Trade Offs and Priorites: Maddening

[Bob_Skurka]

<font color="blue"> Why are the Kiotis CK20/25/30 heavier than the comparable Kubota models?
</font>

I think the LIKELY answer is that it is a design philosophy. Kubotas are typically on the light end of the sectrum. Kioti seems to be on the heavy end. From what I can see, the tractor brands that hail from Korea seem to be heavier. The brands that have their roots in Japan seem to be lighter.

Consider another possibility, that is that utility and agricultural tractors that work the soil are heavier than tractors that are landscape type machines and rice paddy machines. So it is possible that the tractors plying the fields in Korea are based on designs that are more closely related to utility machines while the tractors that work the fields in Japan are designed for much softer soil conditions. (rice fields can be pretty wet!)

Another very possible answer lies in metalurgical engineering, and the sophistication of the Japanese metal industry which is generally considered to be among the best in the world. An engineer, with access to high quality metal castings and alloys can design lighter and stronger, whereas older technology relied on mass to provide a similar level of strength.

I think the real answer probably lies in part of all three of the above answers.

I also think that many people are sold on the benefit of added weight for no good reason at all. Weight on some types of tractors can be an advantage for some tasks. For most property owners who use their tractors for mowing and landscaping chores, the lighter tractor is probably better. Generally those people who need larger machines probably need the weight for tasks like moving big heavy round bales of hay, and utility tractors are well suited for that task. It is pretty easy to add ballast to a light tractor to balance a FEL or heavy implement, when/if the need arrises, but it is impossible to remove excess weight from a tractor designed with weight inherant in its design. Many of the people who own Korean tractors purport the advantages of heavier machines, almost like a mantra, so it is possible that they either have the needs for heavy machines, or it is possible that they believe in heavy machines being better for their tasks. JMHO.

 

[DK35vince]

Bob,
When I was tractor shopping I looked at a lot of things.
Price, features, dealer, quality, fit/finish, loader and lift capacities (didn't have to be the strongest, just wanted what I felt would do what I needed done).
One # I paid little or no attention to when comparing was weight.
Simalar sized machines with differant weights listed made no differance in my buying dicision what so ever.
My DK 35 with R-4's and loaded rears is also my primary mower to mow approx. 6 acres of lawn. On occasion I also mow with a JD 850 with turfs (a 1300# lighter machine). I notice little to no differance in lawn damage.
Both machines do just fine for my lawn mowing.

 

[sodamo]

At the last Kubota dealer I visited, the L3130 quote automatically included filled (antifreeze) tires. When I told him I hadn't decided on filled or not, he informed me they always filled them but I could order without, but no change to price. /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

 

[Bob_Skurka]

Vince, I'm not sure what prompted that response???

A question was asked why Kiotis weigh more than Kubotas. I simply offered several alternative answers and suggested that the real answer was probably a combination of the three.

I was in no way attempting to start a light versus heavy arguement, nor was I directing any comments at any particular owners or even machines. Many of the same comments about weight could easily be directed at Kioti, Branson, Long (FarmTrac & LandTrac) and Mahindra. And it seems that many of the owners of those brands suggest their machines are good because they are heavy. I was not saying they are not good.

I did say <font color="blue"> Many of the people who own Korean tractors purport the advantages of heavier machines, almost like a mantra, so it is possible that they either have the needs for heavy machines, or it is possible that they believe in heavy machines being better for their tasks. </font> If you ignored weight when you purchased, many others seem to dwell on it. I never stated that either that light is good or that heavy is good, except in context of some specific tasks, and even then the statement was not absolute.

The fact that on your specific soil conditions you don't notice the heavier machine leaving ruts is good to know, but it is not true everywhere under all soil conditions. My statement about a lighter tractor being generally suitable for mowing makes a lot of sense, even if your conditions don't seem to show any need for lighter weight. Nor does it change the fact that even my light tractor left shallow ruts in my yard today and caused me to turn around and park the tractor and give up work even before I got to where I wanted to go.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

<font color="green"> At the last Kubota dealer I visited, the L3130 quote automatically included filled (antifreeze) tires. When I told him I hadn't decided on filled or not, he informed me they always filled them </font>

Sodamo, just a question, did you ask for a quote on a tractor with a loader? In many cases dealers will load the rears for any tractor with a loader. There is a difference between weight and ballast. Ballast is weight that is added specifically for balance. In the case of loading rears, ballast is used to offset the weight of the FEL which throws off the balance of the tractor and makes it front heavy. If the tires are not loaded, then a ballast box should be used (or a heavy implement used as ballast) and this is true regardless of the brand of tractor. It is simply unsafe to operate a CUT with a FEL that is not properly ballasted.

