Change hydraulic fluid at 50 hrs or not?

[gsholz]

Best price I found for Mobilfluid 424 was from TheLubricantStore.com at $70 for a 5 gal pail. Of course, shipping is pretty expensive but so is driving 120mi round trip to the dealer. I ordered the filters from TractorJoe at $132 plus shipping for engine, hydraulic and HST filters. The hydraulic filter number in the 2013 manual is wrong (non-existent). I ordered what was shown to fit a DK45. We'll see.

 

[Buggs67]

Error
This is the Hydro filter for my CK2510 and it's $65. It was more at another on-line dealer but identically priced at another. This may be Kioti's lowest permitted price.

It says error but the link is there. A name we all know.

 

[gsholz]

I changed the engine oil/filter and the hydraulic oil and filters today. I did find 5 small metal slivers on the sump magnet and the usual metallic fuzz. The fluid looked fine when I drained it but when I put it in a clear container for recycling it was much darker than new fluid. Good to get new fluid in there after the break in period.

Still have to do the front axle. The book says either 90 weight gear oil or use the transmission oil (i.e. Mobilfluid424). I was planning to use the latter since I have several gallons left. Any issues with that? (Not that I don't trust the owner's manual :confused3

 

[nc redneck]

FYI


Many in our industry call it the yellow bucket. This is a generic term for tractor hydraulic fluid, a unique multifunctional lubricant primarily used in farm and industrial tractors. In short, it’s a hydraulic fluid, transmission fluid and gear oil all in one, with U.S. demand estimated at 63 million gallons and valued at roughly $360 million in 2010. And while the term “yellow bucket” makes it all sound the same, it’s anything but.

Numerous specifications define the performance of THF, and most are OEM specific. In fact, it’s not unusual for a yellow bucket’s label to list more than 25 specifications from as many as 14 OEMs, including Massey Ferguson, Allis-Chalmers, Case, Kubota, Caterpillar, Duetz, Dresser, New Holland and others.

These labels sporting well-known OEM brands and numerous specifications might look impressive, but in many cases they can be deceiving and misleading, since some of the citations are often obsolete. As a result, farmers and others may pay less per gallon, but could end up paying significantly more in equipment repairs if they buy their THF without reading and understanding the label.

Take for example the many THFs labeled as satisfying John Deere’s JD-303 and JDM-20A specifications and Quatrol brand requirements. Deere dropped the JD-303 spec in the 1970s because it was based on sperm whale oil, which is illegal now to use as a lubricant. JDM-20A has been defunct since the early 1990s; it was superseded by JDM-20C. And listing “Quatrol” on labels can also be misleading since it was discontinued at the same time JDM-20A was deemed defunct. Deere has not monitored the quality of THF or claims relating to its specifications or brand names since the early 1990s, and this unfortunately has resulted in a free-for-all in the use of Deere nomenclature on labels — and in how products are formulated.

Absent any policing, some blenders reportedly now take the additive package designed to meet JDM-20C and use it at a lower treat rate to make fluids they claim meet JDM-20A (the defunct spec). Since JDM-20C replaced the older JDM-20A specification, they seem to have surmised that they can simply down-treat with the JDM-20C package and hit the mark. These oils are then sold to unsuspecting farmers as a THF meeting the needs of older equipment. But according to those in the know, this blending logic is flawed.

What some blenders apparently do not understand (or choose to ignore) is that additive manufacturers did not have to change their additive packages when the specification changed from JDM-20A to JDM-20C. When Deere upgraded to JDM-20C, its primary aim was to capture the requirements of the Allison C-4 specification; it did this by adding an oxidation and seal test for the formulated lubricant. All of the other tests carried over from JDM-20A. As a result, THF additive packages met the new specification without reformulation, at the same treat rates. Thus, a down-treat of the JDM-20C packages likely yields a fluid that flunks the defunct JDM-20A performance requirements.

Others in the industry are more direct about their concerns with down-treating. Rather than an innocent error born from blenders aiming to meet the needs of older tractors, they say down-treating is a deliberate attempt by some to cut costs and capture sales on price. And blenders get away with it because no one is looking and few seem to care.

Even more worrisome, some see down-treating as just the tip of the THF iceberg. They point to the use of very low quality base oils (even line wash) to blend products that in some cases are not even close to meeting the hotor cold-temperature viscosity limits for these fluids. As a result, farmers using these THFs may be buying themselves cold-flow problems (starting, starvation, etc.) and/or hot operation problems (high pump leakage, excessive gear wear and others). In addition, their oxidation resistance may be very poor, and this could lead to deposits, sludging, oil thickening, shortened service intervals and reduced equipment life.

Another important issue that speaks to the depth and breadth of the problem can be seen by taking a closer look at the wording on THF labels. Many fluids on the market don’t even say the products meet Deere, Case and other OEM specifications. Instead, they use such phrases as “recommended for,” “commonly used,” “typically used,” or “can be used where the following recommendations are made.” Sound familiar?

There is little argument from Deere and others that down-treating, use of low-quality base oils, and weaselwording on labels is going on. Furthermore, there continues to be a market for these products — and little wonder why. The THFs in question are priced well below legitimate products. As such, if marketers refuse to play the price game, they are boxed out of a significant volume of business. And they are not the only ones. Dealers also sell this lowprice/low-quality juice in an effort to meet the needs of their price-sensitive customers. And when the dealers themselves are selling it, it’s tough to convince farmers that a cut-rate fluid may not meet specifications and could cost them much more in the long run.

With that said, one has to ask, “Is it too late to educate consumers and stop the tumbling of quality in THF?” And beyond that, is there something we can learn from the THF mess and apply to other products left on the street with orphaned specs, like ATF?

(From the February issue of Lubes "N" Greases Magazine)

 

[xring100]

Excellent article
As as Co-op Student i worked a rotation in the materials lab at GM. Most of what i worked on was with Oil. I looked mostly at the concentrations of the various additive packages, (Anti-Wear, PH Stabilizers, Corrosion inhibitors, etc) in various motor oils and ATFs. What we found was that almost always you get what you pay for. We also did oxidization reduction of the Oil Using high temperature and high pressure oxygen in a calorimeter. Full synthetics like mobil 1 and AMSoil were impressive. all the conventional oils would usually brake down breaking the carbon bonds and turning the oil black in a few hours 3 - 5. The Full synthetics would go and entire weekend an never oxidize. That 3 month stint was all i needed thus i'm a believer and spend money for quality oils. Instead of the bargain basement ones

FYI


Many in our industry call it the yellow bucket. This is a generic term for tractor hydraulic fluid, a unique multifunctional lubricant primarily used in farm and industrial tractors. In short, it’s a hydraulic fluid, transmission fluid and gear oil all in one, with U.S. demand estimated at 63 million gallons and valued at roughly $360 million in 2010. And while the term “yellow bucket” makes it all sound the same, it’s anything but.

Numerous specifications define the performance of THF, and most are OEM specific. In fact, it’s not unusual for a yellow bucket’s label to list more than 25 specifications from as many as 14 OEMs, including Massey Ferguson, Allis-Chalmers, Case, Kubota, Caterpillar, Duetz, Dresser, New Holland and others.

These labels sporting well-known OEM brands and numerous specifications might look impressive, but in many cases they can be deceiving and misleading, since some of the citations are often obsolete. As a result, farmers and others may pay less per gallon, but could end up paying significantly more in equipment repairs if they buy their THF without reading and understanding the label.

Take for example the many THFs labeled as satisfying John Deere’s JD-303 and JDM-20A specifications and Quatrol brand requirements. Deere dropped the JD-303 spec in the 1970s because it was based on sperm whale oil, which is illegal now to use as a lubricant. JDM-20A has been defunct since the early 1990s; it was superseded by JDM-20C. And listing “Quatrol” on labels can also be misleading since it was discontinued at the same time JDM-20A was deemed defunct. Deere has not monitored the quality of THF or claims relating to its specifications or brand names since the early 1990s, and this unfortunately has resulted in a free-for-all in the use of Deere nomenclature on labels — and in how products are formulated.

Absent any policing, some blenders reportedly now take the additive package designed to meet JDM-20C and use it at a lower treat rate to make fluids they claim meet JDM-20A (the defunct spec). Since JDM-20C replaced the older JDM-20A specification, they seem to have surmised that they can simply down-treat with the JDM-20C package and hit the mark. These oils are then sold to unsuspecting farmers as a THF meeting the needs of older equipment. But according to those in the know, this blending logic is flawed.

What some blenders apparently do not understand (or choose to ignore) is that additive manufacturers did not have to change their additive packages when the specification changed from JDM-20A to JDM-20C. When Deere upgraded to JDM-20C, its primary aim was to capture the requirements of the Allison C-4 specification; it did this by adding an oxidation and seal test for the formulated lubricant. All of the other tests carried over from JDM-20A. As a result, THF additive packages met the new specification without reformulation, at the same treat rates. Thus, a down-treat of the JDM-20C packages likely yields a fluid that flunks the defunct JDM-20A performance requirements.

Others in the industry are more direct about their concerns with down-treating. Rather than an innocent error born from blenders aiming to meet the needs of older tractors, they say down-treating is a deliberate attempt by some to cut costs and capture sales on price. And blenders get away with it because no one is looking and few seem to care.

Even more worrisome, some see down-treating as just the tip of the THF iceberg. They point to the use of very low quality base oils (even line wash) to blend products that in some cases are not even close to meeting the hotor cold-temperature viscosity limits for these fluids. As a result, farmers using these THFs may be buying themselves cold-flow problems (starting, starvation, etc.) and/or hot operation problems (high pump leakage, excessive gear wear and others). In addition, their oxidation resistance may be very poor, and this could lead to deposits, sludging, oil thickening, shortened service intervals and reduced equipment life.

Another important issue that speaks to the depth and breadth of the problem can be seen by taking a closer look at the wording on THF labels. Many fluids on the market don’t even say the products meet Deere, Case and other OEM specifications. Instead, they use such phrases as “recommended for,” “commonly used,” “typically used,” or “can be used where the following recommendations are made.” Sound familiar?

There is little argument from Deere and others that down-treating, use of low-quality base oils, and weaselwording on labels is going on. Furthermore, there continues to be a market for these products — and little wonder why. The THFs in question are priced well below legitimate products. As such, if marketers refuse to play the price game, they are boxed out of a significant volume of business. And they are not the only ones. Dealers also sell this lowprice/low-quality juice in an effort to meet the needs of their price-sensitive customers. And when the dealers themselves are selling it, it’s tough to convince farmers that a cut-rate fluid may not meet specifications and could cost them much more in the long run.

With that said, one has to ask, “Is it too late to educate consumers and stop the tumbling of quality in THF?” And beyond that, is there something we can learn from the THF mess and apply to other products left on the street with orphaned specs, like ATF?

(From the February issue of Lubes "N" Greases Magazine)

 

[Hill Billy Bob]

I changed the engine oil/filter and the hydraulic oil and filters today. I did find 5 small metal slivers on the sump magnet and the usual metallic fuzz. The fluid looked fine when I drained it but when I put it in a clear container for recycling it was much darker than new fluid. Good to get new fluid in there after the break in period.

Still have to do the front axle. The book says either 90 weight gear oil or use the transmission oil (i.e. Mobilfluid424). I was planning to use the latter since I have several gallons left. Any issues with that? (Not that I don't trust the owner's manual :confused3

If it lubricates the gears and bearings in the rear axle.... it will do the same in the front one...... No sense in buying 90w, if you have UTF left over.....Bob

 

[gsholz]

If it lubricates the gears and bearings in the rear axle.... it will do the same in the front one...... No sense in buying 90w, if you have UTF left over.....Bob

Thanks Bob. That's what I was thinking too.

Kioti really should clean up their owners manuals. Example: the manual says remove one drain plug but there are three of them for the hydraulic fluid. Fortunately, they are painted red. The pictures show the two filters that need to be changed. The text only mentions one, etc. And then there is the change fluid at 50 hours vs not inconsistency.

It looks like they had an English speaking tech writer "clean up" the text but never went back and verified actual content against specific tractor model. Is the service manual any better?

 

[k0ua]

I used the MobilFluid 424 in both the transmission and the front axle. And yes the service manual is "some" better.

 

[Buggs67]

If it lubricates the gears and bearings in the rear axle.... it will do the same in the front one...... No sense in buying 90w, if you have UTF left over.....Bob

I'm new to tractors, but not cars. Axle fluid in cars (and manual gearboxes) is heavy grade 80or 80w-90 or such. I always thought it was because gears act against/with fluids differently and their bearings are different. Auto trannys use hydro fluid because they are basically hydraulic pumps (as is power steering).
I don't see how 10w-30 or 80w-90 will fulfill the same role. Not saying I'm right, just confused.

 

[k0ua]

I'm new to tractors, but not cars. Axle fluid in cars (and manual gearboxes) is heavy grade 80or 80w-90 or such. I always thought it was because gears act against/with fluids differently and their bearings are different. Auto trannys use hydro fluid because they are basically hydraulic pumps (as is power steering).
I don't see how 10w-30 or 80w-90 will fulfill the same role. Not saying I'm right, just confused.

It is a conundrum. But the manufactures often specify either for the front axles of tractors.:confused3: Is it because the front axles of tractors operate at such low speeds? I don't know.