kubota vs. kioti

[GManBart]

Do you think the Tundra is the only 1/2 ton pickup that would pull a Shuttle?

Nope.

 

[chuck172]

I've had the opportunity to own both a kubota L3200, and a kioti ck35 recently. I've got to say that the Kioti is much more a better machine to me than the same priced kubota. There is just no comparison. The Kioti is like a tank compared to the kubota a toy. The Kioti brings so much more tractor to the table. The Kubota has a defective 3pt. lift, the Kioti works right.
I can only share first impressions, but very impressed with the ck35.

As a former {retired} Kubota and Kioti dealer, yes Kubota did everything they could do to stop selling Kioti's, they finally took the Kubota contract away from me. I was pissed for a long time, and finally realized that they did me a favor. Kioti is hands down better than Kubota. Kubota uses psychology and advertising to get people to buy their product. It cut my shop work down by at least 80%, which I wanted. Sell a Kioti and it rarely comes back for any problem. I think, as a rule, any Korean tractor is built heavier and better than a Kubota. In 34 years selling tractors, you learn a thing or two!

Here we go again!

 

[dmoerman]

Mid-90s I moved from downtown out into the country on our 20 acres. A good friend told me I'd need a substantial tractor; he loaned me his Kubota (ca 30+ hp; dont remember the model number). By the way, that could be a really good definition of "good friend," someone who will loan you his Kubota. His advise: "Don't kill yourself, and don't knock down the house." Good advise. After a few months I was fully convinced. Went tractor shopping. Found a Kioti 3024 for several thousand (maybe 4000?) less than the similar Kubota. Have been using it ever since for every conceivable sort of task. My conclusion: they are both excellent machines, but the Kioti is a lot more tractor for the dollar. Then too, Japan has some pretty significant neighbors to the north.

 

[RDrancher]

I haven't read the entire thread, but has anyone ever compared fuel efficiency between Kioti and Kubota tractors? The only reason I mention it is because of the better fuel efficiency I'm getting with my CASE ctl when compared to the Kubota SVL75. The CASE is a stronger and larger framed machine with 10 additional net horsepower. Fuel consumption between the two machines is huge.

 

[k0ua]

I haven't read the entire thread, but has anyone ever compared fuel efficiency between Kioti and Kubota tractors? The only reason I mention it is because of the better fuel efficiency I'm getting with my CASE ctl when compared to the Kubota SVL75. The CASE is a stronger and larger framed machine with 10 additional net horsepower. Fuel consumption between the two machines is huge.

RD, this is not a scientific test, but my L3800 and DK35se with nearly the same size engines, and nearly same horsepower (Kioti 2 more) seem about the same to me fuel wise. Again not very scientific. The Kioti seems to have a little more "torquey" low end. This is just an impression. But I noted the 2nd day I had the tractor, I looked back at an old thread. They both go a long ways on a tank of fuel, and the amount of work they can do on a tank of fuel is nothing short of amazing. Especially if you have to compare it to what you can do with a shovel.:laughing:

 

[k0ua]

I haven't read the entire thread, but has anyone ever compared fuel efficiency between Kioti and Kubota tractors? The only reason I mention it is because of the better fuel efficiency I'm getting with my CASE ctl when compared to the Kubota SVL75. The CASE is a stronger and larger framed machine with 10 additional net horsepower. Fuel consumption between the two machines is huge.

RD, this is not a scientific test, but my L3800 and DK35se with nearly the same size engines, and nearly same horsepower (Kioti 2 more) seem about the same to me fuel wise. Again not very scientific. The Kioti seems to have a little more "torquey" low end. This is just an impression. But I noted the 2nd day I had the tractor, I looked back at an old thread. They both go a long ways on a tank of fuel, and the amount of work they can do on a tank of fuel is nothing short of amazing. Especially if you have to compare it to what you can do with a shovel.:laughing:

 

[sawtooth]

What is the price difference of say a proven heavy built tractor like a Massey Ferguson 2615 vs a Kubota or Kioti? Would be hard for me to pass on a stout MF with large bore Diesel engine, huge rear end, and very low torque curve. Look at the PTO speed. Full torque and hp comes on very early too.

 

[RDrancher]

Thanks James. The only way I could get halfway decent fuel use out of the Kubota was to set the hand throttle at about 1500rpm and use the foot throttle under heavier loads. When I set the hand throttle at about 2000rpm the low fuel warning would let me know when I was getting close to 8 hrs. It has a 24 gal tank. In comparison, my CASE sips fuel. I have yet to put more than 17 gallons in it after an 8 hour day. The CASE is a lot stronger in every way, and a lot more comfortable too.

I never liked Kubota tractors much, but I was a fan of the ctl's. Not so much anymore. I do like their mini-excavators though...great breakout power.

 

[k0ua]

I don't know why I typed L3800 . I had an L3400... not much difference in them though.

 

[94BULLITT]

I haven't read the entire thread, but has anyone ever compared fuel efficiency between Kioti and Kubota tractors? The only reason I mention it is because of the better fuel efficiency I'm getting with my CASE ctl when compared to the Kubota SVL75. The CASE is a stronger and larger framed machine with 10 additional net horsepower. Fuel consumption between the two machines is huge.

With a Bobcat CT235 I was getting a little over 1 gal an hour. It was 34hp and over 4000lbs.

With the L4240 I am getting .75 gal per hour. It is 44hp and a little under 7000lbs. Most of the time the a/c is on too.

 

[grm61]

With the L4240 I am getting .75 gal per hour. It is 44hp and a little under 7000lbs. Most of the time the a/c is on too.

That's about what I get out of my Kioti doing loader work with the backhoe on, throttle set about 1800.. a tick over 8k pounds..a couple thousand in the bucket...10k:shocked: if I run it at 2k or more doing loader work it will use a gallon an hour.

I haven't done any PTO work with it yet so I don't know what it would use at sustained PTO speed.

 

[94BULLITT]

That's about what I get out of my Kioti doing loader work with the backhoe on, throttle set about 1800.. a tick over 8k pounds..a couple thousand in the bucket...10k:shocked: if I run it at 2k or more doing loader work it will use a gallon an hour.

I haven't done any PTO work with it yet so I don't know what it would use at sustained PTO speed.

I only did PTO work 1 time with both tractors and that was pulling a 5' rotary cutter.

I mostly do some sort of loader work or some grading. Even pushing snow it is right around .75gph. I think the auto throttle advance and dual speed hydro help reduce the fuel consumtion.

 

[LD1]

Conditions and how the tractor is operated affect the fuel economy alot. If just putting around, doing a little digging, shuttling some trailers, etc. You dont burn much. Probably the thing I do that consumes the most fuel is using the bushhog. ITs quite a PTO load especially with a 6' cutter and gearing to go about as fast as I can. I can do an 8hr job and barley squeeze in a 6 gal can. SO thats about 3/4 gal/hr under my heaviest use with my L3400. Which is 29HP PTO, and with the loader, hog, and loaded tires weighs in at 5000lbs or a tick more.

 

[SPYDERLK]

Thats astounding. Full power should use about twice as much. I often use over 3/4gph mowing with the BX1500.
larry

 

[LD1]

Thats astounding. Full power should use about twice as much. I often use over 3/4gph mowing with the BX1500.
larry

That certainly seems like alot.

I know I have never been over 1 gallon/hr. But then again, I dont always check. But I do kinda keep tabs when bushhogging, so I can track my expenses/deductions etc.

Does your BX have an electronic tach? OR an RPM compensated tach. Cause I typically run over the rated PTO speed by 200-300RPM. Which would tick up hours a tad faster than an actual hour. But it is still pretty good none-the-less.

Heck, plowing snow with my 05 dodge diesel, I have never done worse than 2gal/hr while actually plowing. And on some lighter 2-3" fluffy snows, have even done as good as 1.5gal/hr. Which I thought was pretty good, cause it just "feels" like I have to give it more pedal pushing than running down the highway. But running down the highway with the plow on and ballast, I get ~10-12 MPG @ 65. Which would be like 5-6 gal/hr:confused2:

 

[SPYDERLK]

I set the throttle at full stop and take off. The BX holds rpm very well with load and I know its peaked out when it starts to bog a bit. It continues to pull well on down, but I try to hold it at the 1st point barely into bog. Mowing varies a lot. Sno throwing is easy to hold bog in deep sno with the HST. I was running 1hr/pass [real clock time] on our 1mi drive in 16" heavy dense stuf. I put 2G in after every round trip. The 4.5G tank had me worried on pushing to 2 RTs.

 

[LD1]

A second trip would have me worried too.

I know the fuel gauge isnt real accurate in my L3400. Can fill her clear full, (9 gal I think) and work half a day and it dont move at all. Then when it does, it drops rather quickly. Once at or near E, it takes 6 gals and its full again. I have worked it 3 hours before with it resting on E. Still only took 7.5-8 gallons or so.

I know I can pretty much work a full day, doing whatever with it, and not have to worry about fuel til the end of the day (provided I topped off at the start of the day).

 

[94BULLITT]

Thats astounding. Full power should use about twice as much. I often use over 3/4gph mowing with the BX1500.
larry

I am right at .5 gph on a BX2360 mowing.

 

[94BULLITT]

Thats astounding. Full power should use about twice as much. I often use over 3/4gph mowing with the BX1500.
larry

I am right at .5 gph on a BX2360 mowing and a little other work mixed in.

 

[My Hoe]

Subscribed.