Comparison L4400 Kubota or DS4510 Kioti

[Terry Baumgardner]

i have narrowed my choice to the kubota L4400 or the Kioti DS4510, both with loader. Looking for any pros or cons on either to help decide.

Thanks

 

[dex3361]

I have a L4400 and have about 200 hours working the machine and it has been faultless. The one thing I will point out the rollback angle on the LA703 loader is not what it should be. It has been a great hinderence but something to be aware of. The loader is well matched for the tractor qw far as weight of the tractor and lifting ability of the loader. I ordered it with R1 ag tires. I got 3 sets of rear remotes, Skid steer QA for the FEL and also got the HD roundback bucket (the standard bucket is plenty strong and I would get the regular bucket if I had it to do over again but noooo I didnt listen to Brady Barlow when he recomended the regular bucket). The L4400 has 46HP at the engine and 37HP at the PTO and it has plenty of power for my needs. The 3PH is strong.

 

[Ford tractor]

The one thing I will point out the rollback angle on the LA703 loader is not what it should be.

It's just an older, less expensive geometry. It has pretty standard dump / roll back angles when compared to other tractors with that design geometry. The tractors with the 4bar linkage on the front allows for greater angles, but the extra parts add extra cost. Sometimes, you do get what you pay for.

 

[dex3361]

It's just an older, less expensive geometry. It has pretty standard dump / roll back angles when compared to other tractors with that design geometry. The tractors with the 4bar linkage on the front allows for greater angles, but the extra parts add extra cost. Sometimes, you do get what you pay for.

Fully agree with the FEL being an older design. I have pondered on adding the 4bar linkage for the added rollback angle and I belive the mod would add to the breakout force. I think I will ponder a bit longer before I change anything.

 

[Mike Costello]

Fully agree with the FEL being an older design. I have pondered on adding the 4bar linkage for the added rollback angle and I belive the mod would add to the breakout force. I think I will ponder a bit longer before I change anything.

I too have a L4400 and it's been a great machine. When I bought it I had the stock bucket exchanged for the Kubota Quick Attach system. I figured it would be a good option especially for other loader attachments. Can you explain rollback angles a little further on this machine. I didn't realize rollback angles could be an issue. I've used my loader quite a bit on the property and experienced no real problems, so I'm curious about all this. Mike.

 

[dex3361]

I too have a L4400 and it's been a great machine. When I bought it I had the stock bucket exchanged for the Kubota Quick Attach system. I figured it would be a good option especially for other loader attachments. Can you explain rollback angles a little further on this machine. I didn't realize rollback angles could be an issue. I've used my loader quite a bit on the property and experienced no real problems, so I'm curious about all this. Mike.

The rollback angle refers to how far back the bucket will tilt back.
I think the LA703 could have a better rollback angle for no extra cost.
I say this because I am comparing its rollback angle to a similar design in the LA463 which has a rollback angle of 31 degreees.
Comparatively the LA703 has a rollback angle of 23 degrees.
Neither of these loaders have the 4 point linkage.
With that comparison in mind the rollback angle angle could have been better for no extra cost.
The rollback angle would not be so much of an issue operating in a primarily flat terrain. I operater in a mounainous area and you are typically either going up or down. Going downhill with something in the front bucket of the LA703 the low rollback angle allows stuff to spillout because it doesnt rollback far enough.
No dont misunderstand me this is a good machine and I like it and the loader is strong.
I only point out they only issue I can point out that might be an issue for some people.

 

[Mike Costello]

Thanks for clarifying things for me. My property is primarily flat, so I guess that is why I really never gave rollback angle much thought. Interesting subject, though.

 

[dex3361]

Thanks for clarifying things for me. My property is primarily flat, so I guess that is why I really never gave rollback angle much thought. Interesting subject, though.

Your welcome.

 

[Ford tractor]

I think the LA703 could have a better rollback angle for no extra cost.
I say this because I am comparing its rollback angle to a similar design in the LA463 which has a rollback angle of 31 degreees.
Comparatively the LA703 has a rollback angle of 23 degrees.
Neither of these loaders have the 4 point linkage.
With that comparison in mind the rollback angle angle could have been better for no extra cost.
The rollback angle would not be so much of an issue operating in a primarily flat terrain. I operater in a mounainous area and you are typically either going up or down. Going downhill with something in the front bucket of the LA703 the low rollback angle allows stuff to spillout because it doesnt rollback far enough.

There are many design trade offs that dictate roll back angle. Physically, the lift height has an impact because you need to be able to dump completely when lifted fully. Higher lifts require more of the bucket motion to be on the dump side than on the rollback side. That dictates the extension length of the cylinder. Increase the rod length too far and the rod will hit the loader arms or the bottom of the bucket. Pulling the rod back completely gives the roll back amount. It sort of is what it is because the design has a fixed point of needing to completely dump at full lift. The physical distance between the top and bottom attachment points on the bucket will determine the break out force (farther separation = greater force), but that means a longer rod to get the same dump/rollback amounts.

The 4 bar (not 4 point) linkage puts the rod part way up the linkage bars so there is mechanical advantage in dumping and rolling back. (Greater dump/rollback movement for the same rod displacement). That's great, but you need to have a larger diameter cylinder (and typically shorter) for them to yield the same breakout force.

You raised the point (I put it in bold) that the 463 loader has more rollback than the 703. I would bet that the 703 has more lift height and that being able to dump at that greater height is what ate up those degrees of rollback difference. The bucket for the 703 is probably also taller -- eating up the a few also.

 

[dex3361]

There are many design trade offs that dictate roll back angle. Physically, the lift height has an impact because you need to be able to dump completely when lifted fully. Higher lifts require more of the bucket motion to be on the dump side than on the rollback side. That dictates the extension length of the cylinder. Increase the rod length too far and the rod will hit the loader arms or the bottom of the bucket. Pulling the rod back completely gives the roll back amount. It sort of is what it is because the design has a fixed point of needing to completely dump at full lift. The physical distance between the top and bottom attachment points on the bucket will determine the break out force (farther separation = greater force), but that means a longer rod to get the same dump/rollback amounts.

The 4 bar (not 4 point) linkage puts the rod part way up the linkage bars so there is mechanical advantage in dumping and rolling back. (Greater dump/rollback movement for the same rod displacement). That's great, but you need to have a larger diameter cylinder (and typically shorter) for them to yield the same breakout force.

You raised the point (I put it in bold) that the 463 loader has more rollback than the 703. I would bet that the 703 has more lift height and that being able to dump at that greater height is what ate up those degrees of rollback difference. The bucket for the 703 is probably also taller -- eating up the a few also.

Very good points and I fully agree.