Articulated Kubota - PT look alike

[wasabi]

This is the second time I have seen this tractor on our local hiway. The first time I breezed by it doing my best tourist imitation (rubber necking). This morning I saw it close enough to glean the model number....R520. The unit is owned by a local palm tree grower / installer.

The Kubota R520 is remarkably PT like....same size mining tires front and rear....rear engine, seat astride it....front loader.....articulated hinge in the middle....only major difference I could see was a rops instead of canopy. If it had been red instead of orange, it could almost be mistaken for an 18 or 14 series on first glance. A quick net search turns up a few hits.....one in Canada is for sale for 35K with only a bucket. /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Anyway, this may all have been discussed before, but it was news to me.

Sabi

 

[Bob999]

Kubota loaders --more data here-- Kubota Loaders

 

[wasabi]

Thanks for the link, Bob. Very impressive machines.

Sabi

 

[TractorLuvr]

I dont see anything similar to either products except both are articulated

 

[MossRoad]

Yes, I've seen a few of those around. Now that I own an articulated tractor, I start look at front end loaders all the time. It is fun to compare the big guys with my little PT425. I've seen several of the Kubotas and others like it at places that sell things like crop sprayers, feed lot supplies, etc. Haven't seen any at the Kubota tractor dealers around here, though. Saw one at a mulch place that had multiple bins of mulch, rock, landscaping supplies. It looked pretty maneuverable.

Something I've noticed about the front end loaders is all of them have the operator sitting on the rear section. Look at the Power Trac line. The 2000 series all have the operators sitting on the rear halves of the machines, while the 100, 400 and 1000 series machines have the operator sitting with the front half of the machine and down lower. Personally, I like sitting down low to the ground for the tasks that I do, like mowing. I could see where sitting up high would have its advantages, like in loading.

 

[wasabi]

Mr MR. I could see how sitting lower would be an advantage with mowing, but agree that sitting higher (on the 2445) is more comfortable for front end loading, lifting, augering, etc. We use the forks and buckets a lot. Sitting up on the engine (much like the Kubota R520 design) allows better visability.

 

[wasabi]

I guess likeness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

My direct experience is with the PT2445, which I find to be quite similar in appearance to the Kubota R520. I guess I should have limited my likeness comment to the 2400 series.

Since I have not yet operated the Kubota, I cannot speak to operating similarities, but size, specs, etc., are comparable on first glance, although the Kubota is clearly heavier and thus has beefier breakout capacity.

Sabi

 

[Schultz]

I like how Kubota list their specs for the loader. It would be nice if PT rated all their tractors the same.

Tipping Load Straight, with bucket (lbs.)
5,190

Tipping Load Straight, with pallet forks (lbs.)
3,870

Tipping Load Full Turn, with bucket (lbs.)
4,410

Tipping Load Full Turn, with pallet forks (lbs.)
3,250

 

[Bob999]

<font color="red"> Since I have not yet operated the Kubota, I cannot speak to operating similarities, but lifting capacity specs, etc., are comparable.
</font>

My understanding is that PT ratings are for tipping loads straight. There is an industry standard rating system for loaders but it is my understanding that PT doesn't use it. The heaviest spec for the PT units is 2400 lbs. The specs quoted above for Kubota are about twice as much.

 

[wasabi]

Capacity is clearly relative to overall weight and size, and on closer inspection, the Kubota R520 is a bit taller, has 50% more mass and therefore more relative capacity.

Although similarly powered (PT 45 hp vs Kubota R520 @ 49 hp) Kubota loaders appear to also incorporate substantial counterweights that contribute both to overall machine weight and stability (tipping factor).

Taking total weight into consideration, I stand corrected as to capacities....at 4200 lbs vs 7500 lbs plus,

On balance, while I stand by my off the cuff comment that the R520 is similar in appearance of the PT2445 with comparable dimensions, lifting height, articulation and operator position, perhaps the PT would more accurately be described as a "slightly smaller Kubota R520 loader look alike cousin".


Sabi