Is the Kubota L2501 the largest 25 hp, non regen tractor?

[sd455dan]

Unless they claimed what hydraulic psi the rating was obtained there’s not much anyone could do. Just crank it up to 4,000 psi for the test and I’m sure most any loader would obtain rated specs. They’re also rating the loaders capacity. They never actually said the tractor it’s mounted on can handle the load without flipping. Lots of ratings are less than truthful. Air compressors and shop vacuums using peak hp vs continuous hp, wood splitters using max rated psi vs actual supplied psi to rate tonnage and trucks using the best possible configuration to rate towing capacity would be a few examples I can think of.

In Branson's case I think they do give the pressure

here is a page from the 20 series and has both the BL 200 and the earlier BL 25 FEL specs. The BL 200 does have a pressure change and different cylinders and other changes

 

[Slowpoke Slim]

I find it interesting that when some folks see how much difference in load capacity "Brand X" has vs. "Brand Y", the only conclusion they can come to is that the stats are wrong and the test has been faked.

The numbers are real guys.

 

[jrsavoie]

The L2501 is already pitifully underpowered. If it wasn’t for attempting to skirt regulations these machines wouldn’t exist.

This is a fact.
My wife bought me a Kubota LX2610.
From everything we have experienced seen and read, we would go a different route for sure.

The newer machines seem under built - I've seen quite a few loader issues.
And either oversized for the HP. Or under HP for the size.

I would rather have an older machine the same size with a lot more HP.
I'm sure this thing will outlast me - it dang well better for the price. But I expect electronic issues.
I would have been much happier with something like a JD955 - which is what we were looking for. Just couldn't find anything that we thought was reasonably priced.
Our old JD400 garden tractor with K582 was 23 HP and would have handled a small loader quite well.

Biggest problem is my current lol ack of ability to do a restore or be even a rebuild.

If I could find someone to hire that would get a machine in good working order, that's the way I would go, if I had a do over.

 

[LD1]

I find it interesting that when some folks see how much difference in load capacity "Brand X" has vs. "Brand Y", the only conclusion they can come to is that the stats are wrong and the test has been faked.

The numbers are real guys.

I'm not one that believes the numbers are faked.

But they are not tested either.

It's a simple mathematical calculation the engineers do.
Cylinder diameter is knows. Cylinder mounting angle is known. Hydraulic relief pressure is known. And loader weight is known.

It's just a calculation.

The dispute is whether a tractor can actually take advantage of such a powerful loader in a small package.

I could put 4" lift cylinders on my MX and give a calculated lift capacity of over 8000lbs most likely. The question is would I ever be able to use it? Would I ever be able to put enough weight on the @$$ to lift anywhere close to the calculated/rated capacity.

So when one manufacture goes so far above and beyond the rest of the field in lift capacities.....it shows they are catering to those that only look at paper specs and not those who understand the machines limitations in the real world.

The tractor in question.....a short wheelbase, 2900lb, 25 hp machine with a loader spec'd that most manufactures put on a machine that weighs 30% more, is 15-20% longer, and 50%+ more HP.

 

[ning]

I've definitely gone to max on my loader. I kept the load about 4" off of the ground and drove 1mph!

And I'd argue about the "new machines seem under built" - while does seem that many manufacturers are offering higher hp tractors in too light of a chassis (gotta have the 350HP SUV too right?), there are also manufacturers that are still building what's essentially an old(ish)-fashioned heavy strong tractor that's powered just right.

 

[rScotty]

Either I didn't explain myself clearly, or you're avoiding the question.

1) The kinematic linkages for lift (not roll back - we aren't discussing that) are the same. They are a simple 3-bar linkage. Yes, you can move locations around, but the mechanism operates via the same principle.

2) That principle is, generally speaking within the range of parameters seen on tractors, the highest lift force will be at the ground, with the lowest at the maximum height (exactly as shown in the diagram you included).

3) My original contention was that if loader A has higher lift force than loader B at the same lift height, then it was going to be able to lift more at all heights. You disputed this. I agreed that this could happen in theory, but within the current models of loaders being discussed, did not occur.

