Also shopping for a first tractor

[allenron]

Hello everyone: We're shopping for a first tractor along with a number of other folks on TBN. Our property is 32 acres of rough woods and brush, with some steep slopes, dirt roads and fire breaks, and a lot of dead trees. Our tree maintenance guys recommended a machine with at least 40HP on the PTO, for chipping. They also said, find the minimum HP that you need and then get the next bigger size tractor. This was our starting point.

We'll need to move dirt and chips and slash around, so a front-end loader is a must-have. Also, we plan some construction, so a backhoe attachment is on our list. A later option might be a scraper box, and after that, we probably will find a chipping attachment for medium-sized logs (8" pine or 6" oak). These items in mind, we have looked at the following tools:

1. John Deere 4053R and M, 50.8 and 51.5 HP, 42.2 and 40 HP PTO, 4 cylinder Yanmar engine with hydrostatic transmission.
2. Massey Ferguson 1749, 48.3 HP, 37.8 HP PTO, 3 cylinder Mitsubishi engine, with HST.
3. Kubota L47TLB, 47.1 HP, 33 HP PTO, 4 cylinder Kubota engine, with HST.
4. A late-comer to the list is the Massey Ferguson 2706E, 57.3 HP, 45.9 HP PTO, 4 cylinder Shibaura engine. Again with HST.

We looked at a New Holland tractor at the county fair a while back, but we didn't like the configuration of its hydraulic hoses. They were all over the place on front loader arms and the backhoe boom & stick. We were worried about them catching on brush around the property. (We have a lot of manzanita, a fairly tough hardwood shrub/small tree.) But, maybe it's worth a second look.

At first we were hesitant about the MF, because we thought that getting parts might be a problem. But there are several dealers in cities in the Central Valley here, and the dealership in Merced (about 39 miles to our west) has a mechannic that lives in our area.

Well, these are some initial thoughts. Will post more on our survey this afternoon. Out to look at a planer and biscuit joiner now. Thanks! Ron & Bev

 

[allenron]

Hello everyone: We're shopping for a first tractor along with a number of other folks on TBN. Our property is 32 acres of rough woods and brush, with some steep slopes, dirt roads and fire breaks, and a lot of dead trees. Our tree maintenance guys recommended a machine with at least 40HP on the PTO, for chipping. They also said, find the minimum HP that you need and then get the next bigger size tractor. This was our starting point.

We'll need to move dirt and chips and slash around, so a front-end loader is a must-have. Also, we plan some construction, so a backhoe attachment is on our list. A later option might be a scraper box, and after that, we probably will find a chipping attachment for medium-sized logs (8" pine or 6" oak). These items in mind, we have looked at the following tools:

1. John Deere 4053R and M, 50.8 and 51.5 HP, 42.2 and 40 HP PTO, 4 cylinder Yanmar engine with hydrostatic transmission.
2. Massey Ferguson 1749, 48.3 HP, 37.8 HP PTO, 3 cylinder Mitsubishi engine, with HST.
3. Kubota L47TLB, 47.1 HP, 33 HP PTO, 4 cylinder Kubota engine, with HST.
4. A late-comer to the list is the Massey Ferguson 2706E, 57.3 HP, 45.9 HP PTO, 4 cylinder Shibaura engine. Again with HST.

We looked at a New Holland tractor at the county fair a while back, but we didn't like the configuration of its hydraulic hoses. They were all over the place on front loader arms and the backhoe boom & stick. We were worried about them catching on brush around the property. (We have a lot of manzanita, a fairly tough hardwood shrub/small tree.) But, maybe it's worth a second look.

At first we were hesitant about the MF, because we thought that getting parts might be a problem. But there are several dealers in cities in the Central Valley here, and the dealership in Merced (about 39 miles to our west) has a mechannic that lives in our area.

Well, these are some initial thoughts. Will post more on our survey this afternoon. Out to look at a planer and biscuit joiner now. Thanks! Ron & Bev

Here's some more on prices and some questions.

We haven't seen any of these models on sale used in our area. For a few days (hours??) there was a used JD 4052M up north of us, but it seems to have gone back to rental work. The new model prices, with front-end loader and backhoe, are as follows:

a. JD 4052R $48.9k
b. JD 4052M $44.9k
c. MF 1749 $42.8k
d. MF 2706E $39.8k
e. Kub 47TLB $54k

So, the MF2706E is the lowest price. It beats all the others in engine & PTO HP, and it has a class II 3-point hitch, with bushings that take it down to a class I. This seems like an advantage to us, as it gives us a wider range of devices that we can connect onto the back. We're not going to do any row crops, so it's perhaps unlikely that we'll need really heavy implements to drag behind, but who knows what we might be able to get used some day. The warranty is attractive: 2-year bumper-to-bumper and 5 year power train.

