Kioti CK2610SE Power

[Lee Robinson]

I have never used AC...and don't know how much of a draw that is on the hp...but trust your judgement.

 

[iptman]

The CK2610 has 100 CI displacement, but the CX2510 is only 87 CI

Not so. The CX2510 has the same 1647cc engine the CK2610 has (3A165).

 

[iptman]

I know of one that was checked on a dyno and got 24 hp at the pto in a test (although only rated 21.5 at the PTO according to specs stated by the factory), which suggests around 28 hp at the engine. If that is true, then they are reporting less than the tractor is actually producing...or that one was just a fluke. I don't know the legals of this, but regardless the engine is the same engine that was once used in their 35 hp tractors.

I'd love to find a local PTO dyno and test my CX2510. I have a feeling I'd get similar numbers.

 

[Lee Robinson]

Not so. The CX2510 has the same 1647cc engine the CK2610 has (3A165).

Interesting...While the engine model number is similar, it is slightly different. Also, I just noticed that Kioti has contradicting information on their website. Notice the CI's are listed different, but the CC's are listed the same...which is of course impossible. I wonder which is correct...the CC's or the CI's.

CX2510 shows 87 CI's but 1.6L
CK2610 shows 100 CI's but also 1.6L

Which is not possible.

 

[Lee Robinson]

Not so. The CX2510 has the same 1647cc engine the CK2610 has (3A165).

If it is 87 CI, then it is 1426 cc. Given there is a different engine number AND a different cubic inch number, I suspect they made a mistake on the stated cc...occam's razor...one mistake being more likely than two mistakes...and being it is a smaller/lighter machine.

Also, the crank case on the CX2510 holds 5.7 L of oil while the CK2610 holds 6.0 L of oil

 

[hornett22]

Can you share which model you tested? Hoping the CX2510. I'm caught between that and the 2032/38r and would love to see a loader test on the CX2510 like you did on the 220R MSL recently. These tractors are surprisingly similar in features, size and weight but it's hard to know, really, what the loader will lift unless you're able to do tests like you've done recently. Thanks for those, BTW. Still kind of wish the 1025r's 120R MSL had as much relative increase in capacity as the 220R MSL has versus the NSL.

If you don't get a 3 range if you go hydro, you've messed up big time.

 

[iptman]

The 165 in the engine model name designates 1.65 liters. It's definitely the same engine.

 

[iptman]

If you don't get a 3 range if you go hydro, you've messed up big time.

Disagree. My CX2510 has no problem running around my property in high range with the BH attached (close to 4000 pounds). Without it it's even better. I would certain not have kicked a 3 speed transfer case out of bed but I have no complaints about the 2 speed I've got.

 

[Lee Robinson]

The 165 in the engine model name designates 1.65 liters. It's definitely the same engine.

something is clearly off...given their website also says 87 cubic inches of displacement. I don't own the CX2510...so it doesn't matter to me...but if I did I would like to know when ordering items.

I have the CK2610...so this isn't a concern for me when ordering items.

 

[hornett22]

Disagree. My CX2510 has no problem running around my property in high range with the BH attached (close to 4000 pounds). Without it it's even better. I would certain not have kicked a 3 speed transfer case out of bed but I have no complaints about the 2 speed I've got.

You're going to need more than a backhoe to get to "close to 4000 pounds"

 

[Lee Robinson]

You're going to need more than a backhoe to get to "close to 4000 pounds"

I don't have that model, but he may be closer than you think...

The CX2510 HST tractor is 2260#
Front end loader with bucket is 605#
Backhoe without bucket is over 1000#
Backhow bucket weight? 100#?

Total over 3950# ballast added to tires.

 

[Amvcane]

This might clear some things up. Not sure what a ck2510m is.
Edit: woops, thought I posted the CX manual page.

 

[iptman]

You're going to need more than a backhoe to get to "close to 4000 pounds"

2200 for the tractor, 300 filled tires, 1000 BH and sub frame, 500 loader and bucket.

Edit: Oops, didn't see @Lee Robinson 's post.

 

[iptman]

This might clear some things up. Not sure what a ck2510m is.

View attachment 725433

I'll do you one better. This is a snippet from the factory service manual.

 

[iptman]

I believe everything after the 3A165 designates different tuning and emissions specific to the application and where the tractor is being sold.

 

[iptman]

I could certainly see Kioti underrating their engines to hit the 24.5hp limit. It's not like there's some government agency dyno testing compact tractor engines to make sure they don't make more HP than the company is reporting.

 

[Lee Robinson]

There is a problem with the manuals on the CX2510 with the displacement statement ya'll...

That is the conversion rate.

For the CK2610, they have the conversion ratio correct.

For the CX2510, they have the conversion ratio incorrect.

1647 cc does equal 100.5 CI (as listed on the CK2610)

1647 cc does NOT equal 87 CI (as listed on the CX2510)

They cannot have the same cc displacement on both models but then list different CIs for the models and be correct.

The conversion ratio for CI's to cc's is 16.387.

 

[iptman]

The only place it's wrong is on their website and only regarding cubic inches. When the CX2510 initially hit their website the copy said it had a 3 range transfer case. They eventually fixed that, they just haven't fixed this one. It's just a typo.

 

[Lee Robinson]

I'll do you one better. This is a snippet from the factory service manual.

View attachment 725445

This photo comes from the manual, correct?

Look at the displacement listing. It shows 87 cubic inches there as well. 100.5 cubic inches equals 1647 CI's.
87 CI's only equals 1426 cc's.

I am sure they will fix this in the future...but until then it is either 1647 cc (100.5 CIs) or 1426 cc's (87 CI) because it cannot be 1647 cc AND at the same time be 87 CI's. That's impossible.

 

[the old grind]

I'd read the tag on an engine. "Charts is charts."