Considering a smaller tractor to avoid Tier 4 emissions difficulties

[Freep]

Greetings, All,

As the title suggests, I am leery of government mandated emissions equipment. It isn't an ideological thing: I just remember the 70s. I worry that the Tier 4 engines will potentially require significant expense over time due to emissions equipment. I find myself leaning toward a smaller tractor simply to avoid potential Tier 4 issues. Am I being silly?

My goal is to purchase a tractor that will last forever if I take care of it and require as few additional expenditures and/or trips to the dealer as possible.

The tractor will be a CK series Kioti, so the actual size and weight will be nearly identical. And I frankly am not sure I need more than 25HP, but when I look at the cost of a CK2610 and then consider the relatively small increase in price to the CK3510SE, I start rationalizing: They are the same size and one wouldn't take up more space than the other... and so forth. Plus, everyone keeps telling me to buy a bigger tractor than I need. (Note: I probably only need a little sub-compact, so the 2610 is already an upgrade in that sense). I suspect y'all know this phenomenon very well. The only thing keeping me away from the 3510 is the Tier 4 engine, and I wonder if I'm making too big a deal of it. What do you think?

 

[jeff9366]

You designate Seattle as your location. One of West Coast cities with highest land prices. How much land will you operate your tractor on?

Is your land flat or hilly? Could be either in Seattle. More power is needed to power up hills with heavy implements attached.

Need your tractor fit in a residential garage?

The average residential tractor owner clocks eighty engine hours per year, according to the last industry data I saw here. My Kubota regenerates once every sixty engine hours for sixteen minutes @ 2,200. Diesel cost for regeneration $1. Forget Tier IV as a problem. Your immediate problem will be object collisions as you begin operating a tractor. Some object collisions will damage your tractor, some the object, some both. I hope concomitant damage to your corpus will not occur.

Battery powered tractors may be ten years in the future.

Are you a residential tractor candidate, with lawn mowing and landscape work, maybe a kitchen garden, most of what you anticipate? Blackberries? Twenty-four horsepower MAY be ample for your needs. Tractor weight is more important than tractor engine horsepower.




jeff9366
Roosevelt HS Class Of 1965
Still a Roughrider.

 

[Slowpoke Slim]

I personally would not buy a tractor based on avoiding the emissions. That's just plain silly. The tractor is a tool. If you're buying a tool that doesn't meet your demands for workload, then you're better off not buying at all. Just my opinion, and some folks seem paralyzed by fear of tractor emissions. Most important thing to think through is what are your wants, needs, demands for whatever tractor you buy? What are your horse power demands going to be? What is the biggest pto driven tool you need/want to drive off of your tractor? Then buy one that meets or exceeds that hp requirement and hang the notion that you need to avoid going over 25 hp.

Not all manufacturers "meet" the emission standards in the same way. Some systems are relatively easy to bypass or delete, and some are rather difficult to impossible. Depends on how the manufacturer decided to engineer their system. Some have complicated computer controls that monitor and change fuel delivery, or control active regeneration, and some systems are entirely passive in design.

Mine, for example, can be ENTIRELY defeated (deleted if you will?) by just removing the soot cooker, piping in a replacement muffler, and unplugging the "data logger" device. That's it. No other mods or changes, nothing needs to be "hacked" or reprogrammed. That is my long term "fix" for my tractor if the exhaust filter system becomes a problem. I'll just take it off, and have a true "70's" tech tractor.

 

[dog13]

Many people worry over the Tier 4 emissions due to experiences with emissions equipment in the automotive world. I had a similar concern as i own a pre SCR diesel truck which had an oxidation catalyst and DPF similar to the Tier 4 system. In the on road application the engine control unit "managed" the regen process, which was not good. It produced poor milege, used excessive EGR, and had regens which would not complete (therefore being rerun) along with a long history of emission equipment failure. The Tier 4 system is similar to the pre-SCR diesel trucks, with the important exception that the tractor allows you to manage the regen. On my tractor it alerts when the regen is needed, but i have the control of triggering the regen which let's me perform the regen when i know i'll have time for it to complete. Granted if i ignore the regen alert for too long it will go into limp mode, but so far that has not been an issue and i've been able to complete my tasks and give it 20m or so to regen. I don't believe the Tier 4 equipment will be as problematic in tractor applications since the operator can manage the process ensure the regen runs to completion.
...that being said, as Slowpoke Slim mentioned, there are opportunities to work around emission equipment (especially once it is out of warranty)

 

[ericm979]

Tier IV on sub 75 hp tractors is simpler than your diesel truck's emission system because the requirements are less stringent. That's why there's no DEF. Branson uses old fashioned mechanical injection along with a low temp continual regen DPF. The data logger is there to tell you if the DPF is clogged. It seems to work well unless the operator does not run the tractor hard enough often enough to get the DPF hot. All DPF tractors will put more soot in the DPF when you do that, so all of them benefit from not being idled and being used hard periodically. The usual discrete regen system will just need regens more often if you don't.

