Kubota B2910 vs. Case DX29

[fivazpond]

I'm starting to second guess myself- think I have been shopping & surfing too much! I am sold on the DK29 Case, but I'm having second thoughts on the weight. According to the literature, it's 700lbs heavier than the 2910 Kubota. That is a sizable difference- why so heavier? Also, any idea what the tire sizes are? I can't find the info on website(weak, at best) or their literature. Thanks for the help- sounds like you have kept up-to-date on these tractors. Bill

 

[fivazpond]

I'm from upstate NY- I shopped 3 dealers today & found the least difference between the two (with same attachments) of $1000.00. I thought this wasn't too bad.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

I think you might want to rephrase the question and ask why the Kubota B2910 is such a light weight machine?

In the general scheme of the roughly 30hp tractors, the B2910 is on the very light end of the scale. That can be an advantage under many circumstances, but based on your needs, going to the light end is probably not your best choice. The Case/New Holland products seem to fall in the middle of the weight spectrum, then there are the Korean tractors which make the CNH tractors look fairly light. Even just staying within the brand of Kubota, they make both light and heavy machines, it is just that the B2910 (and its lower featured sister model the B7800) are on the light end, the L series tractors are on the heavy end of the spectrum within the Kubota line and the L3130 has similar power to the B2910 but is much larger & heavier (it also makes the DX29 seem a bit scrawny, especially the loader specs).

So in the grand scheme of things, the B2910 is a lightweight.

 

[fivazpond]

Thank you for taking the time to answer a rookie's question. I would not have thought of it that way. You've resettled my mind.

 

[Inspector507]

Here are the tire sizes for a 2003 TC29D, last years brother to the DX29.
AG 7X14 Front 11.2X24 Rear
Turfs 24X8.50-15 Front 13.6X16 Rear
Ind. 25X8.50-14 Front 15X19.5 Rear

This is out of the NH Boomer literature from 2003. But I'm sure it's close.

 

[art]

There is definitely a weight difference in the two tractors mentioned and as to what the loaders can lift as you do need to counter any weight that you lift. If you were mainly looking for a construction tractor then the DX might win hands down. The Kubota running lighter should be burning less fuel and feel more nimbler while manuvering a cost of ownership that stays with you as long as the tractor. There are some things that you should be aware of on the DX-TC lines. The subframes attachment points for the Bhoe have to be unbolted and removed and the brackets for the mower deck have to be installed before going mowing. There are some other small things to note but you didn't mention the backhoe attachment was needed.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

The DX is about 700 pounds heavier than the B2910. The B2910 is a ladder frame construction which allows it to be lighter in weight, its light weight also seems to be part of the reason why the loader capacity is 20% lower? The B2910 is a dream to drive, but the DX is a pretty short wheelbase tractor as well, it will turn tightly too.

As for the mention in an earlier post about the Power Tracs, that really is a machine to consider. PTs are much more stable than traditional tractors and they are much better at doing FEL work. Care must be taken to size the machine properly as the characteristics of the PT machines are so very different than traditional tractors. However, for doing FEL work, a small PT with less capacity can likely outwork a larger traditional tractor with FEL by a pretty wide margin. I don't own a PT but I do own a similarly designed Ventrac and can tell you that those machines will do "figure 8's" and "u-turns" on slopes that a traditional CUT shouldn't even be on.

 

[srs]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( I was very close to purchasing a B2910 Kubota today, until I looked at a Case DX29. )</font>

fivazpond, have you looked at the Kubota L tractors? I think the L3130 would work great for you, the added weight to move heavy snow, haul wood, etc. It's been getting great reviews here at TBN. My 2 Cents! /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

 

[cmhyland]

I have a B2910 and love it. It is what it is... a small frame machine with higher HP.... Excellent is some cases and poor in others. It has never failed to do what I have asked it to do...

That said I think a true comparison is the 3130 to the DX29 or TC29...

Then I think the prices will be the same and the weights and capacities are similar...

