Buying Advice Advice on L3400 Purchase

[swampvol]

Anyway....the l3400 will do what you want, and a l4400 will do the same in less time.

 

[rcteel5]

I looked long and hard at the L4400 before deciding on the L3400. Decided on the 3400 because of the HST. If the 44OO came that way, I would have gone with the bigger muscle.

 

[Shimon]

The L3400 HST has some PTO issues. You may want to consider a gear driven L3400 or maybe a B3030.

Check out this thread for more info

 

[familyman]

Spend the extra $5,000 and get a Kioti DK45 hydro, or some equivalent. Buy it with a Woods BX90-X and don't look back. The L3400 is a great machie, but I think you'll hit its limitations very soon compared to the DK45. These are NOT toys, and once you're past the learning stages you'll want more machine on a property that size. A 45 hp tractor will do verything faster and more easily. Spend it now, or spend more later.

 

[Shimon]

Reading back through this thread, I have to agree with familyman.

I think you need something bigger than an L3400HST. I have an L3400 (gear driven) and it's a pretty good tractor but it is an economy model so some of the features are cheap. The three point lift is very jerky (can be upgraded but even then it's still not great) and the HST uses an over-riding clutch for the PTO which I think would be a show-stopper.

If I were you, I would be looking in the 40-50HP range for a tractor that is built a little tougher than the L3400 (all you L3400 guys...don't bash me...it's just my opinion and I think it's a fair opinion considering I own one of these). Good luck with whatever you get!

 

[swampvol]

I looked long and hard at the L4400 before deciding on the L3400. Decided on the 3400 because of the HST. If the 44OO came that way, I would have gone with the bigger muscle.

If you already purchased the l3400, ignore the last couple of posts, congratulations and enjoy.

Also in the thread about the l2800/l3400 pto, it appears kubota changed the cams in the pto in the new tractors, so hopefully thats a fix.

 

[canoetrpr]

Reading back through this thread, I have to agree with familyman.
I have an L3400 (gear driven) and it's a pretty good tractor but it is an economy model so some of the features are cheap. The three point lift is very jerky (can be upgraded but even then it's still not great) and the HST uses an over-riding clutch for the PTO which I think would be a show-stopper.

I know this is an old thread. Came up on a search I did about something. I'm responding because I think that it ended up on a note which is really unjustified in my opinion.

The L3400 is designed to be a basic no frills machine providing probably the best value for the $$ in this range.

There is no argument that Kubota should have never shipped the original 3pt hitch and could have given people less hassles about getting the replacement. I have yet to hear of someone that did not get the replacement eventually.

My 3PT valve is perfectly fine after the change - so I don't really know what you are talking about. From talking to the Kubota rep that I dealt with, the replacement valve is the same valve as was on the L3010 tractors. So it's certainly as good as the grand L valve just a generation or two ago.

I think that the general notion about features being "cheap" is misleading. Yes you have a right to your opinion. Cheap compared to what?... to something it wasn't trying to compare to. This tractor was designed to have simple features. There are no digital guages and other niceties - like telescopic links, a better seat etc. etc. But to some there is also beauty in simplicity.

Pointing to the thread where one poster discusses HIS issues with a broken PTO on his L2800 and concluding that the "PTO has issues" on the model in general is utter nonsense and completely irrational. There is no question that the poster on that thread has had an unfortunate situation that none of us would like to be in - however, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever at any widespread problem with the PTO on this tractor of any kind. All there are are ASSUMPTIONS that stem from what is no doubt an unfortunate situation that has affected ONE owner. There have been a LOT of 2800/3400 tractors sold.

I have no clue why the ORC would be a "show stopper". Non independant PTOs have been around a LONG time and are simpler (in the general vein of this tractors design).

I have chosen not to go and argue with Kubota for the new style CAMs without the ORC that others have gotten. The fact is that NO ONE really knows why Kubota made a change to the PTO CAMS. There are lots of reasons why there are changes in models from year to year and you just cannot assume. I'm willing to bet that the biggest complaint that Kubota had on this tractor is the noise when the ORC rachets. We don't really know if this isn't the only reason Kubota changed the CAMs.

Unlike the 3PT valve where there was an issue which was addressed under warranty (warranty repairs do happen on ALL models of ALL tractors from time to time), my opinion was that it was not worth it for me to press for a change of parts which required splitting my tractor unless I was darn sure that there was a problem that needed to be fixed.

The L3400 is basically equivalent IMHO to the best of the tractors you could find a couple decades ago..... with the addition of HST. It is priced at the correct price point and competes well with other no frills machines (JD790 and TC30)... and tends to attract a lot of buyers.

I think is a great tractor and has done what I have expected of it and more.

 

[IslandTractor]

Pointing to the thread where one poster discusses HIS issues with a broken PTO on his L2800 and concluding that the "PTO has issues" on the model in general is utter nonsense and completely irrational. There is no question that the poster on that thread has had an unfortunate situation that none of us would like to be in - however, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever at any widespread problem with the PTO on this tractor of any kind. All there are are ASSUMPTIONS that stem from what is no doubt an unfortunate situation that has affected ONE owner. There have been a LOT of 2800/3400 tractors sold.

Well, Kubota did change the cam style on that PTO so there is evidence that it was a systemic weakness with that engineering design. Also Kubota changed the part on all new machines rather than just on the "few" broken ones. Still, if the new cam solves the problem then this issue should not be a major barrier to someone looking at a new 2800/3400.

 

[canoetrpr]

Well, Kubota did change the cam style on that PTO so there is evidence that it was a systemic weakness with that engineering design. Also Kubota changed the part on all new machines rather than just on the "few" broken ones. Still, if the new cam solves the problem then this issue should not be a major barrier to someone looking at a new 2800/3400.

IslandTractor. With all due respect I believe that this logic is flawed.

That Kubota changed the CAM style of the PTO is NOT evidence that there was ANY systemic weakness with the engineering design. This is merely an assumption.

Maybe your assumption is correct ... however ... maybe it is not. Widespread failures of the PTO on the many tractors that have been sold would be evidence. There is no such evidence.

I think it is not unlikely the the PTO change is related more to the noise of the racheting action of the ORC. This is an assumption on my part also.

The facts would dictate that nobody really knows why Kubota made this and any other change in production. Bear in mind that there is NO ORC anymore - which makes me wonder what the original ORC was trying to protect and why that protection is not needed anymore.

I'm not suggesting that I know more than you or anybody else regarding this situation.. but... it is incorrect IMHO to state things as fact when they are not.

 

[IslandTractor]

I think it is not unlikely the the PTO change is related more to the noise of the racheting action of the ORC. This is an assumption on my part also.

Well, I definitely am not an expert on this L2800 cam thing but I recall from the TBN discussion that there have been other cam failures and I did think that there was a different fix (?more hydraulic fluid) for the ratcheting noise. The benign ratcheting noise was presumably known to Kubota during product development so I don't understand why they would reengineer the part several years later. It therefore seemed logical to bring up that if the cam had been reengineered it was likely due to some failure. My apologies if my statement implied I had special knowledge.