 

[sodamo]

Bob
The quote was for L3130 with FEL, Backhoe, Rotary Cutter, BoxBlade, Rototiller, and PHD. You make a good point about ballast. The dealer's comments were more general and not specific to using the FEL.
David

 

[KiotiJohn]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Another very possible answer lies in metalurgical engineering, and the sophistication of the Japanese metal industry which is generally considered to be among the best in the world. An engineer, with access to high quality metal castings and alloys can design lighter and stronger, whereas older technology relied on mass to provide a similar level of strength. )</font>
There's your answer Bob. The Indian and Korean tractors are made like tractors of old with cast iron, not modern aluminum. Another reason for lighter weight in many newer CUTS is that they use plastic fenders and hoods, which for some people is wonderful. Most of the imports are CAST, and SHEET METAL, therefore much heavier.
As I responded in another thread to your post, the weight of these cast tractors is more toward the rear, diminishing the need for as much ballast when using an FEL.
In my case, there's no argument against it, as I rarely have had to add more than my boxblade (330#) to the rear and lifting asphalt, concrete, dirt, gravel buckets up high enough to dump in a pickup truck bed. I wouldn't be able to that with a much lighter tractor without more ballast on the rear. John

 

[Bob_Skurka]

<font color="green"> The dealer's comments were more general and not specific to using the FEL.
David </font>

While his comments were probably taken as more general, I'm betting that he was simply not very clear in what he intended to say. I think that he was loading the rears simply because he was quoting the tractor with the FEL.

At least in some regions, it is common practice to include the fluid fill when a FEL is ordered. I don't have fluid fill on my TC24 because I wanted the machine as light as possible for mowing and I find I need to use a ballast box or tiller on the 3pt or the rear of the tractor gets TOO light when I play in the dirt. No serious work should be done with a FEL if the rear is not ballasted. There is no reason to believe that balancing a tractor with ballast is either an advantage or a disadvantage; all tractors need it to one degree or another, depeding on the use of the FEL.

KiotiJohn, I agree that some of the machines are cast iron, but did they do that because cast iron is simply a cheap material? Did they do that because they beleive tractors should be heavy? Did they do that because they don't have easy access to stronger & less brittle alloys? Did they do that because the foundry they have is not capable of casting modern materials? I think the question of "why" is still up for debate and probably can only be answered by someone at the Kioti or Mahindra corporate offices. We can all speculate. We likely won't get the real answer until someone from their corporate offices joins TBN. (and we would gladly welcome them!)

As for the "plastic" vs "sheet metal" fender issue, that debate can also go on as to which is better, but I suspect the answer lies with lack of plastic injection molding equipment as to why some brands don't use it. Stamping sheet metal is easy & cheap. I have tractors with plastic fenders, I have tractors with metal fenders. I suppose I could argue either way on which is better, but I think the issue of weight savings using plastic is probably secondary to the expense of injection molding equipment. So my thought is that some of the heavy tractors use metal fenders/hoods because they don't have the equipment to use plastic.

 

[shoppintractors]

<font color="blue">Many of the people who own Korean tractors purport the advantages of heavier machines, almost like a mantra, so it is possible that they either have the needs for heavy machines, or it is possible that they believe in heavy machines being better for their tasks. </font>

I don't see Korean tractors owners huddling in the corner and gloating about how much their tractors weigh. The weight factor is pretty much a non-issue to them. It is brought up when comparing the lighter tractor weights to the heavier weights but I don't see the Korean tractor owners dwelling about it.

<font color="blue">Consider another possibility, that is that utility and agricultural tractors that work the soil are heavier than tractors that are landscape type machines and rice paddy machines. So it is possible that the tractors plying the fields in Korea are based on designs that are more closely related to utility machines while the tractors that work the fields in Japan are designed for much softer soil conditions. (rice fields can be pretty wet!)</font>

When the CK30 prototype showed up for the Louisville Farm Show this past February it had the rice paddy AG style tires. This would lead me to believe that it was field tested and worked in the rice fields. See attached picture...

<font color="blue"> Another very possible answer lies in metalurgical engineering, and the sophistication of the Japanese metal industry which is generally considered to be among the best in the world. </font>

As has been mentioned, the Kubota "B" series has a higher content of aluminum. The Kioti's has a higher content of cast iron. The Kioti's use a more traditional design(as do the New Hollands) where the engine and transmission form the frame of the tractor. The Kubota's B's use a "ladder" type frame, mounting the engine and transmission to the frame. Why do the Kioti's/Korean tractors use more cast iron? 'Raw materials' have been readily available? Why have cars been made from steel? Availability of raw product.

My power just went out /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif so I'm posting this before I lose it.......

Don

 

[MicroPilot]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( ...

My power just went out /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif so I'm posting this before I lose it.......

Don)</font>

A TRUE TBN fan - He has his computer on the UPS so he won't lose posts during power outages!!! /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif






OH and BTW




My tractor is heavier than yours!!! /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif