Is the Kubota L2501 the largest 25 hp, non regen tractor?

[sd455dan]

I have a 2007 5.9. Like yours it is the common rail engine and I get about the same, occasionally 20. But my 1999 24 valve Cummins did average 20 mpg.

My 03 3500 with the 6 speed manual 3.73 gear has done as well as 24.4 a few times, but that was empty hiway trips and definitely keeping it under 70 mph. Full tank to empty re fueled at the same station/pump and hand calculated.
The lie o meter read over 28 MPG on those trips. It has only done that well in the winter/cold outside temps Winter diesel?

Average driving and short trip around town
High teens.

The wife's same year virtually identical 2500 with the auto gets about 3-4 MPG less but her truck has half the miles on it and is the standard 245 HP not the HO Cummins , maybe not loosened up yet or the Factory tune difference.



ps. It would not surprise me to hear of a Branson 2515 properly ballasted unloading "Safely" a 1 ton pallet from a pickup bed.

That would be a real world difference to a single tractor owner who needed to get the job done.
Have not seen it Yet , but would not surprise me. Like others posted medium lift heights (weight lifted)are also "generally" higher when the full height at pin specs are higher.

Some things not mentioned in this thread on the 25 HP Branson
Front axle Hubs are mounted in double shear. Most other brands Normally go above 50 HP before building that way and also the vertical height of the transmission case.
A tall transmission case is more common on utility tractors and yeah that causes a hump in the tractor floor, but imo all else being equal stronger way to design the center section spine for a tractor that will see heavy FEL lifting and or backhoe use- Even compared to say the parent company's TYM models. Take the rear axle, 3 point and transmission bellhousing section
8 lug rear axle Not six and then just Look at the rear axle /3 point.

Some things that I Hope TYM keeps and does not chose to "improve" by dropping Branson's own design and going to TYMs
Flame suit on.

 

[rScotty]

Technically, you are correct. It is possible. But for the brands that are being discussed, that is not true. Show me one loader that outperforms another at one height, while underperforming at another.

More simply, put, show me a loader that has a lower lift capacity at max height, but a higher breakout force for the tractors we are discussing.

They all use the same kinematic linkage, with slight variations in the pivot points. That will yield slight variations in the shape of the loader curve. But that won't account for a 10-20% variation in lift capacity.

Correct or not, that is just the way that geometry and physics works. Small differences make for a wide variation in lift capacity and in where the lift occurs. That is true for every loader and every design. Check it yourself.
Every loader I have ever looked at has a lower lift capacity at max height. And breakout force is often double lifting force.

No, loaders do not use the same kinematic linkage. That is a misconception. You can simply look at them to see the differences. Look at bucket tilting connections for an example. Complex parallologram linkages and special castings there are common. Complex linkages probably add cost to making a loader

But I've also learned something from this thread. I've learned that science and math don't matter as much as they used to. Technology used to be King, but today's influencers and advertisers approach their trade differently. They shape opinion by presenting what the consumer wants to believe - whether accurate or not.

And what today's consumer wants to believe is that an item can be made inexpensively and be just as good as something that costs more to make and sell. Whether that is true or not doesn't matter. What matters is belief.

I find this all fascinating, so thanks. I hope we've added some value.
This is a page out of a standard Kubota operator manual.
rScotty

 

[LD1]

My fuel milage sucks. 2016 ram 6.7 with aisin 6spd auto and 4:10 gears. Flat bed and xfer tank. Empty weight of truck ~10,500 and 13mpg if I drive easy. Towing 14k-15k (tractor or mini-x on GN) I get 7.5-7.6mpg. And hand calculated, the computer is extremely accurate on fuel economy

 

[jeff9366]

There are no standardized requirements. Every manufacturer can publish anything that they want, and claim whatever they feel they can get away with.

Deceptive or false advertising if FRAUD, potentially with serious consequences for both the marketer and brand owner.

 

[ning]

We bought one of the first of the new generation 7.3 powerstoke F250s in 1995. Standard shift, 4x4, extended cab and topper. It got about 12 mpg in town and 15 on the road. Towed well. At 50,000 engine repairs had almost equaled the purchase price. At 100,000 mechanical repairs had exceeded the purchase price. Perfect condition.
Later bought a new 2002 PS F250 same except automatic. Same mpg but only normal repairs. No problems. Nicer truck.

Yes, at the time we were aware that the Dodge Cummns diesel was a more fuel efficent truck. That was common knowledge just like the problems with both makes was also common knowledge. Every mechanic knew all that; it's part of the trade.
rScotty

My '97 PSD (4x4 CC LB, 35 tires, shell on the back) gets highway 14 at 70, 16 at 60, unloaded. I've calibrated my odometer using both roadside mileage markers and GPS and it's 7.5% off (the odometer gearing is uncorrected from tire size changes) but I account for this. With a 5k trailer behind it... well the weight doesn't matter as much as the large brick face, but anways, I get about 12 at 65.
I did get a "chip" at one point and found that it's given me about 1.5mpg. Power service seems to give a boost as well, but it's really tough to measure with vs without because my driving isn't consistent enough to compare trips when I've had it vs haven't.

