Kubota vs. Deere

[Bob_Skurka]

<font color="green">
Please show us the comparison, if you have it. We'll be able to judge whether it's deceptive rather than just take your word for it as (you are) a saleperson for other brands Thanks

Pete </font>


Neil & Pete,
Sorry to jump in withOUT the information, but I'm in Florida and all my comparison materials are back in my Indiana office. But to give you some general information, John Deere publishes "pivot point" load capacities on their front end loaders, at least they do on their CUTs. Kioti and Mahindra also publish 'pivot point' specs for their FELs. In fairness to JD, they do have complete specs available on the internet in their product manuals, it is harder for a typical consumer to find those specs, but with some digging they can be found.

Kubota, Case, Massey and New Holland list their FEL specs at multiple points, but typically people see the so-called "bucket center" rating, it is measured at 500mm (roughly 19.5") forward of the pivot point. The problem with making these comparision is that the capacity at the 'pivot point' is roughly 30% higher than it is at the bucket center. So if a loader has a 1000# capacity at the pivot point, it would actually have about a 700# capacity at the bucket center.

Obviously the bucket center is going to be more of a 'real life' capacity simply because the last time I used my bucket the load was actually carried inside the bucket, not behind it at the pivot point.

Unfortunately, many people don't realize they are not comparing 'apples-to-apples' when they look at the loader specs. I've seen many people tout that they bought "brand X" because it had a stronger loader than "brand Y" and it turned out they actually bought the weaker loader, or at least bought a loader than was MUCH weaker than they thought they did, simply because they mistakenly compared pivot point to bucket center ratings.

Now if you want to go look at some of the threads that have been done, please do a search. In the past I have posted actual data several times. Also here is a thread that I stated on Bucket Capacity versus Loader Capacity, after a couple pages, it gets into a very good discussion of exactly these issues you are questioning : Bucket Capacity Tread


EDIT : I've got some time between business meetings so I dug up some information. JD says the 200CX loader will lift 800# at the pivot point, that would equal about 560# at the bucket center. Now one thing I can't tell is where they measured it, but they list the ASAE spec. I suspect the capacity is lifted at either 12" or 36" but not at full height. Lifting to full height would lower the capacity. A quick check of the Kubota LA211 loader shows it has a capacity of 460# at the pivot point AT FULL HEIGHT of lift, so if it was measured at 12" or 36" instead of at full height, it would likely be rated higher.

My guess is, without digging deeper into the ASAE spec, is that these are loaders of EQUAL capacity or so very close to equal that it really doesn't matter in the real world.

 

[jim_wilson]

I don't know about any of the other brands but I pretty much believe the Kubota specs when they say that the BX loaders will lift 460 pounds (or is it 480 ) to full height. Last year after I got my tractor I loaded up the bucket one day with a couple of pairs of forklift forks and weightlifting weights. The relief valve opened finally when I had 675 pounds in the bucket - it would lift this to about half height. I did not try to lift 460 pounds to fully height to verify the Kubota spec but I think that it would have done it.

It would be nice if somebody would actually start doing head to head tractor tests where some of these published specs could be independently verified.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( I don't know about any of the other brands but I pretty much believe the Kubota specs when they say that the BX loaders will lift 460 pounds (or is it 480 ) to full height. Last year after I got my tractor I loaded up the bucket one day with a couple of pairs of forklift forks and weightlifting weights. The relief valve opened finally when I had 675 pounds in the bucket - it would lift this to about half height. I did not try to lift 460 pounds to fully height to verify the Kubota spec but I think that it would have done it.

It would be nice if somebody would actually start doing head to head tractor tests where some of these published specs could be independently verified. )</font>


The experiment you did illustrates how easy it is to play with numbers. It is very likely that if you only wanted to lift to 12" off the ground you could have put something on the order of 800# into the bucket!

Loaders capacities are always HIGHER when the load is CLOSER and LOWER. Loades capacities are always LOWER when the load is FARTHER and HIGHER.

So the WAY the manufacturer measures and the points of measurement are CRITICAL in determining an accurate apple-to-apple comparision.

 

[Deere3120]

Ok I will say this I'm new to tractors, But not new to Hydraulics. This is a safe way to go about buying a Tractor/Loader. Always get a loader with alot more capacity then you will ever lift. I know you guys are pivot point and whatever else lifting capacitys at a certain height. My way of thinking is this BUY MORE THEN WHAT YOU NEED and forget about it. KEEP IN MIND THIS ONLY MY 2 CENTS.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

<font color="blue">( Ok I will say this I'm new to tractors, But not new to Hydraulics. This is a safe way to go about buying a Tractor/Loader. Always get a loader with alot more capacity then you will ever lift. I know you guys are pivot point and whatever else lifting capacitys at a certain height. My way of thinking is this BUY MORE THEN WHAT YOU NEED and forget about it. KEEP IN MIND THIS ONLY MY 2 CENTS. )</font>

I think a lot of people would totally agree with you that you should buy extra capacity, but let me ask this question. If you don't know how to read the specs, and if you don't know that "pivot point" capacity can be as much as 30% ABOVE "bucket center" capacity, and if you buy based on the wrong set of specs because you didn't know that they were different and you figured all manufacturers used the same specs so you were assuming you have a 25% 'cushion' and you actually end up 5% below your real needs then who is to blame? You because you didn't know how to read the specs? The manufacturer for publishing specs that, while they were honest, really are confusing at least and deceptive at worst? The tractor dealer who often doesn't know his own product?

