I got my DK50SE HST yesterday!!!

[IndyIan]

Indy, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but I have bailed over 500 rolls of 4x4 hay with my wee little Dk40 HST. Never had an issue and I run it in mid range only because my neighbor makes ginormus wind rows and our pastures are bumpy as heck.

Hmm... Well my wife is complaining complaining about the cost of cheap simple implements, so a baler is probably not going to happen soon:laughing:
But that is sort of good news that even the 40hp with HST still has some grunt on the PTO.
I also wonder if they derate the DK40 a bit to make it less appealing? Anyone has had one on a PTO dynometer?

 

[MtnViewRanch]

Hah! Of course those of us who have DK40s cannot figure out why the rest of you feel compelled to throw money at Kioti for using larger pistons. The tractors are identical except for your $2000+ pistons.

Newbies who fall prey to horsepower hype are spending money they could otherwise save or spend on implements. Think about it. An extra specialized implement is almost always a more efficient way to get work done than simply adding a handful of extra horsepower. Dealers and Kioti are the only ones who really benefit.

Don't want to rain on your parade and certainly hope you enjoy your DK but I couldn't let your comment go unchallenged.

Island, while what you say about the DK40 vs the 45 & 50 is probably right a lot of the time and you did say almost, but those few guys that need that little extra HP (25% for a DK50) have it when they do need it and if they had the DK40 it would not be there and they would be out of luck. So for the few guys that do make use of those $2000 pistons, their higher HP tractors are well worth the additional $$$$.

Just my :2cents:

 

[IslandTractor]

Island, while what you say about the DK40 vs the 45 & 50 is probably right a lot of the time and you did say almost, but those few guys that need that little extra HP (25% for a DK50) have it when they do need it and if they had the DK40 it would not be there and they would be out of luck. So for the few guys that do make use of those $2000 pistons, their higher HP tractors are well worth the additional $$$$.

Just my :2cents:

I have to disagree that on a practical level it would make any difference. For starters, the difference in engine hp is 41 vs 49 or a tad less than 20%. More to the point, the PTO power difference is 32.5 vs 37.5 or 15%. Not too many tasks are going to be made possible with an extra 5pto hp. Interestingly, Kioti themselves seem to rate all three of the DK40/45/50 tractors the same with regard to recommended implement size.

Kioti marketers are simply using one of the oldest tricks in the automobile manufacturers book in bumping up the horsepower a bit and charging a lot more money. They are trying to snare vulnerable buyers, most of whom have never operated a 40+hp tractor before, into going for the "deluxe high horsepower" model and in so doing gouging them for a lot of money. Does anyone think it costs Kioti more than an extra $100 to bore out the identical engine block to different specs and then use different size pistons? They charge about $2000 for doing that. Just that point should make clear that this is a marketing trick and has nothing to do with tractor performance.

Of course there are tasks that require more powerful tractors. The 41hp engine is however very well matched to the DKse frame and therefore to get significantly better performance you really need to move up in frame size. That is what the DK55, 75 and 90 are for. A DK40se will not run a 15ft batwing and neither will a DK50.

I don't recall anyone on TBN with a DK40se trading it in for a DK45se or DK50se. That should be carefully considered by someone buying for the first time. If DK40 owners are so happy, why do you need to shell out more $$$$ for more hp? I would add that if I were getting a cab model I'd probably get the 45 but only because the extra four hp would just about cover the parasitic load of the A/C and leave me with exactly the same operational hp as the regular DK40 has.

I really think the DK40se is the sweet spot in the lineup and that you need a rational, rather than emotional, reason to buy more hp on that frame. Most buyers are limited to listening to the salespeople in helping them choose and there is clearly more profit for Kioti and presumably the dealers in selling the 45 and 50.

I guarranty you that buying a DK40se and having an extra $2000 to spend on implements will give a buyer a more versatile and capable machine than simply adding 8hp.

 

[IndyIan]

I know my dealer usually just has a DK45 in stock and made a small attempt to push it by asking if I was going to get a snow blower. Then the difference in PTO hp should roughly show up in faster blowing. Same with brush hogging. Is 15% faster worth $2k to me?, no, but for some folks it might be significant and the extra HP will quickly pay for themselves. I know one guy who blows snow commercially with DK50 HST so it would make no sense to get the DK40 for the savings.

I still think Kioti should just make the DK50 and sell it for the DK40 price and reap in more profits with increased volume but I guess any of the tractor makers could do this but don't for some reason... Gentleman's agreement I guess between manufacturers?

 

[IslandTractor]

I know my dealer usually just has a DK45 in stock and made a small attempt to push it by asking if I was going to get a snow blower. Then the difference in PTO hp should roughly show up in faster blowing. Same with brush hogging. Is 15% faster worth $2k to me?, no, but for some folks it might be significant and the extra HP will quickly pay for themselves. I know one guy who blows snow commercially with DK50 HST so it would make no sense to get the DK40 for the savings.

