kubota vs. kioti

[k0ua]

Maybe I'm just confused, but my L45 has the same panel as shown in the photo. HST response IS controlled by a knob, and HST mode is selected by the button with three possible positions. What menu are you guys talking about?

Seems funny that everyone is talking about hydro response and as I look at the picture it shows a knob that you turn just as you say you like!!!!!! lmao

The other features that are electronic, the other companies don't offer!!! So if you don't understand how to use them don't worry about them as for some, they don't even have an option to use!!!

The new models don't have the knob any more.. that is what he was commenting on. The HST response is in a menu.

 

[tomato coupe]

The new models don't have the knob any more.. that is what he was commenting on. The HST response is in a menu.

Okay, I got it. I just assumed the discussion was about the controls shown in the large photo dominating the post. Maybe a photo of the actual controls would be useful.

 

[MinnesotaEric]

That seems to be a bit of a misrepresentation. Pushing the button once enables "Stall Guard" mode. Pushing it twice enables "Auto H-DS". Pushing it a third time puts you back where you started. You're never more than 2 pushes away from the mode you need. I wouldn't consider that wading through menus.

And there in the parking lot the salesperson and I sat trying to adjust the HST sensitivity using the one button (since the intuitive, easy-to-use knob has now been removed).

 

[MinnesotaEric]

Seems funny that everyone is talking about hydro response and as I look at the picture it shows a knob that you turn just as you say you like!!!!!! lmao

The other features that are electronic, the other companies don't offer!!! So if you don't understand how to use them don't worry about them as for some, they don't even have an option to use!!!

The photo shows the old system, not the new system that has replaced the old system.

Everybody offers the same features As Kubota, except everybody makes their features easier to use than Kubota's new, one button menu system. In the case of there e HST, that is too bad since Kubota was the first to market with an electronically controlled HST. Too be fair, John Deere also uses buttons, and while buttons are not as good as a knob, Deer has pus and minus buttons.

 

[EHR]

Eric, which one do you own?

 

[peterc38]

Why did Kubota contract with Daedong to build tractors for them for ten years? Many of those "Kubotas" are still running around BTW.

I like Kubota & Kioti, but to say that Kioti "made" tractors for Kubota is a bit misleading. They made transmissions & designed/fabricated some sheet metal parts for some 02 series Kubotas in the early 80's. The relationship did not end well.

The

 

[nc redneck]

Everyone here knows orange is much better than green or red. Its kind of like Trucks do you want to stand proud with new Chevy or Gmc, Orange type trucks. Or go second class with Ford a green type truck, or god forbid a dodge and very close cousin to red tractors.
Oh boy I did it now almost scared to post this one.
It is all meant in fun. I have owned kubota, ford, Kioti , Chevy and JD. all were good machines.

 

[k0ua]

Thanks for the continuing education link TripleR. You have to keep up with new technology.

 

[MinnesotaEric]

Eric, which one do you own?

I'm waiting for John Deere to build their new 4066R so I can try it out before I make my decision. Cat is now shipping mid-size wheel loaders with HST transmissions, and so I expect higher horsepower HST tractors in the future as HST transmissions become larger and more robust.

 

[MinnesotaEric]

Its kind of like Trucks do you want to stand proud with new Chevy or Gmc, Orange type trucks.

Only because this thread has already been topically cat-herding.

I put my pushback on the side of my truck.

I wasn't against taunting and waging psychological warfare against long side traders in GM and Chysler back in my perma-bear days.

 

[tomato coupe]

And there in the parking lot the salesperson and I sat trying to adjust the HST sensitivity using the one button (since the intuitive, easy-to-use knob has now been removed).

I haven't seen the new version, but I have no reason to doubt your evaluation. You might want to edit your other post, however, to make it clear that you didn't like the newest version -- not the version shown in the photo. I'm guessing art and I weren't the only ones who assumed the photo shows the system you didn't like, and were wondering what you were referring to.

Edit: Okay, but it might be better to clarify things in post #233 where you are discussing the new version, but have a photo of the old version.

 

[GManBart]

:drink:

Celebrating someone who misread what was written? Funny.

 

[GManBart]

Ft-lbs is not a measurement of force. lbs are. Or Newtons. Ft-lbs (or Netwon Meters)are a measurement of torque, it is not the same as simple force.
If you run all your calculations with SI units, and attach the units, and carry them through all your calculations it will all make sense.

