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

[Jstpssng]

View attachment 772885

That looks like a lot of padding if you ever did start to go over.

 

[ning]

That surprising.... I had a '99 F250 crew cab, 7.3 powerstroke, long bed with a utility cap on it. 6 speed manual. It got a consistent 28 mpg on the highway --- checked manually every time I fueled it up.

I think you dropped this

 

[hiddentacocatneddih]

I think you dropped thisView attachment 773025

Naw. Take the truck towing its fuel mileage. Multiply by 2 for 2 vehicles. Multiply by the price of fuel and take the average mph of the truck / the sin of the angle at which it was traveling most to the rotation of the earth. Then write that number backwards.

 

[LD1]

Naw. Take the truck towing its fuel mileage. Multiply by 2 for 2 vehicles. Multiply by the price of fuel and take the average mph of the truck / the sin of the angle at which it was traveling most to the rotation of the earth. Then write that number backwards.

Push the thing a few feet while it leaks a few drops of fuel might just multiply out to 28mpg???

 

[jyoutz]

That surprising.... I had a '99 F250 crew cab, 7.3 powerstroke, long bed with a utility cap on it. 6 speed manual. It got a consistent 28 mpg on the highway --- checked manually every time I fueled it up.

That’s surprising to me. I had a ‘99 Dodge with 5.9 Cummins and it averaged 20 mpg, sometimes doing as well as 22, and sometimes about 18. That motor was known for being more fuel efficient than the Powerstroke at the time.

 

[jyoutz]

I think something that gets lost in discussions about specs is that I think many (most?) of us realize they are bits of data. Measuring at the pins gives a consistent point for comparison, but obviously does not mean you lift that much weight in practice. Using the pins just makes it easier to avoid another level of deception as some will otherwise use 16" in front or 24", or whatever. Realistically, whether that means you can effectively use 80% or 50% of that capacity depends on what you are doing. In one application for me, I will be in my shop lifting a pallet for storage. Much different than traversing my property with an unbalanced load of timber or brush.

Regardless of the adjustments needed for real-world application, the tractor that can lift 2200 at the pins will more capably and safely lift 1000 in daily use than one that can only lift 1600 at the pins. The specific numbers are less important than the relative ones. It serves no useful purpose to poo poo the data of the more capable machine because the max possible is outside of the range people typically work, the advantage is more about having a larger window of safe operating than the less capable machine. There are plenty of valid reasons to prefer Kubota over Branson, that does not mean there are not equally valid reasons to prefer Branson over Kubota. YMMV.

Does anyone know if there are requirements for standardized testing of tractor capabilities? Or does every manufacturer just publish their own specs? I know there are the Nebraska tests for horsepower, but I think those focus on Ag machines. I’m just not sold on the idea that very similar machines would have such different specs. Compact tractor design is very similar across colors.

 

[Torvy]

Does anyone know if there are requirements for standardized testing of tractor capabilities? Or does every manufacturer just publish their own specs? I know there are the Nebraska tests for horsepower, but I think those focus on Ag machines. I’m just not sold on the idea that very similar machines would have such different specs. Compact tractor design is very similar across colors.

I've looked closely at them. While they may look similar from a distance, the Branson ones are just beefier. Another important aspect in lifting is a combination of the angles for leverage and the size of the cylinders. Kubota focused more on the smooth action of the hydraulics. Branson focused on leverage and weight. I would guess the Kubota could beat the Branson in a race, just based on thrust to weight ratios.

 

[jyoutz]

I've looked closely at them. While they may look similar from a distance, the Branson ones are just beefier. Another important aspect in lifting is a combination of the angles for leverage and the size of the cylinders. Kubota focused more on the smooth action of the hydraulics. Branson focused on leverage and weight. I would guess the Kubota could beat the Branson in a race, just based on thrust to weight ratios.

I like all of the current Japanese and Korean brands today, and Branson has a lot of nice features. I just have no dealer service anywhere near where I live. We have the big 3: Deere, Kubota, NH. There are Mahindra and Kioti dealers within reasonable distance but it is a stretch to call their facilities full service operations.

 

[rScotty]

That’s surprising to me. I had a ‘99 Dodge with 5.9 Cummins and it averaged 20 mpg, sometimes doing as well as 22, and sometimes about 18. That motor was known for being more fuel efficient than the Powerstroke at the time.

We bought one of the first of the new generation 7.3 powerstoke F250s in 1995. Standard shift, 4x4, extended cab and topper. It got about 12 mpg in town and 15 on the road. Towed well. At 50,000 engine repairs had almost equaled the purchase price. At 100,000 mechanical repairs had exceeded the purchase price. Perfect condition.
Later bought a new 2002 PS F250 same except automatic. Same mpg but only normal repairs. No problems. Nicer truck.

Yes, at the time we were aware that the Dodge Cummns diesel was a more fuel efficent truck. That was common knowledge just like the problems with both makes was also common knowledge. Every mechanic knew all that; it's part of the trade.
rScotty

 

[rScotty]

Does anyone know if there are requirements for standardized testing of tractor capabilities? Or does every manufacturer just publish their own specs? I know there are the Nebraska tests for horsepower, but I think those focus on Ag machines. I’m just not sold on the idea that very similar machines would have such different specs. Compact tractor design is very similar across colors.

There are no standardized requirements. Every manufacturer can publish anything that they want, and claim whatever they feel they can get away with. It's advertising over engineering.

In my opinion you are exactly right that similar machines probably actually should and do have similar mechanical specs.
The difference in makes would then be in the quality of components, service, and the optional configurations - like transmission type, turbo or not, type of emissions. ....and so on....

