Questionable advice on 200 hr. maintainence

[madrone]

Hey folks. I don't post much but check the site often for info (many thanks).
I've a question for you all.
My 3240 has been a workhorse wonder for me this winter and is closing in on the 200 hr mark. I was in the dealers recently for something random and asked about the hydraulic filter change and thoughts on reusing the UDT.
His suggestion was to not bother with the filter this time and instead change both, filter and fluid, at 300. I asked if that could effect the warranty and he said no.
I'm really not a stickler as I know that all smart manufacturers leave buffers for change dates as well as lifting limits, etc, but absolutely don't want to compromise the seals, pump, etc. just to avoid the relatively minor hassle of changing the filter.

I'd appreciate your opinions as well as any thought on the possibility to change the filter w/out draining all the fluid.

cheers, Mark

 

[whistlepig]

I always do the maintenance as the manufacturer recommends. At the proper intervals and with the recommended filters and fluids. Not saying a Kubota is the best brand of tractor made but it is a premium tractor. IMHO I don't think manufacturers of equipment factor in "buffers". It is what it is.

 

[canoetrpr]

I service all my equipment, cars etc. by the book and they have always given me great service.

Not much trouble to change fluids and filters. I always do both. Just don't torque the drain bolts!

 

[RadarTech]

IMHO I don't think manufacturers of equipment factor in "buffers". It is what it is.

I have this flash back to a Star Trek: The Next Generation Episode where Scotty made the statement about engineers adding a "safety factor" to the design specs.

Now I fast forward to my own engineering work. As a computer network design and implementation engineer, I often add a little bit beyond the minumim requirements to the design. This is always a requirement for safety of life systems, and many government systems. Both of those 2 fields will take the spec of the design and push it to 110% of the spec'd capabilities. So you design to support 125%....

We have to protect the end user from themselves. So we build it tougher than the needs. then we don't up the specs given in the documentation..

As an old Radartech-- I can tell you that those specs were always given a little lower than the real specs too! We had a radar that was supposed to do x and it could do x+3. and worked great! that was nice when hunting scuds...
but that is a different story!

Now the moral of the story---
YES, it is quite possible that the specs for the oil change and others tractor specs are conservative based on the knowledge and design of the engineering team.
BUT, and there is always a BUT, the customer facing specs were lowered for specific reasons. Those reasons are not always known. Some are to protect the customer, some are or marketing purposes (2 tractors too close togather), some because field testing revealed that design parameters did not account for x, and lastly the engineering feeling. that one is my favorite.. and It has saved me a few times. (I told the sales guys to say " yea by theory it should do x but for customer a, I suspect it will only do y dependably).


Mind you-- I am not saying to deveate from the manual.. just trying to explain the engineering mindset....

thoughts comments? smart remarks?

Later,
J

 

[whistlepig]

I have this flash back to a Star Trek: The Next Generation Episode where Scotty made the statement about engineers adding a "safety factor" to the design specs.

Now I fast forward to my own engineering work. As a computer network design and implementation engineer, I often add a little bit beyond the minumim requirements to the design. This is always a requirement for safety of life systems, and many government systems. Both of those 2 fields will take the spec of the design and push it to 110% of the spec'd capabilities. So you design to support 125%....

We have to protect the end user from themselves. So we build it tougher than the needs. then we don't up the specs given in the documentation..

As an old Radartech-- I can tell you that those specs were always given a little lower than the real specs too! We had a radar that was supposed to do x and it could do x+3. and worked great! that was nice when hunting scuds...
but that is a different story!

Now the moral of the story---
YES, it is quite possible that the specs for the oil change and others tractor specs are conservative based on the knowledge and design of the engineering team.
BUT, and there is always a BUT, the customer facing specs were lowered for specific reasons. Those reasons are not always known. Some are to protect the customer, some are or marketing purposes (2 tractors too close togather), some because field testing revealed that design parameters did not account for x, and lastly the engineering feeling. that one is my favorite.. and It has saved me a few times. (I told the sales guys to say " yea by theory it should do x but for customer a, I suspect it will only do y dependably).


Mind you-- I am not saying to deveate from the manual.. just trying to explain the engineering mindset....

thoughts comments? smart remarks?

Later,
J

If you are working under a crane that is rated at 40 tons and that crane is holding 50 tons would that be a wise thing to do?

 

[RadarTech]

If you are working under a crane that is rated at 40 tons and that crane is holding 50 tons would that be a wise thing to do?

Ok.. now I didn't say to ignore the specs.. I just said that they specs are conservative...

For the raches we used to pick up six con boxes, there were rated for a set amount and the load for testing was heavier than the rating..

so I bet the 40 ton crane was tested with more than 40 tons..

But to be honest, I would not work under it..

my whole point is the specs are usually a conservative figure set by an educated individual or group of folks, and since it is conservative a little overage may work- BUT don't test it..

J

 

[whistlepig]

Ok.. now I didn't say to ignore the specs.. I just said that they specs are conservative...

For the raches we used to pick up six con boxes, there were rated for a set amount and the load for testing was heavier than the rating..

so I bet the 40 ton crane was tested with more than 40 tons..

But to be honest, I would not work under it..

my whole point is the specs are usually a conservative figure set by an educated individual or group of folks, and since it is conservative a little overage may work- BUT don't test it..

J

I understand that these specs can be a bit conservative by the engineering folks. Engineers are just doing their job like good engineers should. But I don't think maxing these specs out every day is what the engineer had in mind.

 

[madrone]

I have this flash back to a Star Trek: The Next Generation Episode where Scotty made the statement about engineers adding a "safety factor" to the design specs.

I'm fairly sure Scotty must have been plenty dead by the time 'Next Generation' rolled around. But back in his hay-day Kirk and the crew made it a point to always push the limits. "I jus Caant Hold it any Longer Kaptn!" (imagine a scottish accent......ok,, maybe not)

I don't want to 'boldly go where no Kubota owner has gone before'.
I just wonder if this dealer (who I add works at a huge, very successful dealership) is giving me good advice.

And all that I've heard from here so far is appreciated.

 

[Skyco]

On my stuff I always do what the book says OR BETTER. YMMV.
In my world it is false economy to stretch maintenance items, unless you don't keep your stuff long.
My dad knew a guy that never changed oil in his cars, he was well off and bought a new one every year, so he didn't care.

 

[Baby Grand]

Speaking as a design engineer, safety factors (I'll call them "x") are applied based on cost, risk and understanding.

Cost: If the product costs too much, then no sales, so consider lowering x.

Risk: If the product is not robust and could be unreliable, consider increasing x. If the product is borderline unsafe, then increase x until it's safe. Nobody wants to be responsible for a dead or maimed customer.

Understanding: This is a big one. Contrary to what many people think (including many design engineers) "lifing" a product is a SWAG (Scientific Wild Ashed Guess). Good designers know that there is a limit to how closely each calculation approximates reality. Each calculation introduces a bit of uncertainty (error) that varies based on many factors. Many calculations involve multiple approximations, in which case the error of each approximation accumulates - sort of like compounding interest. So for a complex calculation, or a calculation of something that is new (no experience) or not well understood, apply a big x.

Change the filter w/out draining all the fluid? If your dealer says it's okay, and you trust your dealer, then do it.

-Jim