Why are Kubota FEL's so weak?

[goeduck]

my feeling is that many owners buy smaller compact machines, then place workloads on them for which they are not designed. see it all the time on the forum. trying to do a mountain of work with a machine designed for lesser stresses. best regards

Agree. Similar to people buying small chainsaws and expecting to cut big wood fast. I am pretty experienced on a tractor and I just about never lift anything close to the FELs rating. It is just too risky particularly on uneven ground. I am guessing the brands that state higher ratings are doing so in optimal conditions and these that do not are conservative or simply designing to a different market. About the only HEAVY thing that I regularly lift is a 275 gallon tote full of water and an occasional large log. I ALWAYS do those lifts balanced, on level ground and keep it as low as possible. Any tractor FEL lifting its maximum load to full height regularly on uneven ground is going on its side at some point.

 

[TripleR]

I agree. Kubota makes a great tractor as do a lot of others, It's a shame when you can't point out a weakness in a product and have people take it personally. I have a Kioti now but who knows what I will get next? I want to be open minded enough to evaluate everything including brand reputation, dealer relation and price, capabilities, and ergonomics..

It could be some of us just don't accept your description as a valid "statement of fact". I view it as an opinion; where are the parameters on a universally acceptable as opposed to unacceptable loader.

The title of the post is pejorative which set it off to start.

Posting here has become pointless (my opinion)

 

[JWR]

JWR, I nominate you to start a new thread on FEL torsion loading and testing. :thumbsup:

I'll do it. Tks.


The Thread has been started under Attachments with the title "Torsion Specs and Capability of FELs -- Loading and Testing."

 

[k0ua]

I'll do it. Tks.


The Thread has been started under Attachments with the title "Torsion Specs and Capability of FELs -- Loading and Testing."

This is likely a worthwhile project, but I guarantee you it will not get as many clicks as the clickbait title of "Why are Kubota FEL's so weak". There is just nothing like a thread where you can"pixx off" half of the readers from the title alone. And then you get almost the other half trying to defend the posters point of view. This might be second runner up: "Why are R4 tires so worthless?". or "Why are geared tractors such a PITA?" Then there is the perennial favorite: "Why did you stop beating your wife?" All good conversational starters.

 

[SloppyJoe]

It could be some of us just don't accept your description as a valid "statement of fact". I view it as an opinion; where are the parameters on a universally acceptable as opposed to unacceptable loader.

The title of the post is pejorative which set it off to start.

Posting here has become pointless (my opinion)

No one said that it was unacceptable. I do think we can all agree that the loader is one of the most used attachments on the tractor. Kioti, TYM , LS and Branson all have their loaders rated in to lift 1800 lbs. or more at the pivot point to full height in the L3901 tractor category and their loaders can lift as high or higher than the Kubota. The L3901 (and the John Deere 3E series) is less than 1200 lbs. The Kubota loader (LA 525 has a breakout force of 2462 lb as compared to the Kioti KL4010 of 3464). Most of the time I don't need the max or even near the max but sometimes I do. I almost bought an L3901. I didn't know much about Kioti but two friends that had Kubotas told me to look at Kioti because they had a good reputation among the farmers and the tractor community. I started to do a little more research and personally thought the Kubota had a much weaker loader. I'll agree that the term "weak" is subjective. I can guarantee that Kubota has in fact lost sales due to that and on the next tractor to replace the L3901 they will ensure that they put a stronger loader on it. The BX and MX series keep up with their competition. Don't just drink the Kool Aid! Specifications are a factor, at least to me. If I can get more work and capacity out of a tractor it does matter.

BTW, you must not think it is too pointless to post here, otherwise you wouldn't have and I will bet that you will reply,

 

[DK35vince]

Kubota also shifted to selling the skid-steer compatible interface predominantly much sooner than the rest of the industry and I think that was a smart move.

They did ??
Can't say I agree on that..
What year did they begin to offer it.
I ordered SSQA as an option on my 2001 tractor. 2007 and later SE models offered it as standard equipment.

 

[JWR]

They did ??
Can't say I agree on that..
What year did they begin to offer it.
I ordered SSQA as an option on my 2001 tractor. 2007 and later SE models offered it as standard equipment.

I do not know when Kubota began to offer the SSQA nor the other mfrs. I know that by 2011 nearly every Kubota on every dealer lot in Maryland, Virginia and WV plus a few i noticed in PA and the Ohio Ag Show had SSQA on them while essentially none of the Deeres did. At the 2012 PA Ag Progress Days all Kubotas there had the SSQA and the MF did not. I was more impressed by what was made, delivered and on the lots than what was in the catalogs. Don't know what an SE model is.

At least in MD, VA, WV and the parts of PA and Delaware I visited, Kubotas were the first to be on the lots with primarily (most of the ones on the lots) with SSQA rather than the proprietary pin designs. That was among Deere, Massey, New Holland and Kubota. That was the basis for what I said. I thin that was wise and I think the entire industry will end up there. Just too many goodies are available with the skid steer interface.

 

[DK35vince]

I do not know when Kubota began to offer the SSQA nor the other mfrs. I know that by 2011 nearly every Kubota on every dealer lot in Maryland, Virginia and WV plus a few i noticed in PA and the Ohio Ag Show had SSQA on them while essentially none of the Deeres did. At the 2012 PA Ag Progress Days all Kubotas there had the SSQA and the MF did not. I was more impressed by what was made, delivered and on the lots than what was in the catalogs. Don't know what an SE model is.

At least in MD, VA, WV and the parts of PA and Delaware I visited, Kubotas were the first to be on the lots with primarily (most of the ones on the lots) with SSQA rather than the proprietary pin designs. That was among Deere, Massey, New Holland and Kubota. That was the basis for what I said. I thin that was wise and I think the entire industry will end up there. Just too many goodies are available with the skid steer interface.

Bought my Kioti DK 35 with optional SSQA in 2001.
The Kioti DK SE is the later model. All DK SE models came with SSQA as standard equipment starting in 2007 and later.

 

[rScotty]

Bought my Kioti DK 35 with optional SSQA in 2001.
The Kioti DK SE is the later model. All DK SE models came with SSQA as standard equipment starting in 2007 and later.

One more data point..... we bought our Kubota in 2007 and it came with SSQA as standard equipment. One of the things that steered me away from Deere at that time (my first choice) was they had their own version of QA and although they offered SSQA, it was optional at a what seemed to be a high cost and didn't look as well made as the Kubota SSQA.
Can't comment as to Kioti; they weren't being sold here back then. In fact, not much still.
rScotty

 

[Fxfymn]

Not related to the thread, but hats off to everyone who replied to this thread for being objective in their comments. I have not been on the site for a while now since I pointed out what I considered to be a fault in Kubota's engineering of their fuel delivery systems and the vast majority of posts to the thread bashed me as Kubota hater instead of helping to provide a solution to the problem I was having.

Glad to see that folks are using the site for what it should be; a rational discussion of the tractors we use and to help solve member's problems.