Mahindra meets emissions by using sophisicated electronic fuel injection and combustion chamber shape... no DPF. Is that going to be more reliable than the typical system? It could be as there's one less thing (the DPF) but in practice it's hard to tell just from the design. It comes down to the actual components.

Everyone else meets Tier IV using both electronic fuel injection and a DPF. They all use high temp regens. It seems like the higher hp engines have less trouble with the regens, probably because they make more heat so the DPF can get up to the high temps needed. Smaller engines, especially turbos, have more of a problem. With many of the higher hp models people report little or no change in engine performance during a regen, and if it happens while they're working they just keep working.

Having gone from a non emissions tractor to a Tier IV Branson I have to say that the lack of soot and stink from the exhaust is greatly appreciated. If I have a problem with the DPF I can just take it off (something that can't be done on most tractors without hacking the ECU) but I'd hate having to breathe that junk again.

You haven't mentioned anything about your needs. If a 25hp tractor will meet your needs there's no reason to go bigger. But if you need a bigger tractor there's no reason to fear the DPF. Just do your research so you know what kind of system it is, how often it regens and how disruptive it is, and if owners are having problems.

 

[TheMan419]

So I am probably a bit "odd" on this forum in that I do not think more HP is always the answer. I bought a 24 horse power New Holland because that is what I could afford reasonably at the time I bought. I fully expected in a few years when I could afford more I would buy more. Now I am not so sure that is the case.

I run an 18 acre horse farm in my spare time. The wife does day to day work of training, managing people who clean stalls and the like.

Our tractor hits more than the 80 hrs/yr stated above. But that may well be because we are not a typical home owner.

I have done some tasks with it where more HP would have been nice. I tilled about 10 acres with it last fall. That took a couple days. With a 50 HP tractor I am sure that time would have been measured in hours. I have also moved many yards of dirt. Again more HP would have done that more quickly.

So the question becomes the trade off between $$ and time. My big tasks are some of these one time things that needed to get done as a start up portion of our operation. Now that those are done the day to day mowing, moving small hay bales, loading manure into the bin can all easily be accomplished with my "little" tractor.

So I would not worry so much about Tier IV. Buy the tractor that will get done the jobs you want done in the time you need them done in. Also need to consider budget. It is easy to say "oh buy a bigger tractor", but if you don't have the money for a bigger tractor you may have to make some trade off choices.

 

[Tompet]

Greetings, All,

As the title suggests, I am leery of government mandated emissions equipment. It isn't an ideological thing: I just remember the 70s. I worry that the Tier 4 engines will potentially require significant expense over time due to emissions equipment. I find myself leaning toward a smaller tractor simply to avoid potential Tier 4 issues. Am I being silly?

My goal is to purchase a tractor that will last forever if I take care of it and require as few additional expenditures and/or trips to the dealer as possible.

The tractor will be a CK series Kioti, so the actual size and weight will be nearly identical. And I frankly am not sure I need more than 25HP, but when I look at the cost of a CK2610 and then consider the relatively small increase in price to the CK3510SE, I start rationalizing: They are the same size and one wouldn't take up more space than the other... and so forth. Plus, everyone keeps telling me to buy a bigger tractor than I need. (Note: I probably only need a little sub-compact, so the 2610 is already an upgrade in that sense). I suspect y'all know this phenomenon very well. The only thing keeping me away from the 3510 is the Tier 4 engine, and I wonder if I'm making too big a deal of it. What do you think?

If you don't need the bump in pto hp now or in the future, the CK2610 should serve you fine from what you wrote. Does the 2610 offer anything else than the "e" economy series 3510 to make it worth it? Other than pto, it appears most of other specs are pretty close, so I think your initial thought is pretty good on what you really require (sans pto hp requirement).

 

[Industrial Toys]

Funny what some call silly, I call very wise. And why should we have complicated, expensive crap, that the manufacturers have no handle on and feel no obligation for, rammed down our throats?

Why not simply a nice, low hour tier zero tractor?

I predict that in the no so far distant future, these computer tractors will become a GIANT headache. Look at the myriad of threads about all the tractor problems with non electronic issues. What is going to happen when the connectors, wiring and sensors start giving trouble, particularly those that were not made with the absolute highest quality materials. Certain brands, yet to be determined will become worthless except for scrap and parts.

