · Mar 6, 2006

Bob,

You are wrong and again your blunt rhetoric is misleading. I am aware you know a ton about tractors but I think you are mistaken on this post.

Kubota does list lift weights at several points and they INCLUDE the pivot point numbers in their specifications. I haven't looked at every model Kubota makes but the entire B series loader line has pivot point figures listed. So, my point stands that most tractor companies do post pivot point figures at least for tractors in the size range that I look at.

I don't think pivot point figures are misleading at all. Why would Kubota include the pivot point as a reference if it is meaningless or misleading? So long as the point of measurement is referenced, it is simple to compare across brands. In my case, when I was comparing tractors, it was not that difficult to compare the competing Kubota 7510/LA302 FEL with the Kioti CK20/KL120 combo. Kubota listed both the pivot point and mid bucket lift capacity (750 and 550lbs respectively) while Kioti only lists the pivot point figure (1070lbs) (all data from the respective websites). Kioti specifies clearly the pivot point as the measuring point for breakout force (1511lbs) while Kubota oddly simply lists one number (1120lb) without specifying further where it is measured. Kubota purportedly names it's loaders after their lift capacity. Hence the LA302 should lift 302kg (664lbs) but that number appears nowhere in their specification sheet for the LA302. What's that about? Are they naming their loaders after a non standard reference (for US anyway) lift at a point 500mm (17.9 inches) from pivot points?? Man, that's a real world figure /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif.

Look carefully at the figures posted by Kubota on their B series loaders. They sometimes make little sense because they post so many numbers. If I remember correctly you have or had a B2910. The LA352 loader should, by Kubota's nomenclature, lift about 352kg at either 17.9 inches out from the pivot point or at bucket center. It doesn't lift 352kg at bucket center (only 305kg) and they don't bother posting the 17.9 figure. The other loader for your tractor, the LA402 is listed as lifting 400kg at bucket center (close enough). Was that helpful marketing or confusing?

Frankly, I prefer the pivot point as the standard reference because otherwise companies might scam the mid bucket position by designing shallow buckets and also because sometimes I don't care about the bucket lift as when I'd like to calculate how much forks or a grapple might be able to lift. In those cases you'd naturally go back to the pivot point for comparisons anyway and if a company had not posted those numbers you'd be out of luck.

And while we are on the subject of misleading advertising, Kubota has the nerve to include a statement on position control valves in their marketing material (webpage) on the 7510 series. I know you are well aware that only a rare specialty tractor variant of the 7510 comes with PCV while the vast majority are equipped with the less desirable quarter inching valve. Kubota doesn't technically lie because if you read carefully they do say the PCV is on the 7510DTN model(whole lotta those sold! /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif) and fairly do mention the quarter inching valve at other places in their marketing material. Of course Kubota only uses gobbledygook marketing language in describing the quarter inching valve and never acknowledges that it is the inferior solution to 3PT control. Kioti simply and accurately states the CK20 has PCV. Which company is playing fast and loose with that marketing angle?

I happen to think both of these companies are basically honest and reasonably up front. Some marketing statements are difficult to parse but that seems, from the examples above, to be as much an issue with Kubota as any other company. All marketing types are going to seek to spin data to their advantage. That's their job. Tractor companies are no different and I don't think it is justified to rant about less than honest marketing practices because one company does it slightly differently than another.

I return to my basic points, that different tractor companies may post slightly different ways of measuring capacities but so long as they specify how they measure it is honest and not difficult to compare brands. And, I actually prefer the pivot point numbers.

Buyer beware (regardless of the tractor color) and buyer get yourself an education (on TBN preferably /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif but don't believe everything you read here /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif) before making a decision.

Truce? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Bob_Skurka · Mar 6, 2006

IslandTractor. . . I'm not sure why you choose to bring a brand into this thread that has not even been discussed or asked about. The thread is about Case/Farmall (a division of New Holland), Mahindra, and Kubota. But we don't need to have a "truce" because I am not arguing with you. I am simply setting the record straight.

Buyers don't understand the numbers, the proof of that is posted in this thread and in dozens if not hundreds of other threads on TBN. daTeacha wrote: but the Mahindra claims more lifting power 

Kubota's website it leaves much to be desired, however, if you stop in at your dealership you will get a brochure that clearly states the measuring points. I have a current brochure in my office, it is very clear and easy to understand. My New Holland brochure is also easy to understand and clear in their measuring points, but both their website and their sister company Case/Farmall's websites are among the worst on the internet.

It has only been fairly recently that some of the minor brands have chosen to use the inflated and I believe deceiving numbers at the pivot points and the ball eyes to make their machines look better to uneducated first time shoppers and even to experiened tractor users who don't dig into the specs. Heck I've even seen some tractor sales people not understand them! Fact of the matter is that New Holland and Kubota use honest numbers for their capacities. Mahindra, which is the other brand that was being discussed, does not.

I think it says a lot about a company and its integrity to post numbers in its brochures that are actually lower than the competitors numbers.

daTeacha · Mar 7, 2006

If you guys want to be entertained about lifting abilities, go to the Mahindra site and watch their TV spot that shows the M lifting a JD at one end while simultaneously lifting a K at the other end. They have a little discourse on how they did it, too. That ad didn't run here, but apparently was aired in some TV markets around the country.

My primary concern was about the contruction of the bucket itself, with the lifting differences as kind of an aside. There is stuff that I move around that's too heavy for my B7100 to lift, and there will always be something too big for whatever tractor I have to lift. I was more concerned about the bucket getting bent up and also attaching a grapple to the top of it. I don't think the Mahindra bucket is built as strongly as the Case, and would hesitate to hook chains or other things on it. I mentioned it to the dealer and he said the buckets on their bigger tractors are heavier

Bob_Skurka · Mar 7, 2006

(
My primary concern was about the contruction of the bucket itself . . . I was more concerned about the bucket getting bent up and also attaching a grapple to the top of it. I don't think the Mahindra bucket is built as strongly as the Case, and would hesitate to hook chains or other things on it. I mentioned it to the dealer and he said the buckets on their bigger tractors are heavier )
A while back I did a loader comparison photo review here on TBN. The pictures are still posted somewhere here. We divided up buckets into Light Duty, Standard Duty and Heavy Duty (or something like that).

Light Duty had a rolled or folded top lip and no welded on side reinforcment . . . which is far from ideal for attaching bucket hooks or a grapple.

Standard/Regular Duty had a reinforced top lip but no welded on side reinforcment . . . making it suitable for top hooks and a modest grapple.

HD buckets had welded full lenght reinforcements up the sides and across the top of the bucket.

The top of the Case/Farmall DX bucket is heavily reinforced with a closed steel tube. The Kubota bucket has a simple roll in the top to add stiffness, but is not as strong as the Case/Farmall bucket top. The Mahindra buckets I have seen are similar to the Kubota bucket. The Case/Farmall bucket on the DX26 tractor would be classified as a Standard Duty bucket. The Mahindra and Kubota would both be classified as Light Duty buckets on the B7610 and 2015 tractors.

daTeacha · Mar 7, 2006

Very appropriate and very accurate description, Bob.

Is it fair to presume the rest of the loader is built to the same standard of expected use or is the bucket not necessarily a good indicator of that? Some loader frames seem like they might be easier to torque out of shape than others, some have crossbar reinforcements, and so on. The curved frame that CNH has now is supposedly lighter but stronger than dogleg frames, but I have seen nothing that proves the validity of that claim.

I often find myself using just one side or corner of the bucket to move a rock, stump, or log. It hasn't hurt the loader on the B7100 any, but the dealer who looked at it specifically looked to see if the loader was twisted, so apparently it can happen. Personally I'd prefer a heavier, stronger loader that has less lift capacity than one with a lot of lift that I might end up twisting out of square.

Bob_Skurka · Mar 7, 2006

I dunno. I'm not an engineer. I would have to guess, but it is only a guess, that the loader with the most lift capacity (which is largely a funciton of the hydraulics) is probably the same loader with the strongest lift arms but I have no proof of that. Logically a loader manufacturer would not rate their arms below the capacity of the of the hydraulics.

But, I would think (not much more than a guess) that twisting the loader frame/arms would probably be more the result of IMPACT with an object . . . like taking a small tractor and ramming a large tree with just one corner of the bucket.

I would think that it would be very difficult to permanantly twist a loader during the process of lifting anything because the hydraulics are probably not strong enough to do that (again, just my thoughts).

DavesTractor · Mar 7, 2006

It would be hard to tweak any of these loaders. They test them extensively for corner loading. Bob gave a good description on the buckets. Part of the reason you see lighter buckets is for net load capacity, plus for the most part they are adequate for these sub 3000 lb machines. We see some guys welding a reinforcement across the top of the bucket with hooks on it. It is handy, and makes the bucket stronger.

IslandTractor · Mar 7, 2006

I often find myself using just one side or corner of the bucket to move a rock, stump, or log. It hasn't hurt the loader on the B7100 any, but the dealer who looked at it specifically looked to see if the loader was twisted, so apparently it can happen. Personally I'd prefer a heavier, stronger loader that has less lift capacity than one with a lot of lift that I might end up twisting out of square.


One alternative, assuming you have adequate lift power, is to use a toothbar with the bucket. That way you can stick a tooth under the object but still use the middle of the bucket so you minimize torquing force. Some people here seem to think that loaders should tolerate the sort of corner lifting you describe. I don't buy it. The assymmetric loads are just not what FELs are built to deal with. The twisting motion that occurs when the lighter side rises while the loaded side is still stuck to the object just cannot be good for the loader arms and cross supports. I wouldn't worry that much about the bucket, it's the arms that would be getting unnatural strain.

daTeacha · Mar 7, 2006

Yeah, I have my toothbar/manure fork device on the bucket most of the time. I've gotten a branch or log stuck between two of the pieces of 2" channel and bent them now and then, as well as hanging one up on a rock. I snapped one off not too long ago and had one of the FFA kids weld it back together and put a piece of reinforcing steel in it. It broke by a bolt hole where it had bent in the past.

You can generate a lot of leverage when then end of a long piece of tree hangs up on something. I bent one of the rear link arms once hauling a log around a corner. I was using the carryall and chains and stuff, and just had too much leverage. I managed to mostly bend it back by reversing what I was doing.

I guess the fact that Mahindra uses a lightweight bucket is something that I was disappointed in, seeing that their advertising pushes the strength of their hydraulics so much. I've never found my Kubota bucket lacking, nor does it have dents or bends in it. Even on the little B7100, it seems like it's made of tougher stuff than the Mahindra bucket.

The guy selling the things says the ones he has out in the field are being used heavily with no problems. One guy has dug out the floor area for a good sized pole barn with the 2015 gear and loader, taking it down about a foot at one end to level the area. He is apparently quite happy with what the tractor will do. He got the Ag tires and lives on a pretty good hill as I do. Soil types are likely not the same, though. I'm on the edge of the glacial moraine and he is just into the unglaciated area. I have at least one rock about half the size of my car sticking out of the ground. You never know when you find a rock just how much of it is underground around here.

DavesTractor · Mar 7, 2006

The 15 series loaders are built by KMW. I spent a couple hours with the president of KMW at the World Ag Expo. He mentioned the grade of steel in the bucket was of very high strength material. I wish I remembered the word he used to describe the grade, but essentially it is nearly twice as strong as regular mild steel. Some of you metal experts could tell us about this, but the point is that you can make a very strong bucket that doesn't use as thick of material or have as much bracing. We have sold hundreds of these 15 series tractors and have had no loader or bucket failures.