At 200k, my truck has had: tires (many), brakes, oil (lots), batteries (about every 6 years), cam position sensor (stuck me briefly on the highway, TSB/recall paid for fix), ball joints & tie rods, E4OD rebuilt at 135k, pinhole AC leak fixed. I do need to do something about the driver's seat, the cushion is about an inch lower than it used to be, though the fabric is still fine in it. Overall very happy with the truc, no intention of getting rid of it. Luckily I rarely need to drive it any more (die$el), but I'm glad I've got it when I need it.

 

[crashz]

I don't know what the brands have these days to compare with the L2501, but can tell you some of my experience:

1) The L2501 is not overly underpowered unless you are running HP sapping implements. A rotary cutter is one of them. In this case I bet the L3301 is a bit underpowered too. I would assume that any 25 HP machine that would carry 5ft wide implements would be the same.
2) The loader is well matched for the machine. Generally I believe the OEMs design and build the loaders to match the capability of the tractor. I could not use any more lifting power on this chassis. I would not like a loader valve that cannot multi-function however. That is an important and often overlooked feature.
3) Price is greatly affected by where you live. The OP is in MA. Everything is expensive there. Is Green and Orange expensive? Yes. But the gap is very narrow. I didn't see much value in shopping other brands when I purchased, because the dealers were much further away and the price difference at the time was a few thousand or less.
4) I think any 25 hp Compact Tractor is going to be relatively close in performance. It funny that we are debating the tiny differences.
5) The right machine is the one YOU choose for YOUR use. Haters gonna hate. Most truthful line I have ever heard.

 

[4570Man]

Deceptive or false advertising if FRAUD, potentially with serious consequences for both the marketer and brand owner.

Unless they claimed what hydraulic psi the rating was obtained there’s not much anyone could do. Just crank it up to 4,000 psi for the test and I’m sure most any loader would obtain rated specs. They’re also rating the loaders capacity. They never actually said the tractor it’s mounted on can handle the load without flipping. Lots of ratings are less than truthful. Air compressors and shop vacuums using peak hp vs continuous hp, wood splitters using max rated psi vs actual supplied psi to rate tonnage and trucks using the best possible configuration to rate towing capacity would be a few examples I can think of.

 

[RSR]

Correct or not, that is just the way that geometry and physics works. Small differences make for a wide variation in lift capacity and in where the lift occurs. That is true for every loader and every design. Check it yourself.
Every loader I have ever looked at has a lower lift capacity at max height. And breakout force is often double lifting force.

No, loaders do not use the same kinematic linkage. That is a misconception. You can simply look at them to see the differences. Look at bucket tilting connections for an example. Complex parallologram linkages and special castings there are common. Complex linkages probably add cost to making a loader

But I've also learned something from this thread. I've learned that science and math don't matter as much as they used to. Technology used to be King, but today's influencers and advertisers approach their trade differently. They shape opinion by presenting what the consumer wants to believe - whether accurate or not.

And what today's consumer wants to believe is that an item can be made inexpensively and be just as good as something that costs more to make and sell. Whether that is true or not doesn't matter. What matters is belief.

I find this all fascinating, so thanks. I hope we've added some value.
This is a page out of a standard Kubota operator manual.
rScotty

View attachment 773237

Either I didn't explain myself clearly, or you're avoiding the question.

1) The kinematic linkages for lift (not roll back - we aren't discussing that) are the same. They are a simple 3-bar linkage. Yes, you can move locations around, but the mechanism operates via the same principle.

2) That principle is, generally speaking within the range of parameters seen on tractors, the highest lift force will be at the ground, with the lowest at the maximum height (exactly as shown in the diagram you included).

3) My original contention was that if loader A has higher lift force than loader B at the same lift height, then it was going to be able to lift more at all heights. You disputed this. I agreed that this could happen in theory, but within the current models of loaders being discussed, did not occur.

4) I then asked you to show me any two loaders (let's call them A and B), where loader A has a higher lift capacity than B at maximum height, but loader B has higher maximum lift than A at the ground (i.e., breakout). You instead included an attachment of you Kubota loader with handwritten notes that answered nothing.

 

[sd455dan]

I see people are hot rodding the cylinders, pump and other mods on tractors like the small JD's

Tractor Time with Tim

 

[Rdrcr]

^^^^
Yep, I have a Turbocharger setup on my L2501. Gives me more power for them PTO robbing implements.

Mike