TractorData.com data incorrect for Kubota B2650 or L3901?

[diesel85]

This reminds me of the lift capacity numbers for the BX series. The numbers they post (~670 lbs) are 24" out. However the at pin numbers are ~1020 lbs. Which if you do the maths, makes sense... you know, the geometry.

FWIW, you can test this theory if you have one of those nifty 3pt pallet movers, which I believe someone a long time ago did a post on how much a BX can actually lift using cinder blocks. Don't remember the numbers, but it was a little higher than what the math states. But what Kubota publishes is covering their arses. lol

 

[LD1]

I seriously doubt that you will come close to lifting the spec on either tractor. Implements that heavy are just too big for either tractor.

But too many people shop by paper specs. So the MFG's compete on paper specs. And those specs are simply a theoretical calculation of piston area x PSI and the geometry of the hitch.

Both tractors have the same diameter cylinder/piston that actuates the 3PH.

The L3901 has longer arms. The B2650 has shorter arms, and and more mounting options on the lower arms to increase lift capacity at a reduction in lift travel.

Same can be said for the loader. On paper the B2650 has a stronger loader.

Its all about selling tractors to people who only shop paper specs.

As it is, the 1433# spec on the L3901......I have never heard anyone complain that the hitch was too weak and wouldnt lift what they were trying. More often the complaint is the tractor needs more weight up front because the hitch can pick up more weight than the tractor can handle without getting light in the front.

So engineers "could" if they wanted to increase the cylinder size to give it a 3000 or even a 5000# lift rating out back. But would you really gain anything at all?

 

[diesel85]

Exactly.

An example: The heaviest implement I got for my BX2200 is a Woodmaxx 62" flail mower weighing in at ~650 lbs. However if you measure it, and do the math, it's center of mass is closer than 24" to the pin. IIRC, it's like 20". The machine lifts it with no problem like any other implement.

It's hard to explain, but math can easily.... lol

While I haven't tried it, I could get a neighbor's 6' Bushhog that weighs about 650lbs and I know my tractor wouldn't like lifting that because the center of mass is way out past 24".

Another example is loaders lifting capacity. A loader that boasts 2000lbs of lift (don't even get started with "at pin" or "1.5m from pin", etc, etc), you put pallet forks on it, you reduce yourself down to as much as half, due to how far out you are trying to pick up a load. Maths easily explain it. You can also real world test it like I'd done by experience. The maths done lie. lol

 

[SDT]

Not addressing your specific question but well know that tractordata.com is not to be trusted.

 

[JWR]

Not addressing your specific question but we [a]ll know that tractordata.com is not to be trusted.

That is a little harsh isn't it? What website or database do you suggest that has a better, more comprehensive and trustworthy collection of data regarding tractors?

 

[SDT]

That is a little harsh isn't it? What website or database do you suggest that has a better, more comprehensive and trustworthy collection of data regarding tractors?

Perhaps, but accurate.

Don't remember stating that I am aware of any other websites or databases that have better, more comprehensiveand trustworthy collections of tractor data, but The NE tractor tests are the gold standard. No, Kubota does not submit tractors to NE for testing. I reference manufacturer's published specs in such circumstances.

 

[rScotty]

I've been surprised by the accuracy of the information on tractordata.com.

It's a great quick source and sometimes that is more valuable than looking it up in my collection of tractor manuals. I've been a tractor hobbyist & literature collector for years.
The few times I've compared the two, Tractordata.com either matches or is very close to manufacturer's specs.

The biggest shortcomings I've found with their data is that they sometimes miss listing all the options or don't have photos. But what they have seems correct.

As an example, for the tractors mentioned in this thread the small difference in lifting is within the typical 10% factory variation on hydraulic pressure.
rScotty

 

[JWR]

Perhaps, but accurate.

Don't remember stating that I am aware of any other websites or databases that have better, more comprehensive and trustworthy collections of tractor data, but The NE tractor tests are the gold standard. No, Kubota does not submit tractors to NE for testing. I reference manufacturer's published specs in such circumstances

You didn't say you were aware of a better source probably because in all likelihood there is none. Tractor Data is the best, most comprehensive single source for data on the most brands of tractors. I see no evidence that your statement that "it is not to be trusted" is accurate. Maybe so, but at this point it is an unproven accusation. Just your opinion (which is fine, great to hear your opinion.) No one, including yourself, mentions or describes another source that has anywhere near as much data and info on tractors of essentially ALL brands. The Nebraska Lab (you mention as if it is competitive) is for sure the ONLY national lab that I have ever found that publishes actual test data on tractors at all. HOWEVER, the NE Lab is extremely limited in so many ways. Their data is only on the tractors they tested which happens to be a very limited sampling of models within the few brands they do test. Their latest data is quite often years old. It is nowhere near as detailed in terms of options, photos, variations of models sold, etc. So while the NE Lab is a very authoritative source for TEST data, they only cover a few models and a few brands. Not even 5% of the data available via Tractor Data. TractorData solicits corrections and input of data so that refinement is at least possible. The NE Lab does not -- they just publish test reports.

So the two are apples and oranges -- the NE Lab in no way competes with Tractor Data for number of models, years, features, brands -- every thing one might be interested in about tractors in general. Yes, they are the gold standard but it is for a very small % of the information covered by TractorData.

 

[Jstpssng]

I've been surprised by the accuracy of the information on tractordata.com.

It's a great quick source and sometimes that is more valuable than looking it up in my collection of tractor manuals. I've been a tractor hobbyist & literature collector for years.
The few times I've compared the two, Tractordata.com either matches or is very close to manufacturer's specs.

The biggest shortcomings I've found with their data is that they sometimes miss listing all the options or don't have photos. But what they have seems correct.

As an example, for the tractors mentioned in this thread the small difference in lifting is within the typical 10% factory variation on hydraulic pressure.
rScotty

Ditto here. They are my go-to any time that I want or need specs about any tractor made in the last 70 years. While there may be something better available, it most likely would be brand/model specific and available only for a price.

 

[SDT]

You didn't say you were aware of a better source probably because in all likelihood there is none. Tractor Data is the best, most comprehensive single source for data on the most brands of tractors. I see no evidence that your statement that "it is not to be trusted" is accurate. Maybe so, but at this point it is an unproven accusation. Just your opinion (which is fine, great to hear your opinion.) No one, including yourself, mentions or describes another source that has anywhere near as much data and info on tractors of essentially ALL brands. The Nebraska Lab (you mention as if it is competitive) is for sure the ONLY national lab that I have ever found that publishes actual test data on tractors at all. HOWEVER, the NE Lab is extremely limited in so many ways. Their data is only on the tractors they tested which happens to be a very limited sampling of models within the few brands they do test. Their latest data is quite often years old. It is nowhere near as detailed in terms of options, photos, variations of models sold, etc. So while the NE Lab is a very authoritative source for TEST data, they only cover a few models and a few brands. Not even 5% of the data available via Tractor Data. TractorData solicits corrections and input of data so that refinement is at least possible. The NE Lab does not -- they just publish test reports.

So the two are apples and oranges -- the NE Lab in no way competes with Tractor Data for number of models, years, features, brands -- every thing one might be interested in about tractors in general. Yes, they are the gold standard but it is for a very small % of the information covered by TractorData.

My statement above claimed only that tractorda.com cannot be trusted. At no time did I state that it was not useful for any purpose. That said, if accuracy is necessary, one must verify elsewhere. Stop trying to change the subject.

My statement above remains accurate but you should believe what you choose to believe.