CK30 vs DK40 size....

[mossyoakpenn]

Hello all! Long time lurker and first time poster here. In the next two days I will be getting a CK30 or a DK40 both with FEL and BH. The CK35 is not available to me so its out of the question. I like the 40 better due to the dual HST paddles vs the rocker on the 30 (have trouble fitting my foot around the brake every time I move forward to reverse) and the fact it can lift twice as much with the FEL. What Im worried about is the physical size of the DK40. The tractor will be used for plowing snow on a 3/4 mile driveway, maintaining logging roads, controlling erosion and other various tasks around my 20 acres. My concern is that the 40 will be too big for use in the woods where it will spend a decent amount of time. What do you all think?

 

[VictorW]

I have a CK30hst and a friend has a DK45, same size as the 40. The DK is bigger in physical dimensions but I think your jobs need that size with stronger fel, 3pt, and overall weight. Six foot back blade or box blade is about all the CK can handle. My friend runs his in wooded areas without trouble. I could probably manuver in tighter places better than him but the overall greater power makes up for the DK's bigger size. Members here with a DK40 or 45 will help you better with the woods concern. I believe one of the members had a CK and went with a DK and never looked back. Just give them a day or two to answer.

 

[k0ua]

I did not notice a lot of difference as far as woods maneuvering when I went from B7500 (smaller than a CK30) to L3400, (same size as CK 30) and my current DK35se (almost same as DK40se.. Just 4 inches shorter, and about 200 lbs lighter). Oh sure there is some difference, but not a lot in that regard. There is a lot of difference in capability's With a hydrostatic transmission on the last two tractors, I can see-saw around obstacles very rapidly. If it was me.. I would get the DK40se. Just a lot more capability, and more comfort too. Lift more, pull more, push more, carry more. you get the picture.

 

[kco]

+1 for K0ua's comments, I also have a DK35. I went from a smaller, and much older Kubota L275DT and was concerned with the size and maneuverability. Although on paper the L275DT is supposed to have a shorter turning radius (with one locked wheel) the DK35 is much more maneuverable. The DK35's front wheels turn much sharper and the extra weight also helps.

I also prefer the two pedal HST over the rocker style. Also, the DK comes with a remote hydraulic port which I use for a snowblower chute rotator. The 3 point operating lever at the rear is another feature I appreciate.

My summer use is mainly on wooded, hilly, narrow trails. I have no trouble weaving in and out of small spaces.

Since I was concerned with the DK size I got the DK35 rather than the DK40. Knowing what I know now, I would have gone with the DK40 for the extra snowblowing power. The DK35's loader has half the lift capacity of the DK40. I sort of considered that desirable because it would prevent me from over-stressing the DK35 which has essentially the same tractor frame.

Both are great tractors, but I'd definitely go with the DK40.

 

[mossyoakpenn]

Thanks a lot so far guys. This is exactly what I was looking for. Keep the recommendations coming!

 

[murph1]

I am surprised you can even find a DK.

 

[motownbrowne]

I have a Kubota mx4700, which is about the same size as the DK. It's great in the woods. I don't think you'll regret the bigger machine.

 

[alancamby]

I was in the same dilemma a year ago for my small 14 acres. I was looking at ck35 and dk40.

Now that I have the DK40 I am surprised how many times the DK was just barely able to lift, pull, or push to complete a job. The DK felt so huge in the dealers lot but now seems so much smaller.
You will quickly find the DK 40's limitations and realize how glad you are that you did not go smaller. Looking back I am so glad that I did not get the CK.

Sure the CK might be a little smaller for the woods. I feel very comfortable in the woods with the DK. My property is very technical in my woods. There are a few rocks and trees that I have dragged out of the woods that took every bit of traction and lifting power that the DK had.

I think there are very few people who will say that they wish they had bought a smaller tractor. I hope to keep the DK for the rest of my life. If I have to replace it, the replacement sure will not be smaller.

 

[Raw Dodge]

I always wish the tractor was a little bigger, never smaller, especially if trailering it is few and far between, I say go with the 40 and it's way more capable loader..

 

[cat fever]

I agree with all the comments so far. I was making the same choice 4 months ago. For me it was a HP thing. I could have got by with a 50 HP, I went with the 66 HP and have never looked back.
Other than to look back and make sure what I'm dragging is still there.

 

[paulfun9]

I would go with the DK I have only cam upon one spot where I couldn't fit so far and that was easy to remedy as I simply knocked the tree down and hauled it out for the fire pit. In all honesty even my little JD wouldn't have fit threw there so it really wasn't a matter of the size of the machine but rather that nothing had been threw that part of the woods for a long time.

If you like the DK better I would say go for it and don't look back!

 

[chuck172]

I went from a L3200, to a ck35, to a dk40se. The DK is just in a different class. Not only will it lift almost three times the ck's loader max, it's much heavier. The weight is important for stability and snowplowing. It's a 4 cyl., runs smoother and quieter. I really liked my ck, can't say the same for the kobuta L3200. Get the DK!

