I wonder about new Kubota tractors...

[Magicman]

Not Tier4 stuff but almost. Last year I replaced a Stihl MS310 (59cc) chainsaw and I wanted the same 59cc saw but the Professional level. I chose the MS362 over the MS362 C-M because the C-M is computer controlled and has to go back to the Stihl dealer's computer for any tuning. The C-M's are reliable but I chose a screwdriver over a computer chip/program that may be 50 miles away and where will it be 20 years from now??

Good may be good, but for me, simple is better.

 

[troverman]

>Troverman

That is how you run your tractor.

My tractor rarely sees full throttle. Rarely runs for hours at a time, rarely runs at a constant throttle. It does plenty of work, just never full throttle in a field.

The whole DPF method currently used,
Will require more engine run hours. How many will depend on tractor use.
Will require more full throttle use.
Will burn MORE diesel.
Will cost thousands more to maintain in the normal lifetime of a tractor (not including depreciation for added hours)

The whole DPF method currently used,
Has cost owners tons of money and lost productivity
Has cost Kubota tons of money and lost productivity.

To suggest it is all rosey is just wrong.

NHSleddog, a regeneration takes about 20 minutes. As I mentioned, my L4060 only has 23 hours on it and just did it's first regen at 22 hours. So far, it has been used exactly in the manner you describe...lots of idling, zero full throttle work, and short run times. Let's say worst case is 20 minutes of regen per 20 hours of use. And this really is the worst case scenario. During the summer, my regens on my MX4800 were about 1 every 37 hours.

That means for every 1000 hours of use, you'll accumulate 16.7 additional hours "wasted" on regenerations. For most users, a thousand hours equates to years of use. It is nothing. There is zero additional depreciation....a machine with 1000 hours is worth the same as a machine with 1016 hours.

As far as fuel use...yes, it will use a little more. But again, a very small amount more. Let's say your were burning 2 gallons per hour during a regen. That is obviously way more than reality. But for argument's sake, 2 gallons per hour. That means you multiply your 16.7 additional hours for all the regens by two, and you get 33.4 gallons of "wasted" fuel on regens. In my area, off-road diesel is currently $2.64 per gallon. But for argument's sake, let's say $3/gallon. That means after 1000 hours of use, you have spent an additional $100 to cover regenerations.

But consider this...unless you opt to do "parked" regenerations every time, the machine is regenerating while you are working. This means, of course, that you really aren't throwing away $100 of fuel or 16.7 hours of your time.

Where you are getting the "thousands more to maintain" I have no idea. The maintenance schedule of a DPF tractor is exactly the same as a non-DPF tractor. I bought a non-DPF L2501 last year. Oil change intervals are the same. There is no additional required maintenance that has to do with the DPF, until it becomes full of ash from regenerations. 95%+ of owners will never have to clean or replace a DPF.

There is no loss of productivity, either. You may continue to use your machine while it regens. There is nothing to prevent you from doing so.

In short, you can see that while your arguments initially do seem to merit concern...upon closer examination actually are not really of any concern.

Yes, its possible something could go wrong with the emissions system...but something could go wrong with any part of a tractor.

 

[quazz]

For what it is worth I read a lot more complaints about DPF tractors from people without them than people who use them everyday.

 

[NHSleddog]

NHSleddog, a regeneration takes about 20 minutes. As I mentioned, my L4060 only has 23 hours on it and just did it's first regen at 22 hours. So far, it has been used exactly in the manner you describe...lots of idling, zero full throttle work, and short run times. Let's say worst case is 20 minutes of regen per 20 hours of use. And this really is the worst case scenario. During the summer, my regens on my MX4800 were about 1 every 37 hours.

That means for every 1000 hours of use, you'll accumulate 16.7 additional hours "wasted" on regenerations. For most users, a thousand hours equates to years of use. It is nothing. There is zero additional depreciation....a machine with 1000 hours is worth the same as a machine with 1016 hours.

