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

[RjCorazza]

X2 on no standards.
Even small differences in measuring capacities makes a difference on paper. For example, my tractor loader specs are measured at either the pins, or 500mm (19.7") out from the pins. Go out to 24" where some manufacturers may spec, and my loader capacity drops 200 lbs on paper. Then there are various lifting heights and capacities, generally 1/2 height and full, but not always.

I have never needed to lift at capacity full height, and honestly wouldn't want to anyway. Everyone's needs are different though. If I were needing to lift to full height I would have a larger tractor and stay well within potentially "generous" specifications.

 

[RSR]

Torvy - Finally, a voice of reason.

Despite derisive comments such as "paper specs" and "it's not safe to lift the max amount to the max height" (duh) as reasons for justifying why lower lift capacities don't matter, what is lost (willfully ignored?) is that a loader that lifts more to full height will also lift more at any distance above the ground. It simply has a higher lift capacity. At any height. Period. Full stop.

Arguing about "useful lift capacity" is equally foolish. If the loader will lift it, the tractor can be set up, with proper ballast, to do it safely. Obviously care and common sense must also be part of the equation.

I have no interest in lifting items to full height. But, as moving very large rocks on my property was a primary use for my tractor, loader capacity and tractor weight were very import specs. I've moved plenty of rocks I can only lift 6-24" inches. Even then, I inch along very slowly, because I worry about stress on the loader if the ground gets rough and things start bouncing. The fact is, however, that with lower lift capacity I wouldn't be able to budge those rocks.

 

[rScotty]

Torvy - Finally, a voice of reason.

Despite derisive comments such as "paper specs" and "it's not safe to lift the max amount to the max height" (duh) as reasons for justifying why lower lift capacities don't matter, what is lost (willfully ignored?) is that a loader that lifts more to full height will also lift more at any distance above the ground. It simply has a higher lift capacity. At any height. Period. Full stop.

Arguing about "useful lift capacity" is equally foolish. If the loader will lift it, the tractor can be set up, with proper ballast, to do it safely. Obviously care and common sense must also be part of the equation.

I have no interest in lifting items to full height. But, as moving very large rocks on my property was a primary use for my tractor, loader capacity and tractor weight were very import specs. I've moved plenty of rocks I can only lift 6-24" inches. Even then, I inch along very slowly, because I worry about stress on the loader if the ground gets rough and things start bouncing. The fact is, however, that with lower lift capacity I wouldn't be able to budge those rocks.

"It simply has a higher lift capacity. At any height. Period. Full stop."

That would make sense if it were true, but I'm afraid it isn't. The lift capacity at any height depends on the design of the loader geometry. A loader can be made to have its max lift at any height.

"Useful Lift Capacity" needs to be based first on the things the designer can control, like the strength of the parts and the stress on the front axles. Then he can work on things he cannot control as well - like stability.

rScotty

 

[LS Tractor Owner]

That’s surprising to me. I had a ‘99 Dodge with 5.9 Cummins and it averaged 20 mpg, sometimes doing as well as 22, and sometimes about 18. That motor was known for being more fuel efficient than the Powerstroke at the time.

My son has a 5.9 Cummins in his '74 Jeep J20..... he consistently gets 26 mpg running a 6 speed and 40" tires, 5.13 gear ratios.

 

[jyoutz]

My son has a 5.9 Cummins in his '74 Jeep J20..... he consistently gets 26 mpg running a 6 speed and 40" tires, 5.13 gear ratios.

They are awesome motors and such simple maintenance that I can do myself.

 

[RSR]

"It simply has a higher lift capacity. At any height. Period. Full stop."

That would make sense if it were true, but I'm afraid it isn't. The lift capacity at any height depends on the design of the loader geometry. A loader can be made to have its max lift at any height.

"Useful Lift Capacity" needs to be based first on the things the designer can control, like the strength of the parts and the stress on the front axles. Then he can work on things he cannot control as well - like stability.

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.

 

[4570Man]

My son has a 5.9 Cummins in his '74 Jeep J20..... he consistently gets 26 mpg running a 6 speed and 40" tires, 5.13 gear ratios.

I’ve never had a 5.9 in a pickup. But my F-750 gets about 8 mpg with a 5.9. I just traded for a F-350 dually with a 6 speed manual and a 7.3. I’ve not checked it’s mpg yet but just based on the trip home I feel like a previous posters 28 mpg in the same truck is extremely far fetched. I had about 1/4 tank of fuel when I started the 40 mile trip home and now it’s sitting slightly above 1/8 tank.

 

[dodge man]

I had a 2004 Dodge 3/4 ton with a Cummins, I got 28 mpg all the time, you know coasting to stop signs and downhill with a tailwind. I could get 18 mpg with that truck but that was about it.

 

[hiddentacocatneddih]

Compare fuel mileage is like comparing hot dog size. Everyone's is bigger and longer.

 

[jyoutz]

I had a 2004 Dodge 3/4 ton with a Cummins, I got 28 mpg all the time, you know coasting to stop signs and downhill with a tailwind. I could get 18 mpg with that truck but that was about it.

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.