 

[vtsnowedin]

I have said this elsewhere but it bares repeating. If your tractor won't fit between two trees they are too close together and one of them belongs in the wood pile.
If your working in the woods on hilly and rough ground you want your rear tires loaded and set out as wide as possible. And you want a tractor that weighs more then the logs your pulling out.

 

[IXLR8]

I upgraded from a CK30 to a DK40, I wanted the extra lifting capability of the DK FEL and I wanted to be able to put a stronger BH on it than what I had on the CK. The CK is slightly more maneuverable but not in a major way. The DK will do more damage to your lawn than the CK, but if you are spending most of your time in the woods.. it doesn't matter much. The DK is heavier than the CK and the tires have less contact area, hence the reason for more damage to lawn. Even with the rear tires loaded, in 2wd I find that I am spinning the rear tires on the DK easier than I did on the CK, further tearing up the lawn. For close operations and repetitive FEL use, I MUCH prefer the single HST pedal of the CK over the dual pedal of the DK. I wear size 11.5 boots, never use the brake except for parking, so getting boot stuck is not an issue for me. I put about 150 hrs on the single pedal CK and after 75 hrs on the DK I am still hitting the wrong pedal at the wrong time and I have damage to my tractor storage unit and the garage on the house to prove it. In 4wd, the DK is almost unstoppable. With chains on the DK, it plows thru the snow much better than the CK did, even though the CK had more aggressive chains on it. I like flipping a switch to put the DK in 4wd, rather than fighting with the manual lever of the CK. I like having a 3pt control in the rear for when I am hooking up implements on the DK. If you are going to be using anything on the 3pt that is going to be using hydraulics... I would order a second set and have them installed before delivery. I have 2 remotes on the rear and there are times I wish I had 3. If you are doing any rear blade work, Top-N-Tilt will make your life much easier.

 

[TJP89]

I had to make the same decision last summer. I went with the CK35 because there was just to many places the DK was either not going to fit or barely fit. This mostly was a factor of implement size not tractor size. The CK takes 5ft implements, the DK 6ft, and that was going to cause problems. remember that the implements have to fit too. That said, If there are only a few spots the tractor won't go, I would go with the DK, as for not much more $$, you get a lot more tractor.

 

[IslandTractor]

I moved up from a CK20 to DK40. There was a substantial difference obviously and it was not only in power and FEL performance. It was like going from driving a Toyota Corolla/RAV4 to a Suburban. I would think a CK35 would fit somewhere in the Camry/Highlander size proportionately. The DK doesn't turn in as small a space. It is higher and doesn't go under branches as easily. The bucket/grapple is further ahead and therefore a bit harder to see. As Jim pointed out, it has a significantly heavier footprint on lawns and can dig divots with the rear or even front wheels quite easily when power overcomes traction. The implements are bigger and more of a challenge to horse around when mounting. All that said, I would definitely choose the DK over the CK30 even though the CK is an excellent tractor. Size is both an advantage and disadvantage in the woods but the only disadvantage has to do with maneuverability and that can be worked around. I don't recall anything that I could do with my CK that I cannot do with the DK except perhaps travel under some branches that are between 7 and 9 feet off the ground. Sometimes I spend more time carefully maneuvering with the DK but once I am in position the work goes so much faster that the extra maneuvering time is easily made up.

There are many things that the DK will do that the CK simply cannot, mostly related to loader capacity. Having larger implements is generally a good thing but there is no law that says you must have 72" implements on a DK. I use the same 48" grapple as I had on my CK and I've never wanted anything wider especially in the woods. I use a medium duty 5ft bush hog simply because I got a great deal on Craigslist and that works just fine for rough clearing and maneuvering around in the woods or in thickets. Most of my other implements are 6ft but other than covering the track, there is no "need" to use larger stuff if maneuvering in the woods is a prime consideration.

I would not worry too much about making a "wrong" decision as both the CK and DK will serve you well. The DK is a lot more tractor for relatively little more money though. If I had my druthers, I'd own my DK and either have my CK20 TLB back or get a BX24/25 for use on lawns and around the house.

 

[chuck172]

With the ck35, I had R4 tires with chains. I used a frame mount snowplow because I was afraid of damaging the loader arms with the ssqa snowplow.
With my DK40seh, I have R1 tires with no need to use chains. I use a ssqa mount snowplow, the loader arms are much more beefy, less prone to damage.
I think quite a few on here have upgraded to the dk from the ck because of loader capabilities.

 

[TJP89]

In my case it didn't work to go up in size. I have never yet felt I needed the DK (though I wish I had that rear 3PT lever every time I hook up). However, I think I would have just shoved DK through some spots and not gone in others, so both would probably work. There are A LOT of people who upgraded for various reasons. Unless there are just a multitude of spots where you can't get an extra foot of width short of liberal use of TNT as I do, go with the DK. Also the Kioti CK is likely tier 4 by now and the DK is not, so bonus there.

 

[maximus1277]

Go bigger... Or you will be shopping in a year.

 

[northcreek2624]

My needs are about like yours. I was set to buy a 35 but went for the 40 for more lift capacity and an extra cylinder(four cylinder). I'm happy but, I could be really happy with a 45. With tractors horse power is nice but, weight and size determines what you can do with it, I would always go UP....Mike.