Kioti CK vs. Kubota B series

   / Kioti CK vs. Kubota B series #11  
hosejockey2002 said:
... As far as the weight issue goes, I see extra weight in a tractor as a good thing unless the main use is mowing. The advantage defintely goes to Kioti there. Some may disagree, but if extra weight is a disadvantage, why do folks buy wheel weights, ballast boxes and fill their tires? I
Weight is used as ballast ... a required safety feature - aids in safe operation in otherwise unstable situtations (full loaders and uneven terrain, etc). I bought the B7800 because it is lighter than most if not any other 30hp machines. I need for several reasons to be light on my toes where my machine goes. I can ALWAYS make it heavier if I need to.

hosejockey202 said:
How do you like the quarter inching valve as opposed to position control? ...I do know that my choice will likely be HST, although I can't completely rule out the 3054's shuttle shift until I drive one.
The quarter inching valve suits me just fine. If I had to plow or cultivate, I might feel differently, might not - and I would definetly have a larger machine anyway were that to be the case, so it is moot.

If you are planning on having a FEL, you will regret not having HST.
 
   / Kioti CK vs. Kubota B series #12  
hosejockey2002 said:
... As far as the weight issue goes, I see extra weight in a tractor as a good thing unless the main use is mowing. . . Some may disagree, but if extra weight is a disadvantage, why do folks buy wheel weights, ballast boxes and fill their tires?
DAP said:
Weight is used as ballast ... a required safety feature - aids in safe operation in otherwise unstable situtations (full loaders and uneven terrain, etc)
DAP, you are very correct in your thoughts. So many people who buy small tractors assume that more weight is better but that is not necessarily true. The fact of the matter is that most small tractors are primarily used for ground engaging tasks that require raw weight for traction. You don't need excess weight for tasks like running a roto-tiller, post hole digger, or even using a front end loader. There are plenty of examples of lighter tractors that can outlift heavier tractors.

The key to weight is to use it to BALANCE the tractor for stability and that is where you point about BALLAST is right on target.

A heavy tractor will require loaded rear tires/ballast box weight to fully utilitze the capacity of its FEL. A light tractor will require the same. And when similar size tractors are compared for lifting there is no reason to thing the heavy one has more capacity, although sometimes it does and sometimes it does not.

Simple fact is that when you get to real tractors used by farmers they are very concerned about soil compaction and don't look for raw weight. I think that main advantage for heavy tractors is when they are used for tasks like logging in the woods where weight does offer an advantage in traction and where soil compac
tion is a typically not an issue.
patrick_g said:
If other important considerations are more or less equal then I would personally favor the more manuverable unit. If you can't get the unit to the SPOT then all the other attirbutes are meaningless.
Excellent point. This is very illustrative of a point that is oven overlooked. The TASKS on your property are the most important factors, and are far more important than the specs and capacities.
 
   / Kioti CK vs. Kubota B series #13  
If you've used a B21, don't expect the rest of the B series or any of the Kioti's to come even close in terms of hydraulics. It's not just the difference of lift/breakout force but the sheer difference in performance of the hydraulics that is not apparent when looking at the specs. For a landscaper needing a TLB for tight spaces the B21 is terrific. Find a used one with low hours. They go for 20-23k w/ 100-500 hrs.
 
   / Kioti CK vs. Kubota B series #14  
DAP and Cap’n Bob make some nice points, however, I have a few counterpoints.
DAP said:
Niche work?

First, the CK20 is a small CUT or a large SCUT ....

The CK20 is a small framed CUT not a SCUT.

DAP said:
The B7800 is available with HST only (a good thing) ... the Kioti TLB may be gears only ...

As the purchaser you may select either gear or hydro throughout most of the B & CK line. Choice......also a good thing. One point about Hydro transmissions is that they will cost more for everything you do and I think most would find it hard to justify just to save fraction of a second on direction changes. I believe a skilled operator with a shuttle shift transmission could compete quite well with a hydro and have much lower overall operating costs…………but that’s just me. I know I go against the grain to most in this regard.

DAP said:
When comparing those 2 oranges, always remember that the Kioti machines will easily outweigh the Kubotas....

Almost if not always true.

DAP said:
Some folks insist or are not bothered by the weightiness of the Kiotis, however. For instance .. and I don't have the exact numbers in front of me, but the B7800 weighs in at just under 1800 lbs and the CK30 is near twice that amount. The power to weight ratio of the Kubotas is UNBEATABLE if that is an important consideration.