The Kubota is the best backhoe, as it seems that model is configured especially for backhoe work. It's also the most expensive. We are leaning away from it, because we think that our backhoe work will be relatively simple trenches for conduits and water pipes. But, friends of ours have one that they really like, so that's an input we have to reckon with.

The Deeres are in between in terms of price and performance. We are not sure about the warranty available with new tractors. I'm reading a 2-year commercial warranty (that's not us) and a 6-year engine warranty.

Some questions. If anyone has some insight here, we'd appreciate your input.

(i) How does the Mitsubishi engine on the MF 1749 get such high horsepower? It has only 3 cylinders, and has a smaller displacement (104 cu in) than the JDs (128 cu in) and the Kubota (148.5 cu in)? All of these are turbocharged, right? What magic is Mitsubishi getting away with here?

(ii) For that matter, how does Shibaura get 57HP and slightly large displacement in 4 cylinders (134 cu in) on the 2706E? It's 14% more HP than the JDs with only ~5% increase in displacement. It's 25% more HP than the Kubota. Is the different exhaust cleaning devices a factor here? (cf. next question.)

(iii) All of these tractors, except the MF 2706E, have diesel particulate filters (DPFs). The MF 2706E has exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) and a diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) filter. Do these allow the high engine HP with slightly larger engine displacement? Or is Shibaura working some magic too?

(iv) Is the DPF a problem? It seems like they are relatively easy to clean. How long do they last? I read that they are expensive to replace, on the order of $1000; is that right? Does anyone know about maintenance intervals with EGR valves and DOCs?

Thanks! --Ron

 

[oldpilgrim]

Check Mahindra ... no DPF

Http://Www.mahindrausa.com/mcrd

 

[allenron]

Check Mahindra ... no DPF

Http://Www.mahindrausa.com/mcrd

Hi oldpilgrim: That's an interesting feature of the Mahindras. I see that they have a webpage devoted to their alternative technology:

Introducing our Tier IV "mCRD Technology" | Mahindra

We'll take a closer look at these tractors. The difficulty for us in buying one is that the dealers seem to be few and far from us in Northern California. I've never actually seen a Mahindra; of course, it's not like I'm any sort of tractor expert. Thanks for the tip! --Ron (and Bev)

 

[oosik]

Just some thoughts -

The backhoe attachment - that's going to be an $8K to $10K addition to the price of any tractor of the size you are looking at. Are you REALLY going to need a backhoe - year after year - to justify that cost? Can you invite your friend, with his backhoe, over to do what work you need. Maybe have a contractor do any digging you need. Its just - I see a lot of folks buying the backhoe attachment and then in a year or so - they are asking for advice on the best way to store their backhoe attachment.

PTO driven chipper - I've always had one and they are very useful. I've had/have Wallenstein. Be careful on sizing the chipper. Mine is a BX62s and will handle up to 6" trees/logs. You indicate the need for a chipper that will handle 8" material. Before you make the leap to a chipper - go out on your property, limb a tree that is 8" on the butt and try dragging that tree thirty feet. Fun isn't it. Now, imagine you want to chip one hundred trees that are 8" on the butt.

I maintain a pine forrest on my property. I cut & chip 750-900 small( 6" & smaller ) pines every spring. This is a two to three week job every spring and the first day is fun - the remainder, not so much.

Tractor sizing - I'm in full agreement with the philosophy - determine the size tractor you need and then go one size bigger. Over time - "things" - will pop up that will make you wish you had a bit more tractor.

 

[Grandad4]

If you have lots of trees to deal with, I'd suggest you detail your specfic work flow for getting things done. For example, I'm wondering if a separate, towable chipper wouldn't give you more flexibility in handling logs and slash. Having it attached to the tractor pretty much means you must take the rig into the woods in order to use it, and then the tractor is not available to jockey the material around, leaving you moving the material by hand. You may find yourself endlessly putting the chipper on and taking it off. The better you can plan how your work is to be done, the better you'll understand what equipment will work best, and what features would be important when buying.

 

[BlessedMess]

... d. MF 2706E $39.8k
e. Kub 47TLB $54k

So, the MF2706E is the lowest price. It beats all the others in engine & PTO HP, and it has a class II 3-point hitch, with bushings that take it down to a class I. This seems like an advantage to us, as it gives us a wider range of devices that we can connect onto the back. We're not going to do any row crops, so it's perhaps unlikely that we'll need really heavy implements to drag behind, but who knows what we might be able to get used some day. The warranty is attractive: 2-year bumper-to-bumper and 5 year power train. The Kubota is the best backhoe, as it seems that model is configured especially for backhoe work. It's also the most expensive. We are leaning away from it, because we think that our backhoe work will be relatively simple trenches for conduits and water pipes. But, friends of ours have one that they really like, so that's an input we have to reckon with...
(ii) For that matter, how does Shibaura get 57HP and slightly large displacement in 4 cylinders (134 cu in) on the 2706E? It's 14% more HP than the JDs with only ~5% increase in displacement. It's 25% more HP than the Kubota. Is the different exhaust cleaning devices a factor here? (cf. next question.)
(iii) All of these tractors, except the MF 2706E, have diesel particulate filters (DPFs). The MF 2706E has exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) and a diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) filter. Do these allow the high engine HP with slightly larger engine displacement? Or is Shibaura working some magic too?
(iv) Is the DPF a problem? It seems like they are relatively easy to clean. How long do they last? I read that they are expensive to replace, on the order of $1000; is that right? Does anyone know about maintenance intervals with EGR valves and DOCs? Thanks! --Ron

Hi Ron. Sounds like you and I are chasing the same tractor! If it is any assistance, some thoughts:

1) Had the exact same Shibaura engine in my previous tractor where it was rated for 65HP/54 PTO, and am a fan of it. Easy to maintain, reasonably smooth/quiet, no DPF or DEF, and trouble-free in the 190+ hours it has run. In the lighter 2706e, the only concern I'd have is traction without ballast. Personally think the Tier 4 rating with this engine is an ok thing -- it doesn't smoke and the exhaust smell doesn't knock you over like some older diesels do, and it is fairly fuel efficient for the HP it produces... ~1-1.5 GPH depending on RPMs and implement load. All of these Tier 4 engines have computer controls, and my guess is the ECM "tune" and less frequently some mechanical bits like larger injectors and/or different spec turbos allow the same engine to produce those 10-20 more HP than the "base" model. PTO HP is where it counts, but you may also want to focus too on the hydraulic flow rates if running a backhoe, chipper, etc. The tractor I had has a 10GPM implement flow rate, and it ran the backhoe very well even at 1600-1800 RPMs.

2) Really like the 2706E because of the above AND it is offered with the hydro, class 2 3PH, telescoping link ends, higher flow hydraulic pump (~+2 gpm over competitors' implement rating), and just seems like a solid tractor for the money. If you have a good M-F dealer nearby, it would be my top choice. The close second (tie) in my case is the Kubota MX5800 (std HST and also telescoping class 2 hitch, but does have a DPF) and the Kioti DK5510 with powershuttle (no telescoping links or hydro option unfortunately, and think it may have a DPF too). I'm trying to avoid DPF because long-term it is a likely expense... many owners of similar displacement car engines (e.g. 2.0 VW TDIs) are replacing cracked and malfunctioning DPFs after 5+ years. My TDI has been trouble free, but the regen cycles are a pain and something I don't want to worry about in my tractor.

3) Your prices seem way high... maybe because it's NORCAL. Would think $36-37k should get you a 2706E with the FEL, backhoe, and one detent remote before tax, and maybe $39-$40k for the Kubota MX5800 and ~$32k for the Kioti comparably equipped. For your uses, the Kubota MX5800 still has a really impressive BH and much higher PTO HP... the L47 TLB is probably overkill on the BH, and although it has some nifty features, not worth the extra coin in my opinion and it isn't eligible for the 6 year powertrain warranty or 0% financing Kubota is offering.

I've decided not to buy the backhoe for my next tractor. Can rent a Kubota mini excavator for $125 for 4 hours, or $200 for 8. It is much better/faster at everything I'd do with it except travel speed. And while they are "quick attach" (plan 20-30 min.), they still have to be stored somewhere and greased regularly. And neither attaching, storing nor greasing are particularly enjoyable. My BH cost was "only" $7,100 installed which is pretty reasonable and it was convenient for odd job tasks, but a rented excavator would have been faster, cheaper, and wouldn't have tied up funds I should have used instead to buy 3PH implements like a box blade, plow, cutter/mower, rake, etc.