I still think Kioti should just make the DK50 and sell it for the DK40 price and reap in more profits with increased volume but I guess any of the tractor makers could do this but don't for some reason... Gentleman's agreement I guess between manufacturers?

I agree with your last statement. They really only need one engine for this frame and the rest is marketing BS. Any of the three would be fine.

I don't know about the snowblowing or mowing though. Speed of the PTO is the same so I would say that mowing might be faster if you were bogging down with the 40 but that rarely happens in my experience and I don't even run full PTO speed with my bush hog or flail mower. I don't have experience snow blowing but I'd imagine that except in very wet snow that the size of the snowblower intake is what limits productivity. If a 40 can run a six foot blower then I don't see how a 50 would do so any better. Again, I haven't used a snowblower on my 40 so maybe there is something I don't understand.

 

[IndyIan]

I've only run a walk behind blower, but it seemed to me that within some limits, more hp would move more tons of snow per hour. Especially with an HST, you just adjust your speed to keep the blower working to it maximum.
You might be right that a 6' blower won't be able to bog a DK40 normally, but for some size of blower or snow conditions, the %15 diffence in HP will show up.
Sort of like chainsaws, a whole bunch sizes have 20" bars and cut at 9000rpm, but burying it in Oak will show you very quickly the diffence between a 3, 4hp and 5 hp saw. Or it will show you the difference between a sharp chain and dull one:laughing: But things being equal the higher hp saw will cut faster.

 

[MtnViewRanch]

Island, I'm not going to argue with you that the DK40 is the better bang for the buck, it most likely is. :thumbsup: And sorry that I did not look up the actual HP ratings, so I was off there also, my BAD. :ashamed: But you seem to think that 15-20% more power is no big deal, and for people who do not operate their tractors to their fullest capabilities it probably is no big deal. :confused3: But for those of us that do run our tractors to the limit, 15-20% is HUGE. You say 5 PTO horse power is no big deal, but according to TBN knowledge that is a foot wider implement that can be used usefully, rather it be a PTO implement or a ground engaging implement. Or if a person chooses to use the same width implement that would be used with a DK40, the 45 or 50 can use that same implement at a faster speed. You are saying that the extra HP does no good because the tractor looses traction, my response is that the tractor then needs to be ballasted differently.

There has to be a reason that the tractor manufacturers have these tractors with HP ratings so close together other than just to gouge their customers. Do you feel the same about the CKs? I mean why have 28HP-30HP & 34HP all in the same frame. A lot of guys complain about the 27, some about the 30, and I can't remember anyone complaining about the 35. Now that I think about it I can't say as that I remember ever reading that someone that had bought a 45 or a 50 saying that they should have just bought a 40. It almost seems like the guys with the DK40's are the guys that feel that they got the deal and the guys with the 45's or 50's just waisted their money. :confused2:

Oh well, none of this really matters, and most of us are happy with our tractors and that is what really matters.

 

[grsthegreat]

Island, I'm not going to argue with you that the DK40 is the better bang for the buck, it most likely is. :thumbsup: And sorry that I did not look up the actual HP ratings, so I was off there also, my BAD. :ashamed: But you seem to think that 15-20% more power is no big deal, and for people who do not operate their tractors to their fullest capabilities it probably is no big deal. :confused3: But for those of us that do run our tractors to the limit, 15-20% is HUGE. You say 5 PTO horse power is no big deal, but according to TBN knowledge that is a foot wider implement that can be used usefully, rather it be a PTO implement or a ground engaging implement. Or if a person chooses to use the same width implement that would be used with a DK40, the 45 or 50 can use that same implement at a faster speed. You are saying that the extra HP does no good because the tractor looses traction, my response is that the tractor then needs to be ballasted differently.

There has to be a reason that the tractor manufacturers have these tractors with HP ratings so close together other than just to gouge their customers. Do you feel the same about the CKs? I mean why have 28HP-30HP & 34HP all in the same frame. A lot of guys complain about the 27, some about the 30, and I can't remember anyone complaining about the 35. Now that I think about it I can't say as that I remember ever reading that someone that had bought a 45 or a 50 saying that they should have just bought a 40. It almost seems like the guys with the DK40's are the guys that feel that they got the deal and the guys with the 45's or 50's just waisted their money. :confused2:

Oh well, none of this really matters, and most of us are happy with our tractors and that is what really matters.

i happen to agree. 5 HP is ALOT. i would have preferred the DK50 over my DK45, but the deal i got precluded the need for the extra 5hp.

HP at pto determines everything for a pto driven piece of equipment.