Indeed. Not only am I not bothered but in general quite pleased with the weightiness of my Kioti. One design aspect that comes hand in hand with the Kioti weight advantage is a superior build quality. The CK series is engineered package as opposed to ladder framed units in the B series. I’ve come to the conclusion that Kubota uses this type of construction primarily to compensate for relatively high labor costs in Japan; ladder frame construction is economical in design and construction and is less labor intensive. A ladder frame will in most cases buy you a higher center of gravity too.


Bob_Skurka said:
DAP, you are very correct in your thoughts. So many people who buy small tractors assume that more weight is better but that is not necessarily true. The fact of the matter is that most small tractors are primarily used for ground engaging tasks that require raw weight for traction. You don't need excess weight for tasks like running a roto-tiller, post hole digger, or even using a front end loader. There are plenty of examples of lighter tractors that can outlift heavier tractors.



A heavy tractor will require loaded rear tires/ballast box weight to fully utilitze the capacity of its FEL. A light tractor will require the same. And when similar size tractors are compared for lifting there is no reason to thing the heavy one has more capacity, although sometimes it does and sometimes it does not.


Bob, weight can be great advantage when using a front end loader. Weight will allow you use a higher gear and still get excellent bucket penetration where as a lighter machine would have to gear down and work the bucket more to get the same. Recently I was moving some dense gravel over the a pretty fair distance the weight of my CK20 allowed me to get a full and heaping bucket load without shifting into low range or changing gears. The heavy castings over the rear wheels coupled with loaded tyres allowed me the purchase to back away from the pile even after spinning the tyres down a bit. Were I to do the same with any of the bota 7#10 series I think I’d bounce off that pile like a punter trying to run through a lineman and only get a teaspoon or two in the bucket.
shookxs9.gif
iconbiggrinhd8.gif
So indeed weight can/does matter.

By the way, I dig the old Alfa Laval advert and had no idea they made snow cats. I’ve used quite a few of their oil purification centrifuges though.


Regards, Jamie
 
Last edited:
   / Kioti CK vs. Kubota B series
  • Thread Starter
#15  
pdsrms said:
If you've used a B21, don't expect the rest of the B series or any of the Kioti's to come even close in terms of hydraulics. It's not just the difference of lift/breakout force but the sheer difference in performance of the hydraulics that is not apparent when looking at the specs. For a landscaper needing a TLB for tight spaces the B21 is terrific. Find a used one with low hours. They go for 20-23k w/ 100-500 hrs.

You're right about the B21. I have used them in the past and they are an incredible machine. FWIW, the Woods X80 backhoe has higher rated lift and breakout force than the BT751 on the B21. Of course, those are just numbers and we all know that numbers and real world performance aren't always the same. I would consider a used B21 if I could get decent financing on it. The major downside I see to a B21 is it's non-removable loader. I occasionally do mowing jobs and it would be nice to detach the loader. My current loader is not detachable, so I could live with it. After I sell this whole idea to my CFO (chief female officer) I'll have to do some serious demoing before I make up my mind. Thanks to everyone for their comments.
 
   / Kioti CK vs. Kubota B series #16  
The B21 is has now been replaced by the B26. Don't know if the FEL is easily removable but it may be worth checking out.
 
   / Kioti CK vs. Kubota B series #17  
I see allot of discussion in various threads regarding tractor weight. Heavy castings cost more to manufacture and more to ship. If you look at the technology used in the castings on various tractors you will see a big difference in wall thickness and the gussets cast into the pieces. Heavier less complicated castings are a not good substitute for state of the art engineering and higher technology modern castings. Look at the complexity of the castings. Look at the finish and the fit between bolt together castings. As these companies mature and their casting skills improve they will inevitably lower their costs trough more efficient casting technology and reduce the weight of their products. The outside appearance of the castings is a good representation of what inside the castings. Only on a tractor could you turn a manufacturing limitation into a sales feature such as “Ours is heavier”. The big three use similar technology and the weight of comparable recently introduced machines are reasonably close. On a modern high technology tractor you can add or remove any necessary weight to optimize performance. China, India and Korea are producing most of the heavier tractors and they are developing newer manufacturing, engineering and technology and will definitely catch up soon.
 
   / Kioti CK vs. Kubota B series #18  
pdsrms said:
If you've used a B21, don't expect the rest of the B series or any of the Kioti's to come even close in terms of hydraulics. It's not just the difference of lift/breakout force but the sheer difference in performance of the hydraulics that is not apparent when looking at the specs. For a landscaper needing a TLB for tight spaces the B21 is terrific. Find a used one with low hours. They go for 20-23k w/ 100-500 hrs.

Actually the CK20 TLB comes pretty darn close to the B21 in specs. They are about the same weight. The CK20 doesn't dig to 7.5ft (only 6.5) but has very similar digging force numbers. I recall the FEL on the CK20 is just about the same as that on the B21. For full time construction use the B21 and its replacement would be hard to beat but as a homeowner TLB, the Kioti is more versatile and has more PTO hp for mowing etc. Major difference other than the dedicated nature of the B21 is about $10,000 in price for a new one.
 
   / Kioti CK vs. Kubota B series #19  
AutoUnionTypeC said:
...One point about Hydro transmissions is that they will cost more for everything you do
Well, lets not forget that it IS considered an OPTION on most machines. There's a good reason why most options require additional money. They are desireable for a variety of reasons. In this case, (and I see you state a lot of machine operational experience,) it is considerably more comfortable to do loader/material activities when clutching is not necessary. And it requires less effort to exact precision movements of the mass of a machine with this technology also. These usage principles are at the core of HST design. I have enough hours of most types of transmissions to comfortably understand the differences. See below ...

AutoUnionTypeC said:
...and I think most would find it hard to justify just to save fraction of a second on direction changes. I believe a skilled operator with a shuttle shift transmission could compete quite well with a hydro and have much lower overall operating costs…………but that’s just me. I know I go against the grain to most in this regard.
If it was so hard to justify as you state, I think the HST option would have failed from a saleability standpoint. I think just the opposite, in fact, I think a lot of folks have purchased machines because HST was available, where perhaps they would not have otherwise. It is no coincidence that every manufacture that has a viable stake in the SCUT, CUT and UT game all have some sort of automatic variable speed transmission if not HST directly. Operators want them and will work them if they have them.

As stated above Jamie, you are correct here, but the point is one of ease, comfort and 'learnability'. No doubt a skilled GST or a Shuttle operator could out perform an clumsy operator on an eHST with iMatch ... not, however, the point.
 
   / Kioti CK vs. Kubota B series #20  
AutoUnionTypeC said:
Bob, weight can be great advantage when using a front end loader. Weight will allow you use a higher gear and still get excellent bucket penetration where as a lighter machine would have to gear down and work the bucket more to get the same. Recently I was moving some dense gravel over the a pretty fair distance the weight of my CK20 allowed me to get a full and heaping bucket load without shifting into low range or changing gears. The heavy castings over the rear wheels coupled with loaded tyres allowed me the purchase to back away from the pile even after spinning the tyres down a bit. Were I to do the same with any of the bota 7#10 series I think I’d bounce off that pile like a punter trying to run through a lineman and only get a teaspoon or two in the bucket.
shookxs9.gif
iconbiggrinhd8.gif
So indeed weight can/does matter.
Yes, the raw weight can and does help dig into a pile, especially a pile of compacted material. On the other hand, a non-compactable or non-compacted pile (such as mulch, gravel, etc) then the advantage vanishes. If a tractor is properly balanced with ballast, it will provide quite a bit of traction and the real world differences are not going to be significant to the end user.

For example, a NH TC21 probably weighs only 300# less than a CK20, but has a slightly greater lift capacity at the FEL.

I doubt that the slightly lighter weight would have any real world difference in digging into a pile. But the added lift capacity will allow an extra 50# of material to be carried away. Is that a timesaver in real terms?

Now in comparision, a B7800 has lower capacity than many 30hp tractors but it is also phsyically able to fit into far tighter spaces than any bigger tractor so when manuverability is an issue, or when tight space work is an issue, then the only tractor that can do ANY work at all is the smaller one. I use a B2910 (the deluxe version of the B7800) and cannot even get it into some places I need to work so I also use a TC24D which fits into tighter spots.


hosejockey2002 said:
I've looked at a Kubota B7800 with (I think) a BH75 backhoe and a Kioti L3054 TLB. This particular Kioti looked a little large for the niche type work I do
I'm not advocating any specific tractor. I'm just suggesting that the user must consider all aspects and realize that sometimes added weight, greater capacity, more horsepower, etc offer no actual advantage if the tractor is unable to get to the job that needs to get done. Further, some of the issues are overblown in terms of importance.

AutoUnionTypeC said:
By the way, I dig the old Alfa Laval advert and had no idea they made snow cats.
My little avatar photo is my Snow Trac. Short for snow tractor. It can pretty much go anywhere and I've never managed to "lose traction" on any terrain I've been on. It is best on loose ground but can manage itself on grass or pavement too.
 
Last edited:
 
Top