 

[jenkinsph]

From the list of machines you listed I would go for the Kubota L47. With lots of tree work add a grapple and make sure you have the hydraulics to operate it figured in. A skid plate to protect the bottom of the machine is important when working in brush and downed trees. A four post rops/fops is important in the woods imo. Tripple front and rear hydraulics are good to allow you to use a variety of tools. The L47 has all of these features.

I have a JD 110tlb similar in size and capability to the L47 but these are no longer available new. I would also recommend a stand alone chipper, easier to use and keep the tractor free to work.

 

[allenron]

Just some thoughts -

The backhoe attachment - that's going to be an $8K to $10K addition to the price of any tractor of the size you are looking at. Are you REALLY going to need a backhoe - year after year - to justify that cost? Can you invite your friend, with his backhoe, over to do what work you need. Maybe have a contractor do any digging you need. Its just - I see a lot of folks buying the backhoe attachment and then in a year or so - they are asking for advice on the best way to store their backhoe attachment.

PTO driven chipper - I've always had one and they are very useful. I've had/have Wallenstein. Be careful on sizing the chipper. Mine is a BX62s and will handle up to 6" trees/logs. You indicate the need for a chipper that will handle 8" material. Before you make the leap to a chipper - go out on your property, limb a tree that is 8" on the butt and try dragging that tree thirty feet. Fun isn't it. Now, imagine you want to chip one hundred trees that are 8" on the butt.

I maintain a pine forrest on my property. I cut & chip 750-900 small( 6" & smaller ) pines every spring. This is a two to three week job every spring and the first day is fun - the remainder, not so much.

Tractor sizing - I'm in full agreement with the philosophy - determine the size tractor you need and then go one size bigger. Over time - "things" - will pop up that will make you wish you had a bit more tractor.

Hi oosik: You raise some valid points. Yes, indeed, the backhoe is an expensive accessory. Our friends don't have a trailer for their Kubota, and we plan on definitely not having one as well. We'd need a larger pickup (3/4 ton, I think) to pull--that's one thing, and without a trailer we can tell friends that "oh, sure, we'd like to help, but we don't have a trailer", and so on. Well, we hesitate to ask to use someone else's equipment, what with liabilities and things. We do have a regular backhoe operator that we use. He's good, and charges us very fairly ($250/hour; same for dozer work). But, I envision 250 ft. of trench (18 in. deep) from the electrical panel to one of the wells, two trenches, each about 100' for water lines from the well, one 200' shallow trench from the new house/garage to the leach field, foundation for garage and house, and that work takes us out about 3 years. There's already a small cabin on another part of our property (32 acres). It needs a better electric feeder to the well house, and that's a 100 ft. trench too. We could probably have the backhoe guy do all this, but it would cost more than buying our own tool. Also, we have a lot of dead pine trees. For the forseeable future, we'll be cutting them down, dragging them out of the woods on narrow paths to a flat site where we are setting up to mill and chip them. So, we plan on using the backhoe to lift them up by the end with a chain and then drag them out lengthwise through the trees. I think we will also have some trenching for water to a vegetable garden and orchard. Backhoe seems justifiable. But, we did ask ourselves that very same question--do we really need this gizmo?--when we saw the price tag.

I guess that you'd recommend the Wallenstein chipper? We buck the logs to 18" rounds, split them (27 ton Echo splitter), and split them again and again to feed into our current 3 inch chipper. It's tedious. If we could split the rounds into quarters and toss them into a larger chipper, we'd be content. Yes, agreed, even dragging around a small tree (8" bole) by hand is very hard work. We thought about a grapple bucket for the front-end loader, but with our tight roads through the woods, we could not get through carrying the log crosswise. We have some oak, but I doubt that we will chip much of that. Probably the smaller branches, but the larger pieces we will probably cut for firewood.

It appears that you're doing already, except on a much larger scale, what we have on our agenda. Is there anything else that you would recommend that we buy for forest maintenance? Thanks for your comments. Very much appreciated! --Ron

 

[allenron]

If you have lots of trees to deal with, I'd suggest you detail your specfic work flow for getting things done. For example, I'm wondering if a separate, towable chipper wouldn't give you more flexibility in handling logs and slash. Having it attached to the tractor pretty much means you must take the rig into the woods in order to use it, and then the tractor is not available to jockey the material around, leaving you moving the material by hand. You may find yourself endlessly putting the chipper on and taking it off. The better you can plan how your work is to be done, the better you'll understand what equipment will work best, and what features would be important when buying.

Hi Grandad4: You might well be right about the convenience of a towable chipper. We don't plan on getting the chipper right away, just the backhoe, front loader, and maybe a scraper box at first. Our strategy is to fell the trees in the woods, pull them out lengthwise with a chain attached to the backhoe and the trunk end of the tree, and stack them on a flat pad area we have on the property. Right now, there's a pretty good sugar pine and ponderosa log deck there. Once the trees are at the pad, we'll mill the good ones into lumber, and buck, split, and chip the ones that aren't suitable for milling. So, if we have a PTO chipper, you're right, couldn't do all of this at the same time; we'd have to take off the backhoe and attach the chipper. We do have a small 3 inch Echo chipper that works well for small branches, sticks, and twigs. Your thinking now has me thinking that maybe we ought to lease Vermeer 1000 or something first and see how it goes. One hesitation I have about the towable chipper is that our friends might start asking to bring it over to their place "just for the afternoon". Ha! Well, I guess we shall burn that bridge when we come to it. Thanks! --Ron

 

[WoodChuckDad]

Hi Grandad4: You might well be right about the convenience of a towable chipper. We don't plan on getting the chipper right away, just the backhoe, front loader, and maybe a scraper box at first. Our strategy is to fell the trees in the woods, pull them out lengthwise with a chain attached to the backhoe and the trunk end of the tree, and stack them on a flat pad area we have on the property. Right now, there's a pretty good sugar pine and ponderosa log deck there. Once the trees are at the pad, we'll mill the good ones into lumber, and buck, split, and chip the ones that aren't suitable for milling. So, if we have a PTO chipper, you're right, couldn't do all of this at the same time; we'd have to take off the backhoe and attach the chipper. We do have a small 3 inch Echo chipper that works well for small branches, sticks, and twigs. Your thinking now has me thinking that maybe we ought to lease Vermeer 1000 or something first and see how it goes. One hesitation I have about the towable chipper is that our friends might start asking to bring it over to their place "just for the afternoon". Ha! Well, I guess we shall burn that bridge when we come to it. Thanks! --Ron

As others have said, you need to test the tractors as much as possible. Find a reputable dealer and find a tractor that is comfortable to operate. All the ones you listed should be able to handle the tasks you set out. Go bigger. The best advice I got was buy the biggest tractor you can afford. Consider how much you will use the backhoe. It might be worth it to rent a small excavator instead. I have an excavator and I use it all the time but I wouldn't want to have to put a backhoe on and off my tractor, because I use other implements on the back of the tractor....sometimes when doing the same job that I'm using the excavator for. My excavator is also much larger than my tractor. A significant expense but I have used it for too many things, I don't know what I will do when I sell it.

With the level of work that you are describing, I see multiple machines in your future. It would be nice to just have one machine that does everything but any "jack of all trades" machine is going to take more time while changing it's implement and time is the most valuable resource you have.

You might want to think about a grapple. Doesn't have to be large, intact a smaller one might work better for picking things up...but with the amount of trees and such that you are talking about, you will have a lot of slash to pick up and move.

As for the worrying about people asking to borrow your equipment....First you have to learn the word "NO". Second....there is no reason to tell people what you have. Unless they come out there and look at what you are doing they will not know you have a towable chipper. And if they come out there, they are probably helping you ......so you might want to help them.

 

[Grandad4]

Our strategy is to fell the trees in the woods, pull them out lengthwise with a chain attached to the backhoe and the trunk end of the tree, and stack them on a flat pad area we have on the property. Right now, there's a pretty good sugar pine and ponderosa log deck there.

I did this for the first several years at my place. Pulling with a log chain is slow, man-killing work, particularly for an old galoot like me. I got lots more done and didn't wear myself out nearly as much when I got a PTO operated winch. It was also a much safer way to move the material. The winch, moreover, lets you lift one end of the log off the ground for transporting out of the woods... fewer snags, thus safer, and the bark on the log isn't as full of dirt to dull your saw when you cut it up. There is another current thread on this subject and many previous ones also if you do some searching.

The winch was more vital for me than a chipper for the stated reasons, although you may have other priorities such as brush abatement out your way.

I also have a backhoe for my tractor, but switching between backhoe and 3 point operation is not that big a deal, at least on my rig.

Final point: Few "compact tractors" are built for extensive forestry duty. Their undersides are typically full of exposed hydraulic lines, filters and control linkages, for example, just waiting for a stray stick or sapling to find a vulnerable place to do some damage. Since that work seems to be a key part what you'll be doing with your tractor for a while, I'd be thinking of ruggedness and survivability more than horsepower or "performance" as hyped by some sales person. Don't know anything about the other ones you're looking at, good or bad, but the L47 is designed specifically for construction/industrial work and would definitely be on my short list.

 

[DieselBound]

Use specialized equipment for more limited and difficult operations. I regularly rent excavators (9k and 18k). I'd thought about a backhoe, or even buying an excavator, but I would be worried that I'd end up digging more stuff than I really needed to dig up: CAUTION: one very wise piece of advice is to live with your land for a full year before you start doing anything major- much of my work has been slow, and because of it I've been able to get a better understanding of what works best/better- had I gone full-throttle first thing I likely would have regretted it (annoying neighbors and the authorities as well).

Early stuff requires early "pioneering" stuff. Bush hog. Establish pathways for accessing larger work sites, getting rid of troublesome brush (that will pick apart your tractor). A grapple -wish that I'd had one early on [but would have required a bigger tractor than I'd had, and couldn't have afforded that!- is great because thumbs are indispensable!

I've drug out various pieces of wood. Mostly, and now more so, I cut out in the field and then haul back in more convenient bits: load into a trailer or, as I did early on, load on an old truck hood and skid that out. I do have a nice choke cable to yank stuff out from areas that are of short distances: this past summer I used a rented excavator to get out some huge trunks from the brush- really easy! (it was a task that I'd added to my "Projects needing bigger power" list; didn't have my Kioti at the time)

Regarding DPF, as long as you aren't idling the heck out of a tractor with one (and one really shouldn't do this with one that doesn't have a DPF!) you're supposed to get (warrantied for) at least 3,000 hours, and that's for it to be "cleaned." Sounds like 10,000 hours before an actual replacement is needed. At my current tractor usage rate (I've put on about 750 hours in six years on my B7800; it would take 24 years before I needed to have the DPF on the Kioti cleaned. Once the emotions settled down and the math was absorbed I decided on getting a tractor with better features, which also had a DPF: quiet, which as I get older I'm appreciating more; and less smelly (as long as you're moving the old smelly diesels are fine, but when you're stopped you'll then really tell the difference!).

More on DPFs:

Kubota 856 DPF - CattleToday.com
http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/kubota-buying-pricing/286911-can-you-help-me-understand.html
http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/kubota-buying-pricing/294560-cost-new-dpf-filter-l60.html (be sure to read what MHarryE wrote)
Diesel Particulate Filters - Article - TruckingInfo.com

It's "new," it's "different." Even Tier 3 has its "issues" (EGR), so it's not necessarily free from worry either. I'm fairly familiar with gunked up EGRs after having several older VW TDIs (ALH engines- two I've cleaned their intakes [one I had to scrape the ports in the head]); because I know how to operate these cars I never really expect to have to clean them again: the wife's and mine run mostly all highway miles, in which case plenty of time running at a good temperature.

Bottom line: DPF isn't enough to worry about to justify staying away from a given tractor. More possible trouble lies with CR (Common Rail) and all the computer controls than with the DPF, and such has been there since (some even before) Tier 3.

 

[allenron]

Hi Ron. Sounds like you and I are chasing the same tractor! If it is any assistance, some thoughts:

1) Had the exact same Shibaura engine in my previous tractor where it was rated for 65HP/54 PTO, and am a fan of it. Easy to maintain, reasonably smooth/quiet, no DPF or DEF, and trouble-free in the 190+ hours it has run. In the lighter 2706e, the only concern I'd have is traction without ballast. Personally think the Tier 4 rating with this engine is an ok thing -- it doesn't smoke and the exhaust smell doesn't knock you over like some older diesels do, and it is fairly fuel efficient for the HP it produces... ~1-1.5 GPH depending on RPMs and implement load. All of these Tier 4 engines have computer controls, and my guess is the ECM "tune" and less frequently some mechanical bits like larger injectors and/or different spec turbos allow the same engine to produce those 10-20 more HP than the "base" model. PTO HP is where it counts, but you may also want to focus too on the hydraulic flow rates if running a backhoe, chipper, etc. The tractor I had has a 10GPM implement flow rate, and it ran the backhoe very well even at 1600-1800 RPMs.

2) Really like the 2706E because of the above AND it is offered with the hydro, class 2 3PH, telescoping link ends, higher flow hydraulic pump (~+2 gpm over competitors' implement rating), and just seems like a solid tractor for the money. If you have a good M-F dealer nearby, it would be my top choice. The close second (tie) in my case is the Kubota MX5800 (std HST and also telescoping class 2 hitch, but does have a DPF) and the Kioti DK5510 with powershuttle (no telescoping links or hydro option unfortunately, and think it may have a DPF too). I'm trying to avoid DPF because long-term it is a likely expense... many owners of similar displacement car engines (e.g. 2.0 VW TDIs) are replacing cracked and malfunctioning DPFs after 5+ years. My TDI has been trouble free, but the regen cycles are a pain and something I don't want to worry about in my tractor.

