24 horse tractor... what do you think?

[pekabu]

I thought I would tell you what I don't like about the TC24. The light switch keeps banging my left knee, and I hit the throttle hit my right knee. This has been fixed in the TC24Da. I found this tractor to fit better for taller people than the Kubota and Masseys.

One last thing. This tractor lifts more than it can handle. I have the rear tires loaded and I still have to put weight on the pack to offset a loaded bucket. I find the BH works really good for this.

 

[8561]

Bob - you have posted several times on the lifting capacity of competing loaders. It has gotten me to thinking - is there a possible correspondence between loader capacity and the overall weight of the tractor? In other words, does the relatively light weight of the Kubotas force them to have a smaller overall lifting capacity than a competing brand, like Kioti, that have a heavier overall weight? Does it end up being a question of balance (or ballast)? Not to say that Kubotas aren't ruggedly built, but with less overall mass, does it become a potential safety issue to have a lot of weight in the air, without a corresponding approriate amount of mass near the ground, specifically at the back of the tractor?

I realize experienced and safe operators always make sure they have enough offsetting ballast, but Kubota (and other manufacturers) don't have the luxury of making that assumption. I wonder if Kubota has had to limit their capacity on the FEL due to their relatively lighter weight?

 

[Bob_Skurka]

Tim from what I can tell there is no relation to the weight of the tractor and the capacity of the loader.

For example, the CK20 is the heaviest 21hp machine I know of, but the NH TC21 has ever so slightly more loader capacity and is a lighter machine.

The NH TC29 has a loader that is greater capacity than the CK30, but again the New Holland machine is lighter weight.

BALLAST could also be called COUNTER WEIGHT. Neither should be confused with absolute weight. Every tractor, regardless of the weight of the machine, should have a counter weight of some kind if it is used with a loader. Many manufacturers suggest loading the rear tires AND using a ballast box.

 

[8561]

Jason - if position control on the three point hitch is a feature you need, I believe both the NH and the JD have it. If you want position control on a Kubota 24hp tractor, you'll need to move up from the 7610 to the B2410.

 

[8561]

It was just a thought. Certainly Kubota is capable of engineering and producing increased hydraulic lift capacity. There has to be a logical reason why they have fallen behind.

 

[shoppintractors]

Kioti discloses on their FEL specs page they use 700 Lbs. rear ballast to calculate the loader specs for the KL130. I haven't come across any other manufacturer that publishes the amount of ballast used when figuring loader capabilities. I would say New Holland must use substantial rear ballast on the tractors to come up with their specs. It's difficult to assess if the various loaders are judged on a level playing field.

The experience I have with a Ford 1220, the loader was very powerful for the size of the tractor. Heavy Rear ballast was mandatory for the stability of the tractor when using the FEL. When pekabu talks about his TC24, <font color="blue">"This tractor lifts more than it can handle"</font>, I can relate. New Holland seems to have continued the philosophy of building strong loaders.

So the knawing question is, Are New Holland loaders (class I and II) overbuilt for the size of the tractor they are mounted to? ....and.... Are Kubota (B series) loaders underbuilt for the size of tractor they are mounted to?

Don

 

[KiotiJohn]

Don, I have to agree with you, and I totally disagree that tractor weight doesn't play into the loader capacity. That is exactly one of the most important things when designing a loader for a tractor. It has to be built within the capabilities and size of the tractor. Going over that some is not unusual, but you can bet the MFG has planned for that.
I would easily agree that the NH loader is a great loader, but the lower weight requires more rear ballast.
My CK20 weighs around 1993# plain. With my loader on and only a boxblade on the rear, I can lift quite a load without picking up the rear end. To go to capacity though, I have to put on the backhoe or something else pretty heavy.
The heavy cast iron of the Kioti precludes the need for extra ballast until I get to really high lifting weight. Most of that weight tends towards the rear and I don't have loaded rear tires. No need for it so far.
Just ask a tractor engineer and I'm sure you'll find that the weight of the tractor has a direct relationship to loader ability. John

 

[Bob_Skurka]

Don & John . . . NH has, in their manuals, how much ballast to use with their loaders. I compound my problems with my TC24 because I don't have my rears loaded (because I want it as light as possible for non-loader work). All that said, with proper ballast, my little TC24 will out lift and out work my larger B2910, especially in tight places!!! But even in open areas, the smaller machine manuvers better and makes loader work quicker. I would agree that with NO ballast added, the CK20 would be more stable than the TC24 because the CK20 is heavier, but with proper ballast the TC24 would more than equal a properly ballasted CK20 and have more available PTO hp for larger implements. We can't forget that this thread was started to assess the advantages of 3 different 24hp tractors that will be used for a lot more than FEL work, and running a tiller was one of those chores states. Having a few extra PTO hp will translate into a slightly larger tiller or will translate into less stress on the drive system with the same size tiller. Either way, any of the 3 original 24hp tractors mentioned would be better for his landscaping company than any 21hp tractor with lower PTO hp.

Tim . . . As for why Kubota has some weak loaders? I simply don't know. Many people look at the hydraulic pump capacity and mistakenly think that a larger pump provides more loader strength. A large pump is nice, but I think it goes more toward cycle speed than strength. I believe cylinder size is more directly related to strength? Not really sure on exactly how all that works. And some of the mid-large Kubota loaders are excellent. For most homeowners who buy these types of machines to haul mulch in their yards, I don't know how much of an issue an extra 100# of capacity really is, but it probably isn't much. For a commercial landscaper, more capacity translates into time savings and time is money so a better loader will yield more profit on the job due to quicker completion times (all else being equal).

 

[MicroPilot]

Hmmm....Got to thinking about this and my recent experience hauling LARGE rocks with my FEL. I had a couple of situations where the loader couldn't/wouldn't lift some rocks, but never had the rear end come off the ground. The Century C-50 loader is no slouch either: 2100# Lift at pivot - 1320# 19.5" ahead of pivot, 2850# breakout at pivot - 1900# 19.5" ahead of pivot. Not sure of weight at max height. My tires are loaded and I had a scraper blade on the 3PT. I'm thinking this is because of the inherent weight of the Century being higher that the loader capacity.



After re-reading the thread, I'm not sure how these comments fit in this discussion. I hope y'all don't mind me sharing anyway /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[Bob_Skurka]

<font color="red"> I'm thinking this is because of the inherent weight of the Century being higher that the loader capacity. </font>


Huh? I don't know of ANY tractor of ANY brand that doesn't weigh in at significantly more than the loader capacity.

I think your experience is proof that you have a large properly ballasted machine. When the loader reaches capacity (or exceeds it) the rear of the tractor SHOULD still be stuck on the ground like it is planted there. Your experience shows that. Having loaded tires and an implement on the 3pt hitch is the correct way to have your machine set up.