I can only buy one: B7800, TC30, JD790, or CK30

[IslandTractor]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( <font color="blue">
Interesting thought, so I looked up the specs on the tractors.
Kubota B7800 = 1741# which gives it an amazing 58# for each 1 HP
JD 790 = 2150# which gives it 79# of weight for each 1 HP
Kubota L2800 = 2600# which gives it 89# of weight for each 1 HP
CK 30 = 3042# which gives it 101# of weight for each 1 HP

All the weights are from the internet, none include FELs, which typically add another 850 to 1000# of weight. Obviously the less weight per horsepower a tractor has the more powerful it would feel. )</font><font color="black">

Not sure I would agree with the conclusion here. For motorcycles and hot rods the hp/lb is an important figure. Does anyone think the B7800 is almost twice as powerful "feeling" as the L2800 or CK30?? Seems to me that with tractors, while HP certainly is a factor, there is less than a direct correlation between power and HP. Think about some of the monster Ag tractors which likely have ratios well above 100. The B7800 might win a 5 yard sprint but is unlikely to grossly out pull the others and might well lose a tug of war to the heavier tractors. Right??

 

[thcri]

I found an article once on the web and I sure wish I could find it again as it explained the differences in tires.

Basically what they said in any tire weight was a major factor. I am talking about indents left in the soil not the turf. The different tires based on the same weight will leave pretty close to the same indent. Drive three tractors of the same across sand side by side. You would be surprised on how close the indent itself would be. I noticed this with my dad's L3000DT turfs and my TC29D with R4's. Now we can play with tire pressures and other things but the difference is not as big as would think it would be.

Why do we use turfs then, because turfs don't tear up the grass like a R1 or R4 does. R1's especially once they see a load will tend to dig in and start ripping, R4 will do the same but not as much. Turf once it sees a load it just starts to spin. The article also talked about how turfs are great on the straight, but very poor once turning. The R4's actually tear less than a turf does while turning. When I was buying I wanted turf's. My dealer talked me out of it and to this day I am don't regret it and the majority of my work is finish mowing. In fact 80% is finish mowing. My dealer took a TC18D with turfs and and TC21D with R4's out on the lot. Rainy day the TC18D while wheels are turned short would throw grass out all over the place while the R4's there was barely any signs of grass being ripped out. As far as golf courses, you won't ever see anything heavy out there.

If finish mowing is your task, weight is of more importance than having a turf or R4 tire. If your majority is loader work, then get a heavy tractor if the weight is distributed right.

murph

 

[Bob_Skurka]

Island . . . You are correct that a heavyweight will outpull a lightweight any time any day. But that is not the only way to measure a tractor's performance. A lighter tractor won't feel sluggish, will climb hills easier, etc. As for the big ag tractors, no doubt that they have more weight than modern CUTs however even with modern ag tractors the trend is moving toward somewhat lighter machines as farmers are becoming very concerned about soil compaction. I'm no farmer, so I have no experience in that class of equipment other than reading some articles on the trends. With a modern CUT you don't do too much pulling if most of the work is going to be mowing and that is the intent in the original post of this thread.


murph wrote <font color="blue">
If finish mowing is your task, weight is of more importance than having a turf or R4 tire. If your majority is loader work, then get a heavy tractor if the weight is distributed right.
</font>
Murph . . .I totally agree with most of what you wrote but will slighly argue with the concept that you need a heavier tractor for loader work. And I am really just nit-picking on this point, but a heavier tractor does not mean the tractor has more lift capacity, I know you know that, but some folks don't. You point about the weight being distributed right is spot on. A properly balanced tractor is more important than a heavy tractor for lifting and there are plenty of examples of lighter tractors than can lift more than heavier ones.

 

[DrewL]

. My dealer took a TC18D with turfs and and TC21D with R4's out on the lot. Rainy day the TC18D while wheels are turned short would throw grass out all over the place while the R4's there was barely any signs of grass being ripped out. As far as golf courses, you won't ever see anything heavy out there.


