My M7060 purchase and usage thread

[tflt]

I thought that with Kubota's left hand reverser or "shuttle" there was no actual clutch or clutch wear components like you would have on a conventional "manual" transmission, and that it was all handled hydraulically? I believe I read that here on TBN. I fully understand that clutch wear concern and prefer no (set) throttle other than foot throttle for loader work, especially loading a wagon or truck.
I'll be curious to see if someone (Messicks?) chimes in with the Hyd. shuttle's actual operation.

The reverser is too abrupt for tight work at idle, and useless at regen speed. I very rarely use the reverser without the foot clutch anyway. The hydraulic reverser is good and useful at times, but it is still a wear part, and the weak link in the chain. All of my comments are strictly related to when the machine is conducting a regen. Although I am very careful with the reverser in any conditions. Time will tell what gives up on these machines, hopefully nothing, the M7060HDC12 has proven to be a great choice overall.

 

[deserteagle71]

Here's the only relevant instructions from the M7060 owner's manual. And the videos I've seen on-line show the tractor being operated that way. NO clutch being used when using the shuttle shift lever forward and reverse. It is an abrupt change - I've used mine that way when using the front end loader - but I wonder. Is using the clutch each time you move the shuttle shift lever from forward to reverse and then back again causing more wear than if the clutch is not used?

 

[Fallon]

Any power shuttle is generally using a wet clutch. They are generally beefier than a dry clutch, but still wear & wear faster when operating at higher RPM. Generally they will clutch fine at high RPMs, just rougher & more wear

A GST (at least the 30 & 40 series Ls) has a dry clutch operated by the clutch pedal & a separate wet clutch (possibly 2) for the shuttle & GST shifting. The wet clutches are going to be stronger & more durable if the timing works for you. In the half day I spent operating a relative's L3?30 GST I never got the timing when moving piles of brush. I defaulted to the drug clutch & pedal as I wasnt comfortable with the delays & timing on the shuttle clutch. I'm sure I'd get use to it after a day or 2 though. But no matter how you slice it, it isnt as precise or easy as a HST for really tight work. It is more efficient for power transmission though.

 

[ovrszd]

My understanding of the Hyd Shuttle on my 9540 is that it's one hyd wet clutch. To change direction the hand lever is employed. To simply stop/start movement the foot pedal is used.

I use the hand shuttle if I'm operating at low rpm. I use the hand lever to change direction and use the pedal to soften the engagement if operating at high rpm.

 

[Rustyiron]

The reverser is too abrupt for tight work at idle, and useless at regen speed. I very rarely use the reverser without the foot clutch anyway.

I understand your commenting on this during regen and apologize for the derailment. I have the reverser on my 9540 but no emissions and was curious about the correct operation that might prolong the service life. I do a ton of back & forth esp. during the winter while plowing.

 

[ovrszd]

If you use the foot throttle so you can change direction with the hand lever and not be jerky, that's what I'd do. About the only time I use the hand throttle is for PTO work.

 

[jcummins]

I have an M7040.... ease off the foot throttle where it's near idle, use the reverser, throttle back up. Works like a charm once you get the timing down. Also saves that left knee a lot. Out of habit I used the clutch, but age and bad knees made me change.

Now THAT manner of use is in your face bad on DPF.....PROPER use of a utility tractor you are not on steady throttle, and the EPA method of controlling emission by burning MORE diesel to me is directly in you face with utility tractors. They really need to come up with a better answer.

 

[deserteagle71]

If you use the foot throttle so you can change direction with the hand lever and not be jerky, that's what I'd do. About the only time I use the hand throttle is for PTO work.

Amen!

 

[Fallon]

I have an M7040.... ease off the foot throttle where it's near idle, use the reverser, throttle back up. Works like a charm once you get the timing down. Also saves that left knee a lot. Out of habit I used the clutch, but age and bad knees made me change.

Now THAT manner of use is in your face bad on DPF.....PROPER use of a utility tractor you are not on steady throttle, and the EPA method of controlling emission by burning MORE diesel to me is directly in you face with utility tractors. They really need to come up with a better answer.

The emissions standards are set by the EPA, not the methods to get there. The OEM figure out how to meet the particulate & NOx limits themselves. DPF & regens are just 1 option to get there, albeit the most common one.

The emissions gear price & complexity irritates me. But problems breathing, smog & global warming irritate me more.

 

[ovrszd]

EPA mandated a timeline that forced haste. DEF is a horrible method but was a quick solution.....

 

[jcummins]

EPA mandated a timeline that forced haste. DEF is a horrible method but was a quick solution.....

Exactly my point....and the ones with a utility tractor that you start/stop all the time with a variety of tasks....will it just does not work well.
There has to be a better way.

 

[ovrszd]

By now the Industry has invested trillions of dollars into DEF as a soluion to meet a rushed timeline. Now they will have to stay with this solution for a lengthy period of time to recoup those costs. Even though a better solution exists.

 

[jcummins]

By now the Industry has invested trillions of dollars into DEF as a soluion to meet a rushed timeline. Now they will have to stay with this solution for a lengthy period of time to recoup those costs. Even though a better solution exists.

Which is what?