 

[orangebluegreen]

Totally agree with your assessments on ratings, wonder however if there is such a thing as extra capacity? Appears to me a tractor with more hydraulic and cylinder performance just increases the bucket size which tend to put you loading the thing to capacity regardless of hydraulic performance. Suppose if one doesn’t fill the bucket you might have extra capacity that way. Perhaps there is a size of tractor where the hydraulics exceed the bucket size, that would certainly be a treat. It’s been years since I owned an old Ford TLB, it was HEAVY like a tank, not large HP (I forget how much probably less that 35) but I can never ever remember that loader not being able to pick up a full load of anything, and we had blue clay in Ohio and the bucket was large. In comparison...the tractors I’ve rented or borrowed over the past few years were an instant disappointment in loader performance until I got used to being hindered. Most of them when filling the bucket from the bottom of the pile of sandy dirt were unable to lift that load up through the pile without backing up a bit to lighten the load. The Massey 1250 I rented had a couple small cracks in the support reinforcements that run parallel with the loader arms, by the time I was done the steel had completely broken through on both sides creating a dangerous and unusable condition. They still charged me for that time I couldn’t use it though....should not have paid them.

 

[Cliff_Johns]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( . . . typically people see the so-called "bucket center" rating, it is measured at 500mm (roughly 19.5") forward of the pivot point. . . . )</font>

Bob,

Is this a SASE type spec, or is "bucket center" a variable distance from the pivot points depending on the size of the tractor and bucket etc.? I always suspected that Deere used SASE pivot point spec because it takes the variables of bucket size and design out of the equasion and gives the valid canonical measurement no matter what tractor/bucket/attachment style you use.

If bucket center is 500mm as a spec, then I think they should say it that way, as they do the 3pt specification as in "capacity so many inches beyond pivot," rather than the squishy title of bucket center.

Saying it differently, if you want to compare a larger tractor with a big bucket with a smaller tractor with a smaller bucket, it seems like the only valid compare would be at the pivot point.

Anyway, it makes sense to me that way.

Cliff.

 

[MessickFarmEqu]

its typicaly 500mm forward. The most recent set of Kubota literature includes three measurements (as if we need to confuse this further) Pivot Pin, 500mm, and true bucket center.

 

[johndeere_2210]

If you are interested, this is my comments regarding the two machines. I have owned them both (BX2230 and now a 2210). I really think you can toss a blanket across them in terms of "which will last longer" for they are both built at a very high level. I feel the 2210 or 2305 has some significant advantages. First, the 3-point arms on the 2210 are significantly longer and open wider/easier than the BX. In fact, I had a Kubota dealer guy tell me the arms on the BX are Cat 0 size in terms of length and opening, but the pins are Cat 1 and I'm here to tell you there is a MAJOR difference in ease in hooking attachments up behind a 2210 (easy) vs. BX (much more difficult) and keep in mind, it is the same carry over attachments. IMO, this is the single biggest advantage.

IMO, the overall ergonomics of the 2210 are nicerr, quick joy stick to operate at your leg level vs. holding your right arm up to operate a joystick mounted to the loader and this would be my assessment of the foot pedals as well, great design on the Deere and I don't like the overall tread design on the Kubota.

The things I do like about the Kubota vs. the Deere are the following: a) the Kubota pulls air between your legs and shoots it out the front and this is important because Deere is reverse and attracts significant grass clipping on the front grill and no doubt alters cooling, and I have seen post on this; b) Kubota has a temp gauge, so you can monitor the cooling, Deere has no temp gauge, simple light; c) I like where the fuel filling cap is on Kubota low and over a rear fender, Deere is centered in the hood and makes it tough not to spill things on the hood and at the same time, a pain to hold 5-gallons of fuel so high, while refueling. One big advantage of the Kubota is the mower deck will raise very high, and much more so than the 2210.

As mentioned earlier, the quality and life of these machines are most likely identical. I would give Deere the overall advantage, because it's simple to use, quick response (fast hydraulics, and more loader capacity) and for me, EASIER 3-POINT hook ups.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

Cliff,

Neil answered your question but let me clarify it just a bit.

Most people refer to the 500mm measurement as "bucket center" but the advent of quick attach buckets, different bucket shapes, etc really makes the "bucket center" term sort of a generic term. 500mm is the technically correct measurment and often it really is not the center of the bucket, sometimes it is forward of the center, sometimes it is behind the center. Kubota, based on the brand new brochure I have, gives the true bucket center, in addition to the 500mm number, but at this point they are the only company that I know that goes the extra step to provide this. I am under the impression that the 500mm number is one of the many ASAE measurement points for capacity.

Also, as was also pointed out by 'orangebluegreen' capacity is really a fuzzy question too. As we have been discussing capacity in this thread, it is not related to volume, but rather it is related to weight.