CK3510SE HST & CK4010SE HST COMPARISONS

[dullpain]

Looks as if all the major ratings are the same for these 2 tractors. Such as Weight , 3 point lift capacity , displacement , rated RPM , dimensions. So where does the extra 5 HP
come from on the 4010 . Please don't quote the actual engine Gross HP , and PTO HP as stated in the brochures or specs of tractor. I know it's not actually 35 HP & 40 HP , but essentially there is a 5 HP difference between them.
Do they turn up the Pump and larger injectors on the 4010 ??
Anybody know average difference in price between the 35 and 40 models with standard equipment , no add on's ?
Anyone have a problem with the ROPS height being 99.2 inches (overall height) Seems tall to me , I currently have a Kubota B2910 and can't quote it's height , but is considerably less . Yes I know the ROPS on Kioti is foldable
but I like a canopy which would prohibit folding without first removing , and that would be a hassle. I would use the Kioti in the yard some and field/pastures some. The yard is the problem , lots of trees and low hanging stuff, so
clearance becomes a problem. I'm sure there will be more questions as I narrow my choices . Thanks in advance for info.

 

[chevy]

I was told that the increase in horse power on the CK4010SE is through tuning.

I believe the price difference between the 2 was about $1500 when I got mine. The only option available on the CK3510SE & CK4010SE that I am aware of is the loader 3rd function. The tractors come standard with what would be options on other tractors.

I have not had a problem with the ROPS. I keep my yard trees trimmed high enough to drive under.

 

[jcbGM]

The only difference in these two tractors is ECU tuning. Otherwise, the are exactly the same. The is a common practice with all construction and farm equipment manufacturers. I can’t recall the price difference when I purchased. Maybe $1300-$1400?

You’ll only notice the difference in PTO operation. I use a 5’ cutter on hilly western PA terrain and have bogged down the tractor a handful of times. Most of these times were related to the cutter clogging up and not clearing.

I’ve been really happy with the ck3510se.

 

[finn1]

Tractors have been sold and priced by incremental power ratings for decades. When I graduated from college in the mid 1970s and went to work for an equipment manufacturer, we would develop engines with as much common hardware as possible, but set what was called a master pump for each power rating. Bosch, Ambac, Cav, or whoever was the supplier would use that master calibration to set production pumps for the assembly line.

Today things have progressed to where that calibration is added at the end of the engine assembly line via the ecu calibration.

The original goal of maximizing parts commonality across power ratings remains the same.

 

[NYCheese]

The only difference in these two tractors is ECU tuning. Otherwise, the are exactly the same. The is a common practice with all construction and farm equipment manufacturers. I can’t recall the price difference when I purchased. Maybe $1300-$1400?

You’ll only notice the difference in PTO operation. I use a 5’ cutter on hilly western PA terrain and have bogged down the tractor a handful of times. Most of these times were related to the cutter clogging up and not clearing.

I’ve been really happy with the ck3510se.

I'd echo this 100%

 

[SloppyJoe]

The only difference in these two tractors is ECU tuning. Otherwise, the are exactly the same. The is a common practice with all construction and farm equipment manufacturers. I can稚 recall the price difference when I purchased. Maybe $1300-$1400?

You値l only notice the difference in PTO operation. I use a 5 cutter on hilly western PA terrain and have bogged down the tractor a handful of times. Most of these times were related to the cutter clogging up and not clearing.

I致e been really happy with the ck3510se.

I agree as well and heard the extra hp is from the tuning program on the fuel injection system. The engine displacement is the same and I believe the other components are as well. I paid an extra $1000 at the time (over 35 hp) but still wonder if it really mattered. I would also say that the only time I think the extra 5 hp may come in handy for me is brush cutting. I really can't say that I see a big advantage otherwise. My thinking was go with the extra hp to offset the loss in PTO power with the HST.

 

[Beeenvenue]

New to tractors but I faced the same choice this spring. Ended up with the 35. As a former USAF reliability engineer I can guarantee you that a 40 hp drive train and chassis operating at 35hp will last longer than the same unit operated at 40hp (even if only occasionally used at 40 hp). That’s why I have the 35. To date I have had similar experiences to the others - hogging with a 5’ cutter in 6’ tall brush it will bog down from time to time but once I get out of those worst case patches it just runs.

 

[biggziff]

New to tractors but I faced the same choice this spring. Ended up with the 35. As a former USAF reliability engineer I can guarantee you that a 40 hp drive train and chassis operating at 35hp will last longer than the same unit operated at 40hp (even if only occasionally used at 40 hp). That’s why I have the 35. To date I have had similar experiences to the others - hogging with a 5’ cutter in 6’ tall brush it will bog down from time to time but once I get out of those worst case patches it just runs.

Who says it was designed for 40 HP? It would be a poor engineer who doesn't build in some overhead.

 

[SloppyJoe]

New to tractors but I faced the same choice this spring. Ended up with the 35. As a former USAF reliability engineer I can guarantee you that a 40 hp drive train and chassis operating at 35hp will last longer than the same unit operated at 40hp (even if only occasionally used at 40 hp). That痴 why I have the 35. To date I have had similar experiences to the others - hogging with a 5 cutter in 6 tall brush it will bog down from time to time but once I get out of those worst case patches it just runs.

That is a bit of a stretch. It may be a little but insignificant. I fly for a living (helicopters first, now airliners) and while we conserve energy on the jet engines for longevity, you don't see that in consumer gas and diesel and applications to that degree. I was a maintenance officer that flew as a functional check pilot in the USMC. I understand how that little extra power to max wears a jet engine out a lot quicker. Trust me, they won't build a consumer engine to run at max capacity that will wear out like a jet engine (racing teams will). My argument for the 35 over the 40 hp CK is that the 35 hp engine runs the hydraulic pump at the same speed and capacity and that the extra 5hp may not be necessary to run the CK at max capacity. In the owners manual it doesn't show an attachment the 40 hp tractor can carry that a 35 won't. Having said that, I thought the extra $1000 may be worth it in case there are some things that come out that may need a slight bit more power. The only application that I see the extra hp is maybe helpful is bush hogging but that's about it.

 

[cholland]

Good discussion. I went with the ck3510se. I was quoted over $1800 more for the 4010. IMO if you need more hp you should step up at least one frame size and think about 50hp. It really only makes a difference for ground engaging work, larger implements.

I put the extra money towards a 3rd function and top & tilt, cause the SE has rear remotes already installed.

I have not found the ROPS to be in the way. Just trim stuff up higher or smash through it. A canopy probably wouldn't last long on my machine, at least until I get things cleaned up a little more.