...................and as soon as I see a R4'ed machine mowing a fairway I'll be the first to report it. Turfs and slicks rule golf courses for turf management for years and for years to come. I have yet to see a Tri-Plex involved in rock removal.


never mind........................pounds per square inch is where it is judged, period

 

[To20Chris]

CUTs are general purpose devices, but as you are discovering they are optimized for different things, and that dictates how they are constructed. Tractors built in "conventional" fashion, where the structure is the gear case castings bolted together (L2800), will be heavier than those built with stamped steel welded chassis (B7800, etc.). In the end, you'll have to take a guess at what jobs you'll be doing most often, and pick the one that seems to fit best.

If you're going to be mowing look into the PTO of the L2800. I am not familiar with HST variations, but the gear model does not have live PTO, which would be a disadvantage.

As far as weight goes, weight = traction. It's all well and good to say that you want "balance", but you're not going to feel like adding/removing wheel or suitcase weights very often. So if you're going to be doing jobs that require traction very often, you'll want a heavier tractor. My tractor is heavy, and I've never felt it was unbalanced. However, if you're going to be mowing with it a lot, obviously lighter is better.

Personally, if you are going with Kubota, I think you are wise to go with the L over the B. The B is highly optimized for mowing, and as such is extremely light, while the L is more general purpose.

 

[thcri]

DrewL,

I guess if you would read my post, my comment was in regards to turning is when the R4's did less damage, not on the straight. Since golf course machines mostly are running straight they stick with the turfs.

Also weight is weight and you would never see a large heavy tractor on a golf course. You can talk pounds per square inch all you want, the heavier the tractor the more pounds per square inch.

/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

 

[RedRocker]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">(
You can talk pounds per square inch all you want, the heavier the tractor the more pounds per square inch.

/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif )</font>

Here's a 6200 pound skid steer with turf tread:
For the RC-60, ground pressure is 2.7 psi - about half the ground pressure of a person on foot.

 

[daTeacha]

The weight on a square inch of ground from a tractor is dependent on 3 things, just like a car. First, obviously, is the weight of the machine.

Secondly, the size of the tire's contact area with the ground. This varies with the type of tread. Using the two extremes A slick will use the entire "footprint" as area on which to spread the weight around whereas an Ag tire will put all its weight on the lugs until they sink deep enough to have the spaces between the lugs contact the ground. Then the weight gets spread to all the contact area, much like a slick.

The third factor is tire size, pressure and sidewall stiffness, which determine the general size of the flat area where the tire would contact a concrete slab or similar hard surface. On softer materials, this impacts how deeply the center of the tire sinks into the substrate. With a narrower tire, you will sink deeper in the middle but in a longer patch. A wider tire will have a wider footprint that is shorter front to back. Using a shoe or boot analogy, compare the track left by a wet hiking boot with that left by a street shoe or your bare foot. The hiking boot will have put your weight on fewer square inches of floor. On a soft surface, it will have left deeper dents and compacted the soil in those dents more while compacting the soil between the dents less. Changing your tire pressure can alter the shape of the footprint a bit, but mostly it exaggerates the characteristics already built into the tire tread and sidewalls.

The design of the lugs on Ag tires varies from one manufacturer to another and from one tire to another by the same manufacturer depending on the soil type in the area. A heavier soil more resistant to being displaced by lateral forces exerted by the lugs will make one type of lug work better than a tire designed for use in sandier soils that have less shear resistance.

Turfs have a lot of rubber contacting the ground at the same time and as such will sink less deeply into the ground. When they start to slip, they will remove the soil surface in thin layers, loading up the spaces between the tread blocks if the soil is sticky. Lugged tires will sink more deeply and are less likely to slip but when they do they will dig deeper divots than a turf spinning the same amount. My Ag tires on the Kubota will leave more marks on the lawn and dig ruts if I'm not careful, but the turfs on my Cadet 109 will leave large flat areas with the above ground parts of the grass torn loose and the roots intact if it spins the tires on a hill.

You've got to pick your tires based on your soil types, your primary use for the tractor, and your need for an award winning lawn. If you're really paranoid about your lawn, you'll stay off it with your tractor when the ground is soft and keep all turns as gentle as possible. The best looking lawns are mowed by reel mowers and not tractors with rotary mowers anyways. Look at a greens mower.

 

[DK35vince]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( You can talk pounds per square inch all you want, the heavier the tractor the more pounds per square inch. )</font>

Why ???
A lighter machine with smaller diameter, narrower tires can have the same pounds per sqaure inch as a heavier machine with larger diameter, wider tires..

 

[DrewL]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( </font><font color="blueclass=small">( You can talk pounds per square inch all you want, the heavier the tractor the more pounds per square inch. )</font>

Why ???
A lighter machine with smaller diameter, narrower tires can have the same pounds per sqaure inch as a heavier machine with larger diameter, wider tires.. )</font>



That's my point exactly

 

[thcri]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( what kind of tires? If finish mowing is the majority of the work you'll want turf tires and weight means next to nothing with turf tires. )</font>

Drew,

Your original post that started this whole thing was with turf tires you did not have to worry about weight. I disagree with that statement, weight is and always will be of concern with finish mowing.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

Crimbo . . . let me apologize for everyone here because this thread you started has spun far enough off topic and is literally becoming silly. Just in case you don't know, most tractors of similar size have similar tires sizes (give or take a little bit) so all this talk about tire size/pressure is pretty inane. Two 30 hp tractors side by side are going to have very similar ground contact point sizes. Air pressue makes up part of the equasion, as does side wall stiffness and a few other things too. But if you take a 4000# tractor (with loader) and put it next to a 2800# tractor (with loader) with similarl tires/pressures then you are going to have more weight on the ground under the heavier tractor because the heavier tractor may actually have the same, or very close to the same tire size. Most of the comments are simply nit-picking.

As to the comment about the 6600# ASV unit, please ignore that, if you are not familiar with ASV loaders they have 6' long 12" wide tracks, not tires. ASV makes a machine that is very similar to one I own (mine puts closer to 0.50 PSI onto the ground) that is designed for use on snow. I would not compare mine to a tractor under any circumstances.

I think To20Chris made some great points (for the record, the L2800 HST does have a more advanced PTO than the L2800 GEAR), "murph" simply is trying to inject some logic and reason. BTW, it should be pointed out that turf tires have solf side walls, they are not well suited for FEL work, and they pucture easier than other tire types, you really don't want to be using them in the woods where a stump may punture the tires.

You may want to re-ask your question about the specific machines you are looking at in the specifc brand forums. You will find people in the JD forum to answer your specific questions about the 790 and you will find owners of the L2800 in the Kubota forum who can answer specific questions about that machine.

 

[AutoUnionTypeC]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Murph . . .I totally agree with most of what you wrote but will slighly argue with the concept that you need a heavier tractor for loader work. And I am really just nit-picking on this point, but a heavier tractor does not mean the tractor has more lift capacity, I know you know that, but some folks don't. You point about the weight being distributed right is spot on. A properly balanced tractor is more important than a heavy tractor for lifting and there are plenty of examples of lighter tractors than can lift more than heavier ones. )</font>

Bob........one thing you do not seem to consider in regards to weight is the benefit it provides with bucket penetration when you’re dealing with a dense material, as well with most any other material for that matter. When you talk about the proper balance for loader work I assume you mean imbalance?

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( As far as transmissions go, HST is a major advantage for mowing and for FEL work. And while gear will do either job and has its fans, the reality is that both tasks are more quickly & efficiently accomplished with HST.)</font>

I feel that point is incredibly overplayed here on TBN; you’ve pretty much have to be doing loader work exclusively to make up very much in efficiency. I used to run a Fiat Allis FR35 and 945B, with a ten and six yard bucket respectively. The transmission setup was not all that different from a shuttle shift. In the course of a day it wasn’t uncommon to load as many as 130 trucks, a mix between tractor trailers and ten wheelers, 80 or so was an average day. In an application such as that a hydro system would have been of some benefit, but for the average homeowner and farmer it’s a luxury. If most TBNr’s were to make a good cost savings analysis I think it would be hard to justify. Having said that I know it’s not my money and can understand its popularity. I just don’t think it should be given that it’s going to save us all kinds of time, in most cases it will not.