As far as fuel use...yes, it will use a little more. But again, a very small amount more. Let's say your were burning 2 gallons per hour during a regen. That is obviously way more than reality. But for argument's sake, 2 gallons per hour. That means you multiply your 16.7 additional hours for all the regens by two, and you get 33.4 gallons of "wasted" fuel on regens. In my area, off-road diesel is currently $2.64 per gallon. But for argument's sake, let's say $3/gallon. That means after 1000 hours of use, you have spent an additional $100 to cover regenerations.

But consider this...unless you opt to do "parked" regenerations every time, the machine is regenerating while you are working. This means, of course, that you really aren't throwing away $100 of fuel or 16.7 hours of your time.

Where you are getting the "thousands more to maintain" I have no idea. The maintenance schedule of a DPF tractor is exactly the same as a non-DPF tractor. I bought a non-DPF L2501 last year. Oil change intervals are the same. There is no additional required maintenance that has to do with the DPF, until it becomes full of ash from regenerations. 95%+ of owners will never have to clean or replace a DPF.

There is no loss of productivity, either. You may continue to use your machine while it regens. There is nothing to prevent you from doing so.

In short, you can see that while your arguments initially do seem to merit concern...upon closer examination actually are not really of any concern.

Yes, its possible something could go wrong with the emissions system...but something could go wrong with any part of a tractor.

So what you are saying is it will require more hours on the motor (wear and tear)
More money in diesel. (no mention of burning the millions of additional gallons of diesel unnecessarily across the fleets effect on the environment).
There will be additional hours on the hour meter affecting unit value. But none of that matters (to you).

I could easily do a number dance like you did above and change it all the other way. So for you all the negatives I list and you agree to for the most part are all positives to you. That is a good spin and OK.

Lost revenue and productivity come in many ways, not just during the regen. If your tractor is in the shop due to the issue that is very costly. If you are running for fuel more often, that is a cost. If you are buying additional parts or fluids, that is a cost. Running for and maintaining also reduces productivity.

So I will agree to disagree. There is ABSOLUTELY a cost involved in the DPFing and we do not know if it is doing any good or not at this point.

We are burning a whole lot more oil for it though so there is that.

 

[sheepfarmer]

>Troverman

That is how you run your tractor.

My tractor rarely sees full throttle. Rarely runs for hours at a time, rarely runs at a constant throttle. It does plenty of work, just never full throttle in a field.

The whole DPF method currently used,
Will require more engine run hours. How many will depend on tractor use.
Will require more full throttle use.
Will burn MORE diesel.
Will cost thousands more to maintain in the normal lifetime of a tractor (not including depreciation for added hours)

The whole DPF method currently used,
Has cost owners tons of money and lost productivity
Has cost Kubota tons of money and lost productivity.

To suggest it is all rosey is just wrong.

Because early on it was recommended to folks that they run their new tier 4 tractors full throttle all the time, you and others are making the assumptions you state. It is simply not correct. This is because, as Flip mentioned above, new users didn't follow directions, and ignored the lights on the dash etc so dealers found the safest thing was to tell them to run it full blast so if it needed to regen it could. Otherwise the operator, god forbid, has to pay attention, and if a light flashes, up the rpm to allow regen to proceed while working. On mine it is not even full throttle, more like 2200 rpm.

The one feature on the Grand L's I wouldn't part with is the dpf percent full monitor on the Intellipanel. I can see what it is doing relative to what I am doing and know in advance that it will want regen soon. Make the tractor work pulling the back blade through heavy snow in autothrottle and it burns off particles passively. Leave it idling and get off and it fills up. I run this tractor like a little old lady, no surprise, mostly in auto throttle which has variable rpms, and even at that it only needs to regen about twice a year. Probably 100 hrs. A regen takes about 10 min on this model. They are not all like the B3350 in which that is not the case. The only thing different on this 2013 tractor from my 2003 Duramax diesel truck is the dpf filter in terms of technology parts, and truck with common rail system has run fine for many years, so I assume some of this stuff gradually gets more reliable with time.


