Tractor News New Kubota M7 Series

[MHarryE]

Very much interesting; thanks for the explanation. No...I agree that what you are seeing is all too early in the engineering process to be generally useful for the rest of us. There's bound to be some things that are useful in that mix of Tier I-IV, DPF, DEF, turbos, and separators, but just how to apply them doesn't sound like it is figured out yet. In my career, I started with a mix of customer service and technology and with about the same 7 years to go decided to spend most of the time mentoring younger engineers on how to apply their education to get deeper into the technology being used. The company makes large and small scientific instruments - some are big enough to walk around in. A good R&D guy needs to be a mix of science and hands-on ability. Hopefully equally comfortable with welding torches and calculators. Thanks for the update. Didn't know that Cat used a Kubota engine. Is that common? Also, last year I got a chance to compare some large Cat and Komatsu Loaders. Nice machines...both of them. rScotty

Cat uses Navistar engines in their on-highway trucks. They just started using the 3.8 liter Kubota engine in their larger skid steers/CTLs. Back in the late 80s they introduced their own 3116 and 3114 engines but discovered they could build a very durable engine but not make money doing it so they started buying engines from Perkins. After a few years they bought Perkins. Any Cat engines starting 305x like 3054 & 3056 were Perkins painted yellow with Cat S/N plates but Perkins name still cast in the block. At the same time they were using similar size Mitsubishi engines in small excavators. I can't recall if they were 3064 & 3066 or some different designation. It used to be that core Cat was 7 liter and up but now they brand FPT marine engines as I believe the C9.8 and C12.9. Don't kill me if I am off on the exact number but they are combination supercharged and turbocharged engines. That's without even touching the small engines that are license built from Shibaura. It's one of those dilemmas - when you find yourself in a situation where you are putting a 30,000 hour engine in a 10,000 hour machine and trying to compete price wise with the people who put a 10,000 hour engine in their 10,000 hour machine, do you use engineers well versed in designing rugged engines to design a lower cost alternative, do you shop for an alternative engine to have built for you, or do you buy companies. Combinations turned out to be the answer.

Management frustrations - I was engineering manager at one of our French plants and at the end of the first year our division president gave me 1% of my department's salary budget and was told to be sure and differentiate between the high performers and not-so-high performers. What? They were all busting their butts for me so I am supposed to upset one guy by giving him 0.8% while the person sitting next to him who might be a little sharper gets 1.2%? In the meantime I am listening to my engineer I have working in America for an hour every day complaining he is getting 30% less than the guy sitting next to him. Please let me do some real work. By the way, the person who did get the larger raise was one of my R&D mechanics who noticed coolant leaking under my car when he came to work. He put in a new heater hose. Showed initiative. But he was also my only R&D mechanic to get a patent that year so it wasn't only for sucking up to the boss.

 

[rScotty]

It's one of those dilemmas - when you find yourself in a situation where you are putting a 30,000 hour engine in a 10,000 hour machine and trying to compete price wise with the people who put a 10,000 hour engine in their 10,000 hour machine, do you use engineers well versed in designing rugged engines to design a lower cost alternative, do you shop for an alternative engine to have built for you, or do you buy companies. Combinations turned out to be the answer.

Yes, solving that problem through a combined approach almost has to be what is working from a company viewpoint. I say that not out of personal experience, but because we see it applied quite often. And with the result that most large companies are becoming both larger and more profitable. So a combined problem-solving approach has to be be working for them.

Just speaking for myself, I'd find it more interesting to add one more option to the combination package although it's a path less commonly chosen.
That would be to redesign the rest of the machine to match that nice 30,000 hour engine. Yes, the result would be a more expensive package....a premium package.....but probably costing less additional than one would think. IMHO, it was by inititally concentrating on quality rather than price that got today's big companies where they are today. Deere and Cat are two good examples of machines known to be more expensive than the competition, but generally worth the extra price. Kubota is tending in that direction too. Another example is Toyota. They offer their standard models or they also offer what is basically the same car manufactured to higher standards as their Lexus brand. It has been quite successful, so the market does exist.

Im guessing most of us here on TBN work for companies rather than owning our own... But given any luck, that company's combined approach ends up giving us a chance to pick a path that matches our own inclination. Or if the path isn't available ready-made, at least nothing is stopping anyone from trying out something different. It's a pretty good globe we live on.
rScotty

 

[MHarryE]

Yes, solving that problem through a combined approach almost has to be what is working from a company viewpoint. I say that not out of personal experience, but because we see it applied quite often. And with the result that most large companies are becoming both larger and more profitable. So a combined problem-solving approach has to be be working for them. Just speaking for myself, I'd find it more interesting to add one more option to the combination package although it's a path less commonly chosen. That would be to redesign the rest of the machine to match that nice 30,000 hour engine. Yes, the result would be a more expensive package....a premium package.....but probably costing less additional than one would think. IMHO, it was by inititally concentrating on quality rather than price that got today's big companies where they are today. Deere and Cat are two good examples of machines known to be more expensive than the competition, but generally worth the extra price. Kubota is tending in that direction too. Another example is Toyota. They offer their standard models or they also offer what is basically the same car manufactured to higher standards as their Lexus brand. It has been quite successful, so the market does exist. Im guessing most of us here on TBN work for companies rather than owning our own... But given any luck, that company's combined approach ends up giving us a chance to pick a path that matches our own inclination. Or if the path isn't available ready-made, at least nothing is stopping anyone from trying out something different. It's a pretty good globe we live on. rScotty

