CK30HS vs Kubota L2800

Bob_Skurka · May 26, 2006

albmn10 wrote: ( Woods 1012 is 3040 lbs, the kuboata 723 breakout is 2605lbs. )

Neil wrote: 
The Woods is 3040 at the pivot pins! Its 2240 at 20" out, that where Kubota takes their measurements. The 723 is sitll 400lbs stronger on breakout. 

Seems to me that there have been DOZENS of conversations on trying to compare loader specs and I've been flamed many times for suggesting that it is critical to know what the heck you are reading!!!

What seems totally silly are the people who defend ASAE specs as justification for using numbers that are meaningless. All the specs are ASAE specs, the question always has to go back to EXACTLY WHICH ASAE spes are you trying to compare? And is there any real world application that can be applied to those numbers . . . or are those numbers used because they are confusing and mislead consumers into thinking the loader is stronger than it really is?

Neil wrote: 
Whenever you look at these numbers you have to look where the measurement is taken. That can skew the numbers a good 30%. Kubota uses honest figures - breakout at the pivot pin is a useless number and has no real world application... it just looks good on paper. This has been hashed over before, but if your looking at anything other other than a Kubota or a New Holland you need to be very careful what your looking at. These marketing hype figures only lead people to be confused and expect more from the product than they are really going to get. 

That is exactly my point. It is nice to see an educated dealer point this out. The sad thing is that I've asked some dealers about specs (loaders and 3pt) and been able to stump several of them. I use it as a test. If they pass, then I may do business with them. If they don't, then I sit there and keep asking questions and coming up with answers until they realize they are idiots. But they are educated when I leave, and probably angry too /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Albmn10 wrote: their specs are rated at 2250 psi. But the Kioti Ck30 puts out 2560 psi . . .the Woods has the low end power 

Neil wrote: There is a relief setting on the loader valve that only allows 2250 down the lines. The extra pressure does not really get you anything. Some machines are less than 2250, their real world performance will actually be less. 

Neil, just to be crystal clear, the loader valve pressure setting is the limiting factor on the capacity. If the tractor has a higher output than the relief settings on the loader, then the extra capacity is useless because the loader will not allow the higher pressures. So really the Woods has LESS of the "low end power" which I presume means 'breakout force' and it also has LESS lift capacity too.

The Woods loader simply is no match for the Kubota 723.

And from the standpoint of the CK30, the Woods loader is still going to block the view forward and ruin the loader efficiency that the curved arm loader provides. Does anyone know if the new curved arm Rhino loaders will fit the CK30? Maybe that would be a viable option? Of course that is new/unproven design, but still might be worth a look if jmunekata doesn't mind taking a gamble.

Bob_Skurka · May 26, 2006

albmn10 wrote: ( Woods 1012 is 3040 lbs, the kuboata 723 breakout is 2605lbs. )

Neil wrote: 
The Woods is 3040 at the pivot pins! Its 2240 at 20" out, that where Kubota takes their measurements. The 723 is sitll 400lbs stronger on breakout. 

Seems to me that there have been DOZENS of conversations on trying to compare loader specs and I've been flamed many times for suggesting that it is critical to know what the heck you are reading!!!

What seems totally silly are the people who defend ASAE specs as justification for using numbers that are meaningless. All the specs are ASAE specs, the question always has to go back to EXACTLY WHICH ASAE spes are you trying to compare? And is there any real world application that can be applied to those numbers . . . or are those numbers used because they are confusing and mislead consumers into thinking the loader is stronger than it really is?

Neil wrote: 
Whenever you look at these numbers you have to look where the measurement is taken. That can skew the numbers a good 30%. Kubota uses honest figures - breakout at the pivot pin is a useless number and has no real world application... it just looks good on paper. This has been hashed over before, but if your looking at anything other other than a Kubota or a New Holland you need to be very careful what your looking at. These marketing hype figures only lead people to be confused and expect more from the product than they are really going to get. 

That is exactly my point. It is nice to see an educated dealer point this out. The sad thing is that I've asked some dealers about specs (loaders and 3pt) and been able to stump several of them. I use it as a test. If they pass, then I may do business with them. If they don't, then I sit there and keep asking questions and coming up with answers until they realize they are idiots. But they are educated when I leave, and probably angry too /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Albmn10 wrote: their specs are rated at 2250 psi. But the Kioti Ck30 puts out 2560 psi . . .the Woods has the low end power 

Neil wrote: There is a relief setting on the loader valve that only allows 2250 down the lines. The extra pressure does not really get you anything. Some machines are less than 2250, their real world performance will actually be less. 

Neil, just to be crystal clear, the loader valve pressure setting is the limiting factor on the capacity. If the tractor has a higher output than the relief settings on the loader, then the extra capacity is useless because the loader will not allow the higher pressures. So really the Woods has LESS of the "low end power" which I presume means 'breakout force' and it also has LESS lift capacity too.

The Woods loader simply is no match for the Kubota 723.

And from the standpoint of the CK30, the Woods loader is still going to block the view forward and ruin the loader efficiency that the curved arm loader provides. Does anyone know if the new curved arm Rhino loaders will fit the CK30? Maybe that would be a viable option? Of course that is new/unproven design, but still might be worth a look if jmunekata doesn't mind taking a gamble.

jmunekata · May 26, 2006

Folks,
Just keep those cards and letters coming.
I've got lots of time (and need it) to sort through all the wisdom here.
Thanks,
Jeff

jmunekata · May 26, 2006

Folks,
Just keep those cards and letters coming.
I've got lots of time (and need it) to sort through all the wisdom here.
Thanks,
Jeff

Bob_Skurka · May 26, 2006

Hey we are happy to spend your money. Just send each of us some of it, we'll go out and buy the equipment, test it for a few years and then send it to you with a complete written evaluation! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

As Niel points out, be very careful when you compare specs. When the marketing departments of some of these tractor companies get involved they tend to use the specs that make their tractor look better. Neil mentioned that Kubota and New Holland have "honest" specs, and I do agree with him. Case also publishes honest specs but they are the same company as New Holland. Other companies are "partially" honest and may provide "pivot point" specs for their front loaders (which I consider to be bogus/dishonest) but then provide 24" behind the ball eye capacities for their 3pt hitch (which is the honest measurement point).

Now as for the loaders, if you take the only loader available for the Kubota L2800 or the L3400, you will see that it has 853# of lift capacity at 500mm forward of the pivot points. The CK30, with the 130 loader has 1155# capacity at the pivot points, but derated by 30%, would only have 809# capacity at 500mm forward of the pivot points. The L3400HST would have 27.5 PTO hp, the CK30HST would have 22 PTO hp. The CK30 does have better 3pt capacity at 1764# 24" behind the ball eyes, while the L3400 has 1434# at 24" rearward. Personally I like the the CK30 tractor, but am afraid of the loader due to cracking and you can probably tell I would not buy the Woods loader. My choice for brute capacity is the L3130. My choice for form factor is the Case Farmall DX31/34 or the NH TC31/34, while they give up some lift capacity versus the L3130/723, the 14LA loader lifts 878# which is greater than either the Kioti CK30 or the Kubota L2800/L3400, and the Case/NH tractors have the best ergonomics of any tractor I've seen (JMHO), but are not bargain priced. BTW, the 3pt capacity of the C/NH products is less than the CK30, but a couple hundred more than the L2800/3400, while being a lot less than the L3130! The ergonomic advantage aside, the Case/NH gives you the best curved arm loader on the market. Woods and Kubota simply can't match the visibility of the C/NH loader. Confused yet? Its a good thing there are so many choices!

Much of this confusion is historical. Just about a decade ago most all the companies used "honest" numbers but recently some of the minor brands have come on the scene and they use pivot point or ball eye numbers, which are about 30% higher than honest numbers. Now several other companies have followed suit. So the whole thing is confusing as all get out.

But if you buy a loader rated at 1000# you may take it home to find out that it won't lift that 750# decorative rock your wife wants moved to the other side of the yard . . . and then you just spent $15,000+ hard earned dollars and got a sore back too! As illustrated above, if you buy a Kubota or Case/New Holland and the loader is rated at 1000#, then you have reasonable assurances that it will lift 1000# INSIDE THE BUCKET and that decorative rock you wife wants moved will be an easy task. Some other brands still provide honest measurment numbers, so read your specs very very very carefully and make sure the measurement points are compared properly.