Even so, not being able to fix things because of the proprietary software is an unmistakable drawback. On the other hand it sometimes keeps a shade tree mechanic from jumping in and ruining some expensive part by mistake. If I could do my own repairs that would be a downer for sure.

 

[bernhardine]

I'm going to disagree with the comments here. I don't think having electronically-controlled direct fuel injection makes a tractor inherently unreliable. Nor do I think having an electronically-controlled emissions after-treatment system creates a reliability concern, either.

A tractor, which often runs at high RPMs for long periods of time, is actually ideal for having a DPF. Much more so than a road-going vehicle which varies RPM a lot more.

Common rail direct injected fuel systems increase power and fuel economy while reducing emissions. Yes, it is controlled by an ECU. This is no different than almost every newer vehicle on the road today. The after-treatment system consisting of cooled EGR, DOC, DPF, and SCR for higher horsepower units is very reliable. Yes, it is another component that may need to be repaired down the road...but there are plenty of things that need to be repaired on older tractors as well. Don't fool yourself.

My trucks are all modern Ford or Dodge diesels with EGR+DOC+DPF+SCR. None of had a DPF failure or need to be cleaned. I've experienced a couple of sensor failures (delta pressure sensor and one NOx sensor) plus a DEF tank heater. None of this is tremendously expensive or difficult to replace. In fact, on a truck, a simple OBDII scanner will reveal the problem. Buy the parts and change yourself if out of warranty.

I'm on my second Kubota with common rail, cooled EGR, DOC and DPF. No problems so far. I've experienced multiple regens without issue. While working, an orange light comes on for about 20 minutes, then disappears. That is no big deal. Kubota also has a button to perform a manually commanded regen. Its a nicer system than on a truck. Flip is complaining about $1000 DPF on a $100k tractor? Seems like a small thing.

Thanks for the statement. All true.
Except: regeneration on our two M4 needs only 8-12 minutes at only 1600-1700 rpms. (4 times the last 250 hours)

For what it is worth I read a lot more complaints about DPF tractors from people without them than people who use them everyday.

That's the point

The whole DPF method currently used,
Will require more engine run hours. How many will depend on tractor use.
Will require more full throttle use.
Will cost thousands more to maintain in the normal lifetime of a tractor (not including depreciation for added hours)

The whole DPF method currently used,
Has cost owners tons of money and lost productivity
Has cost Kubota tons of money and lost productivity.

five times NO

 

[SidecarFlip]

To me I am surprised we don't have electric tractors already. With cars battery weight and range is an issue but in tractors weight is not and range in distance (if not hours) is much shorter and you are never far from charging. Electric motors have lots of torque and have a lot less parts to break too. I would love an electric tractor.

JD has one, so does Farmtrak. The JD is over 150 grand and is only capable of light to medium duty work and the Farmtrak is only good for (I think of 5 hours max run time between charges) No price though. I guess of you have steel hinges on your wallet, the JD might work, might. Until battery technology advances a lot more I don't see them as being viable, besides, how many smaller tractor owners are willing to pony up 150 grand for an electric tractor, no one I know of and certainly not me.

 

[quazz]

JD has one, so does Farmtrak. The JD is over 150 grand and is only capable of light to medium duty work and the Farmtrak is only good for (I think of 5 hours max run time between charges) No price though. I guess of you have steel hinges on your wallet, the JD might work, might. Until battery technology advances a lot more I don't see them as being viable, besides, how many smaller tractor owners are willing to pony up 150 grand for an electric tractor, no one I know of and certainly not me.

Mystery solved. Thank you for that.

 

[SidecarFlip]

I didn't start the conversation to have a he said, she said discussion. I started the thread because of the 'fact' that pre 4 tractors are holding or appreciating in value because of the Tier 4 mandate and how it's impacting the used tractor market and it's more in the larger units (75 and up PTO) which are mostly farming units.

I'm not by any means clairvoyant but I was lucky to find and buy a used M9 last spring and got it for a really good price. Needed a bit of work (which I expected because I'm anal about my tractors anyway) but, they don't exist used today and if they do, the asking prices are through the roof because of the T4 Mandate, whicn not only makes the used one I bought worth more but the cab 9 I bought new in 2004 worth more as well.