 

[Freep]

This discussion is very helpful - many thanks to all for the valuable contributions. Some answers to questions and/or ideas and comments:

I have 10 acres of mildly sloped but fairly bumpy land - not enough, I think, to worry about going uphill. Currently about half of it is wooded and half has been cleared. I intend to re-forest at least a couple of acres over time. Once I fill in the various holes it will be less bumpy. There do seem to be some rocks scattered in with the soil, so there may be cases in which a little extra power is helpful to dig/drag out an inconvenient rock or etc. I think the most intensive operation will be skidding the occasional log. I can imagine doing some niche farming on a small scale, but I suspect the most stressful activity I'll be engaged in is lifting stuff. The Man's experience with having a lot of stuff needing to be done up front is probably similar to my situation. I don't mind it taking a little longer, because as Jeff notes I probably need to take it slow to avoid destroying things.

As I noted, I suspect that a SCUT would be ideal in many ways, but I want to have a bit more capability than I have current plans for given the advice I have received on this board. I also feel that SCUTs seem a little tippy, especially given the bumpiness of my land and my o bwn inexperience with tractor usage.

I will probably use a rotary cutter to some extent, but the tractor will primarily be for general utility. The reason I like the CK2610 is the weight and the fact that it has a larger engine in it, which should in (my) theory suggest more headroom. I have storage available. Probably, I will start out using the tractor as would a residential user, but I am generally ambitious with regard to tool usage. I'll find more ways to use it, I'm sure. I am generally uninterested in a used tractor due to my own inability to evaluate it, because I would like a warranty, and because used tractors cost so much relative to new ones. For this first tractor, I want it to work properly, or if not to be my dealer's problem to fix rather than mine.

Re: the Tier 4 engines, I am less concerned with regen (which I think I understand, and does not seem problematic to me) or cost thereof. I think I can manage to work the tractor hard enough once in a while to burn stuff off. I am concerned with potential equipment upkeep or replacement costs over time. I love the idea of aftermarket mods as Slowpoke Slim suggests, but I don't know the extent to which the Kioti CK series would permit that. (I am sort of locked into Kioti, as it is the best tractor for me that I can tell with a dealer nearby.) If I were to go bigger than the CK2610, it would be a CK3510SE or CK4010 SE. They are all the same size and near the same weight, and relatively close in price.

 

[jeff9366]

1) I have 10 acres of mildly sloped but fairly bumpy land - not enough, I think, to worry about going uphill. About half is wooded and half has been cleared. I intend to re-forest at least a couple of acres over time. Once I fill in the various holes it will be less bumpy. There do seem to be some rocks scattered in with the soil, so there may be cases in which a little extra power is helpful to dig/drag out an inconvenient rock or etc.

2) I think the most intensive operation will be skidding the occasional log. I can imagine doing some niche farming on a small scale, but I suspect the most stressful activity I'll be engaged in is lifting stuff.

3) I suspect a SCUT would be ideal in many ways, but I want to have a bit more capability than I have current plans for given the advice I have received on this board. I also feel that SCUTs seem a little tippy, especially given the bumpiness of my land and my o bwn inexperience with tractor usage.

4) I will probably use a rotary cutter to some extent, but the tractor will primarily be for general utility. The reason I like the CK2610 is its weight and its larger displacement engine, which should generate greater engine torque, more of the time. I will start using the tractor as a residential user, but I am generally ambitious with regard to tool usage. I'll find more ways to use it, I'm sure.

1) For removing rocks and other ground contact work, tractor weight is more important than tractor horsepower. You may wish to consider a Bucket Spade attachment. Photo #1, #2

Consider Dunstan Chestnuts for forest restoration. Mature Chestnuts are large trees.
ChestnutHillTreeFarm

2) Tractors are pulling machines. Tractors are geared low and those large rear wheels are further gearing down.
Even a 1,700 pound tractor can tow 8" diameter timbers. If you will tow timbers on hard surfaces roads, you will need a cross-drawbar to elevate timbers a few inches to prevent abrasion of your tow chain and decrease timber friction against the road. Photos #3 - #6


1) & 3) SCUTS have 7" to 9" ground clearance due to small front wheels.

Heavier tractors are built on larger frames with larger wheels/tires. Heavier tractors with large diameter tires have more tractive power pulling ground contact implements, pushing a loader bucket into dirt and pushing snow. Larger wheels and tires mean more ground clearance, enabling a heavier tractor to bridge holes, ruts and downed tree limbs with less bucking, yielding a less disturbing passage over rough pastures and woodlands.

4) http://www.lsuagcenter.com/~/media/...aa214276e14dacb/pub2917tractorimplements1.pdf

Buckeye Tractor Co -- Online