L2800-L3400 PTO Making the right choice

[bigballer]

I have an '06 L3400HST and just got off the phone with my dealer. He told me that my SN (65xxx) is post models needing the fix (which matches what I am reading here). He said this design has not changed so the clutch plates going into the SB are the same that are being built into the new models at the factory. I asked him about the ratcheting noise and he said Kubota issued a fix for this which was to add 8 quarts of hydraulic fluid to the resivoir, doing so would submerse the clutch and quiet it. He told me he has a kit they could retrofit onto my tractor which adds a dipstick since with the added fluid the level would no longer been seen via the looking glass but it was up to me. He said it's not a "recall" and they only offer it when someone really wants it. He said there is a new plate cover that's bigger then the current (which sits between the foot rests) and that the dipstick sits up slightly. He said he wasn't crazy about the design since the dipstick head could be easily broken by a heavy foot or other. The DIY solution he offered was to get the fluid level as seen through the glass and then add 8 quarts of oil. He seemed honest and willing to work with me on it if I want the dipstick kit but am thinking of just adding the fluid myself. He said if I did it would not have any effect on the warranty.

Has anyone had this kit added to their tractor? Has anyone just added the fluid? pros' /con's?

cheers,
bigballer

 

[swampvol]

bb...you have the new cams and still have the ratcheting noise?

 

[bigballer]

yes, it happens when i disengage the pto and release the clutch pedal. since i've nothing to compare it to but the posts i read, it's hard to tell how "severe" it is but it's very noticeable. Even though the lever is "off" it seems like the pto re-engages when i release the pedal and the mower blades seem to "pickup" speed as well for a few moments.. doesn't seem normal to me but then again, nothing to compare it against.. anyone else experience this?

 

[MDM]

yes, it happens when i disengage the pto and release the clutch pedal. since i've nothing to compare it to but the posts i read, it's hard to tell how "severe" it is but it's very noticeable. Even though the lever is "off" it seems like the pto re-engages when i release the pedal and the mower blades seem to "pickup" speed as well for a few moments.. doesn't seem normal to me but then again, nothing to compare it against.. anyone else experience this?

So, you are pressing in the clutch, disengaging the PTO lever, then releasing the clutch before the implement stops spinning?

 

[bigballer]

yes that is what I am doing.

 

[Rockyridge]

If you look at those original cams closely you’ll notice that on one of them the ramp tapers to nothing and the other one ends up with a little bit of a shoulder on it. It would be interesting to put them together, preferable on a shaft, to see it they ever seated completely together. That would make a quit a difference if they were only engaging part of the flat area that is designed to transfer the power.

 

[emmy71]

If you look at those original cams closely you’ll notice that on one of them the ramp tapers to nothing and the other one ends up with a little bit of a shoulder on it. It would be interesting to put them together, preferable on a shaft, to see it they ever seated completely together. That would make a quit a difference if they were only engaging part of the flat area that is designed to transfer the power.

That is exactly what I said at the beginning of this thread. I do not believe those cams ever fully engaged. I see no reason they should not engage as they are. I belive something is keeping them from fully engaging. Read my previous post and see if you agree.

 

[8226hamer]

If you look at those original cams closely you’ll notice that on one of them the ramp tapers to nothing and the other one ends up with a little bit of a shoulder on it. It would be interesting to put them together, preferable on a shaft, to see it they ever seated completely together. That would make a quit a difference if they were only engaging part of the flat area that is designed to transfer the power.

Thats a good observation. I see what you are saying and it makes good sense. It looks to me like that when these two cams were engaged there is no way they could be meshed together perfect. The way it looks they would be cocked up on one end, instead of being perfectly matched and together flat. It seems both cams should taper to nothing and there should not be a shoulder on either one. I can see how this may cause a problem. I wonder if Kubota would be interested in this theory.These were second set of cams installed in my tractor. Make me wonder if these two cams that I pictured were of the same matched set. I took these pictures at my dealer. I have no idea were these cams are at now. I would like to see a new set and see if one has a slight shoulder and the other none.

 

[8226hamer]

I'm no expert and I don't even play one on TV but don't you think the problem lies in the spring (or whatever it is) that forces the 2 cams together when the PTO is engaged? I don't see how the chatter noise from the original cam design can cause any harm to the cams at all. Noisy - yes! Harmful - I don't see it. Actually the new locking cam is going to bang the backside of the cam tooth instead of sliding up the slope that the old cam had. The old cam would make the spring that forces the cams together really work as the overrunning action was spinning. That wouldn't be the case in the new style.

Looking back at the picture of the damaged cams Hammer posted way back when it sure looks to me like those cams would engage with each other without any problem if they were held together. How could they slip? The only way I can think of is the force that holds the cams together was not sufficient. A weak spring? Does that make sense to anyone else?

One thing that's for sure with either the new or old style cams there certainly is no feathering in engaging the PTO. It's going to engage with a heck of a force!

Both times the cams have been replaced a new spring was installed. I thought the same, or maybe a stouter spring should be used that would increase pressure and keep them engaged.

 

[8226hamer]

I just reread page one of this thread (again) and Hammer says he idles down before engaging the PTO and the implement is not under a load so everybody probably already knows how important it is. On the reread though I did notice something that I either missed or just forgot (the mind is the first thing that goes) ... These cams are the diameter of a coke can. From those nice closeup pictures Hammer took of his cams I had in my head they were like 6 inches in diameter or something! If they are the size of a coke can those lugs are probably less than 1/2 inch tall! Kubota certainly didn't overbuild these cams. If I were in your shoes Hammer I'd stop trying to get the new cams installed. I'd just trade the tractor in! The B2910 served you well. I'm sure a B3030 would too. Life is too short. Your L2800 has very few hours and the PTO is in working condition. The longer you wait to trade it in the more it's going to cost you.

Your probably correct. Even installing the new style cams probably will not solve my problem. I really think and have to agree with what Kubota first told me in the beginning that this type of PTO system is not designed to be used with ground engaging Pto driven implements,(roto tillers). I just hate the fact that I have to replace this L2800 because of this and would have never even thought about going with this series of tractors if I would have know this information. When I got ready to trade my B-2910 in I thought that an L series tractor was a heavier built tractor that would be suited for my needs, because I do use a tractor more than the average home owner. I thought the L2800 would fit the bill as it was several hundred pounds heavier than the B2910. If my L2800 had the PTO system that the B2910 had this thread would never have been started. It would seem that it should be the other way around that Kubota would use the over running clutch type PTO in the lighter built B2910-3030 series which these lighter tractors are more suited for running a finish mower-bush hog type opf application, and use an independent PTO in the more heavier built L 2800-3400 series of tractors. I guess that maybe they do and it's a B-7800 tractor. And it would be the Grand L series, but the smallest Grand L series would be to big of a tractor for what I need it for. I would have been happy to pay for the higher cost of the indepent PTO in my L2800 if I could have had that option.