kubota vs. kioti

[tomato coupe]

And there in the parking lot the salesperson and I sat trying to adjust the HST sensitivity using the one button (since the intuitive, easy-to-use knob has now been removed).

I haven't seen the new version, but I have no reason to doubt your evaluation. You might want to edit your other post, however, to make it clear that you didn't like the newest version -- not the version shown in the photo. I'm guessing art and I weren't the only ones who assumed the photo shows the system you didn't like, and were wondering what you were referring to.

Edit: Okay, but it might be better to clarify things in post #233 where you are discussing the new version, but have a photo of the old version.

 

[GManBart]

:drink:

Celebrating someone who misread what was written? Funny.

 

[GManBart]

Ft-lbs is not a measurement of force. lbs are. Or Newtons. Ft-lbs (or Netwon Meters)are a measurement of torque, it is not the same as simple force.
If you run all your calculations with SI units, and attach the units, and carry them through all your calculations it will all make sense.

Again with the reading comprehension (engineers!). I never said it was a "simple force." We're talking about reciprocating engines, and the only "force" in the equation for horsepower is torque, which we generically describe as being in foot/lbs.

 

[GManBart]

Correct. I said torque at the engine is irrelevant. We are talking tractor engines here and comparing them. I have no idea what the torque is at the engine? And I bet 99%+ of the members here don't either. It isn't a commonly published spec. I would also be willing to bet that 99%+ DO know what their HP is though. So if engine torque was important as you claim, why doesn't anyone else care?

If there was no engine torque, there would be no engine horsepower to create the drive wheel torque. Engine torque isn't irrelevant, it's primary, and makes all the other stuff possible.

But hey, I was able to find where someone did exactly as you described, made some minor tweaks to the gearing of a Tunda, and it was actually capable of pulling heavy loads just like a cement mixer. Here's a sneak peek:

 

[94BULLITT]

If there was no engine torque, there would be no engine horsepower to create the drive wheel torque. Engine torque isn't irrelevant, it's primary, and makes all the other stuff possible.

But hey, I was able to find where someone did exactly as you described, made some minor tweaks to the gearing of a Tunda, and it was actually capable if pulling heavy loads just like a cement mixer. Here's a sneak peek:

You know the tundra pulled a 292,000lb space shuttle.

 

[LD1]

Maybe I should reword it since you have a hard time understanding the point. No, torque is not irrelevant. It is what creates horsepower, along with movement.

Maybe I should have said that using torque to compare tractor engines is irrelevant. Cause it is. Tractor engines of different sizes and makes do NOT have a wide range of RPMs. Rather they all seem to fall within a few hundred rpm's of 2800 or so. Rather that be a 25hp tractor or a 225 HP tractor. So that said, we aren't comparing a 15k rpm street bike to a 800rpm lugger in terms of specs. So for comparing tractor engines, HP is the more meaningful number. Because it signifies the amount of work that can be done in a given time.

Its like arguing about what color paint a mfg chooses to use. Totally irrelevant IMO, but fundamentally, yes, paint is important to the longevity of the tractor.

You can have millions of ft-lbs of torque and not be able to get anything done. Yet a fraction of a HP is doing work.

Again I ask, if torque were solo important in the comparison of tractors, why do manufactures not acknowledge that and publish it as a spec, instead of using HP to define their models?

 

[Cherokee140]

You know the tundra pulled a 292,000lb space shuttle.

You believe everything you see in an ad?

 

[LD1]

You believe everything you see in an ad?

NO.

But I do believe that. But keep in mind, the tundra was modified to do that pull too.

 

[sawtooth]

Maybe I should reword it since you have a hard time understanding the point. No, torque is not irrelevant. It is what creates horsepower, along with movement. Maybe I should have said that using torque to compare tractor engines is irrelevant. Cause it is. Tractor engines of different sizes and makes do NOT have a wide range of RPMs. Rather they all seem to fall within a few hundred rpm's of 2800 or so. Rather that be a 25hp tractor or a 225 HP tractor. So that said, we aren't comparing a 15k rpm street bike to a 800rpm lugger in terms of specs. So for comparing tractor engines, HP is the more meaningful number. Because it signifies the amount of work that can be done in a given time. Its like arguing about what color paint a mfg chooses to use. Totally irrelevant IMO, but fundamentally, yes, paint is important to the longevity of the tractor. You can have millions of ft-lbs of torque and not be able to get anything done. Yet a fraction of a HP is doing work. Again I ask, if torque were solo important in the comparison of tractors, why do manufactures not acknowledge that and publish it as a spec, instead of using HP to define their models?

Ok so take out the 50hp engine in a Kubota MX5100 and put in a 80hp engine from a super bike and then try out that tractor. Lol

Probably do ok once it reached wide open throttle but anything else would be horrific.

We'll it is a Kubota so probably no change. Lol

 

[LD1]

Do some people have problems with reading comprehension? To my knowledge, no tractor manufactures are making tractors with 10-15k rpm engines.

Tractor engines of different sizes and makes do NOT have a wide range of RPMs. Rather they all seem to fall within a few hundred rpm's of 2800 or so. Rather that be a 25hp tractor or a 225 HP tractor. So that said, we aren't comparing a 15k rpm street bike to a 800rpm lugger in terms of specs. So for comparing tractor engines, HP is the more meaningful number. Because it signifies the amount of work that can be done in a given time.