Why are Kubota FEL's so weak?

[s219]

First off, to the OP, look in the user manual for your front loader, and you'll see a lift curve that shows lift capacity versus height. You will see that there is not a "single" lift rating and that your loader can lift quite a bit more down low.

Note that the "paper" spec for a loader rating is always given at maximum height. Last time this topic came up, a newbie was comparing a Kubota loader to a Mahindra, and on paper the Mahindra lifted more. However, the Kubota loader lifted higher by 12" or so. If you looked at the rating of the Kubota loader at the lower height of the Mahindra, it was the same.

So, again, look at the lift curve for your loader in the owner's manual. And then when comparing to other tractors and loaders, compare at equal heights to make it apples to apples.

BTW, this doesn't just apply across brands. I remember seeing a spec where a B Kubota could marginally out-lift an L Kubota "on paper", but then you realize the L loader tops out about 10-12" higher than the B loader, and it all makes sense. Compare them at the same height and the L can lift substantially more.

It's all about apples to apples.

 

[David_Kb7uns]

I believe Kubota to be the best designed, built, and fit n finish tractors on the market. To that end I just bought a L3901 and so far I am happy with it. One thing that does stand out though when comparing this model to similar models from other manufacturers is the FEL is weak. Kioti has a ~1800# rating LS even more than that. My 525 is 1150#. This is basic physics so how are the other manufacturers getting so much more lift, has to be higher operating pressure or larger cylinders since they lift to the same height. Also I doubt this is an oversight by Kubota, they are too well thought out. Maybe they just realize this size machine should not be lifting more weight than this? I have ballasted rear tires and have had them come off the ground when being too aggressive with the loader, I can't imagine what it would be like with 50% more weight out there. Anyway is there a reason Kubota chose to limit the FEL by so much other than they are trying to save us from ourselves?

You need to step up to a Grand L series if you need more lift, heavier frame and axles. The small Grand Ls have 500 and 700 series loaders.

David

 

[goeduck]

Both of my Kubotas can lift over their rated amounts. I get nervous anytime that I am anywhere near maximum rated lift, and I certainly do not lift anything heavy any higher than I have to.

 

[clarkharms]

Kubota front end loaders are competitive. Not always the strongest, not always the weakest.

I am afraid you just are not comparing apples to apples. Different machine classes (cant just go by HP alone)....or different points of measurement for the spec.

What models are you comparing in the kioti and LS line up?

You are comparing an economy model kubota.....and no the loader isnt stellar on that machine but it is sufficient.

Same HP class but a grandL kubota and you get the LA805 loader. Which probably compares favorably with the kioti's.

And yes......you need much more than just loaded rear tires. If you want to make full use of your loader on THAT machine....you need an implement that sticks back, like a brushhog or blade.....in the 700# ballpark. Or something short and compact like a ballast box.....you want closer to 1000#

I think I am looking at similar machines. I have a L3901 HST, O.M. states weight as 2,778#; fel LA525 lifts ~1,050#. Kioti CK4010 HST is listed at 2,734#; fel KL4030 lifts 1,835#. The Kioti is actually lighter by about 1.5%, an insignificant amount, however its fel lifts 43% more than the Kubota. There are dynamics involved and the Kubota fel manual has curves to show all the different points in the lift but the kioti is quoting their lifts capacity at the highest point. I can't imagine that the Kioti would be very stable with that much weight at height but have to wonder how nice that extra lift capacity would be when using a root grapple to rip out roots low to the ground when stability isn't as much of an issue?

 

[k0ua]

I think I am looking at similar machines. I have a L3901 HST, O.M. states weight as 2,778#; fel LA525 lifts ~1,050#. Kioti CK4010 HST is listed at 2,734#; fel KL4030 lifts 1,835#. The Kioti is actually lighter by about 1.5%, an insignificant amount, however its fel lifts 43% more than the Kubota. There are dynamics involved and the Kubota fel manual has curves to show all the different points in the lift but the kioti is quoting their lifts capacity at the highest point. I can't imagine that the Kioti would be very stable with that much weight at height but have to wonder how nice that extra lift capacity would be when using a root grapple to rip out roots low to the ground when stability isn't as much of an issue?

You better have at least 1100 lbs on the 3point and loaded tires before you tie on to a good buried root, or you will find yourself over on your side in a heartbeat. My 35 horsepower Kioti weigh considerably more (3668 lbs) and you can raise a wheel almost instantly without proper ballast on the 3pt. The Kioti has fatter lift cylinders and may/likely has a higher capacity pump so those fatter cylinders can be filled with hydraulic fluid in a reasonable amount of time, otherwise the loader would seem "sluggish" Also check the two front axles you are comparing. Which is the larger axle?

 

[clarkharms]

First off, to the OP, look in the user manual for your front loader, and you'll see a lift curve that shows lift capacity versus height. You will see that there is not a "single" lift rating and that your loader can lift quite a bit more down low.

