Is the Kubota L2501 the largest 25 hp, non regen tractor?

[Jstpssng]

I think your decimal point is off by one. I am not a mathematician, but I did take my socks of to count my toes to verify.

Good point! Now please put your socks back on!

 

[hornett22]

A catalytic converter on a chainsaw.

Wow.

I'm starting to think I've lived too long.

They've been around for several years.

 

[jyoutz]

So at the risk of totally derailing the thread i know a lot about turbocharging and basically any turbo setup can be tuned to run on any piston, but it's the near-total LACK of any kind of monitoring or adjustment of anything that's pretty much guaranteed to result in eventual piston failure.

I think this thread uncovered the main answer to the question already, about the Branson. Honestly, adding weight is easier than adding factory, warranty backed loader capacity. So if you're just after pulling traction and prefer the l2501 for other reasons, just add weight to it. But if you want a much higher loader capacity, it's a lot safer (mostly for the machine) to get there with someone else's engineering than your own. So i would consider the loader capacity a bigger factor than the bare weight in most cases between those two tractors.

I’m not so sure that additional lift capability on a lightweight, short wheelbase tractor is a good thing; or safer for the operator. Having hydraulic capacity is one thing; stability to safely handle the weight is probably more important.

 

[4570Man]

Yes, it most certainly is!
I worked for a major 911 emergency system. Our trucks (F-350's with a big box) used to be very fuel efficient when they had the 7.3L powerstroke in them. You could go a 13 hour shift, pedal to the floor practically all shift, and have just under 3/4 of a 60 gal tank left over at the end of shift.

Fast forward a few years..... now the same trucks, run the same way, but with the 6.7L and DPF / DEF injection. Guess what? Now we had to fill up just past 3/4 of the shift hours. Basically using 3 times the amount of fuel.

On top of that, the DPF canisters would have to be replaced anywhere from 75-100K miles..... at a cost of $6K just for the canister! Then the unit was out of service for a couple days, tying up a couple mechanics too! The cab would have to be lifted off to make it easy access.

So definitely a big waste......

A 7.3 on a good day in the best case scenario might get 20 mpg. Running it hard 10-12 mpg would be more likely. A 6.7 isn’t getting 5 mpg doing the same work. 4 times the fuel burn is total bullcrap. Assuming the story is true a smaller fuel tank in the newer truck would be a more likely explanation. Emissions equipment will lower mpg and the ultra low sulfur fuel won’t give the same mileage the old fuel did either but a 4x increase in fuel burn isn’t happening.

 

[jyoutz]

I agree.... During the DPF and regen debate the whole idea of RPM and traditional diesel efficiency somehow got overlooked. Customers were quick to accept running their new diesels wide open. Not sure why.....

It's gotten crazy, though. I've got a neighbor who bought a new 50 hp Kubota and leaves the throttle at near max all day long. Even when he walks away and it should be idling, he has it sitting there screaming at higher RPM than our old mechanically injected Kubota needs when working hard. It sounds like a race car coming down the straightaway. He says the regen requires it. But honestly I doubt he has ever tried it differently.

rScotty

It’s not required to run a t4 tractor at high RPMs continuously. But it is important to run it at higher RPMs for a period of time, each time you operate it.

 

[jyoutz]

Yes, it most certainly is!
I worked for a major 911 emergency system. Our trucks (F-350's with a big box) used to be very fuel efficient when they had the 7.3L powerstroke in them. You could go a 13 hour shift, pedal to the floor practically all shift, and have just under 3/4 of a 60 gal tank left over at the end of shift.

Fast forward a few years..... now the same trucks, run the same way, but with the 6.7L and DPF / DEF injection. Guess what? Now we had to fill up just past 3/4 of the shift hours. Basically using 3 times the amount of fuel.

On top of that, the DPF canisters would have to be replaced anywhere from 75-100K miles..... at a cost of $6K just for the canister! Then the unit was out of service for a couple days, tying up a couple mechanics too! The cab would have to be lifted off to make it easy access.

So definitely a big waste......

Yep. Powerstroke = $1000 every time it needs maintenance. That’s why I prefer the Cummins.

 

[DigDoug]

I recommend you take a close look and test drive the Branson 2515. It is a better machine for doing work IMO.

 

[LD1]

I’m not so sure that additional lift capability on a lightweight, short wheelbase tractor is a good thing; or safer for the operator. Having hydraulic capacity is one thing; stability to safely handle the weight is probably more important.

I agree. I think its just a marketing thing though. How much of that loader capacity is actually usable?

You could put a loader rated for 5000# lift on one of these tractors.....doesnt mean you are ever gonna be able to lift that much. But they do it for people that only compare paper specs.

I used to have a L3400....which is same basic machine as the 2501. And even with its "weak" loader.....It still took loaded tires and either 1000# in a weight box or 700 pound implement (that sticks back farther) just to keep the rear end on the ground. So any additional loader capacity cannot be utilized unless you add alot more weight than that out back.

Heck, I have a MX, which is 1000 pounds heavier than the branson and 10" longer wheel base. And the branson loader is rated to lift just as much . I have loaded tires (~700lbs), cast wheel weights (~600lbs), and unless I have something 1000 pounds or heavier out back, the loader will lift the rear.

Couldnt imagine this loader on a 10" shorter machine thats 1000# lighter. But hey.....it looks better on paper right? To but big cylinders on a loader even though it cannot utilize the extra capacity and just makes it operate slower.

 

[bruceha2000]

is there a larger frame 25 hp, non regen tractor than the L2501? Thanks for any info, Bill C

My Mahindra 1533 (34.5 engine HP) does not have regen. The current model is the 1635 with 36.2 engine HP. Look beyond orange and green colors if you have other dealers available.

 

[rScotty]

I’m not so sure that additional lift capability on a lightweight, short wheelbase tractor is a good thing; or safer for the operator. Having hydraulic capacity is one thing; stability to safely handle the weight is probably more important.

That's right. There's a limit to how much loader a certain size and shape of tractor can handle. But advertising departments have been inflating those numbers for decades now because some newbie buyers are influenced by them. Or the numbers are real, but as you point out they are unusable. Maybe those salesmen are still stuck on believing that rural people are gullible. It used to be 3pt lift specs, before that it was PTO HP, or drawbar HP, or engine efficiency.

In fact, the specification game got so out of hand years ago that it led to the Univ. of Nebraska Tractor tests. They tested all those things. Those old Ag tractor tests make for fascinating reading and can be found online. Not much on compacts though.

rScotty