Baling hay with a CUT

[cowboydoc]

Re: Baling hay with a CUT-Kubota L4310 Round bales

Yes you're exactly right John. I also wouldn't even dream of pulling that round baler behind that 4710 either. I know that tractor isn't enough for that round baler either. I agree that he shouldn't have pulled the square baler and I told him so but I also think it's pretty ridiculous that kubota shows that tractor behind that round baler too. People are just asking for trouble doing that kind of work with CUT tractors. You really at least need a utility tractor for that kind of work.

 

[Darren]

I called the Kubota corporate office and was told as long as the baler hp requirement didn't exceed the tractor pto hp there isn't a warranty problem which is exactly what the local dealer said.

If you try to use anything beyond what it was designed for, you're taking a chance. The question now is what baler was hooked up to the pto? If it required more hp than the pto was rated for, forget about a warranty claim. If the baler requirements were within the tractor rating, something's not right.

 

[cowboydoc]

Well interesting story developing here. It seems that the tractor was within the gross hp ratings but not the pto hp ratings. Kubota is saying that the tractor must meet pto hp ratings. Bob told them to show him where his baler was rated for pto and not gross hp ratings. It seems they told him that all agricultural equipment was rated for pto hp. He said what about the picture of kubota with the round baler that is over it's rated pto hp? They said they were going to check into that and let him know. Guess we'll see what happens.

 

[hayden]

I think your argument hold up just fine. At 540 PTO RPM, same HP means same torque - that's the definition. I also agree that if you are within rated HP, it should darn well work and not break because of "overload".

Personally, I expect that a PTO shaft and everthing between it and the engine should be able to survive without damage any load that you can apply to the PTO, even at full engine power. If it breaks, it's a poor design and there's no excuse for it. An overload should only stall the engine, not break something.

 

[ddl]

that is not really ture. Horsepower is work per time and torque is turning force no matter how long the force is applied.

I have had different dearlers use different books to find the rating of a tractor. I also have been told the different tractor companies calulate the PTO horesepower different, JD is rated differently then Kubota and such. Who knows for sure unless you see the actual calculations used to see who is really right or wrong.

Dan L

 

[JerryG]

Richard,
I will start by saying that I don’t know a lot about Kubota sizing. Have him find out what parts broke or tore up. Then compare the part numbers from his tractor to the ones from the L4310. If they are the same and they rule that the PTO horse is the problem, it would be very interesting to tell them that both tractors have the same parts…….

 

[cowboydoc]

Good point Jerry.

 

[cmsedore]

It is true that horsepower is work per unit time. You calculate horsepower at the PTO (roughly) by multiplying RPM * torque. Since PTO rotation is standardized at 540 RPM, the torque will be the same at a given HP.

Measurement methods can differ (like the "Craftsman" horsepower debate you sometimes see rage). If the differences were very dramatic, though, you'd see vendors with ratings per equipment manufacturer (44 JD horsepower, 33 Kubota horsepower, 37 NH horsepower, etc).

-Chris

 

[ddl]

you are correct, My mistake. You still have to divide the rpm by 60 for horsepower is work per second, but no big deal. I still think we are hearing only part of the story. But who knows, I am sure Doc is telling all he knows.

Dan L

 

[cowboydoc]

DDL,
You've heard the whole story. Kubota has officially denied the warranty work because of the square baler. There really weren't any other circumstances. Other than the square baler he just used the tractor for loader work, mowing pastures, and raking his 8 acres of hay ground.