Note that the "paper" spec for a loader rating is always given at maximum height. Last time this topic came up, a newbie was comparing a Kubota loader to a Mahindra, and on paper the Mahindra lifted more. However, the Kubota loader lifted higher by 12" or so. If you looked at the rating of the Kubota loader at the lower height of the Mahindra, it was the same.

So, again, look at the lift curve for your loader in the owner's manual. And then when comparing to other tractors and loaders, compare at equal heights to make it apples to apples.

BTW, this doesn't just apply across brands. I remember seeing a spec where a B Kubota could marginally out-lift an L Kubota "on paper", but then you realize the L loader tops out about 10-12" higher than the B loader, and it all makes sense. Compare them at the same height and the L can lift substantially more.

It's all about apples to apples.

Yeah I've looked in the user manual and am pretty sure I am going apples to apples. LA 525 manual has the max lift height at pivot pins @94.3", and a weight of 1,131#. Kioti KL 4030 fel is listed at pivot pins as well, lift height 98.3" (higher), and 1835# (more weight). Both FEL's are for machines that weigh within 50# of each other. I think the real question is how much lee way do manufacturers have with their ratings? Is there any enforcement to their claims? The Kioti numbers are almost unbelievably higher.

 

[k0ua]

Yeah I've looked in the user manual and am pretty sure I am going apples to apples. LA 525 manual has the max lift height at pivot pins @94.3", and a weight of 1,131#. Kioti KL 4030 fel is listed at pivot pins as well, lift height 98.3" (higher), and 1835# (more weight). Both FEL's are for machines that weigh within 50# of each other. I think the real question is how much lee way do manufacturers have with their ratings? Is there any enforcement to their claims? The Kioti numbers are almost unbelievably higher.

You will find the numbers to be correct. On both counts.

You werent around here a few years ago when the Kioti DK40se was a current tractor and often compared to the Kubota Grand L series of tractors. One of the things people had a hard time with was the loader the DK40se had fitted to it. The MIGHTY KL401 loader. The Grand L lifted about 1800 lbs, and the Kioti lifted over 2700. Yeah, that didn't set too well to some folks. and the DK40se outweighed the Kubota too, and the level of luxury was about the same. One thing the Kubota had that the Kioti lacked was a more sophisticated hydrostatic transmission. The Hydrostat +. While the Kioti has the usual standard hydrostatic transmission. But it was true, the KL401 loader lifted 2760 pounds and that was that.

 

[Fallon]

I had a L3200... same frame & loader as the L3901. The loader was stronger than the tractor it was attached to. Lifting "1200lbs" hay bales (+250ish lbs of forks + leverage hanging out a ways) on a loader rated at 1200lbs was sketchy. It would lift bales 1-5' up or so. I had loaded R4 tires, a rotary cutter on the back & a pile of 50 lbs bags of stuff on the back of the cutter. Plenty of weigh for ballast & hung WAY back for far better leverage. Even so that back end was way light & almost coming off the ground.

My L4060 is a different story. It has the mid sized loader for the grands, LA805 I think. The bigger engine machines can spec the bigger loader despite having the same frame. My new flail showed up on a pallet labeled 1,909lbs. I really couldn't pick it up. Got it a few inches off the ground bouncing along the gravel pushing it up to the barn. Removed the packing & PTO shaft, maybe 25lbs & could lift it to a foot or so. Had a Gannon box blade on the back & loaded tires. Stability wise the tractor didn't even feel the load on the loader. The medium loader on the grands is the weak link compared to the tractor.

Loaders on tractors are a backwards implement anyway. Look at a real lifting machine, a front end loader or forklift... Beefy axle under the loader/mast, heavy engine hanging off the back, week steering axle in the back. On a tractor the ballast is on the lifting end along with the weak expensive & fragile steering axle. Its only on that end for operator convenience.

 

[Garandman]

Are the loaders being measured at the same point?

Bruce

When we were looking at tractors, the Kubota L we were looking at had longer arms and the bucket was farther out in front of the front axle.

Some of the brands advertising more lift had alligator arms. The bucket was closer to the front of the tractor, and the full-height angle was greater. Did not like that idea. TANSTAAFL.*

Not sure if loader specs document the difference. It would be something like the horizontal distance from the front axle center line to the pins.

Fallon makes a good point. Just looked at some Cat skid steers and they have impressive breakout forces: but they weigh as much as tons. In the “wooded wetland” that makes up the flatter parts of our property, anything much heavier then the L3200 would sink to the hubs, or st least the loaded front axle would.

* There ain稚 no such thing as a free lunch.

 

[LD1]

Both of my Kubotas can lift over their rated amounts. I get nervous anytime that I am anywhere near maximum rated lift, and I certainly do not lift anything heavy any higher than I have to.

Many people think this....but just dont understand the rating.

The loaders arent "rated" to lift a certain amount.

They give a spec......at a distance.......and a given height.

Most give this spec at pins and to max height.

The LOWER the lift occurs....the loader is MUCH stronger. Thats why kubota publishes curves.

So its not that the loader is under-rated. Its just rated at a different point than most people normally use them at.