Bob_Skurka · May 26, 2006

Hey we are happy to spend your money. Just send each of us some of it, we'll go out and buy the equipment, test it for a few years and then send it to you with a complete written evaluation! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

As Niel points out, be very careful when you compare specs. When the marketing departments of some of these tractor companies get involved they tend to use the specs that make their tractor look better. Neil mentioned that Kubota and New Holland have "honest" specs, and I do agree with him. Case also publishes honest specs but they are the same company as New Holland. Other companies are "partially" honest and may provide "pivot point" specs for their front loaders (which I consider to be bogus/dishonest) but then provide 24" behind the ball eye capacities for their 3pt hitch (which is the honest measurement point).

Now as for the loaders, if you take the only loader available for the Kubota L2800 or the L3400, you will see that it has 853# of lift capacity at 500mm forward of the pivot points. The CK30, with the 130 loader has 1155# capacity at the pivot points, but derated by 30%, would only have 809# capacity at 500mm forward of the pivot points. The L3400HST would have 27.5 PTO hp, the CK30HST would have 22 PTO hp. The CK30 does have better 3pt capacity at 1764# 24" behind the ball eyes, while the L3400 has 1434# at 24" rearward. Personally I like the the CK30 tractor, but am afraid of the loader due to cracking and you can probably tell I would not buy the Woods loader. My choice for brute capacity is the L3130. My choice for form factor is the Case Farmall DX31/34 or the NH TC31/34, while they give up some lift capacity versus the L3130/723, the 14LA loader lifts 878# which is greater than either the Kioti CK30 or the Kubota L2800/L3400, and the Case/NH tractors have the best ergonomics of any tractor I've seen (JMHO), but are not bargain priced. BTW, the 3pt capacity of the C/NH products is less than the CK30, but a couple hundred more than the L2800/3400, while being a lot less than the L3130! The ergonomic advantage aside, the Case/NH gives you the best curved arm loader on the market. Woods and Kubota simply can't match the visibility of the C/NH loader. Confused yet? Its a good thing there are so many choices!

Much of this confusion is historical. Just about a decade ago most all the companies used "honest" numbers but recently some of the minor brands have come on the scene and they use pivot point or ball eye numbers, which are about 30% higher than honest numbers. Now several other companies have followed suit. So the whole thing is confusing as all get out.

But if you buy a loader rated at 1000# you may take it home to find out that it won't lift that 750# decorative rock your wife wants moved to the other side of the yard . . . and then you just spent $15,000+ hard earned dollars and got a sore back too! As illustrated above, if you buy a Kubota or Case/New Holland and the loader is rated at 1000#, then you have reasonable assurances that it will lift 1000# INSIDE THE BUCKET and that decorative rock you wife wants moved will be an easy task. Some other brands still provide honest measurment numbers, so read your specs very very very carefully and make sure the measurement points are compared properly.

albmn10 · May 26, 2006

Neil If the specs where taken for breakout at different points , the customer has no way of knowing this, ill hand you that. But to say that Kubota and New Holland always meet their rated capacities is not correct either. Their was an post on here a few months ago , and if i remember correctly both Kubota and New Holland came up short at the Nebraska tests on several of their rated capacities.. So one can believe what they want. I will try to get more informantion from Woods to clarify their lift points and if they are being dishonest then that is wrong.. As far as capabilility of the Woods loader,ill tell you first hand that i have no problem lifting and dumping a half yard of crushed stone, which is in the neighborhood of 1300 - 1400 lbs Ive seen many posts of Kubotas struggling to get full buckets of stone so there must be more to the story here. Perhaps they were the 513 loaders, but i believe i saw some with the 723 as well.. Im not saying the 723 is not a good loader, My original point was for the customer to talk to the different dealers and see what other options are available, if he was concerned about the K130 loader. The Woods loader is the dog leg design as is the 723. I believe both the Ck30 and the L3130 have the same hydrolic output at 2560 psi. The woods bucket is 11 cuft the 723 is 10.7. The machines themselves are not really that far apart as some make them out to be. The Kubota is a 32 hp tractor,the ck30 is a 30 hp there should be a slight power advantage. The 723 also shares its frame with two larger machines the 3430 and the 3830, This is why the 3 point lift capacites is 700 lbs more for the L3130. One must also remember that regardless of this difference , both machines use the same 3 point implements , brush hogs,mowers,rakes because of similar pto hp 24 to 23. that extra 700 lb capacity at the 3 point hitch is really only going to be used on a carry all.One also must know their is a 3000 dollar price difference in these machines. I also stated for the poster to look into the Rhino 2408tl if he wanted the curved arm loader, perhaps a Rhino dealer can chime in and explain a bit more about this loader..

