I did it

VictorW · Feb 11, 2006

Maybe just a back or box blade. I'm sure Rick can set you up.

Enjoy the tractor. They sure make work a lot easier but I don't tell my wife that. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Steverino · Feb 11, 2006

Congratulations fellow Nutmeger! Welcome to the club! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

415 · Feb 13, 2006

Thanks guys.Rick called me yesterday[I was happy to answer the phone for a quick break my trucks were out cleaning up 24inches of fresh snow]He said they just unwrapping my new CK20 and it has a 3rd generation high back susp. seat on it,and I got one of the last 54 inch buckets Kioti had avalible.

IslandTractor · Feb 13, 2006

Perfect. The 54" bucket is well matched to the KL120 loader. I still don't know why Kioti decided to drop down to the 50". Obviously some marketing decision because the 54 is a better match for the tractor.

I'd love to have the new seat to but cannot justify $ix bill$. I just ordered some $9.95 seat belt retractors and I'll give them a try this summer.

Congratulations.

KiotiJohn · Feb 13, 2006

( Perfect. The 54" bucket is well matched to the KL120 loader. I still don't know why Kioti decided to drop down to the 50". Obviously some marketing decision because the 54 is a better match for the tractor. )
I was told by one of the engineers at Kioti that the 54" was considered a little too big by the R&D department. I disagree as mine has performed quite well with no problems for nearly 400 hours. I guess they just wanted to make sure there was no overload, but I doubt it was ever a problem.
John

IslandTractor · Feb 14, 2006

John, it still seems odd to me that they would cut the bucket size. Not sure exactly the cubic foot capacity of the 54" but assuming it is 8 cubic feet or less, even a full bucket of wet sand or gravel does not exceed the lift capacity to full height. (Note: this assumes 120lbs/ft3 material weight and admittedly uses the pivot point capacity but on the other hand I think 8ft3 is probably more than the 54" bucket holds). If you were going to exceed the lift capacity it would be trying to lift something that doesn't want to go such as a tree /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif and you could make that mistake with a smaller bucket just as easily. Besides, isn't that why hyraulic systems have bypass valves (is that the correct term)?

Kioti3054 · Feb 14, 2006

Congrats on your purchase. I have a LK3054 with a Koyker 155 loader and KB75 backhoe that I use for my landscape business and love it. I work it hard and have no complaints it's the best employee i've ever had /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif. Its never late for work and almost always does what ever I ask it to. I think you will be very happy with your new CK.

Dave

Steverino · Feb 14, 2006

Just a passing thought, could it have something to do with the center of gravity and stability? Narrower would be more stable I would think. My 2 cents worth! /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

IslandTractor · Feb 15, 2006

That is a good point but Kioti already recommends adding 600lbs weight to the 3pt when using the FEL. Loading the rear tires is an option of course and that will add almost 500lbs I believe. I imagine even with the 50" bucket they would still require ballast on the 3pt so that seems an unlikely reason for eliminating the 54" bucket.

KiotiJohn · Feb 17, 2006

( That is a good point but Kioti already recommends adding 600lbs weight to the 3pt when using the FEL. Loading the rear tires is an option of course and that will add almost 500lbs I believe. I imagine even with the 50" bucket they would still require ballast on the 3pt so that seems an unlikely reason for eliminating the 54" bucket. )
I think it had more to do with lateral forces with the extra width of the bucket, not front to back. I suspect their thinking was that an uneven load could cause twisting damages more with the extra 2" on each side. Who knows?
John