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( The trend today in agriculture is to be very concerned about soil compaction so while weight is necessary, newer tractors are often lighter with higher horsepower than the previous models.)</font>

While true……….when dealing with tractors in our class it’s far more likely for an operator to damage his soil over using his tiller, ground compaction doesn’t much come into play with our class of machines

Regards, Jamie

 

[DrewL]

I know you disagree but keep in mind I said ...."weight means NEXT to nothing.........." not absolutely nothing

I'm trying to make the point of crimbo's requirements have the majority needing weight and the one thing, finish mowing, can be offset with a turf tire making the additional weight negligible in the sense of ppsi where it counts. I don't how to explain it in simpler terms for crimbo's question. It makes sense, answers his question directly and effectively

silly? I don't think so at all

 

[Dargo]

I have to assume that you are joking. Right? /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

 

[RedRocker]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">(
As to the comment about the 6600# ASV unit, please ignore that, if you are not familiar with ASV loaders they have 6' long 12" wide tracks, not tires. )</font>

Crimbo, you're free to ignore anything anybody posts. My ASV example was posted to show that weight is only one factor when considering ground pressure, not much help on tractor choice though I admit. I wanted weight, so I chose a CK30, great for clearing brush and pushing things around as well as box blading roads.

 

[AutoUnionTypeC]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( I have to assume that you are joking. Right? /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif )</font>

Nope.

 

[crimbo]

I'm back and ready to cause some more trouble.

I've spent the last few days visiting dealers and test driving tractors.

Update: The JD790 is out of the running. I finally found a local dealer that had one on the lot and drove it around. It's a good value and I was ready to go for it, but - I find the driver's cockpit a little cramped (I'm big-boned; my wife has a three-letter f-word for it). It's a little bit of a flexibility excercise to get on and off (and around the gearshift) for me.

So the new question:

How do you justify buying a green HST tractor?

And no - I'm not trying to be a wiseguy or get thrown off the site for starting a "brand war". I'm just making sure I have all of the facts before I make the decision. I'm looking for info/opinions from you experts that I can't find on a mfg.'s website.

Two tractors that look very similar to me:
(HP, PTO HP, weight, lift capacities)

Kubota L2800 versus John Deere 3120

Equipped the same (HST, FEL, 72" Rr Finish Mower, 72" Rr Blade, Turf tires), the John Deere is $3000 more.

I want to buy green for one reason: my brother-in-law just bought the orange one last month. He loves it, but seeing as we all ready have matching trucks - I'd like to break the pattern. However, it's not a $3000 problem. So can the $3000 be justified some other way or not?

I'm looking at everything; resale, maintenance costs, parts costs, warranties, reliability, construction differences, headlights/visibility, any wives' comments regarding driving either of these, etc.

No offense meant to anyone (including the red, blue, and other orange owners), with all of the quality choices out there I'm struggling.

 

[thcri]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">(
No offense meant to anyone (including the red, blue, and other orange owners), with all of the quality choices out there I'm struggling. )</font>


No offense to me crimbo. You have narrowed it down to two tractors. I guess I would forget about the 3k, don't think it is a big deal over a twenty year period. First which one fits your fat butt. I can say that because I have one too /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif Then make sure the one that fits is from a dealer that you think is going to take care of you in the long run. That is the one I would buy.

Just for kicks, try out the New Holland TC33DA or Case DX33. You might like them over the TC30 that New Holland makes. The reason I say that is because my fat butt fits on my TC29D pretty good. But your on the right track.

murph

 

[riptides]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( with all of the quality choices out there I'm struggling. )</font> Yep. All are quality machines.

But, if it comes down to needs and wants, and it sounds like your on the edge, then get what you WANT. No sense driving around something with a liitle voice in your head saying "Should have", "Could have".... life is short, do something for yourself that will make YOU happy. If green makes you smile--- go for it!

-Mike Z. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif