Buying Advice Does anyone know anything about the Kioti Tractors

[k0ua]

James, are you talking about the sub-CUT class, such as the Kubota BX series?

Yes, Kioti doesnt really compete against a BX25 in my opinion..

 

[Cherokee140]

When I bought I was not really sure what I was looking for, I looked at machines all the way up to the 4 series JD machines. I really wanted to take a look but there is nothing in my area for Kioti.

I am not a Mahendra fan at all, but I did look at their machines....no MFG was left out...but they did have to be within an hour and a half drive of my house.

 

[ovrszd]

Yes, Kioti doesnt really compete against a BX25 in my opinion..

I cut this out and pasted it to my toolbox......

 

[joshuabardwell]

Then there are the guys on the counter weight nipple' that don't have there tires loaded, that complain about traction.. and the fact they can't lift any thing without having their 1100 to 1300 pound counterwieght nipple strapped on the back.... they have also levered all the weight off the front end making the 4wd of very little help....Don't take this personal folks

When it comes to traction, loaded tires are king. But just to be clear, loaded tires do not do anything to shift weight off the front axle. Ballast on the rear is still mandatory for most (all) CUTs to achieve rated lift capacity, to provide stability, and to un-weight the front axle, which is not rated for full lift capacity of the loader. Check your operator's manual. My tractor (Bobcat CT225, Kioti clone) requires 880 lbs of rear ballast to achieve full lift capacity without loaded tires. Load the tires, and that goes down to 646 lbs. Nowhere in there does it say anything about an option to not use rear ballast.

If you don't want to use rear ballast, you need a bigger tractor.

 

[grm61]

When it comes to traction, loaded tires are king.

Very good

But just to be clear, loaded tires do not do anything to shift weight off the front axle.

Nowhere in my post did I say anything about loaded Rear tires unloading the front axle...However a 1300 pound counterweight on a 40 horse tractor does.

Check your operator's manual.

Nowhere in there does it say anything about an option to not use rear ballast.

I don't need to check my owners manual..I know what is says.
I never said anything about not using any ballast...Don't put words in my mouth.....

Ballast on the rear is still mandatory for most (all) CUTs to achieve rated lift capacity, to provide stability, and to un-weight the front axle, which is not rated for full lift capacity of the loader.

Funny, I looked through your spec sheet, I did not see the front axle rating for your tractor....Maybe I missed it,:confused3:

If you don't want to use rear ballast, you need a bigger tractor

I never said anything about not wanting to use any rear ballast....I don't need a bigger tractor...but you might:shocked:

Here is my original post in case you need to re-read it..

Jonathan R....Going to go with AG tires, after talking with my neighbors who have smaller size kubota'

grm61...Kubotas run a lot lighter than a comparable Kioti, Kiotis are heavy, ( Weight=traction ) Unless you are plowing fields, I would go with R4s, load em, make sure they fill them to just above the stem at 12:00, R4s are more durable and don't leave bumps all over your property like an ag tire.

Most folks whining about the traction of R4s either don't have em loaded , or they were told they were loaded, or paid to have them loaded, in reality they are 1/4 or 1/2 or a little more than half full, dealers like to fill them a quarter to half full and charge you full boar. Why bother?
Or they have a small tire that does not hold much.

Then there are the guys on the counter weight nipple' that don't have there tires loaded, that complain about traction.. and the fact they can't lift any thing without having their 1100 to 1300 pound counterwieght nipple strapped on the back.... they have also levered all the weight off the front end making the 4wd of very little help....Don't take this personal folks

I have 1164lbs of ballast in my rear tires, I have no problems with traction on my DK.

By all means be sure to follow the KL401 operating manual for safety

 

[ovrszd]

When it comes to traction, loaded tires are king. But just to be clear, loaded tires do not do anything to shift weight off the front axle. Ballast on the rear is still mandatory for most (all) CUTs to achieve rated lift capacity, to provide stability, and to un-weight the front axle, which is not rated for full lift capacity of the loader. Check your operator's manual. My tractor (Bobcat CT225, Kioti clone) requires 880 lbs of rear ballast to achieve full lift capacity without loaded tires. Load the tires, and that goes down to 646 lbs. Nowhere in there does it say anything about an option to not use rear ballast.

If you don't want to use rear ballast, you need a bigger tractor.

I'll hafta do some research, but I don't believe any tractor would be designed with a front axle that does not have the weight carrying capacity to handle whatever the loader can pick up???

I believe the owner's manual recommendations for rear ballast is to maintain stability when using the FEL on all models. You must also realize that when ballast is added you've also made it possible to increase the load on the front axle??

As for bigger tractors not needing ballast. That has not been my experiences at all. Now if I took the FEL off my old 44hp CUT and installed it on my 95hp Utility tractor, then yes, I would not have a need for rear ballast because the lift capacity of the FEL would be wayyyyy lower than the chassis is able to handle without ballast.

In recent years I've had a 30hp CUT, 44hp CUT and 95hp Utility. All three have had loaded rears. In the steep, offcamber world my tractors are used in it's a must for me. Heck, I even have loaded rears on my JD2210 that I mow with..... Much more stability is gained with loaded rears than with ballast.