albmn10 · May 26, 2006

Neil If the specs where taken for breakout at different points , the customer has no way of knowing this, ill hand you that. But to say that Kubota and New Holland always meet their rated capacities is not correct either. Their was an post on here a few months ago , and if i remember correctly both Kubota and New Holland came up short at the Nebraska tests on several of their rated capacities.. So one can believe what they want. I will try to get more informantion from Woods to clarify their lift points and if they are being dishonest then that is wrong.. As far as capabilility of the Woods loader,ill tell you first hand that i have no problem lifting and dumping a half yard of crushed stone, which is in the neighborhood of 1300 - 1400 lbs Ive seen many posts of Kubotas struggling to get full buckets of stone so there must be more to the story here. Perhaps they were the 513 loaders, but i believe i saw some with the 723 as well.. Im not saying the 723 is not a good loader, My original point was for the customer to talk to the different dealers and see what other options are available, if he was concerned about the K130 loader. The Woods loader is the dog leg design as is the 723. I believe both the Ck30 and the L3130 have the same hydrolic output at 2560 psi. The woods bucket is 11 cuft the 723 is 10.7. The machines themselves are not really that far apart as some make them out to be. The Kubota is a 32 hp tractor,the ck30 is a 30 hp there should be a slight power advantage. The 723 also shares its frame with two larger machines the 3430 and the 3830, This is why the 3 point lift capacites is 700 lbs more for the L3130. One must also remember that regardless of this difference , both machines use the same 3 point implements , brush hogs,mowers,rakes because of similar pto hp 24 to 23. that extra 700 lb capacity at the 3 point hitch is really only going to be used on a carry all.One also must know their is a 3000 dollar price difference in these machines. I also stated for the poster to look into the Rhino 2408tl if he wanted the curved arm loader, perhaps a Rhino dealer can chime in and explain a bit more about this loader..

Bob_Skurka · May 26, 2006

Neil If the specs where taken for breakout at different points , the customer has no way of knowing this, ill hand you that. But to say that Kubota and New Holland always meet their rated capacities is not correct either. Their was an post on here a few months ago , and if i remember correctly both Kubota and New Holland came up short at the Nebraska tests on several of their rated capacities.. So one can believe what they want. 

Kubota does not submit any of their tractors to the Nebraska tests.

New Holland does submit their tractors to the Nebraska tests, and like many brands, some equipments does test out below the reported specs. In that case, the manufacturer must alter their specs to comply.

Please realize that none of the tractors we are talking about in this thread are even remotely close to the type of tractor that the Nebraska standardized tests would consider testing. The Nebraska tests are tests for agricultural tractors, not for compact tractors. There are not even testing proceedures within the rule set of the Nebraska standards to test little tractors like we play with.

Bob_Skurka · May 26, 2006

Neil If the specs where taken for breakout at different points , the customer has no way of knowing this, ill hand you that. But to say that Kubota and New Holland always meet their rated capacities is not correct either. Their was an post on here a few months ago , and if i remember correctly both Kubota and New Holland came up short at the Nebraska tests on several of their rated capacities.. So one can believe what they want. 

Kubota does not submit any of their tractors to the Nebraska tests.

New Holland does submit their tractors to the Nebraska tests, and like many brands, some equipments does test out below the reported specs. In that case, the manufacturer must alter their specs to comply.

Please realize that none of the tractors we are talking about in this thread are even remotely close to the type of tractor that the Nebraska standardized tests would consider testing. The Nebraska tests are tests for agricultural tractors, not for compact tractors. There are not even testing proceedures within the rule set of the Nebraska standards to test little tractors like we play with.