MODEL: L3130 PRINT THIS
F (2WD) DT (4WD) GST (4WD) HST (4WD)
Engine
Type
E-TVCS, indirect injection, vertical, liquid-cooled 4-cycle diesel
Engine gross power HP (kW)
32.1 (23.9)
Engine net power HP (kW)
31.0 (23.2)
PTO power HP (kW)
25.5 (19.1) 24.0 (17.9)
No. of cylinders
3
Bore & stroke in. (mm)
3.3 × 3.6 (83 × 92.4)
Total displace cu.in. (cc)
91.5 (1499)
Rated speed rpm
2700
Battery
75D 26R, 12V
Alternater
12V, 40A
Fuel tank capacity US gal. (L)
10.6 (40)
PTO
Rear PTO

Revolution
1 speed: 540 rpm
Type
Independent Independent*2
Mid PTO
Option
Revolution
1 speed: 2000 rpm
Hydraulic
Lift control type: Position
Standard
Draft
Option
Implement pump GPM (L/min.)
8.3 (31.5)
Power steering pump GPM (L/min.)
4.9 (18.6)
Total hydraulic flow GPM (L/min.)
13.2 (50.1)
3-point hitch
Category I
Lift capacity at 24 in. behind lift point lbs. (kg)
2650 (1200)
Travelling System
Transmission
FST 8F/ 8R GST 12F / 8R HST (3 Ranges)
Steering
Hydrostatic power steering
Brake
Wet disc type
Clutch
Dry type single stage
Standard tire size*1 Front
6.0 - 16 7.2 - 16 7.2 - 16 7.2 - 16
Rear
12.4 - 24
Travel speeds
No. of speeds (at rated engine speed)

First mph (km/h)
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth
Sixth
Seventh
Eighth
Ninth
Tenth
Eleventh
Twelfth
GST*3)
12 Forward / 8 Reverse
Forward Reverse
1.0 (1.6) 1.0 (1.6)
1.4 (2.3) 1.3 (2.2)
1.9 (3.1) 2.2 (3.6)
2.3 (3.7) 3.2 (5.2)
2.8 (4.5) 4.6 (7.5)
3.4 (5.5) 6.6 (10.7)
4.0 (6.5) 10.7 (17.2)
4.9 (7.8) 15.7 (25.4)
5.7 (9.2)
6.9 (11.1)
11.2 (18.0)
16.5 (26.6)
Optional creep speeds for GST*3)
12 Forward /8 Reverse
Forward Reverse
0.11 (0.18) 0.11 (0.17)
0.16 (0.25) 0.15 (0.24)
0.21 (0.34) 0.24 (0.39)
0.26 (0.41) 0.36 (0.58)
0.31 (0.51) 0.52 (0.84)
0.38 (0.61) 0.74 (1.19)
0.45 (0.73) 1.20 (1.93)
0.55 (0.88) 1.77 (2.85)
0.64 (1.03)
0.77 (1.24)
1.25 (2.02)
1.85 (2.98)
HST
3 Ranges
Forward
L: 0 (0) to 3.9 (6.3)
M: 0 (0) to 7.5 (12.1)
H: 0 (0) to16.8 (27.0)
Reverse
L: 0 (0) to 3.5 (5.7)
M: 0 (0) to 6.8 (10.9)
H: 0 (0) to15.1 (24.3)


Dimensions
Overall length (w/o 3P) in. (mm)
119.1 (3025) 114.8 (2915)
Overall width (min. tread) in. (mm)
59.8 (1520)
Overall height (w/Foldable ROPS/w/Rigid ROPS) in. (mm)
90.7/84.3 (2305/2140)
Wheelbase in. (mm)
71.3 (1810) 71.1 (1805)
Min. ground clearance in. (mm)
14.2 (360)
Tread Front (Front tire)
in. (mm)
47.6 (1210)
51.6 (1310)
55.5 (1410)
59.4 (1510) 45.5 (1155)
Rear (Rear tire)
in. (mm)
47.2 (1200)
51.2 (1300)
54.5 (1385)
58.3 (1480)
Min. turning radius
(w/brake, 4WD disengaged) feet (m)
8.5 (2.6) 8.9 (2.7)
Weight (with ROPS) lbs. (kg)
3120 (1415) 3220 (1460) 3260 (1480) 3305 (1500)




Regards,
Chris

 

[8561]

About six weeks ago I posed a relationship between the weight of the tractor having some bearing on the designed limits of the loader capacity in another thread. This theory was dismissed as having no relationship between the two. Have we now decided the two factors are related?