4) I then asked you to show me any two loaders (let's call them A and B), where loader A has a higher lift capacity than B at maximum height, but loader B has higher maximum lift than A at the ground (i.e., breakout). You instead included an attachment of you Kubota loader with handwritten notes that answered nothing.

Just so people don't lose track of this discussion, the same principles we are discussing for loaders also apply to the entire tractor.

It's natural for buyers to want to believe that higher price doesn't mean higher quality of manufacure. Or to say it another way, that it is possible to get equal quality for a lower price. Torvey has made that point repeatedly, and it bears repeating.

It also applies to your "current models of equivalent loaders" as well. But only as long as they are equivalent - and I'll give you that at the average to lower end of the market the loaders are roughly equivalent. There, satisfied??

But I am saying that doesn't mean that price vs quality works the same in both directions. That's because even if higher price doesn't guarantee higher quality, higher quality still tends to result in a higher price. If you want to believe differently, I've no problem with that. believing it doesn't make it so.

If instead of just comparing your current models of equivalent loaders we also include the higher quality loaders out there, I maintain that they are more expensive to buy at least partly because they are more expensive to make.
That's all - and that's MY belief.

rScotty

So even though higher price doesn't guarantee quality, quality still costs more.

 

[ning]

Just so people don't lose track of this discussion, the same principles we are discussing for loaders also apply to the entire tractor.

It's natural for buyers to want to believe that higher price doesn't mean higher quality of manufacure. Or to say it another way, that it is possible to get equal quality for a lower price. Torvey has made that point repeatedly, and it bears repeating.

It also applies to your "current models of equivalent loaders" as well. But only as long as they are equivalent - and I'll give you that at the average to lower end of the market the loaders are roughly equivalent. There, satisfied??

But I am saying that doesn't mean that price vs quality works the same in both directions. That's because even if higher price doesn't guarantee higher quality, higher quality still tends to result in a higher price. If you want to believe differently, I've no problem with that. believing it doesn't make it so.

If instead of just comparing your current models of equivalent loaders we also include the higher quality loaders out there, I maintain that they are more expensive to buy at least partly because they are more expensive to make.
That's all - and that's MY belief.

rScotty

So even though higher price doesn't guarantee quality, quality still costs more.

While there's a *tendency* for similar price to have similar quality, it's not always the case, and occasionally there are substantial exceptions.
There are distorting economic effects at play as well.
Some companies are comfortable with their market position and prefer to rake in the cash, while some others are willing to sell some products at a lower profit margin to be able to grow their share.

 

[Fixastuff]

Lift capacity matters but smoothness and the ability to multifunction are very important also.

Another thing I've noticed between brands is the difference in smoothness and whine "loudness" in hydrostatic tractors.

 

[sd455dan]

Lift capacity matters but smoothness and the ability to multifunction are very important also.

Another thing I've noticed between brands is the difference in smoothness and whine "loudness" in hydrostatic tractors.

Well when I test drove a 3015 Branson I was Impressed with how smooth the FEL controls were... and that it could Curl AND Lift at the same time just like my Koyker / "Cross" valved FEL. Also I do need to use my FEL to full height and load large square bales 2 high on a full height semi trailer also stacking large square hay and Alfalfa bales 3 high on stacked pallets will push the FEL to very near its full height.

Have to agree on the Hydro loudness. Some seem to be real screamers when loaded. I will likely buy a cabbed hydro tractor in the next few years, but if it has a loud hydro, will keep looking.

 

[Cougsfan]

I find this thread interesting. None of the tractors mentioned are "bad" tractors, nor are any significantly superior to others. Comparing things like FEL and 3 point lift capacity are interesting but do we, or should we be using our machines at absolute capacity? I also think if you were to take two identical machines of the same brand and do accurate lift tests, each machine would likely vary in capacity a noticeable amount.

DPF's probably get more of a bad rap than they deserve. Sure they can be a problem, but once you learn the attributes of your machine they usually can be dealt with without major hassle.

This is not a saying all brands of machines are equal, each have pluses and minuses. But the differences aren't as dramatic as some people seem to make them out to be.