New Kubota M-Series/ Kioti DK Series

RedDog · Nov 6, 2005

I think folks are just playing at semantics. Perhaps, by 'serious' the poster meant a farm with a lot of acreage requiring larger, ground engaging implements. I doubt he meant to disparage farmer's that might make a living with smaller tractors. 

I think you hit the nail on the head! /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

RedDog · Nov 6, 2005

Kioti DK65, 6338lbs ROPS model. 2002 model.
Kubota M6800, 5712lbs ROPS model (w/cast iron disks for rear wheels, 575lbs less without.

To me that is a considerable amount of difference, and also might explain why Kubota only uses a 6' wide bucket on the M6800, while the DK65 has a 7' wide bucket.

Kubota M9000 ROPS 6160lbs w/cast iron disks. MyDK 65 is heavier than that, even though that tractor has much more power than mine.

Isn't it relatively cheap to add weight to a tractor? Yes to fill the tires, but no to "slinging weights". /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

RedDog

tjkadar · Nov 6, 2005

I don't do much plowing, discing, or other ground engaging work. When I do, I check the slippage via looking at the tire tread marks left on the ground (it ain't fancy, but it works surprisingly well). I then weight my tractor accordingly. That way, I'm not lugging around all that extra poundage when I don't need it.

In my mind, weight is a tool. I like to use it when and where I need it. I'm actually more worried about soil compaction from too much weight then lack of traction from too little.

I don't know why Kubota has a foot smaller width to its bucket. I also don't know what the breakout force of the loader is compared to Kioti.

The important thing is, you researched and bought the tractor that suited your purposes. I did the same. In my case, the Kubota fit me better. In your case, the Kioti was the better choice. That is why there are so many different choices in tractors. If one size fit all, then all manufacturers would be building the same exact tractors - and that would be pretty boring. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif Viva la difference or something like that... /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

RedDog · Nov 6, 2005

I like your entire post, and especially the I check the slippage via looking at the tire tread marks left on the ground (it ain't fancy, but it works surprisingly well). /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

RedDog

MossRoad · Nov 7, 2005

So maybe we all should agree that while all farming is serious, some is done on a large scale, some is done on a medium scale and some is done on a small scale and we need to size our machines accordingly. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

slowzuki · Nov 7, 2005

I believe the M6800 has several loader models which fit in the US, and in Canada they use Kubota branded ALO/Quicke loaders which are very strong.

This is one area where the large Kioti buyer may wish to look at alterate loader brands to match the strength of the tractor. There have been reports of weak rollback in the factory DK loaders.

( Kioti DK65, 6338lbs ROPS model. 2002 model.
Kubota M6800, 5712lbs ROPS model (w/cast iron disks for rear wheels, 575lbs less without.

To me that is a considerable amount of difference, and also might explain why Kubota only uses a 6' wide bucket on the M6800, while the DK65 has a 7' wide bucket.

Kubota M9000 ROPS 6160lbs w/cast iron disks. MyDK 65 is heavier than that, even though that tractor has much more power than mine.

Isn't it relatively cheap to add weight to a tractor? Yes to fill the tires, but no to "slinging weights". /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

RedDog )

HayDR · Feb 24, 2006

( Anyone who says that 65 hp isn't enough for "serious farming" has a very narrow view of farming operations. There are many, many serious farming operations in this area and the largest hp tractor is 40 - 45. These are cattle/hay/tobacco farms. I would qualify them as "serious farmers" because farming is their only income (no secondary jobs - just farming). Of course a 65 hp couldn't pull a huge ripper or chisel plow or pulverizer, but is can pull a 9 or 10 foot disc all day, getting tobacco and hay fields ready. It can handle a discbine/discmower, rake, and square baler (just this weekend, my neighbor with a Mahindra 4110 used a disc mower, cut, raked and baled about 10 acres - obviously this is not a large spread, but was accomplished quite handily.

Of course, we should also remember that earlier in the century, the lions share of farming was on small farms with 25 hp tractors. To condemn a tractor as being incapable of "serious farming" based on hp isn't entirely fair. The entire scope of the farming operation must be taken into consideration. Me - I'm a play farmer - I've got a real job to support my farming habit. However, I do tip my had to the folks that make their living soley from the fields. )

80% of our customers do not have tractors bigger than 65 PTO HP. We average selling 100 new & used round balers a year. Our farmers use 3 point disc mowers and tedders on their grass hay. 40 PTO HP in a utility tractor is enough HP for a 7' or 8' HayMAXX disc mower or any of the CCM drum mowers. 40 HP will pull most of the MFG's square balers and some of the MFG's small round balers. When you look at USDA stats over 50% of the cattle owned in the USA are on farms of less than 100 acres.

slowzuki · Mar 8, 2006

I would also note after seeing the new kubotas, they look more like an orange painted Deere than a newer DK, but thats just my opinion /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif