Tractor comparisons (MF, Kubota, Kioti)

[IslandTractor]

Messick,

You misread my post. I was supporting your argument. My point was, I think the same as yours, that weight of tractors is not correlated with quality.

 

[JerryG]

If you want to believe that ANY Kubota tractor is heavy duty, go ahead. It is amazing what some people will believe.

 

[40Kchicks]

Hey Jerry

We use our tractors for basically the same thing. You use a tiller and I use a housekeeper in the barns. I can tell you this that when I first got my M9000 low profile it felt pretty big in those poultry barns. I have pay pretty close attention or I can damage a wall pretty easily /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif. For my uses more weight would just use more fuel. What I would really like is my M9000DTL with a hydrostatic transmission. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Eric

 

[MessickFarmEqu]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( If you want to believe that ANY Kubota tractor is heavy duty, go ahead. It is amazing what some people will believe.
)</font>

So what you want is a 30 year old tractor then? The kind that where built before advanced metal casting and all the technologies that have made machinery better faster cheaper? I just don't see the point, if Kubota's machines where breaking under heavy use you may have a valid point, but thats clearly not the case.

 

[JerryG]

<font color="blue"> For my uses more weight would just use more fuel. </font>
Exactly, they both have their place.

 

[JerryG]

<font color="blue"> I just don't see the point</font>
That I believe. If I wanted heavy duty and the bells and whisles. I would buy 5400 series. I wanted to just putter around and mow grass but it I wouldn't need heavy duty.

 

[RAW]

{ahem} So . . . . back to the point:

Does anyone think there's a comparable tractor out there that would be better on rough terrain, steep terrain, or off-camber situations?

 

[JerryG]

You might want to look at what I plan on checking out for my next tractor. A MF 3400 series. If it had duals or adjustable wheels were installed, it would go just about any where. They have even a lower cog that the 400 LP.

 

[cag]

I'm no tractor expert but I've been around here long enough to understand Gerry explanation and comments...cag

 

[wvmapler]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( I'm no tractor expert but I've been around here long enough to understand Gerry explanation and comments...cag )</font>

I just bought a L3400 and I total agree with Jerry. I love my Kubota but to compare it to a 400 series Massey is like comparing a Metro to a Volvo. I have been on tractors since I was knee high to a Junebug and to park my L3400 next to my Dad's 5205 JD is no comparison. Everything on the JD is built heavier.

 

[To20Chris]

This is the absurd old argument that Kubota's high tech casting capability means it's lighter weight parts are equivalent to heavier ones from anyone else. Sure. Modern finite element analysis techniques and better modeling of forces can allow you to maintain strength, while reducing the metal used in areas that are not doing as much. But there are limits – it’s not magic. And often the modeling is a substitute for testing – which can be done without a computer. If you think that extra metal in the older designs wasn’t doing anything, you’re naive. The engineers who designed the parts in those old MF tractors were not that dumb – they may not have had computers, but they understood the forces on the parts and the strengths of the materials involved. Because they could not model it they compensated by using more metal. I’ve read here time after time about the super duper high strength alloys used on Kubotas – got any data on how they compare to what’s in an MF400 casting? Got any idea what the specifications of the alloys either of them is made out of are? Didn’t think so. What percentage of each have had the 3ph assemblies ripped out of the axles? How do you know Kubota has better casting and metallurgy technology than is used in an MF400? Sounds like PR to me. This argument is all just supposition without any data to back it up.

The lighter weight castings have as much to do with reducing the cost of the parts and the cost of shipping as anything else. It’s all about using just enough to do the job for the majority of the customers – using any more reduces profit. If the weight is in the castings, it is at least providing SOME additional strength to the part, even if it is not optimized. A suitcase weight hanging on the frame is providing precisely nothing in terms of strength, and in fact it is adding forces to the frame.

You may choose to believe that a lightweight frame loaded up to equal a frame built with more metal is the same, but that is silly. It’s certainly possible that the lighter tractor is strong enough, but it is unlikely to be AS strong.

Lighter weight tractors have their place – for some things they are better. They are useful tools designed for certain jobs. That does not mean they are superior in every way to every other tractor for everything.

 

[MessickFarmEqu]

at the risk of sounding ignorant I am going to keep at this, i understand the point of view - I am just paying devils advocate a bit.


