My Hoe
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2010
- Messages
- 560
- Location
- NYS--Various Parts
- Tractor
- Kubota B3000HSDCC, BH77, 5' Belly Mower, 6' Hyd. Angle Plow
Subscribed.
Kabota vs Woods attachments
- Thread starter Odonnks
- Start date
- Views: 5310
rScotty
Super Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2001
- Messages
- 9,564
- Location
- Rural mountains - Colorado
- Tractor
- Kubota M59, JD530, JD310SG. Restoring Yanmar YM165D
If I already had a tractor and needed a loader I'd sure put Woods at the top of the list...but buying new I'd go Kubota for all the reasons others have mentioned. Kubota is top quality and made to fit. One of the things that hasn't been mentioned is how well you can see what the loader bucket is doing from the operator's seat. Kubota excels at that.
Whichever loader your friend chooses, try to get him to include the quick attach bucket feature and front remotes. Those two things don't add much money and they sure do give a fellow more options.
Something to think about - and I'm sure he has done so - is that with a loader and backhoe he is getting into the wheelhouse where the L39 lives. More money again...but a whole lot more tractor.
In my experience I've had several 3 pt mounted backhoes over the past 40 years and now have gone entirely over to fixed mount hoes. In the L39, the 3 pt arms are the optional attachment and the hoe is the standard attachment. It really does make a difference.
Luck,
rScotty
My Hoe
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2010
- Messages
- 560
- Location
- NYS--Various Parts
- Tractor
- Kubota B3000HSDCC, BH77, 5' Belly Mower, 6' Hyd. Angle Plow
DelSc
This comes as a surprise to me. On the Woods BH80-X "Groundbreaker," I thought I recalled seeing the same style, "four point" pin-and-hook-type subframe as would be on a Kubota hoe. But you obviously know better than I, re: the BH70-X. In your experience, is it possible the Woods BH80-X had the non-bolt setup, while your BH70-X required bolting-up? Because if I have to BOLT it on, that's a definite negative, for me, re: the Woods hoe. (And I prefer the Woods hoe, for a few reasons that are specific to my anticipated uses, i.e., using the backhoe as a "CRANE" which may be of no concern to normal folk, who like to DIG with their backhoes--LOL).
Thank you for highlighting that.
My Hoe
DelSc said:
This comes as a surprise to me. On the Woods BH80-X "Groundbreaker," I thought I recalled seeing the same style, "four point" pin-and-hook-type subframe as would be on a Kubota hoe. But you obviously know better than I, re: the BH70-X. In your experience, is it possible the Woods BH80-X had the non-bolt setup, while your BH70-X required bolting-up? Because if I have to BOLT it on, that's a definite negative, for me, re: the Woods hoe. (And I prefer the Woods hoe, for a few reasons that are specific to my anticipated uses, i.e., using the backhoe as a "CRANE" which may be of no concern to normal folk, who like to DIG with their backhoes--LOL).
Thank you for highlighting that.
My Hoe
Having a bolt-on BH would indeed be very inconvenient. Don't think that's the standard setup for a Woods BH, although the observation about the Kub hoe being better integrated is probably accurate simply because the Woods product is designed to fit many different tractors and may not tuck into the back of a Kubota like the Kubota hoe would.
Puzzled why you figure a Woods BH would be more suitable for "crane" use. The only major thing that differs in the specs is the Woods BH has much wider stabilizer spread and would probably be more stable with the boom off to the side. Otherwise, the boom reach and other dimensions are virtually identical and they probably operate pretty much the same.
Try each one out if you can before buying. Hands-on operation will tell you much more than reading puff-piece spec sheets.
rScotty
Super Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2001
- Messages
- 9,564
- Location
- Rural mountains - Colorado
- Tractor
- Kubota M59, JD530, JD310SG. Restoring Yanmar YM165D
As I read the specs versus the BH77 Kubota backhoe it seems to me that the Woods comes out a little better all around.....but of course it isn't really matched to any one tractor. Grandad4 has a good thought....the only way you will really know is to try them both - or at least look at them in the flesh. And all we can do here on line is compare specs and point out things to look for. Things like frame-mounting pins versus bolts, QA versus solid mount buckets. And the all-important thumb.
When I was looking at several makes of new tractor/loader/backhoe combos we tried everything in a 100 mile radius. It took all summer. The decision when we made it was based on things I would have never thought of nor seen in the specs. There was a major difference in the feel of the controls, getting on & off the tractor, and the seating position while using the backhoe. Other things that made a difference were how it balanced and drove with the loader bucket full & empty and also with a load in the BH bucket. All in all, I think what finally sold me was Kubota's seating and delicate controls.....not at all what I expected going in and just about impossible to compare without being on the machine.
luck, rScotty
Attachments
Fallon
Super Member
The L39 & family are backhoes designed to occasionally do stuff using a 3pt. Other tractors like my L3200 are designed to do stuff on a 3pt. The L39 is just a beefier tractor designed focusing on a backhoe. I assume the hoe is designed to go with a more robust tractor. Comparing the 2 isn't quite on the same playing field.
DelSc
Silver Member
My Woods BH-70X had hooks on the bottom, but bolts on the top. So similar to the Kubota arrangement, you used the hydraulics to lift it onto the hooks, and then align the holes, but then bolt it at the top rather than use pins. The alignment with subframe was not as good with the Woods either, and so when you used it, it just wasn't as slick as the Kubota. It wasn't terrible by any measure, but I prefer the Kubota way of mounting.