Initial Impressions of KB2910, NHTC29D, JD4200

[Knight9]

<font color=blue>John Deere has historically outperformed Kubota on resale value</font color=blue>

I'll give you that since you included the word historically....HOWEVER, at least in my area currently there is no increased resale value on a used JD vs Kubota or NH. Yet when I was originally looking the JD salesman used that statement as the justification for why they were several thousand dollars more than a comparable Kubota. I guess my point is that you can't get a used compact in my area. They are all snapped up for a good price immediately....regardless of color!

Kevin

 

[john_bud]

John,

<font color=blue>Direct Injection Engine vs. Indirect = Better fuel economy, easier cold weather starts</font color=blue>

I don't know about the DI vs IDI giving better fuel economy or not, but my Kubota starts at -37 F with only 12 seconds of starter cranking (worse time, measured by my wrist watch). My friends JD also starts quickly at either the same or very similar temperatures. I don't really know if one was "more started" or not /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif.

My point? Modern diesel engines are so well engineered that a novice like me can no longer tell which is better or worse. I do agree with most of your other points; more fuel is better, bleeding the tank from running it dry can be a mess, etc.

But on the resale values, I think that around here, used compact tractors are sold so quick you can't tell what color the paint is!

Keep up the good work!
John Bud

 

[JohnMiller3]

I’m sorry, but everything I posted is true… maybe that’s why John Deere uses some in their advertisement to inform people… to distinguish themselves from the other manufacturers. I only posted the facts and no fluff. I know all the manufacturers use “propaganda”… that’s the nature of the beast in marketing… but then you have undisputable facts…

Because of the design differences… Direct Injection vs. Indirect…you will get more horsepower per gallon of fuel burned, and unassisted cold weather starts are easier on direct injection diesel engines. That has always been a major advantage of direct vs. indirect. For evidence, check the Nebraska Tractor Tests and multiple Ag universities have years of studies with posted results that prove this over and over again. Now… in recent years with evolving engine technology… the indirect injections have proven to be no slouches either… they are cleaner burning {always have been}, the fast start glow plugs are vastly improved… but they are not as efficient as direct, and tests have shown the direct injection to be 10 – 15 % more fuel efficient than indirect.

Guys, we’re not talking Whitney Automotive Catalog magic/gimmicks/ or exaggerated claims here… just factual information that’s been available for years. Take a look at over 95% of all farm/utility tractors and construction/industrial equipment with diesel engines… Direct injection powered.

On tractor bulk weight, it’s no secret or mystery on increasing your towing/ground engaging capacity… again this is proven ten’s of thousands of times on a daily basis across the US on your farms. They don’t fill tires with CalCloride solution of say 800 lbs. each rear, nor make 700 lb. Wheel weights, or add 1500 lbs front weights for their health… Again, multiple Ag university tests and data are available online. The same holds true when using a loader. Ask anyone on this board how their bucket worked before and after they added bulk weight to their compact tractor like rear tires filled/wheel weights added. How does that bucket work now… entering that big nasty pile of whatever...

Auctions have been a very good gauge for resale value, and reports have been compiled for years. Yes, prices are fickle. Yes, regional area’s vary to favor one color over another. But across the board Kubota has shown to retain a high resale value… these same reports show John Deere to be higher however. Perhaps the bulk of the auctions are farm equipment, but non-the-less John Deere shows extremely good return rates.

On a personal level, I attend about 2 dozen auctions per year, most compact tractors are sold privately before the auction, the ones left are usually pretty whipped units… and believe it or not they somehow still get good money. Farmers don’t buy compact tractors. People from the “city” buy them… they come up from NYC, NJ, MA, and CT. At the prices some of this stuff is sold for… has me convinced… most of these people have more money than brains… {another story}

I think Kubota makes an excellent tractor. My feelings are the same towards John Deere and New Holland. They are slowly becoming “homogenized”… with each one taking the better traits of the “other” and making it their own.

I never stated any tractor was better than another. That’s subjective… Every owner on this board will tell you… the tractor they own is the best… for them. I agree… that’s the way it should be. I pointed out some advantages of one unit over another with real “today” facts…

But we all know how things can change on a dime… /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

"You are what you eat, drink, think, say and do..."

 

[glennmac]

John,

There is no doubt that the 4200 weighs more than the 2910 and that weight has all the advantages you list. I was only quibbling on this point about the exact weight difference.

As to DI, your first post claimed "better fuel economy" . That is not a claim Deere makes. Their current catalog claims that DI "means more efficient combustion, more horsepower per gallon of fuel, and quick starts in in weather as cold as 0 degrees F." I dont read any of those claims as relating to fuel ecomomy or starting better than an IDI engine.

