CK30HS vs Kubota L2800

[Bob_Skurka]

<font color="blue">This discussion, as so many, has simply become a technical fight. All you need to do is go see the few tractors you're interested in, try them out with implements on, and see which one you like the best and can get the best deal on. . .

John </font>

John, I'll have to partially disagree with you here. There are some serious advantages to the curved boom loader design and you and I both agree on that. Go back to my first post and your first post after mine. We both addressed the CK30's problem with the 130 loader. I'd quickly choose the CK30 over the L2800, and over the L3400 if I didn't need the PTO HP. But the main reason to have a tractor is for the loader. The L2800/L3400 have a stronger loader than the Ck30/130. The big advantage to the CK30 is the curved arm loader, and I still would choose the CK30 even with the lower capacity. BUT, switching to the Woods loader due to the cracking problems in the 130 loader changes that whole concept, at least for me and for many people who have switched to curved arm loaders and know both styles of modern loaders.

Honestly I don't think this should be a technical debate, but certainly some mistatements have been corrected.

The debate really should hinge around the loader issue and the loss of productivity that a dog leg loader provides versus the curved arm design and its easier/faster usability. Essentially putting the Woods loader on the CK30 takes away a large advantage the CK30 had. It is still a nicer tractor than the L3400, but doesn't have a price advantage, has a little more lift, but a lot less PTO HP so the choices are not clear any more. I think one of my posts really made fun of the specs that Neil and albumn10 have been fighting over as I cited all the various specs of several similar tractors!

Another issue with putting an aftermarket loader on any brand of tractor is the warrenty factor. IF something breaks, there is always the possibility that the tractor maker will blame the mis-matched loader, or the loader manufacturer will blame the trackor maker. The dealer will be stuck in the middle, the customer will be stuck period. Not to say it will happen, but then who ever thought the Kioti 120 and 130 loaders would have torsion cracks? So its proof most anything could happen.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

<font color="blue">This discussion, as so many, has simply become a technical fight. All you need to do is go see the few tractors you're interested in, try them out with implements on, and see which one you like the best and can get the best deal on. . .

John </font>

John, I'll have to partially disagree with you here. There are some serious advantages to the curved boom loader design and you and I both agree on that. Go back to my first post and your first post after mine. We both addressed the CK30's problem with the 130 loader. I'd quickly choose the CK30 over the L2800, and over the L3400 if I didn't need the PTO HP. But the main reason to have a tractor is for the loader. The L2800/L3400 have a stronger loader than the Ck30/130. The big advantage to the CK30 is the curved arm loader, and I still would choose the CK30 even with the lower capacity. BUT, switching to the Woods loader due to the cracking problems in the 130 loader changes that whole concept, at least for me and for many people who have switched to curved arm loaders and know both styles of modern loaders.

Honestly I don't think this should be a technical debate, but certainly some mistatements have been corrected.

The debate really should hinge around the loader issue and the loss of productivity that a dog leg loader provides versus the curved arm design and its easier/faster usability. Essentially putting the Woods loader on the CK30 takes away a large advantage the CK30 had. It is still a nicer tractor than the L3400, but doesn't have a price advantage, has a little more lift, but a lot less PTO HP so the choices are not clear any more. I think one of my posts really made fun of the specs that Neil and albumn10 have been fighting over as I cited all the various specs of several similar tractors!

Another issue with putting an aftermarket loader on any brand of tractor is the warrenty factor. IF something breaks, there is always the possibility that the tractor maker will blame the mis-matched loader, or the loader manufacturer will blame the trackor maker. The dealer will be stuck in the middle, the customer will be stuck period. Not to say it will happen, but then who ever thought the Kioti 120 and 130 loaders would have torsion cracks? So its proof most anything could happen.

 

[KiotiJohn]

Bob, in your latest response, all you have managed to do is to repeat, once again, what you have stated over and over in this thread. I think we all got the idea, and your opinions in the very first time you stated them.

Yes, I agree that the loader design is important, but I see no reason that the same information needs to be reiterated over and over in an attempt to change someone's mind or for whatever reason. Once you type it here, it's here, it doesn't need reiteration as we're probably all capable of reading over what we may not have understood the first time.

Can you make a recommendation for this poster on what tractor he may wish to buy, what loader you think would be best, and start another thread if you want to have this repetitive discussion? I think that would be the proper way to help the original poster.

