L2800-L3400 PTO Making the right choice

[8226hamer]

I did not get to see the old cams or even talk to the mechanic who worked on it. Sorry I could not be more help but I think you may be right about the new cams locking together better. They may have changed more than just removing the ramps. Brian

Brian, did you have the hydro oil increase up date preformed on your tractor. If so you would of had a longer fill port and a dip stick installed on the floor board.
What I was wondering since these new cams no longer ratchet, and that was what the update was claiming to cure, I would like to know if it is still required to and the extra 6 quarts of hydro fluid when you service your tractor?

 

[Goog]

Yes. I had the oil level increase service bulletin done. So I think the answer to your question is that it will always require the extra fluid when changed.
The dealer did not remove all that stuff and I don't really even notice the plate between your feet being different anymore.

I am happy with it now and I will live with having to buy the extra fluid.

When does your machine go in for the new parts? Brian

 

[mjfox6]

A guy I work with has an L2800HST he bought in June 2005. He only has about 26 hours on his machine, but decided to try and get the jerky 3pt hitch and the new cams installed at his dealer in Alabama before the warranty ran out.

He delivered the tractor and requested the new 3pt hitch valve and the new cams. Three weeks later, after not hearing anything, he called and they told him it was ready. He picked it up last weekend and they had replaced the 3pt valve and performed the original oil increase "fix," instead of replacing the cams.

I don't know why they decided not to replace the cams, but the regional Kubota representative was involved in the decision.

 

[ccsial]

He picked it up last weekend and they had replaced the 3pt valve and performed the original oil increase "fix," instead of replacing the cams.

I don't know why they decided not to replace the cams, but the regional Kubota representative was involved in the decision.

The fix for the Oil level is PSB-2005-052
The fix for the new Cam is PSB-2005-052-A

Maybe they looked at the wrong service memo. This is confusing to have the same number for two very different fixes.

 

[Goog]

He really needs to get the new cam's installed while under warranty. Maybe the thought they could get by with just the oil level update because changing the cams is a major job and expense to Kubota. They also could have missed the latest bulletin and ccsial said. They should have gave it a new number. When my tractor had the cams replaced I took in a copy of the faxed original message posted on this thread. Brian

 

[canoetrpr]

Boy, I've been dissapointed reading this thread.

My dealer was useless to begin with. The only reason I seem to have gotten the 3 pt fix installed was because I pointed out the problem at the time of purchase - heck I showed it to them on the L2800 I test drove on their lot.

When my L3400 arrived last year, it had the valve problem. They got a Kubota rep out to me who gave me the bull about this being an 'economy' tractor and they would only fix this because I pointed this out at the time of purchase. According to him this was otherwise not considered a warranty fix but an upgrade in manufacturing.

For many reasons I'm not going back to my dealer. However I have found another dealer that seems better (at least on the phone) and my tractor is going in for 50 hour service in a week or so to them.

I am going to bring this bulliten to their attention but given my last experience with the Kubota rep, I'm not holding out for it to be addressed. I imagine that this has a lot to do with the particular Kubota rep in the area rather than the dealer. Not sure which of the two bullitens to show them. I imagine they will bring up the one that shows that this is a running production change with no information about addressing this for owners that have a complaint.

Oddly enough, I called this new dealer this week to consider an upgrade from the L3400 to a L3540. They gave me a good price on the L3540 but I would have lost over $5K on my trade - which is only a year old and 50 hours! Needless to say, I can't do that. I had no real reason to consider upgrading as the tractor has been great so far.... but now I'm kinda worried.

I've dropped a vast chunk of cash on my tractor and expected that it would last me at least another 20 years or so. It's one thing for me to want to upgrade to a tractor with more bells and whistles. Now I'm wondering whether I shouldn't be planning to do this in a few years anyway once the new Grand L's have been around for a bit - as I am generally concerned about what else is 'economy' about the L3400.

I'm also conflicted about whether I should be going ahead and pushing for the CAM change anyway. I wonder if it is possible to do more harm than good by opening up the tractor. I just think of other situations I've been in with things where I tried to get something fixed and in the process caused another problem.

I'm not tilling at all - bushhogging, snowblowing and manure spreading.

Regardless, my confidence has been eroded and I'm half thinking about seeing if the green and yellow folks might give me a better deal for my trade in for a 3520.

 

[canoetrpr]

Like I suspected it looks like I will have a major hassle wrt. getting the new cams done.

I wouldn't get my original dealer to even open up my tractor - they were so incompetent.

I called the new dealer I have made a service appt. at for my 50 hr. and pointed them to the PSB. They sorta weren't too excited to be looking into a warranty issue for me since I hadn't bought my tractor from them (I guess they didn't have a problem booking me in for service since I'm paying!). But I've left it with them for now. Having dealt with the kubota rep in this area, I doubt it will get done.

That said, I've been reflecting on this thread I think that the OP may just have had a lemon. This happens from time to time I imagine in all vehicles, tractors etc. Certainly not a pleasant situation if you are in it and all the worse if the dealer / manufacturer does not stand by you.