Again with the reading comprehension (engineers!). I never said it was a "simple force." We're talking about reciprocating engines, and the only "force" in the equation for horsepower is torque, which we generically describe as being in foot/lbs.

 

[GManBart]

Correct. I said torque at the engine is irrelevant. We are talking tractor engines here and comparing them. I have no idea what the torque is at the engine? And I bet 99%+ of the members here don't either. It isn't a commonly published spec. I would also be willing to bet that 99%+ DO know what their HP is though. So if engine torque was important as you claim, why doesn't anyone else care?

If there was no engine torque, there would be no engine horsepower to create the drive wheel torque. Engine torque isn't irrelevant, it's primary, and makes all the other stuff possible.

But hey, I was able to find where someone did exactly as you described, made some minor tweaks to the gearing of a Tunda, and it was actually capable of pulling heavy loads just like a cement mixer. Here's a sneak peek:

 

[94BULLITT]

If there was no engine torque, there would be no engine horsepower to create the drive wheel torque. Engine torque isn't irrelevant, it's primary, and makes all the other stuff possible.

But hey, I was able to find where someone did exactly as you described, made some minor tweaks to the gearing of a Tunda, and it was actually capable if pulling heavy loads just like a cement mixer. Here's a sneak peek:

You know the tundra pulled a 292,000lb space shuttle.

 

[LD1]

Maybe I should reword it since you have a hard time understanding the point. No, torque is not irrelevant. It is what creates horsepower, along with movement.

Maybe I should have said that using torque to compare tractor engines is irrelevant. Cause it is. Tractor engines of different sizes and makes do NOT have a wide range of RPMs. Rather they all seem to fall within a few hundred rpm's of 2800 or so. Rather that be a 25hp tractor or a 225 HP tractor. So that said, we aren't comparing a 15k rpm street bike to a 800rpm lugger in terms of specs. So for comparing tractor engines, HP is the more meaningful number. Because it signifies the amount of work that can be done in a given time.

Its like arguing about what color paint a mfg chooses to use. Totally irrelevant IMO, but fundamentally, yes, paint is important to the longevity of the tractor.

You can have millions of ft-lbs of torque and not be able to get anything done. Yet a fraction of a HP is doing work.

Again I ask, if torque were solo important in the comparison of tractors, why do manufactures not acknowledge that and publish it as a spec, instead of using HP to define their models?

 

[Cherokee140]

You know the tundra pulled a 292,000lb space shuttle.

You believe everything you see in an ad?

 

[LD1]

You believe everything you see in an ad?

NO.

But I do believe that. But keep in mind, the tundra was modified to do that pull too.

 

[sawtooth]

Maybe I should reword it since you have a hard time understanding the point. No, torque is not irrelevant. It is what creates horsepower, along with movement. Maybe I should have said that using torque to compare tractor engines is irrelevant. Cause it is. Tractor engines of different sizes and makes do NOT have a wide range of RPMs. Rather they all seem to fall within a few hundred rpm's of 2800 or so. Rather that be a 25hp tractor or a 225 HP tractor. So that said, we aren't comparing a 15k rpm street bike to a 800rpm lugger in terms of specs. So for comparing tractor engines, HP is the more meaningful number. Because it signifies the amount of work that can be done in a given time. Its like arguing about what color paint a mfg chooses to use. Totally irrelevant IMO, but fundamentally, yes, paint is important to the longevity of the tractor. You can have millions of ft-lbs of torque and not be able to get anything done. Yet a fraction of a HP is doing work. Again I ask, if torque were solo important in the comparison of tractors, why do manufactures not acknowledge that and publish it as a spec, instead of using HP to define their models?

Ok so take out the 50hp engine in a Kubota MX5100 and put in a 80hp engine from a super bike and then try out that tractor. Lol

Probably do ok once it reached wide open throttle but anything else would be horrific.

We'll it is a Kubota so probably no change. Lol

 

[LD1]

Do some people have problems with reading comprehension? To my knowledge, no tractor manufactures are making tractors with 10-15k rpm engines.

Tractor engines of different sizes and makes do NOT have a wide range of RPMs. Rather they all seem to fall within a few hundred rpm's of 2800 or so. Rather that be a 25hp tractor or a 225 HP tractor. So that said, we aren't comparing a 15k rpm street bike to a 800rpm lugger in terms of specs. So for comparing tractor engines, HP is the more meaningful number. Because it signifies the amount of work that can be done in a given time.