Problem is, however, that the basic machine's life expectancy is only 10,000 hours. Design it for 30,000 hours and it will be difficult to get the premium because the customer is only expecting 10,000 hours, and that might take 20 years. In 20 years technology will have passed the machine by. When I started my engineering career it was with Allis-Chalmer's combine division. We had to use Allis tractor engines, 10,000 hour design life per ASAE standard tractor life, in our 2,000 hour combines, also per ASAE design life standard. Back in those days the American Society of Agricultural Engineers actually published life guidelines. For combines it was 2,000 hours with 60% of the original cost to be spent on repairs in the machine's lifetime. So at the end of the combine's design life it had an engine with 8,000 hours remaining life. In the 70's we replaced the expensive Allis gasoline engines with GM engines and within a few years that took care of the gas engine combine market. Not life - gasoline engines did not have the torque backup to pull a slug through the machine so customers spent much of their time unplugging machines and then traded for a diesel. Perkins engines were designed were designed primarily for agricultural 10,000 hour life instead of the 30,000 hour small dozer life expected of a 3116 - a good fit for a backhoe loader or skid steer.

 

[sixdogs]

This has been a very helpful and informative thread.

 

[Marek]

Any more updates on the Kubota M 6 or M 7 tractors ? Our local dealers still seem to know nothing about them.

 

[Spencer C]

There are only 50 dealers for the M7, as chosen by Kubota, due to the product support requirements for a machine in that class. It's a very new segment for the majority of Kubota dealers. Each of the 50 dealers will get 3 tractors, and we should see them during the 4th quarter this year. We just placed our final configuration for two M151's and one M171. We are the only M7 dealer for Tennesse, and I believe Kentucky.

 

[rScotty]

Problem is, however, that the basic machine's life expectancy is only 10,000 hours. Design it for 30,000 hours and it will be difficult to get the premium because the customer is only expecting 10,000 hours, and that might take 20 years. In 20 years technology will have passed the machine by. When I started my engineering career it was with Allis-Chalmer's combine division. We had to use Allis tractor engines, 10,000 hour design life per ASAE standard tractor life, in our 2,000 hour combines, also per ASAE design life standard. Back in those days the American Society of Agricultural Engineers actually published life guidelines. For combines it was 2,000 hours with 60% of the original cost to be spent on repairs in the machine's lifetime. So at the end of the combine's design life it had an engine with 8,000 hours remaining life. In the 70's we replaced the expensive Allis gasoline engines with GM engines and within a few years that took care of the gas engine combine market. Not life - gasoline engines did not have the torque backup to pull a slug through the machine so customers spent much of their time unplugging machines and then traded for a diesel. Perkins engines were designed were designed primarily for agricultural 10,000 hour life instead of the 30,000 hour small dozer life expected of a 3116 - a good fit for a backhoe loader or skid steer.

That's a very good point about 10,000 hours taking approximently 20 years to accumulate.... at which time technology may well have passed the machine by. Twenty years from now an owner will be lucky if today's new machine is still current enough to use. Will parts be available even if the machine is still repairable? Or will repair and rebuild no longer be options? I tend to think that for whatever reasons, what we now call common repairs will become less and less common.

Or perhaps 20 years from now all of our best predictions of today will be far from the mark. Twenty years is a long time with changes coming at such an ever-accelerating pace; and hard to predict. For example one could make an alternative arguement that in the future a slight change in the job market coupled with available raw materials and some form of on-demand manufacturing - perhaps something derived from 3D machining and printing - could make parts so cheap and easily available that repairability will important again. Personally I doubt that picture because I think the basic hand skills of the mechanic and rebuilder are being lost. But I'd sure be happy to be proven wrong.

Say! Glad you mentioned those combines. I do remember those combines! My perspective was as an combine operator by day and mechanic by night. I was one of those following the wheat harvest to earn college money. From late May in Texas/Okla. until mid-fall in N. Dakota. Yes, the machines were 2000 hour at best. Horrid reliability. For those not familiar with combines, they are a one-machine combination of two machines that used to follow each other around the farmer's field: the cutter and the thrasher. Put them together and call it a "combine".

The improvement by combining the two machines was so immense that there was a market for even the worst design combines. They were thrown together with bearings mounted in sheet metal brackets supported on angle iron struts....that's when they had bearings at all. The various cutters, beaters, and grain separators of the combine were driven by a combination of motorcycle chain and the most tortuous V-belt configuations imaginable. Gas engine failures were so common that instead of rebuilds or trouble shooting we just replaced the whole engine. Sometimes failed engines weren't even unbolted, simply torched out and a new motor welded in complete. All this in a machine that cost far, far more than a suburban house at the time and had a lifespan of only a couple of years.

Back to the new Kubotas. Who knows? I certainly don't. Is speculation all we can do? Is there a way for users to input their experience back to the company? Here's hoping that Kubota does have an active future-planning department. Experience helps, so such a futuristic planning department might include a few bald-headed & retired workers who enjoy new technology. I can see them now... all hard at work sitting in a room sipping Kombacha tea, playing video games, and reading a mix of sci-fi and new implement magazines on their iPads. Tough duty, but someone has to do it.
Enjoy!
rScotty

 

[Grateful11]

Kubota Canada has a dedicated M7 website now:

Kubota M7

 

[DT86]

Kubota Canada has a dedicated M7 website now: Kubota M7

Thanks for the link!