1. Missed the live Ask the Expert event?
    Not to worry. Check out the archived thread of the Q&A with Ken Hutcheson, President of U.S. Lawns, and the LawnSite community in the Franchising forum .

    Dismiss Notice

Test rides: Volvo EC35 vs Kubota KX121-3

Discussion in 'Heavy Equipment & Pavement' started by Boondox, Jan 31, 2007.

  1. Boondox

    Boondox LawnSite Member
    Posts: 38

    Both quality machines but not exactly apples to apples. I had hoped to test the Kubota KX91-3, but my dealer didn't have the smaller machine.

    Volvo 37.0HP at 7470#, arm force 4923, bucket breakout 6564
    Kubota 42.2HP at 9063#, arm force 3947, bucket breakout 8754

    Aside from that, the specs for the two machines in terms of digging depth, lifting capacity, etc were remarkably similar.

    Fit and finish were similar, with a slight nod to the Kubota for things like taking the time to place all the grease fittings on one side of the boom. The Volvo was much more robust however, in places it looked overbuilt (not that it's a bad thing), with larger cylinders and much more protection built in for those cylinders. Another clear difference was the extensive use of metal pipes for the Volvo hydraulics. From the manifold to the boom pivot point the Volvo's lines were neatly organized metal lines with precisely routed curves. The Kubota was a clustered chaos of rubber hoses taped or tied into bundles that looked like black spaghetti. I also liked the fact that the controls were part of the suspended seat, so as the seat moved so did the joysticks. On the Kubota the seat had suspension but not the controls.

    Both were smooth, but the Kubota was better especially with fine movements. I also liked the way the Kubota switches were laid out, while the Volvo tucked different switches into odd places here and there. I'm sure five hours in the seat and I'd find the arrangement perfectly natural, but for me it would take some getting used to. Both were cab models. The Volvo had a wider door, but only the front half of the right hand window slid open. On the Kubota both halves of the window could be opened. The Volvo also only had heat, while the Kubota had full HVAC and better controls and air flow. Kubota uses an LCD display that was easy to read. Volvo uses an LED display that's hard to read because of glare.

    The Kubota also had the angled blade. I didn't like it, especially not for an extra $2k. While pushing a bit of snow across a parking lot with the blade angled, the blade pulled the entire excavator in that direction. Granted some of the problem may have been the icy surface, but it just didn't work for me.

    So no clear winner, but a nod to Kubota.
  2. Jamesgateslandscaping

    Jamesgateslandscaping LawnSite Senior Member
    Posts: 421

    I love the Kubota and loved the angle blade, it was a nice little add on to fill in trenches much easier.
  3. ksss

    ksss LawnSite Fanatic
    Posts: 7,129

    I first looked at the angle blade on a CAT 305 and again on a Kubota several days ago. I did not run it on either machine but some observations I made were the length at which the blade sets out from the tracks. I know you can rotate the blade to the rear of the machine but that is not always a good thing (using the blade to level the machine, digging close to an edge). It also would be difficult to set rocks. I could see the blade getting banged up. They are not built all that heavy compared to a standard blade. The blade will reduce you digging reach over the blade as well as visibility If you dug a lot of trenches I could see it being helpful, also having the blade set out further would make it easier to cut grade with. However there are some drawbacks to the angle blade I think. I usually use a ditch cleaning bucket to backfill with if I don't have a skid steer on site.

Share This Page