Its not clear to me that we can conclude that the over running clutch design is fundamentally flawed. I'm not yet convinced that the failures are wide spread. We have heard of one I think and I imagine a LOT of people are roto-tilling with these tractors. Being an engineer myself I just cannot imagine any reasonable manufacturer not testing a design like this for a reasonable number of hours as part of their normal testing cycle. If there were going to be consistent failures doing something as basic as rototilling after a small number of hours, this would be caught as part of the normal design / test process. It is just too expensive for companies to fix defects in the field / loose customers etc. I could be dead wrong but I'm just thinking rationally. Heck I'm a software guy and we know how much it hurts us the later we find bugs in design. We work very hard to try to find bugs in the earliest phase possible. It's a lot worse for our hardware and I imagine mechanical, industrial engineering peers I imagine.

Realistically, none of us really knows why the cams were changed so that they were not over running any more. I imagine the biggest issue has been the noise .. which is why they initially scrambled to retro-fit with the hydro fluid level kit.

One thing that I don't particularly follow (will re-read the thread to see if I can) is that this being a live PTO, the over running clutch seemed like it had a good purpose - to keep the inertia on the implement from spinning the drive train once the PTO had been disengaged. How is this solved with the new cams?

My advice to the OP would be, I would take the trade in offer on the B3030. It's not the greatest situation in the world to be in but this is a situation that does happen from time to time no matter whose product you buy. The extra $1400 over and above the price difference between the tractors does not sound overly unreasonable to me given you've had a couple hundred hours of service. Far from ideal but I know that thats what I would do.

On the balance of probabilities, given the information we have so far, my rational conclusion would be that there is not an inherent reliability issue with the PTO on these models - even on the early tractors. Maybe new data will prove me wrong.

Until then, I'll hope that I can get the cams changed under warranty - just in case I am wrong, and heck, would be nice to get the newer technology and stop that noise.

That said, if after some persistence, I can't get them to do this under warranty, I'll just go on and not worry about anything until I hit some problem (hopefully before warranty runs out!) - and chalk it up to one of life's risks. I might think about upgrading to a grand L in another 4 to 5 years anyway but might as well push it out till the new 40 series are proven in the field. The risk does not justify the cost of trading up with 50 hours on the clock with the machine still under warranty at this point.

I'll also hope that by the time I am ready for an upgrade, I'll find a dealer like many of you have who will stand by you when situations like this will come up - and they do from time to time with all makes and models.

I hope that Kubota does right by you 8226hamer and that the next machine you get works out better.

 

[ccsial]

I was looking at 8226hamer's pictures and got to thinking about the round edges. I wonder if 8226hamer's dealer checked the clutch cable adjusment. If the cable was mis-adjusted and they changed the cams and did not adjust the cable, then maybe they were not fully engaged and the failure occured again. It is very important that those cams engage fully. Everyone should check their cable adjustment. Don't assume it came correct from the dealer.

 

[canoetrpr]

ccsial:

I'm not terribly mechanically adept so these may be dumb questions.

What is the cable adjustment you are referring to? This is not the cable that the PTO switch controls right? Why does the clutch have a cable going anywhere? I'm not at the farm otherwise I would have wandered over and tried to figure it out.

 

[8226hamer]

I was looking at 8226hamer's pictures and got to thinking about the round edges. I wonder if 8226hamer's dealer checked the clutch cable adjusment. If the cable was mis-adjusted and they changed the cams and did not adjust the cable, then maybe they were not fully engaged and the failure occured again. It is very important that those cams engage fully. Everyone should check their cable adjustment. Don't assume it came correct from the dealer.

What is the procedure for checking and making sure the cable is adjusted to the correct specs? The cable itself, I feel is a poor design for engaging a PTO system. A solid linkage type would seem to be much more stable and less likely to stretch or come out of adjustment. Catching the cable on an object or just moving the cable could cause it to not be adjusted at the same position all the time.

I'm not saying that this is not what may be causing my problems, I don't know for sure, and to be honest I don't think Kubota knows either. I have yet to hear any reason from them as to why this may be happening. This is what concerns me the most, as I have never heard a reason why. Kubota must not be satisfied with the locking cams that these tractors use. Since the original cams that this series tractor incorporated, they have redesigned them three time now.

If having an out of adjustment engaging cable can cause complete PTO failure, then who ever engineered this system needs to go back to school. It may look good on paper, but in reality, it sucks. Splitting a tractor to do any type of repair, to me is a major repair job that I wasn't planning on having to learn to have to do.


I do agree with you and see what you are saying about the cams looking like they were not fully engaging, Whether it was from an out of adjustment cable or if it's due to the fact that one of the cams sloping ramp stops with a slight shoulder left at the end, and the other one slopes down flush with the surface. With one cam sloping down and it stopping with a fraction left at the end and the other one sloping down flush , there is no way that these two cams could mesh up flush with each other, which would then leave the two locking lugs not fully seated and fully engaged with each other.