3) Your prices seem way high... maybe because it's NORCAL. Would think $36-37k should get you a 2706E with the FEL, backhoe, and one detent remote before tax, and maybe $39-$40k for the Kubota MX5800 and ~$32k for the Kioti comparably equipped. For your uses, the Kubota MX5800 still has a really impressive BH and much higher PTO HP... the L47 TLB is probably overkill on the BH, and although it has some nifty features, not worth the extra coin in my opinion and it isn't eligible for the 6 year powertrain warranty or 0% financing Kubota is offering.

I've decided not to buy the backhoe for my next tractor. Can rent a Kubota mini excavator for $125 for 4 hours, or $200 for 8. It is much better/faster at everything I'd do with it except travel speed. And while they are "quick attach" (plan 20-30 min.), they still have to be stored somewhere and greased regularly. And neither attaching, storing nor greasing are particularly enjoyable. My BH cost was "only" $7,100 installed which is pretty reasonable and it was convenient for odd job tasks, but a rented excavator would have been faster, cheaper, and wouldn't have tied up funds I should have used instead to buy 3PH implements like a box blade, plow, cutter/mower, rake, etc.

Hello BlessedMess: Yes, it does appear that we are stalking the same tractor! Your positive comments on the Shibaura diesel are really reassuring to us. We were able to drive a 2706E with standard transmission at the local dealership, and neither of us even noticed the exhaust. I'm not sure how much, given our needs, we have to worry about traction. We probably won't be doing a lot of heavy implement pulling or lifting. Our larger trees that had died from beetle kill were all removed by a timber company a few months back. What we have is medium-sized trees that are dead or will die, say, up to 18 inches in trunk diameter. In any case, we can saw them in halves or thirds and drag them to our milling/splitting/chipping pad. But, even so, among the tractor models we've been mulling over, the 2706E comes in at 3891 lbs. The MF 1749 is slightly heavier: 3913 lbs. The JD 4052 models are both pegged at 3770 lbs. The Kubota L4701 tractor is the lightest at 3307 lbs. And the Kubota L47TLB tops the list at 7205 lbs. But, the Kubota TLB must be counting FEL and BH weights along with the raw tractor weight. We are more worried about stability, given the uneven terrain on our property.

Yes, we have listed hydraulic flow rates in our spreadsheet that compares these tractors. One point of confusion for us is that sometimes the tractor manufacturer spec sheets list the combined implement and steering hydraulic flow rates and other times list just the implement flow rate. So we've had to make some no-that-cannot-be-right assumptions in going through the data. What we have so far for *implement* flow rates on these tractors is as follows: JD 4052 10.2 gpm (5.7 steering), MF 1749 11.6 gpm (steering ?), MF 2706E 12.4 gpm (steering ?), Kubota L4701 7.8 gpm (4.7 steering), and Kubota L47TLB 25 gpm (steering?). It seems that Kubota has jacked up the hydraulics on the TLB for enhanced backhoe capabilities; maybe this is why less horsepower is available for PTO on this model? Dunno. Again, except for the souped-up Kubota TLB, the MF 2706E looks pretty good in the hydraulic department.

We've been comparing our quoted prices to those on tractor sales websites across the country and Canada. Yeah, right, it looks like we are leading North America in high prices. It's probably the California Effect. (You should see apartment rents here!) I see the same tractors for $3-4k less in Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Canada, and the Deep South. One thing we notice, though, is that there are not many tractors in this upper-compact or lower utility performance category available for sale around here. There seem to be very small machines or large, row-crop machines for, i.e., sweet potatoes, and nothing in our target range. We have not been able to even see a Deere 4052, for example. We haven't seen any Massey tractor with a HST. So the comparative rarity of this scale of tractor might be forcing up the price. There are no used models that we have found in the area. None at all.

We should look at Kioti as well. There are only 5 dealers for this brand in CA, from what I can tell. The closest one to us is a bit far, in Madera, to the south and west, but maybe they are willing to service Mariposa County. MF, JD, and Kubota don't have any problem in coming east 40 miles to visit us.