So then, why would an individual (or a manufacturer) use a massive 2" thick 3pt arm when a standard arm never breaks as is. I fail to see the point of having bulk for the sake of having it, evidently your not going anything with it? There is no "data" to suppot any of our arguments. However it sure does not take long to browse though the posts of thousands of tractor owners and dealers alike and see that breaking 3pt hardware is a very uncommon occurance. You can take the lighest of tractors, be it a Kubota, Deere, or Massy compact and if you add the nessesary weight and the components don't fail you have essencialy the same machine correct?

 

[JerryG]

It seems that you would also think that a half ton truck would have better steel and would be able to do every bit as much work as a one ton. After all you can get the same horsepower motor in both of them.

 

[IslandTractor]

At the risk of adding to the rhetorical nature of this discussion, I would suggest a different analogy to your half ton, one ton comparison. I don't think your challenge is fair as these two sized trucks are designed to do different things. The real comparison would be a hypothetical 5000lb half ton truck vs a 7500lb half ton. Or perhaps a fresh mid 80s GM half ton vs a lighter modern Toyota half ton. Big iron does not automatically trump other factors like quality engineering, construction, materials etc.

As tractors are work tools the real test is whether the so called lightweight machines are up to the task. Can anyone show that equivalent hp "lightweights" are incapable of performing work that the vaunted heavyweights can do. Obviously there are some massive tractors (big JDs etc) for which there is no lightweight counterpart, that is not the challenge. Is there a heavy tractor under 100hp that clearly can do things that a "lightweight" equivalent hp tractor cannot be configured to do simply because of differences in construction?

Seems to me that with the exception of custom mega machines, there are very few modern well engineered vehicles that don't attempt to incorporate weight savings through intelligent design /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif and advanced material science. That is not a knock on the older designs for heavy tractors, they do what they do well, I just doubt their designers would necessarily build the same heavy machines if they were starting from scratch today.

 

[JerryG]

<font color="blue">I don't think your challenge is fair as these two sized trucks are designed to do different things. </font>
That is the true part. But, that is what I have been trying to get across from the start. But don't accept it.
I will quit now. It is worthless to go on, because it wouldn't matter it you even had two axles side by side and they were both the exact same steel from the same exact supplier. If one was 1" and was stamped Kubota and the other any other manufacture but it was 3". The Kubota would be superior. Kubota has the best steel, the best engineering, the best period in the world. So, why even say that any one else has something heavier duty. They can't, it is impossible.

 

[To20Chris]

I'll go with the truck analogy: If you compare an F250 and an F350, and never load it past the F250's limits, then you'll do just as well with the F250, and it should not break. It's better probably, as it will be cheaper and get better mileage. But this does not mean the F250 is a strong as the F350.

 

[MessickFarmEqu]

the comparison is flawed though - the F250 and F350 have totally different load capacities. We are talking about an apples to apples spec comparison on tractors (except physical weight). The loaders, the 3pt's, etc - if they are all ratted for basicly the same physical work what is all that extra bulk getting you? Now if the "heavier" linkage is resulting in higher specification (as it does with the trucks) than obviously your getting some value from that.

 

[VA_Joe]

I agree with this point. Look at the manufactured floor joists with plywood in the center vice solid wood. Flimsy as the look - the manufactured joists consistantly test far better (much more load capacity, less flex, and etc.) than the "traditional" solid wood joists.

Joe

 

[tjkadar]

I don't believe anyone has posted anything that has definitively supported their 'belief' that a Kubota is inherently weaker because it does not carry the same weight as another tractor. Nor has anyone posted anything definitive to support otherwise. There has been some rather heated post on both sides of the argument. Some have stretched believability a lot further then others too. I really like the statement that decries Kubota are lighter to save on shipping costs. Absolutely ludicrous.

While I can honestly say I don’t know what specifications Kubota uses in their castings nor am I privy to the engineering used to design their tractors, I do know that Kubota is not suffering from a rash of failures due to the improper strength of the castings, frames, or axles. If Kubotas were falling apart as soon as the plow hit the soil or the disc ran into some clay, then I would be worried. But that isn’t what is happening.

Heavier can be stronger or it can be weaker but it will always weigh more. Until somebody gets a group of these tractors together, outfits them the same, puts the same implements on them, and then runs them side by side with increasing workloads until something breaks, its all just supposition. So, who is up for some destructive testing? Anyone wanna call Mythbusters?

 

[PacersDad]

JerryG makes a good point on the weight. The MF utility is a heavier built machine. Both machines would serve well. Matter of opinion if you want to have the weight in the machine or the ballast. But who's selling what? If you want a completey unbiased opinion you'd have to find several owners and get their opinion.