How to evaluate DX24E

[Bob_Skurka]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( </font><font color="blueclass=small">( I've caught some flack for being such a big advocate of the NH & Farmall curved loader arms, )</font>

Bob,
And didn't I see where JD will have (or already has)some loaders with the curved arms too?

Seems to me that the other manufacturer's are now beginning to say what you've been saying all along. /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

)</font>

<font color="black">
Kioti does make a curved arm loader. A week or so ago I looked up the specs on the Kioti (120 & 130), the NH/Farmall (12LA & 14LA) and the Kubota (LA402). The Kioti 120, which fits a small frame CK20 is the weakest, the NH 12LA, which fits the small frame TC18/21/24 was actually as strong as the larger mid-frame sized Kubota LA402 and the NH 14LA was overwhelmingly powerful for a mid-frame size unit. My research only covered those specific loaders. So I'd say the best small tractor loader is the 12LA, for a medium frame CUT, the 14LA can't be beat. The Kioti 130 had better specs than the Kubota LA402, and I think the design is also better, but I would not think of putting that loader on the CK25 becuase at that point the loader so outclasses the tractor that the CK25 really could be eliminated from consideration as the Kioti 130 is much better matched to the CK30, which is the same physical size as the CK25 but with the larger engine.

As for the new John Deere loaders, I looked at them, and there is a thread in the JD forum. It is pretty much a bag of hot air in terms of an evolved design. They simply fell flat on their face. The lower part of the arms are actually linear with a taper, as opposed to curved, the upper arm structure is only superficially curved and the line of sight from the drivers seat to the back of the bucket, and even to the top of the bucket is STILL obscured by the loader arms. I have no idea the specs on the loaders, it could be a brute, but I hear the specs are not improved. So it was a cosmetic change and not a functional one. The JD loader arms actually curve above the top of the hood when the bucket is down. Compare that to the NH/Farmall or even Kioti, and you see the arms fall sharply toward the ground when the bucket is completely lowered which gives a nearly unobstructed view of the bucket. I will give JD credit for sloping their hood a bit more, that will help.

</font>

 

[shoppintractors]

<font color="blue">The Kioti 130 had better specs than the Kubota LA402, and I think the design is also better, but I would not think of putting that loader on the CK25 becuase at that point the loader so outclasses the tractor that the CK25 really could be eliminated from consideration as the Kioti 130 is much better matched to the CK30, which is the same physical size as the CK25 but with the larger engine.
</font>
From what I forsee the loader capabilities are based more on the hydraulics of the tractor. Both tractors have hydraulic pumps capable of 12.7 gallons per minute. Until we see some actual side by side comparisons, I believe discounting the CK25 is a bit premature.

Don

 

[Bob_Skurka]

Don, the reason I discount the CK25 actually has little to do with the loader. It is, in my opinion, too large and too heavy with too small an engine. JD, NH, Kubota, etc all have similarly powerful machines in a smaller package that is not pulling around the excess 1000# (and sometimes more) of weight that the CK25 has. While the CK25 might have a bit more traction due to the excess weight, I consider (again my own opinion) too heavy and too large and too underpowered. Bump it up to 30hp, as in the CK30, and it seems to be a much better size/weight/hp ratio.

On the other hand, if Kioti had put the CK25 engine into the CK20 chassis, then I would be singing a totally different tune because to me that would be another killer machine with a great size/weight/hp ratio. A small frame CK25 would be very similar to a NH TC24 or Kubota B7610. I think those are both great machines. But put that size engine in a tractor the size of TC29 or B2910 and I think it is simply underpowered, less manuverable, and overweight for the power plant.

 

[shoppintractors]

<font color="blue">It is, in my opinion, too large and too heavy with too small an engine. </font>

Bob, from my experience.....I owned a Ford 1220 HST (17hp) with a 7106 FEL. Predecessor to the TC18/21/24. I found to do any kind of serious loader work an awful lot of ballast/counter weight was an absolute necessity to achieve stability and reduce the tipsiness of the tractor. Even carrying around all the additional weight I did not find it lacking for power in my situation.

In my opinion, I see the CK25 (longer, wider more stable foot print) will more than likely, in a variety of situations, be a very productive tractor/loader combo. Certain situations, it would be beneficial, to have the extra 5 horses /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif, then you have to weigh the extra cost of that 5 hp (because the wallet then becomes lighter /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif). Me personally, I'm getting to the age where I like less and less to be swinging heavy weights on and off a tractor. So, if I can get a general purpose, all around unit, with the built in weight factor, that's fine with me /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif. If lawn compaction is an issue....I aerate the lawn every fall anyway.

The TC29 is a tweaked up TC25(predecessor of the TC29). Same engine.

As far as I'm concerned the jury is still out. I'll wait to hear some actual owner accounts.

Don

 

[bandit67]

Snowman,

Here's an update for you. I've now had the FEL, MMM and rear tiller on and off a few times each, and detach and attach is quick and easy on all of them. I used the instructions once for the mower to make sure I didn't miss anything, and now it's off or back on in less than 5 minutes. Same with FEL. So easy as a matter of fact, that I don't think twice if I decide to remove an implement because I think it may be in the way for a half hour.

The rear tiller is a bit more cumbersome than the other 2 when removing or re-attaching, so I'd say the 3ph implements are the most bothersome. But all-in-all, the quick attach setups nowadaysmake it a breeze to take off and put on the implements. And within a few times, you're familiar enough with the tricks to make it go that much smoother.

 

[tractorman]

I recently had a chance to compare Case IH DX tractors to their Kubota counterparts. The DX24E was one of the Case Models I felt had a big advantage over the Kubota. Bear in mind that this is just my opinion and i'm not out to ruffle any feathers. Here are A few of the things that I noticed:
(1) Nicer Dash with tachometer
(2) Hood tilts back to give complete access to engine compartment. The hood closes solidly and does not vibrate as much.
(3)True Cat. 1 Three Point Hitch will accept more implements.
(4) I thought the placement of the Mid PTO made it easier to connect & Disconnect the mid mower drive shaft. I have several older customers who find it difficult getting under the BX's to put on/take off the drive shaft.
(5) Increased visibility due to the sloped hood & curved boom loader design.
(6) The DX comes standard with a 36 Amp alternator. Standard charging system on a Kubota BX is only 14.5 Amps, although it is upgradeable for extra $$$$.
The good news is that you are in a no lose situation. All of the subcompacts are well designed and very dependable. Good luck with your decision! Tractorman