I interpret fuel economy as meaning how many hours a gallon of fuel will last. I interepret Deere's claim as saying that a DI engine can produce more mechanical energy (hp) from a given quantity of chemical energy (fuel)--not that it will make the quantity last longer.

But even if Deere is making a fuel economy claim about DI engines vs. IDI engines as a general proposition, my primary point is different. Hook is comparing a specific DI engine (4200) against a specific IDI engine (2910). He knows what the relative hps are. For fuel economy to be important to him in this comparison context, you would have to be claiming that the 4200 engine gets more hours per gallon of fuel than the 2910 engine. But no one has measured that. I would assume, however, that it is true, but only because the 2910 engine has more displacement, torque, and gross hp, and therefore probably uses more fuel in the process of gaining this mehanincal power advantage. The effect of DI fuel burning efficiency is completely masked and irrelevant because the engines are of two different sizes. In other words, even if the 2910 had a DI engine, it still would burn more gas per hour because it is a larger engine. Dont you agree with this?

 

[Anonymous Poster]

Kubota V1505-E

Notice the "sweet spot" for fuel economy between 2150-2450 rpm. Logic would indicate less fuel consumption @ idle speeds. As you can see it defies logic.

 

[frank_f15]

GENTELMEN: the way most of us use our tractors i don't beleive fuel economy is a majior issue, we don't burn enough to worry about it. as for resale value, all depends on the person looking to buy, get a guy that is set on orange, and no green looks good or vice-a versa. on the extra weight with jd, this is good EXCEPT when u don't want the wieght. i did like the jd's pedal arrangement better till i tried to use it with a large pair of snow boots, had a slight problem there. guess what i am saying is get what is best for u. they are all good machines and they ALL have their bad points.

 

[hayden]

The fuel consumption line is gal/HP-hr. You need to multiply by the HP at each speed to get Gal/Hr which will give the more expected up-and-to-the-right curve. I think the result is a fuel consumption curve that closely tracks the produced HP of the engine.

 

[toddler]

Good pick up Hayden.

John, What you stated was not actually objective fact.

I think you should go read that Chevron site more closely. I read the entire section on diesel engines and fuel, and came away thinking both direct and indirect injection engines have pro's and con's. They noted that IDI engines had the advantage in smaller displacement, higher rpm engines. Since diesel engines go from lawn tractors and generators to ship engines with 12-5'diameter cylinders running at 60 rpms, I figure all our tractors are small displacement diesels. IDI's may be harder to manufacture, but clearly they have something that makes it worth the effort for Kubota. Since they all get the job done, why argue mfg's propaganda. They can mislead you with a graph if you miss one letter.

As to traction and weight, somebody posted an article on traction a while back, and more weight was clearly not the only factor involved. You need to take more into account. Tire cross section, tread pattern, and inflation psi, ground hardness, speed. All played into the question of pulling efficiency, and more weight was only better on very hard surfaces, with everything else being equal. After that, it got complicated. Again, I read that entire article and therefore won't comment on which tractor will pull better, but just because historically farmers thought more weight was better, doesn't make it so. Besides, how many of us use compacts primarily to pull a plow or ground engaging impliment?
Todd

 

[Anonymous Poster]

<font color=blue>...both direct and indirect injection engines have pro's and con's...</font color=blue>

I agree. I pointed out some key advantages of direct over indirect. Everything in life has advantages and disadvantages...I didn't intend/or have time to write a book on the subject...

One major advantage of indirect has been easier certification from the EPA for off-road engines...

{The engine chart was for Glenn... it has nothing to do with di vs. idi.}

I stand on my original comments... /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

 

[cowboydoc]

Todd & Glenn,
While I do side with John on the DI vs. IDI issue I don't know all the facts so I won't argue there. They do both have pros and cons and it is a very small issue. With relation to weight of the tractor though you guys are so far off base here that what you are saying is not even plausible. Yes there are things that will make one tractor have more traction than the other but all the things being equal on the tractors you are going to pull more with the heavier tractor period. That was one of the biggest reasons for me going deere was because it was so much heavier. Yes Todd there are a number of us that do pull ground engaging equipment where it is extremely important to have more weight. Weight is a significant issue with regard to tractor capabilities, especially at the small weight that our tractors are because they already don't weigh alot comparatively when you are talking about bigger tractors. When I bought I needed a tractor that would do some of the farm chores that I needed a bigger tractor for. I needed a heavy tractor. Everything else I can buy you guys arguing but not the weight issue. I think this is kind of like the teachers that only rely on book knowledge and no relation to the real world. If you worked with different tractors, implements and weight you'd know that weight is a huge issue with regards to "farming" issues. While it may not mean anything to the "homeowner" buyer to the "farmer" buyer it will mean alot.