TYM T574 ok at higher altitude?

[Balazar]

Ok, I've been shopping around. I'm looking for a tractor with loader and backhoe around 50-60hp. I'm building a house and starting a homestead on a 40 acre plot in the Colorado Mountains. The elevation is 8,400' above sea level. I plan on making a driveway, installing a septic system, generally doing lots of dirt work, land clearing and moving materials. For a little background: I have worked on drilling rigs and at mines for a very long time. I have been a heavy equipment mechanic. I can fix stuff.

I have looked at Kioti, LS, and now TYM. I really like the TYM T574 with the Kukje A2300 turbo diesel motor. One of the draws for me is that it has mechanical fuel injection with very little computer control and an emissions system that is separate from engine management. The other tractor that I am considering is the slightly more expensive T554. It is essentially the same tractor with a Yanmar 4TNV86CT turbo diesel motor. The Yanmar is a little more compact so the hood is shorter and slopes down providing a little better view. It also has an ecu with fuel maps and common rail injection. The Yanmar has a hydraulic implement flow of 9.5 GPM compared to the Kukje's 7.66 GPM

I know that the common rail Yanmar should do a little better at my altitude of 8,400' than the Kukje. The question is how much better? Is it worth it for the little extra umpf and extra hydraulic flow? I have never operated equipment this small before. Will the hydraulic flow make a big difference on what implements I can use? Obviously it will be slower running the backhoe. If the answer is yes common rail will make a big difference, I will probably take a second look at Kioti and LS before making a decision.

Here is a link to the TYM site. There is a comparison of the specs of the two machines a little bit down the page.
T554

 

[LittleBill21]

I was under the impression turbo's made altitude a non issue.

 

[Balazar]

I was under the impression turbo's made altitude a non issue.

That has always been my experience working at a mine, though I never ran any equipment with mechanical fuel injection vs computer controlled common rail injection up there. Fuel injection pumps can generally be adjusted to compensate, though just like efi on a car vs carboration, the efi will always perform slightly better than a carb and get better economy. Though the efi/or common rail diesel also has a myriad of censors and much more expensive injectors to accomplish this. When they wear out they are costly.

 

[Bavarian]

I guess the hydraulic flow might not really matter as long as you don't run the side by side.
In my opinion, the quality of hydraulic valves and controls are more important. In heavy equipment, you can run the engine wide open and can still handle it very accurately. Closed center hydraulics are part of it.
Smaller equipment doesn't have that high end hydraulics and can makes things quite jerky. That might force you to lower down your rpms and there they go those extra gallons.
From my personal experience, the Yanmars and the Kubotas are extreme good cold starters.
Other than that, I don't know which one I would choose if I were in your situation with a slight tendency to Yanmar.

 

[ptsg]

I would go for the simpler Kukje/Cummins engine. Good old mechanically inject engine, with no electronics at all.

 

[fried1765]

Ok, I've been shopping around. I'm looking for a tractor with loader and backhoe around 50-60hp. I'm building a house and starting a homestead on a 40 acre plot in the Colorado Mountains. The elevation is 8,400' above sea level. I plan on making a driveway, installing a septic system, generally doing lots of dirt work, land clearing and moving materials. For a little background: I have worked on drilling rigs and at mines for a very long time. I have been a heavy equipment mechanic. I can fix stuff.

I have looked at Kioti, LS, and now TYM. I really like the TYM T574 with the Kukje A2300 turbo diesel motor. One of the draws for me is that it has mechanical fuel injection with very little computer control and an emissions system that is separate from engine management. The other tractor that I am considering is the slightly more expensive T554. It is essentially the same tractor with a Yanmar 4TNV86CT turbo diesel motor. The Yanmar is a little more compact so the hood is shorter and slopes down providing a little better view. It also has an ecu with fuel maps and common rail injection. The Yanmar has a hydraulic implement flow of 9.5 GPM compared to the Kukje's 7.66 GPM

I know that the common rail Yanmar should do a little better at my altitude of 8,400' than the Kukje. The question is how much better? Is it worth it for the little extra umpf and extra hydraulic flow? I have never operated equipment this small before. Will the hydraulic flow make a big difference on what implements I can use? Obviously it will be slower running the backhoe. If the answer is yes common rail will make a big difference, I will probably take a second look at Kioti and LS before making a decision.

Here is a link to the TYM site. There is a comparison of the specs of the two machines a little bit down the page.
T554

That is rather anemic hydraulic flow!
My Kubota 48HP L48 has 25.9 GPM.

 

[Keweenaw County Yooper]

Balazar,
I am seriously thinking of upgrading to a new tractor also. I have a TYM T330 now and it has never had any problems in 12 years! NOTHING! I have been shopping and price checking for the last year. I have all the factory brochures and catalogs from TYM, Branson, Kioti, LS and Kubota. The factory brochure from TYM states the hydraulic flow for the T574 is 8.4 GPM but on the web. it is listed at 7.66 GPM and the Kubota catalog states 9.4 GPM not 25.9 GPM. I asked the TYM dealer about this and he said the 8.4 GPM is the correct flow not 7.66 GPM for the T574 and 9.5 for the T554. I have gone to the TYM, Kubota, LS, Kioti and Branson dealers and sat and ran all of them. The specifications for all of them are pretty close. So from my experience with my present TYM T330, if I do up grade it will be to a T574. I think the Kukje engine is the better engine with it's simpler engine control management. ( You know K.I.S.S. ) I just can't justify the almost twice the price of an orange tractor over any of the Korean tractors.
JMHO,
Keweenaw County Yooper

 

[TractorTYMe]

Ok, I've been shopping around. I'm looking for a tractor with loader and backhoe around 50-60hp. I'm building a house and starting a homestead on a 40 acre plot in the Colorado Mountains. The elevation is 8,400' above sea level. I plan on making a driveway, installing a septic system, generally doing lots of dirt work, land clearing and moving materials. For a little background: I have worked on drilling rigs and at mines for a very long time. I have been a heavy equipment mechanic. I can fix stuff.

I have looked at Kioti, LS, and now TYM. I really like the TYM T574 with the Kukje A2300 turbo diesel motor. One of the draws for me is that it has mechanical fuel injection with very little computer control and an emissions system that is separate from engine management. The other tractor that I am considering is the slightly more expensive T554. It is essentially the same tractor with a Yanmar 4TNV86CT turbo diesel motor. The Yanmar is a little more compact so the hood is shorter and slopes down providing a little better view. It also has an ecu with fuel maps and common rail injection. The Yanmar has a hydraulic implement flow of 9.5 GPM compared to the Kukje's 7.66 GPM

I know that the common rail Yanmar should do a little better at my altitude of 8,400' than the Kukje. The question is how much better? Is it worth it for the little extra umpf and extra hydraulic flow? I have never operated equipment this small before. Will the hydraulic flow make a big difference on what implements I can use? Obviously it will be slower running the backhoe. If the answer is yes common rail will make a big difference, I will probably take a second look at Kioti and LS before making a decision.

Here is a link to the TYM site. There is a comparison of the specs of the two machines a little bit down the page.
T554

Get the T574 and don't worry. The Kukje engine with the turbo is a proven engine. The ONLY ECM on the engine is the one managing the Tier 4 system closing the exhaust valve for regeneration.

 

[ericm979]

I don't see why a mechanical FI diesel would perform worse at altitude than a EFI one. With spark ignition engines the fuel:air ratio needs to be within a narrow range for best power. That's not an issue with diesels where engine power output is controlled only by the amount of fuel.

I do agree that the fuel economy could be a little worse with the mechanical FI vs EFI. It's not been an issue for me.

My Branson has 10 gpm for the non power steering side but if it was 7 I'd be fine with that. I'm not running hydraulic motors off it, just cylinders.

 

[rScotty]

I live at 7000 feet in the Rockies and have had a number of tractors used for landscaping and dirt moving rather than farming. Right now we our primary tractor is a Kubota M59 - which is a keeper in this terrain for the work we do for a whole lot of reasons....

I bring up the M59 because it has a motor a lot like that Kukje A2300. Similar HP and displacement, older 4 cylinder design with mechanical injection, minimal electronics, smooth runner. Only problem with the Kubota engine is that it is Interim Tier IV and so it does have an old style EGR valve. I don't know if the Kukje does or not. Interim Tier IV with an EGR valve seems to be aimed at reduced NOx at the expense of more visible smoke. Whatever the reason, the Kubota makes more smoke when changing RPM than I expected. And although it's not a bad fuel hog, it is definitely not easy on fuel either. It does have plenty of power though. Frankly with 50/60 hp on tap on this lightweight (8000 lb) machine all you have to do is push the throttle up and there is plenty of power... along with a blast of smoke as the RPMs change.

Yanmar is top quality, so I can see your dilemma. Old reliable vs newer & better & probably as reliable, but we can't work on them ourselves. Which was part of the fun when I was younger.

Looked at your link, the TYM with Yanmar engine comes with a different tranny? Does that make a difference?

As for the hydraulic flow, both 7 or 9 gpm are plenty for anything EXCEPT a backhoe or hyd. snow blower, but under 15 gpm is still pretty anemic. The solution is that most 3pt or frame mount removable hoes have the option to have their own PTO-driven hydraulics. I've tried it both ways, and the backhoe with PTO-driven hydraulics and separate fluid reservoir is what you want. It doesn't cost much more & takes no more time to hook up.
rScotty