Not that I'm gonna sell either one because I'm not (unless someone offers me some crazy price), then I might but it is comforting to know that when the time comes and I'm done farming or have passed, my wife can realize a good buck from them.

Far as people who don't have one whining about the T4 units, that isn't what I see at all. Every horror story I read about is from owners of various brands that are having issues. Have not read one missive about them that wasn't from an owner, maybe I read the wrong stuff. I read comments on Hay Talk, here and TBYNet.

Far as modifying / deleting a T4 tractor or vehicle for that matter, the law speaks for itself. No comment needed. People like to fiddle, human nature but fiddling with emissions related components or ROPS for that matter has a price and that price is liability down the road. If you plan on keeping a unit forever and getting buried with it, no issue. There is an issue when you trade it in or sell it under false pretenses and that issue is, the liability for deletion or modification of components rests solely on you if you made those modifications.

I go back to the ROPS thread where the poster said "it's mine, I'll do what I want with it". I have no issue with that, it is yours, you paid for it so you can. However, if and when you sell or trade it in, the liability issues rests with you and you alone and trading it in under false pretenses is just plain wrong.

Like my friend who has the 50+ Mack road tractors and deleted every one. He full well knows what the ramifications are, he is, after all an authorized Mack dealer and why ever tractor he deletes for his trucking company, he retains all the deleted parts because he understands the 'down the road liability' and so he returns the units to compliance prior to selling them.

The Eric guy on TBYNet talking about modifying the ECM and removing sensors and the element and doing this and that to circumvent the T4 components, all well and good but Eric had better never need any dealer service because his unit becomes a black sheep and no dealer will service it. I hope he understands that modifying the ECM will render it unusable as far as a compliant component and he will have to buy a spare ECM as well. Eric better have a big wallet....lol

My dealer (Carleton Farm Supply) who I do all my business with, the owner, Keith told me the biggest reason buyers he sells to (He's a Kubota authorized dealer) have T4 issues is... They don't bother to read the owners manuals and follow the Kubota recommended procedures for allowing the DPF to regenerate properly or using the regen button to over ride the process and then the DPF loads up, the motor derates (or won't even start) and the tractor goes back for a sometimes costly service. Keith told me it's the first question he asks an owner 'did you follow the directions outlined in the owners manual'? Told me the answer is usually...duh...

I don't have any idea what Kubota covers as far as emissions related issues. I do know that by Federal mandate, emissions components have to be covered for 5 tears from the date of purchase but I presume that is about component failure, not owner abuse because they never bothered to follow the Kubota recommended procedures. Never got into that aspect in the conversation.

Personally speaking, I don't want a T4 tractor anyway because of the complexity of the components and I never cared for electronically controlled engines or fuel systems because I cannot fix them in the barnyard or in the field. I want a mechanically injected non emissions unit, because I can fix them.

Like my car. it's a fuel injected 49 state legal gasoline direct injection engine and you can bet I have an extended factory warranty with towing and rental car on it because I know if it breaks, I'm screwed. Towing and rental don't work with tractors. You may get a loaner if your dealer has one, maybe not and I've never seen a tow truck towing a tractor yet.

My farm truck is a diesel and in keeping with my philosophy, it's a pre 4 engine as well, because, again, I can work on it.

I'm old enough where I'll never be subject to a post 4 diesel engine, my pre 4 engines will outlast me and I'm good with that. I fully expect 10K hours on each of them with just routine maintenance.

No point in turning this thread into a pissing match. Everyone has an opinion and opinions differ. What works for me may not for you but one needs to understand the circumventing emissions components has a price down the road.

 

[Bulldog]

All this emissions stuff makes me sick. I could see a problem if all diesels were like the old R model Macks were. Lay into them and you couldn't even see the road behind you. Or the Dodge Caravan which has killed more mosquitoes than any other vehicle on the road. But we're talking about tractors that don't hardly even blow any smoke because they are so efficient and clean burning.

I'd really like to run my exhaust pipe up the EPA's rear and put it to the mat 3 or 4 times. Our equipment is smothered to death with garbage and computers. Our fuel is trash and leads to nothing but problems. And on top of it all our tax $$$ pay the salary of the very people that did this to us. Then for the final kick in the nuts farmers are expected to feed the world with all these rules and regulations wrapped around our throat. Doesn't seem right to me.

 

[SidecarFlip]

Nor me. The people that come up with this hogwash are bookworms that base all this stuff on theory and not practical applications. They don't live in a real world. Never had to.

Gotta love the gummit....

Kind of ironic in a way. To get a job with the Fed, they require a college education but they don't care what your degree is in, just so long as you have one.

My wife has her Masters in behavioral science and worked for the DOD in contract management overseeing of all things procurement of military hardware which has absolutely nothing to do with behavioral science.....

She was one of those people who, if you didn't perform on a government contract, she'd put you out of business... and she did too.

When I read about Lugbolt in another thread, I could relate to his post real well. It's not fantasy, it's how it works.

She never talks about it. Fine with me.

 

[BAP]

The whole electronic crap on tractors is more problems than the emissions stuff itself. Emissions is complicated but electronics are being used for everything on the tractor and are unfixable buy the owner. Get rid of the electronics and go back to a simple mechanical controlled machine that anybody can fix.

 

[SidecarFlip]

The whole electronic crap on tractors is more problems than the emissions stuff itself. Emissions is complicated but electronics are being used for everything on the tractor and are unfixable buy the owner. Get rid of the electronics and go back to a simple mechanical controlled machine that anybody can fix.

+ 10 on that

Like the common rail injection thing. When you look at a fueling schematic for an older conventional injected diesel (Kubota) and a new common rail motor, what a pile of parts that are prone to eventual failure. Maybe it reduces emissions, don't know but it's complex and add in the rest of the hardware and software and you have a real mess of stuff.

So long as it's under warranty, all well and good, but when the warranty expires... What then...

When it functions as it was designed to, all is good. When it don't it's a real issue and an issue you cannot fix at home or in the barn or anywhere else, except the dealer or some place that has the necessary equipment knowledge to repair it.

Additionally, with motor vehicles, you can use a scan tool that is readily available to diagnose the issues (I have one and use it and mine actually tells you what component has failed so you can replace it).

Not so with Kubota or Kioti or FNH and I presume JD systems. There isn't the standard serial port to plug into to retrieve the codes. You need a special scan tool and it's only available to a dealer, which I find is total bullshitte. They aren't OBD 2 compatible. No commercially available scan tool will interface so you are stuck with the dealer, no choice and instead of being to diagnose the issue and purchase the necessary parts to correct the condition, you are stuck with a dealer and his labor rate and not just with emissions components, with anything engine or drivetrain or electrical related.

Was that intentionally designed that way? I have no idea but I do know I don't want one for many reasons but that is one of the big ones.

 

[SidecarFlip]

Probably one of the driving forces as to why many folks on here buy and restore or fix older units. You can actually wrench on them without a degree in electronic engineering....

 

[SDT]

All this emissions stuff makes me sick. I could see a problem if all diesels were like the old R model Macks were. Lay into them and you couldn't even see the road behind you. Or the Dodge Caravan which has killed more mosquitoes than any other vehicle on the road. But we're talking about tractors that don't hardly even blow any smoke because they are so efficient and clean burning.

I'd really like to run my exhaust pipe up the EPA's rear and put it to the mat 3 or 4 times. Our equipment is smothered to death with garbage and computers. Our fuel is trash and leads to nothing but problems. And on top of it all our tax $$$ pay the salary of the very people that did this to us. Then for the final kick in the nuts farmers are expected to feed the world with all these rules and regulations wrapped around our throat. Doesn't seem right to me.

Well said, Bulldog.

I watch this nonsense closely, and I believe that the pendulum has stopped swinging in the nonsense direction (after 50+ years). If history is any indication, it will probably swing back with a vengeance, though it will not happen overnight.

There is a new sheriff in town and hope on the horizon.

Stay tuned.

SDT

 

[GeoHorn]

....I made a comment and was immediately told I was closed minded. I'm not by a long shot. Irregardless,......
My wife has a Masters in behavioral science.....

Doubtless she undisregards you often. :ROFL:

 

[troverman]

I do agree that it is easier to work on an automobile than a tractor, simply because of proprietary access to the computer.

The government recognized that only dealers would be able to work on computerized vehicles because only they could afford a $20k proprietary scan tool. Therefore, they instituted the standardized OBDII interface on all vehicles, for all functions related to emissions. This allows even end users like ourselves to scan our vehicles with a cheap $20 code reader. I'd like to see something similar in the ag and construction industries.

That said, it is not impossible to work on or diagnose problems with a fully computerized tractor or similar heavy equipment. Underneath the overlay of electronic control is the same basic diesel engine y'all are familiar with. You can still use 12v test lights to determine if a circuit is powered. You can use continuity testers to determine if wiring is good.

The OP seems to loathe the idea of computerized control of the engine and emissions system, but the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. Computerization allows for more power, better cold weather starting, better fuel economy, and fewer emissions. I see nothing wrong with that. On-road vehicles have been fully computerized for decades, and most are extremely reliable.

To summarize, all I need to be fully happy is an inexpensive way to extract and clear codes from a Kubota.

 

[GeoHorn]

I do agree that it is easier to work on an automobile than a tractor, simply because of proprietary access to the computer.

The government recognized that only dealers would be able to work on computerized vehicles because only they could afford a $20k proprietary scan tool. Therefore, they instituted the standardized OBDII interface on all vehicles, for all functions related to emissions. This allows even end users like ourselves to scan our vehicles with a cheap $20 code reader. I'd like to see something similar in the ag and construction industries.

That said, it is not impossible to work on or diagnose problems with a fully computerized tractor or similar heavy equipment. Underneath the overlay of electronic control is the same basic diesel engine y'all are familiar with. You can still use 12v test lights to determine if a circuit is powered. You can use continuity testers to determine if wiring is good.

The OP seems to loathe the idea of computerized control of the engine and emissions system, but the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. Computerization allows for more power, better cold weather starting, better fuel economy, and fewer emissions. I see nothing wrong with that. On-road vehicles have been fully computerized for decades, and most are extremely reliable.

To summarize, all I need to be fully happy is an inexpensive way to extract and clear codes from a Kubota.

There you go! A new market for an enterprising youth! LOL

I agree with your post, and think, Yes, it’s troublesome when we must deal with transition,... but “the gov’t” some folks love to hate is US here in America. Enough of our fellow citizens thought it wise to reduce pollution for our kids/grandkids so the rest of us who believe in democracy go along with it. Personal choice still exists, however, and you (and me) are free to keep using our older technology as long as we wish. NaySayers - Get over it.

A friend pointed out a disreputable thing about JD brands, however. He told me that JD will SELL you a tractor... but new owners often overlook the fact that JD only LICENSES the software to the new owner. This means JD retains the ability to OBSOLETE your tractor whenever they decide to.

ME? I just like older, simpler mechanicals and trend that way whenever possible. But the Woe-is-me I suffered when my ‘78 Ford F150 came with a computerized ignition system really upset me because I understood points-and-condensers. That truck still works just fine however and my new Ram is so computerized.... it works perfectly also, except it’s a MUCH BETTER vehicle as newer vehicles are SO MUCH BETTER than what we drove around in the 1950/60s.

 

[Bulldog]

I've never seen a tow truck towing a tractor yet.

My son drove rollback for a while and had to pick this one up. It broke down in the road and didn't have a shoulder to pull off on.

 

[Magicman]

There are automobiles, etc. running/operating today that are 100+ years old. I wonder if the circuit boards that control today's automobiles, etc. will be available 100+ years from now?