 

[IslandTractor]

I shouldn't say that 5hp at PTO makes no difference but in most circumstances it doesn't make a practical difference in my experience. I find that most people don't operate their equipment at PTO speeds anyway so there is always that extra few HP to get if you need it just by going to full PTO RPM. I use my tractor pretty aggressively and don't think the DK40 has any trouble at all with six foot implements. I'd be interested to hear from any DK45 or DK50 owners who are running implements larger than what we DK40 users do. I have mostly 6ft implements because 1) that is what Kioti recommends for almost all the DKse lineup and 2) larger implements are generally much more expensive (I'm not counting finish mowers or rakes which are typically a foot or so bigger).

If you cannot run bigger implements then it is unlikely you will be much more productive with more HP. Maybe in a slushy snowstorm a DK50 will go a bit faster with the same blower but then again we haven't heard complaints from DK40 owners in this regard.

I do agree with MtnViewRanch that traction should not be an issue. Loader capacity will also be the same. The frame size dictates which BH size so that doesn't change either. As I pointed out in an earlier post, I don't think a DK50 could manage a 15ft batwing so you are pretty limited in how to increase mowing coverage even if you have more PTO power.

One issue that has not been discussed is what the downside of a higher rated engine from the same block might be. If you are putting out 49hp instead of 41hp then you are also generating 20% more heat of combustion. However, the cooling passages and radiator are the same on both tractors. That presumably means that when the 50 is putting out max power it is getting closer to cooling capacity. We all know that tractors radiators get clogged regularly. Does that increase the risk of overheating? I would presume so but don't know. In marine engines the same block is often used for many horsepower outputs but the engines are then rated differently (continuous, intermittent etc). In the marine world I believe it is well known that you do not expect the same total hours of service life from a higher output version of the same block. Why would that not hold for tractor engines too?

Fuel use would I think be about the same for the same work done unless DK50 owners also run their tractors at the same 1800-2100RPM that most of us DK40 users tend to do. To get the same HP the DK50 would be run a couple hundred RPM lower. Is that what is happening? If DK50 owners are doing routine tasks at the same RPM as DK40s then the DK50 will burn more fuel (and generate more heat) per unit of work done. If DK50 owners run at 200 rpm less, then does that match up with rpms needed by the HST for efficiency? I don't know. Some dealers seem to recommend not using anything less than 1800 or so due to concerns about the HST. If you must run at 1800 when moving then again the DK50 will consume more fuel just to move the tractor the same distance.

I really don't want to rag on the 50. Kioti is just doing what Kubota and Deere do in having incemental HP ranges and it is just part of the business. I just don't accept the notion that 45 or 50hp versions of the DKse are necessarily improvements or significantly more capable than the 40.

In the CK series I think most would like to see the CK20 put out 25hp or have a three speed tranny so that is one case where more might be better. The CK25 has always been considered by some to be underpowered but I don't recall anyone complaining about the CK30. The CK35 doesn't add that much unless you consider going up in implement size. Are CK35 owners using six foot brush hogs and seven foot mowers? The CK30 handles the five and six footers respectively very well from what I can tell. The CK35 IMO is another example of just piling on the horsepower for marketing reasons. Sure they are popular because guys like more horsepower even if it doesn't get put to practical use.

MtnView pointed out that if you operate to full capacity then the extra 15-20% hp does make a difference. I would agree. However, as noted, from both my experience and what many people post on TBN, relatively few of us operate at full PTO power most of the time. For a farmer pulling a plow or someone mowing with a big mower I would guess that the extra hp would certainly come in handy. The question then is whether a prospective DK owner considers themself to be a typical CUT user or a power user. Most of us are "typical" users and that is the group that I think will be completely satisfied with the DK40. The power users know who they are and have very specific uses for the extra HP. If you don't know exactly how you will use the extra, you really don't need it.

 

[ovrszd]

An outsider here,,,, with an opinion of course....

My Brother owns a GL3240 Kubota, I own a L4400. His tractor aggravates me when I'm using it on my 6' Rhino brushcutter.

My Son owns a 5.4L gasser Super Duty, I own a 7.3L Powerstroke. His truck aggravates me when I'm using it to pull a trailer.

Neither situation can be a logical argument for the extra cost.

Not to pick on Island, but he's tough and can take it. The cost of his brush grapple or rock grapple or whatever it's called cannot be logically justified either.

There's been a couple times my Brother and I have had both tractors running sharing a task. I seem to get the tougher jobs while he takes the easier ones.

There's been a couple times my Son and I have towed trailers on trips. I seem to get the heaviest load while he takes the lighter one.

There's not one in fifty members on TBN that use their tractors or implements to capacity, including me. But when I need HP it's good to have it. That's not a fullfilled need if I own a smaller HP tractor or truck. Each to his own. :thumbsup: