Kabota vs Woods attachments

[Odonnks]

Hello all,
A friend is considering a L3901 and was considering Kabota vs Woods attachments.
For those that know this equipment, is there any benefit in say going with a Kabota front loader and hoe vs going with Woods attachments? The Kabota attachments are $4,000 plus I additional costs.

Any feedback is appreciated.
Thanks !

 

[Grandad4]

Hello all,
A friend is considering a L3901 and was considering Kabota vs Woods attachments.
For those that know this equipment, is there any benefit in say going with a Kabota front loader and hoe vs going with Woods attachments? The Kabota attachments are $4,000 plus I additional costs.

Any feedback is appreciated.
Thanks !

Your friend would do OK with either choice. I can think of a few things that favor the OEM Kubota loader.
1. Tractor would probably hold resale value better with a factory attachment.
2. Factory attachment is engineered specifically to that tractor, not a generic design that happens to fit.
Should check out actual operation of each before buying. Little things like how smooth and easy to use the control make a big difference in how well something works. You don't get any clue about stuff like that from just reading the specs. If it's a small money difference either way, I'd probably choose the OEM. Not knocking Woods, though. They make good products that deserve consideration.

 

[s219]

I'd go with Kubota for front loader and backhoe, since they are a better integrated fit and will be much better off for resale value in the long run. For anything else that is really a generic implement (front or rear) I think you can pick whatever brand fits the bill and is a good deal.

 

[nybirdman]

I know with the Kubota loaders you can curl/dump and lift/drop the at the same time;don't know if that is possible with all the after market loaders.

 

[Odonnks]

Thanks everyone for the responses !

 

[Fallon]

I know with the Kubota loaders you can curl/dump and lift/drop the at the same time;don't know if that is possible with all the after market loaders.

that is a function of the valve setup. internally its plumbed in series & parallel. I believe most modern loader valves are plumbed this way. Depending on how you cobbled together a loader with your own valve this could be an issue, but not a big one.

 

[EddieWalker]

If the Woods attachments need parts, who will you buy them from? How good are they at getting what you need, and how long will it take? I've found that Kubota is very good at getting the parts needed quickly for a fair price. I shop online all the time looking for a better deal, but always end up going to the Kubota dealer for what I need.

Eddie

 

[newbury]

For the FEL go Kubota. For the hoe carefully check the specs. When I bought my hoe for my B7610 the Kubota oddering was smaller and weaker than my BH70-X for about the same cost, and this was from the same dealer.

 

[DelSc]

I recently switched from a B3030 with a Woods BH70-X to a b2650 with a Kubota BH77 backhoe. For my uses, the capabilities were about the same. I didn't notice one being particularly stronger than the other, but there are a couple differences I can point out.

The Kubota is easier to get on and off. As others have said, it is integrated better with the tractor. For instance, it uses pins instead of bolts so its a bit quicker to change. It also feels like it doesn't stick out as far off the back of the tractor, but that may have more to do with the way they made the cab for the B2650 to accommodate a backhoe. The specs can tell you if thats true or not.

The thing I really liked about the Woods was that it swings noticeably faster. At first I thought the Woods was harder to use than an older Kubota backhoe I owned before because it felt "touchy", but eventually I got used to it and found it made my digging more productive. Switching back to the Kubota BH77 now, it feels a little slow. Digging holes to plant trees, or pulling stumps from time to time it doesn't matter to me, but if I was going to move a lot of dirt with it, I would prefer using the Woods.

The Kubota is also finished better. The joints are tighter, and its a little easier to get to all of the grease fittings.

 

[Grandad4]

that is a function of the valve setup. internally its plumbed in series & parallel. I believe most modern loader valves are plumbed this way. Depending on how you cobbled together a loader with your own valve this could be an issue, but not a big one.

From what I've seen, the FEL operation varies quite a bit across different models and brands. Even within a brand, there can be a big difference in the performance. The FEL control valve on my BX isn't anything close to the one on my Grand L regarding precise, controlled combination movements. Something that tractor + FEL buyers should compare when shopping.

 

[My Hoe]

Subscribed.

 

[rScotty]

Hello all,
A friend is considering a L3901 and was considering Kabota vs Woods attachments.
For those that know this equipment, is there any benefit in say going with a Kabota front loader and hoe vs going with Woods attachments? The Kabota attachments are $4,000 plus I additional costs.

Any feedback is appreciated.
Thanks !

If I already had a tractor and needed a loader I'd sure put Woods at the top of the list...but buying new I'd go Kubota for all the reasons others have mentioned. Kubota is top quality and made to fit. One of the things that hasn't been mentioned is how well you can see what the loader bucket is doing from the operator's seat. Kubota excels at that.
Whichever loader your friend chooses, try to get him to include the quick attach bucket feature and front remotes. Those two things don't add much money and they sure do give a fellow more options.
Something to think about - and I'm sure he has done so - is that with a loader and backhoe he is getting into the wheelhouse where the L39 lives. More money again...but a whole lot more tractor.
In my experience I've had several 3 pt mounted backhoes over the past 40 years and now have gone entirely over to fixed mount hoes. In the L39, the 3 pt arms are the optional attachment and the hoe is the standard attachment. It really does make a difference.
Luck,
rScotty

 

[My Hoe]

DelSc

Re: Kabota vs Woods attachments
*snip* As others have said, it is integrated better with the tractor. For instance, it uses pins instead of bolts so its a bit quicker to change.

This comes as a surprise to me. On the Woods BH80-X "Groundbreaker," I thought I recalled seeing the same style, "four point" pin-and-hook-type subframe as would be on a Kubota hoe. But you obviously know better than I, re: the BH70-X. In your experience, is it possible the Woods BH80-X had the non-bolt setup, while your BH70-X required bolting-up? Because if I have to BOLT it on, that's a definite negative, for me, re: the Woods hoe. (And I prefer the Woods hoe, for a few reasons that are specific to my anticipated uses, i.e., using the backhoe as a "CRANE" which may be of no concern to normal folk, who like to DIG with their backhoes--LOL).

Thank you for highlighting that.

My Hoe

 

[Grandad4]

DelSc


This comes as a surprise to me. On the Woods BH80-X "Groundbreaker," I thought I recalled seeing the same style, "four point" pin-and-hook-type subframe as would be on a Kubota hoe. But you obviously know better than I, re: the BH70-X. In your experience, is it possible the Woods BH80-X had the non-bolt setup, while your BH70-X required bolting-up? Because if I have to BOLT it on, that's a definite negative, for me, re: the Woods hoe. (And I prefer the Woods hoe, for a few reasons that are specific to my anticipated uses, i.e., using the backhoe as a "CRANE" which may be of no concern to normal folk, who like to DIG with their backhoes--LOL).

Thank you for highlighting that.

My Hoe

Having a bolt-on BH would indeed be very inconvenient. Don't think that's the standard setup for a Woods BH, although the observation about the Kub hoe being better integrated is probably accurate simply because the Woods product is designed to fit many different tractors and may not tuck into the back of a Kubota like the Kubota hoe would.

Puzzled why you figure a Woods BH would be more suitable for "crane" use. The only major thing that differs in the specs is the Woods BH has much wider stabilizer spread and would probably be more stable with the boom off to the side. Otherwise, the boom reach and other dimensions are virtually identical and they probably operate pretty much the same.

Try each one out if you can before buying. Hands-on operation will tell you much more than reading puff-piece spec sheets.

 

[rScotty]

Otherwise, the boom reach and other dimensions are virtually identical and they probably operate pretty much the same.

Try each one out if you can before buying. Hands-on operation will tell you much more than reading puff-piece spec sheets.

As I read the specs versus the BH77 Kubota backhoe it seems to me that the Woods comes out a little better all around.....but of course it isn't really matched to any one tractor. Grandad4 has a good thought....the only way you will really know is to try them both - or at least look at them in the flesh. And all we can do here on line is compare specs and point out things to look for. Things like frame-mounting pins versus bolts, QA versus solid mount buckets. And the all-important thumb.

When I was looking at several makes of new tractor/loader/backhoe combos we tried everything in a 100 mile radius. It took all summer. The decision when we made it was based on things I would have never thought of nor seen in the specs. There was a major difference in the feel of the controls, getting on & off the tractor, and the seating position while using the backhoe. Other things that made a difference were how it balanced and drove with the loader bucket full & empty and also with a load in the BH bucket. All in all, I think what finally sold me was Kubota's seating and delicate controls.....not at all what I expected going in and just about impossible to compare without being on the machine.
luck, rScotty

 

[Fallon]

DelSc


This comes as a surprise to me. On the Woods BH80-X "Groundbreaker," I thought I recalled seeing the same style, "four point" pin-and-hook-type subframe as would be on a Kubota hoe. But you obviously know better than I, re: the BH70-X. In your experience, is it possible the Woods BH80-X had the non-bolt setup, while your BH70-X required bolting-up? Because if I have to BOLT it on, that's a definite negative, for me, re: the Woods hoe. (And I prefer the Woods hoe, for a few reasons that are specific to my anticipated uses, i.e., using the backhoe as a "CRANE" which may be of no concern to normal folk, who like to DIG with their backhoes--LOL).

Thank you for highlighting that.

My Hoe

The L39 & family are backhoes designed to occasionally do stuff using a 3pt. Other tractors like my L3200 are designed to do stuff on a 3pt. The L39 is just a beefier tractor designed focusing on a backhoe. I assume the hoe is designed to go with a more robust tractor. Comparing the 2 isn't quite on the same playing field.

 

[DelSc]

My Woods BH-70X had hooks on the bottom, but bolts on the top. So similar to the Kubota arrangement, you used the hydraulics to lift it onto the hooks, and then align the holes, but then bolt it at the top rather than use pins. The alignment with subframe was not as good with the Woods either, and so when you used it, it just wasn't as slick as the Kubota. It wasn't terrible by any measure, but I prefer the Kubota way of mounting.