 

[JWR]

By now the Industry has invested trillions of dollars into DEF as a soluion to meet a rushed timeline. Now they will have to stay with this solution for a lengthy period of time to recoup those costs. Even though a better solution exists.

The tractor industry in the US is not a trillion dollar industry nor was the investment into the DEF solution. The North American farm machinery market size is under $16B per year, total, (re: statista.com) some of which is tractors. Not to say that is small, it is just not trillions. But I get your point. The industry does unfortunately have to get re-paid for the EPA's arbitrary rulings that dictate manufacture. I suggest the following:

1) The EPA has been generally out of control, answering to no one and far more responsive to activist zealots than to real workers of ANY industry.
2) I would bet money that the total air pollution originating with farm tractors is less than 1% of what it is for highway trucks. An engineering guess, probably far less than that. Searching but have not found the stats. I will. This hideous lack of prioritization SHOULD be putting the EPA on report, not the Ag industry.
3) Just as with the attempted destruction of VW for having outsmarted the EPA, the out of control regulators know they have a stranglehold on all industries that costs more to fight in court than it costs to attempt to comply.
4) It is extremely likely that farm tractors contribute such a tiny fraction of overall air pollution that any common sense in EPA (...an oxymoron of outlandish proportions) would have placed farm tractor engine regulation so far down the priority list it would never see the light of day. But the EPA has no such prioritization. They are the loosest of loose cannon.

With that off my chest, what is the better solution ??

 

[Rustyiron]

Well said!

 

[ovrszd]

Which is what?

I'm not a Chemist. But when enough time has passed that it's profitable for the industry to switch, they will, and DEF will be a bad memory. Just hope I am not ready to trade off a DEF machine at that time...….

No Chemist would be proud of the fact that a non-stable additive that can't even stand temperature swings is being used on AG and Construction equipment. Hmmmm,,,,, wonder how long a DEF machine can sit in sub freezing weather without being started before the battery goes flat from running the DEF tank heater???

 

[ovrszd]

The tractor industry in the US is not a trillion dollar industry nor was the investment into the DEF solution. The North American farm machinery market size is under $16B per year, total, (re: statista.com) some of which is tractors. Not to say that is small, it is just not trillions. But I get your point. The industry does unfortunately have to get re-paid for the EPA's arbitrary rulings that dictate manufacture. I suggest the following:

1) The EPA has been generally out of control, answering to no one and far more responsive to activist zealots than to real workers of ANY industry.
2) I would bet money that the total air pollution originating with farm tractors is less than 1% of what it is for highway trucks. An engineering guess, probably far less than that. Searching but have not found the stats. I will. This hideous lack of prioritization SHOULD be putting the EPA on report, not the Ag industry.
3) Just as with the attempted destruction of VW for having outsmarted the EPA, the out of control regulators know they have a stranglehold on all industries that costs more to fight in court than it costs to attempt to comply.
4) It is extremely likely that farm tractors contribute such a tiny fraction of overall air pollution that any common sense in EPA (...an oxymoron of outlandish proportions) would have placed farm tractor engine regulation so far down the priority list it would never see the light of day. But the EPA has no such prioritization. They are the loosest of loose cannon.

With that off my chest, what is the better solution ??

I reread my short rant so as to not misquote myself. Nowhere did I mention AG. I was painting with a broad brush, including all DEF equipment. And I am sure I was wayyyyyyy low when I said trillion in singular form. It's actually tens of trillions.

As I said above, I am not a Chemist and don't have a better solution in my pocket. But I am very confident it exists. Ten years from now we will laugh about DEF. Or be so mad we can't spit about it.....

 

[JWR]

"The industry" in a TractorByNet forum was assumed to be tractors but all AG equipment seemed at least relevant.

I misunderstood and never guessed that overszd's comment meant the entirety of all industry. It may be quite insightful to view that (total ALL industry DEF solutions including the trucking industry) instead of just tractors and AG equipment.

 

[jcummins]

I reread my short rant so as to not misquote myself. Nowhere did I mention AG. I was painting with a broad brush, including all DEF equipment. And I am sure I was wayyyyyyy low when I said trillion in singular form. It's actually tens of trillions.

As I said above, I am not a Chemist and don't have a better solution in my pocket. But I am very confident it exists. Ten years from now we will laugh about DEF. Or be so mad we can't spit about it.....

The better solution involves some common sense.....government entities do not have that.

 

[ovrszd]

"The industry" in a TractorByNet forum was assumed to be tractors but all AG equipment seemed at least relevant.

I misunderstood and never guessed that overszd's comment meant the entirety of all industry. It may be quite insightful to view that (total ALL industry DEF solutions including the trucking industry) instead of just tractors and AG equipment.

No worries.

The entire industry was put on notice by EPA, not just AG. Kinda seems like I remember AG being given a bit of pardon on the timeline?? Not sure about that.

In theory I'm not opposed to cleaning up the diesel world. And the changes have certainly done that. If you see a diesel smoking today it's either an old rig (such as my Ford 3910) or there's something wrong with it. I can load the JD road grader I run with all the pull it can stand and it'll never emit any smoke. It's Interim Tier IV, pre DEF.

The timeline imposed on the consumer has cost us a tremendous amount of money. Immeasurable. We are trading for a new grader. Our current model is 8 years old. The price of the same machine has risen $62,000 in that time.