The Nebraska tests focused on HP, but measured many other things including fuel consumption.

rScotty

 

[RjCorazza]

X2 on no standards.
Even small differences in measuring capacities makes a difference on paper. For example, my tractor loader specs are measured at either the pins, or 500mm (19.7") out from the pins. Go out to 24" where some manufacturers may spec, and my loader capacity drops 200 lbs on paper. Then there are various lifting heights and capacities, generally 1/2 height and full, but not always.

I have never needed to lift at capacity full height, and honestly wouldn't want to anyway. Everyone's needs are different though. If I were needing to lift to full height I would have a larger tractor and stay well within potentially "generous" specifications.

 

[RSR]

Torvy - Finally, a voice of reason.

Despite derisive comments such as "paper specs" and "it's not safe to lift the max amount to the max height" (duh) as reasons for justifying why lower lift capacities don't matter, what is lost (willfully ignored?) is that a loader that lifts more to full height will also lift more at any distance above the ground. It simply has a higher lift capacity. At any height. Period. Full stop.

Arguing about "useful lift capacity" is equally foolish. If the loader will lift it, the tractor can be set up, with proper ballast, to do it safely. Obviously care and common sense must also be part of the equation.

I have no interest in lifting items to full height. But, as moving very large rocks on my property was a primary use for my tractor, loader capacity and tractor weight were very import specs. I've moved plenty of rocks I can only lift 6-24" inches. Even then, I inch along very slowly, because I worry about stress on the loader if the ground gets rough and things start bouncing. The fact is, however, that with lower lift capacity I wouldn't be able to budge those rocks.

 

[rScotty]

Torvy - Finally, a voice of reason.

Despite derisive comments such as "paper specs" and "it's not safe to lift the max amount to the max height" (duh) as reasons for justifying why lower lift capacities don't matter, what is lost (willfully ignored?) is that a loader that lifts more to full height will also lift more at any distance above the ground. It simply has a higher lift capacity. At any height. Period. Full stop.

Arguing about "useful lift capacity" is equally foolish. If the loader will lift it, the tractor can be set up, with proper ballast, to do it safely. Obviously care and common sense must also be part of the equation.

I have no interest in lifting items to full height. But, as moving very large rocks on my property was a primary use for my tractor, loader capacity and tractor weight were very import specs. I've moved plenty of rocks I can only lift 6-24" inches. Even then, I inch along very slowly, because I worry about stress on the loader if the ground gets rough and things start bouncing. The fact is, however, that with lower lift capacity I wouldn't be able to budge those rocks.

"It simply has a higher lift capacity. At any height. Period. Full stop."

That would make sense if it were true, but I'm afraid it isn't. The lift capacity at any height depends on the design of the loader geometry. A loader can be made to have its max lift at any height.

"Useful Lift Capacity" needs to be based first on the things the designer can control, like the strength of the parts and the stress on the front axles. Then he can work on things he cannot control as well - like stability.

rScotty

 

[LS Tractor Owner]

That’s surprising to me. I had a ‘99 Dodge with 5.9 Cummins and it averaged 20 mpg, sometimes doing as well as 22, and sometimes about 18. That motor was known for being more fuel efficient than the Powerstroke at the time.

My son has a 5.9 Cummins in his '74 Jeep J20..... he consistently gets 26 mpg running a 6 speed and 40" tires, 5.13 gear ratios.

 

[jyoutz]

My son has a 5.9 Cummins in his '74 Jeep J20..... he consistently gets 26 mpg running a 6 speed and 40" tires, 5.13 gear ratios.

They are awesome motors and such simple maintenance that I can do myself.

 

[RSR]

"It simply has a higher lift capacity. At any height. Period. Full stop."

That would make sense if it were true, but I'm afraid it isn't. The lift capacity at any height depends on the design of the loader geometry. A loader can be made to have its max lift at any height.

"Useful Lift Capacity" needs to be based first on the things the designer can control, like the strength of the parts and the stress on the front axles. Then he can work on things he cannot control as well - like stability.

rScotty

Technically, you are correct. It is possible. But for the brands that are being discussed, that is not true. Show me one loader that outperforms another at one height, while underperforming at another.

More simply, put, show me a loader that has a lower lift capacity at max height, but a higher breakout force for the tractors we are discussing.

They all use the same kinematic linkage, with slight variations in the pivot points. That will yield slight variations in the shape of the loader curve. But that won't account for a 10-20% variation in lift capacity.

 

[4570Man]

My son has a 5.9 Cummins in his '74 Jeep J20..... he consistently gets 26 mpg running a 6 speed and 40" tires, 5.13 gear ratios.

I’ve never had a 5.9 in a pickup. But my F-750 gets about 8 mpg with a 5.9. I just traded for a F-350 dually with a 6 speed manual and a 7.3. I’ve not checked it’s mpg yet but just based on the trip home I feel like a previous posters 28 mpg in the same truck is extremely far fetched. I had about 1/4 tank of fuel when I started the 40 mile trip home and now it’s sitting slightly above 1/8 tank.

 

[dodge man]

I had a 2004 Dodge 3/4 ton with a Cummins, I got 28 mpg all the time, you know coasting to stop signs and downhill with a tailwind. I could get 18 mpg with that truck but that was about it.

 

[hiddentacocatneddih]

Compare fuel mileage is like comparing hot dog size. Everyone's is bigger and longer.

 

[jyoutz]

I had a 2004 Dodge 3/4 ton with a Cummins, I got 28 mpg all the time, you know coasting to stop signs and downhill with a tailwind. I could get 18 mpg with that truck but that was about it.

I have a 2007 5.9. Like yours it is the common rail engine and I get about the same, occasionally 20. But my 1999 24 valve Cummins did average 20 mpg.