John

 

[KiotiJohn]

Bob, in your latest response, all you have managed to do is to repeat, once again, what you have stated over and over in this thread. I think we all got the idea, and your opinions in the very first time you stated them.

Yes, I agree that the loader design is important, but I see no reason that the same information needs to be reiterated over and over in an attempt to change someone's mind or for whatever reason. Once you type it here, it's here, it doesn't need reiteration as we're probably all capable of reading over what we may not have understood the first time.

Can you make a recommendation for this poster on what tractor he may wish to buy, what loader you think would be best, and start another thread if you want to have this repetitive discussion? I think that would be the proper way to help the original poster.

John

 

[New_Jersey01]

Kioti has plans in the future for reinforcement. I wound not concern myself with the cracking issues as Kioti will fix this.

 

[New_Jersey01]

Kioti has plans in the future for reinforcement. I wound not concern myself with the cracking issues as Kioti will fix this.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

OK John, limiting the choices first to the tractors mentioned by Jeff, but then adding in choices added by other posters this is what I would recommend & why.

IF I needed the MOST PTO hp and wanted lift capacity, I would choose the L3400HST. It has modest features, a low price, and substantially more PTO hp than any other choice here, so it will handle a bigger tiller, more easily handle the power needs of a cutter or mower, etc.

IF I needed as friendly tractor but pure brute strength was required, I would choose the L3130HST/723 loader. It is fully featured, but has dog-leg loader.

IF I needed a tractor for general tasks that was super friendly, I would choose the CK30/130 . . . but I would rule out the 130 as an option right now, so that would eliminate the CK30 from my list. As stated, the Woods loader eliminates much of the friendly advantage and raises other concerns.

Now if we add in the other brands that were mentioned by other people before me, then we could add in the New Holland TCs. And while it is often more expensive, it offers more capacity than everything except the L3130, in a super friendly package that has great ergonomics and the best curved arm loader design. A TC29/31 would be an excellent choice, ditto its clone Farmall DX29 and DX31.

NOT mentioned in this thread are many other brands. I've been greatly impressed with the new offerings from John Deere, their curved arm loader is not as good as the NH, but the tractors are now rivaling the C-NH products for good design. I've now been out on the new 3x20 machines and like them a lot. They are impressive by any standards.

I've recently been on a few Montana tractors. They have a curved arm loader. I am not impressed with their designs. The 3pt controls require way too long of a reach, the rear remote controls are located under my right leg, and lots of details looked cheap. They are priced low, so there could be some serious value in those tractors if you can look past some poor ergonomics.

Mahindra keeps pushing out more and more machines. They have not adopted the curved arm loaders yet. Nice machines. I stopped by the dealer again. Still unimpressed with the dealership we have locally, but the tractors have pretty good ergonomics and look to be good. If I needed heavy weight, they would be a contender if the local dealer was up to my standards.


New JerseyO1 wrote:<font color="red"> Kioti has plans in the future for reinforcement. I wound not concern myself with the cracking issues as Kioti will fix this.
</font>
Actually it was KiotiJohn who recommended, early in this thread, not to buy the Kioti 130 loader until it is redesigned.

Early in the thread I wrote: <font color="blue">The only potential problem I see with the CK30 is the 130 loader which is prone to cracking at the cross brace. In fairness, it appears that the loader is being redesigned and that a fix is coming down the line for any of the cracked loaders, so if you buy the 130 loader you'll want to watch it for cracks during the warrenty period. </font>
Then KiotiJohn wrote: <font color="green">
Actually, until they get either a new design or a fix in place for the problem, I would recommend skipping the Kioti loader . . .</font>

 

[Bob_Skurka]

OK John, limiting the choices first to the tractors mentioned by Jeff, but then adding in choices added by other posters this is what I would recommend & why.

IF I needed the MOST PTO hp and wanted lift capacity, I would choose the L3400HST. It has modest features, a low price, and substantially more PTO hp than any other choice here, so it will handle a bigger tiller, more easily handle the power needs of a cutter or mower, etc.

IF I needed as friendly tractor but pure brute strength was required, I would choose the L3130HST/723 loader. It is fully featured, but has dog-leg loader.

IF I needed a tractor for general tasks that was super friendly, I would choose the CK30/130 . . . but I would rule out the 130 as an option right now, so that would eliminate the CK30 from my list. As stated, the Woods loader eliminates much of the friendly advantage and raises other concerns.

Now if we add in the other brands that were mentioned by other people before me, then we could add in the New Holland TCs. And while it is often more expensive, it offers more capacity than everything except the L3130, in a super friendly package that has great ergonomics and the best curved arm loader design. A TC29/31 would be an excellent choice, ditto its clone Farmall DX29 and DX31.

NOT mentioned in this thread are many other brands. I've been greatly impressed with the new offerings from John Deere, their curved arm loader is not as good as the NH, but the tractors are now rivaling the C-NH products for good design. I've now been out on the new 3x20 machines and like them a lot. They are impressive by any standards.

I've recently been on a few Montana tractors. They have a curved arm loader. I am not impressed with their designs. The 3pt controls require way too long of a reach, the rear remote controls are located under my right leg, and lots of details looked cheap. They are priced low, so there could be some serious value in those tractors if you can look past some poor ergonomics.

Mahindra keeps pushing out more and more machines. They have not adopted the curved arm loaders yet. Nice machines. I stopped by the dealer again. Still unimpressed with the dealership we have locally, but the tractors have pretty good ergonomics and look to be good. If I needed heavy weight, they would be a contender if the local dealer was up to my standards.


New JerseyO1 wrote:<font color="red"> Kioti has plans in the future for reinforcement. I wound not concern myself with the cracking issues as Kioti will fix this.
</font>
Actually it was KiotiJohn who recommended, early in this thread, not to buy the Kioti 130 loader until it is redesigned.

Early in the thread I wrote: <font color="blue">The only potential problem I see with the CK30 is the 130 loader which is prone to cracking at the cross brace. In fairness, it appears that the loader is being redesigned and that a fix is coming down the line for any of the cracked loaders, so if you buy the 130 loader you'll want to watch it for cracks during the warrenty period. </font>
Then KiotiJohn wrote: <font color="green">
Actually, until they get either a new design or a fix in place for the problem, I would recommend skipping the Kioti loader . . .</font>

 

[KiotiJohn]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( New JerseyO1 wrote: Kioti has plans in the future for reinforcement. I wound not concern myself with the cracking issues as Kioti will fix this.

Actually it was KiotiJohn who recommended, early in this thread, not to buy the Kioti 130 loader until it is redesigned.

Early in the thread I wrote: The only potential problem I see with the CK30 is the 130 loader which is prone to cracking at the cross brace. In fairness, it appears that the loader is being redesigned and that a fix is coming down the line for any of the cracked loaders, so if you buy the 130 loader you'll want to watch it for cracks during the warrenty period.
Then KiotiJohn wrote:
Actually, until they get either a new design or a fix in place for the problem, I would recommend skipping the Kioti loader . . .
)</font>
You see Bob, every bit of this last part of your post was just unecessary. Do you not realize that people can read? You do this copy and paste thing about as bad as LBrown!

I know you're enjoying making the point over and over that I said to skip the loader. That must make you very happy as you keep making note of it. I think we all got the point.

This is one of the things you constantly do that makes others wish you would stick to your Kubota and New Holland.
John

 

[KiotiJohn]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( New JerseyO1 wrote: Kioti has plans in the future for reinforcement. I wound not concern myself with the cracking issues as Kioti will fix this.

Actually it was KiotiJohn who recommended, early in this thread, not to buy the Kioti 130 loader until it is redesigned.

Early in the thread I wrote: The only potential problem I see with the CK30 is the 130 loader which is prone to cracking at the cross brace. In fairness, it appears that the loader is being redesigned and that a fix is coming down the line for any of the cracked loaders, so if you buy the 130 loader you'll want to watch it for cracks during the warrenty period.
Then KiotiJohn wrote:
Actually, until they get either a new design or a fix in place for the problem, I would recommend skipping the Kioti loader . . .
)</font>
You see Bob, every bit of this last part of your post was just unecessary. Do you not realize that people can read? You do this copy and paste thing about as bad as LBrown!

I know you're enjoying making the point over and over that I said to skip the loader. That must make you very happy as you keep making note of it. I think we all got the point.

This is one of the things you constantly do that makes others wish you would stick to your Kubota and New Holland.
John