I listed our prospective backhoe tasks in reply to another comment. It seems like a lot of work to me, and that suggests buying rather than renting. I even left out one trenching job in that list: electrical conduit to solar array, as Bev just reminded me. You might be in a better-equipped area for farm machinery than we are here, and your rental availabilities are more and prices less than here. But, renting, it's food for thought. At this time, we are both still working, and renting things and arranging service calls is a major hassle. If it's ours, we can work it whenever.

I could see renting an excavator if we had to remove some stumps, but we don't think we'll be taking out too many of them. In other replies there are recommendations to get more backhoe and still others that recommend no backhoe, just keep the PTO open for implements. I'd rather have a towable chipper, absolutely, but they are pretty expensive. We have to maintain an equipment budget. Thank you for your informative reply! --Ron (and Bev)

 

[allenron]

As others have said, you need to test the tractors as much as possible. Find a reputable dealer and find a tractor that is comfortable to operate. All the ones you listed should be able to handle the tasks you set out. Go bigger. The best advice I got was buy the biggest tractor you can afford. Consider how much you will use the backhoe. It might be worth it to rent a small excavator instead. I have an excavator and I use it all the time but I wouldn't want to have to put a backhoe on and off my tractor, because I use other implements on the back of the tractor....sometimes when doing the same job that I'm using the excavator for. My excavator is also much larger than my tractor. A significant expense but I have used it for too many things, I don't know what I will do when I sell it.

With the level of work that you are describing, I see multiple machines in your future. It would be nice to just have one machine that does everything but any "jack of all trades" machine is going to take more time while changing it's implement and time is the most valuable resource you have.

You might want to think about a grapple. Doesn't have to be large, intact a smaller one might work better for picking things up...but with the amount of trees and such that you are talking about, you will have a lot of slash to pick up and move.

As for the worrying about people asking to borrow your equipment....First you have to learn the word "NO". Second....there is no reason to tell people what you have. Unless they come out there and look at what you are doing they will not know you have a towable chipper. And if they come out there, they are probably helping you ......so you might want to help them.

Hi WoodChuckDad: We'd like to test these tractors, but the closest we've come to that at nearby dealers is to ride the MF 2706E with manual transmission. It seemed fine to both of us. The lack of a tilt steering column was a bit of a concern for Bev, but I had no problem, taller with longer arms as I am. We wish that we could have tested out the HST with the rocker pedal, just to see how it felt, but, there were none available.

You're no doubt correct that changing out the backhoe for a chipper (for example) is a bit time-consuming. What we hope is that we can stage the work so that we work the backhoe for trenching and dragging logs, and perhaps an occasional small stump removal, until we're done with an area & a couple of jobs. Then, if we have logs bucked and split, we start chipping and chip away for a while. It might be impractical, but we are just going to have to try. Could be that when the construction is done, we'll have money left over for additional machines. That would be wonderful, but we would really need California real estate prices to hold up.

I can see the point of a grapple with the piles of slash that we have. The county and the state fire department prefer that the slash be burned. But, you have to wait for an official burn day, when humidity is high, the ground is wet, and there is little wind. Even on those rare instances, you still have to separate the material into 4x4 foot max piles. It's pretty slow by hand. We had our regular backhoe guy up on the property a few weeks ago, and he used the grapple a little bit. He could not get logs through the woods with the grapple, because the roads through are too narrow. But, in the open, he could swing some fairly decent ones around by biting into them. (He had a large Case backhoe, about 90HP, I guess.) Other folks have chimed in on TBN with a grapple recommendation, as have friends of ours. But working with the backhoe guy, I was observing what he did and how he did it--with what to buy for ourselves in mind--and I didn't think we used the grapple too extensively on that one day. Anyway, I just might ping the salesmen for modified quotes with a grapple on the front-end. Good point (you and others on TBN!).

I also like your idea about the word 'No'. We do have our own chores to take care of. Thanks! --Ron & Bev

 

[allenron]

Use specialized equipment for more limited and difficult operations. I regularly rent excavators (9k and 18k). I'd thought about a backhoe, or even buying an excavator, but I would be worried that I'd end up digging more stuff than I really needed to dig up: CAUTION: one very wise piece of advice is to live with your land for a full year before you start doing anything major- much of my work has been slow, and because of it I've been able to get a better understanding of what works best/better- had I gone full-throttle first thing I likely would have regretted it (annoying neighbors and the authorities as well).

Early stuff requires early "pioneering" stuff. Bush hog. Establish pathways for accessing larger work sites, getting rid of troublesome brush (that will pick apart your tractor). A grapple -wish that I'd had one early on [but would have required a bigger tractor than I'd had, and couldn't have afforded that!- is great because thumbs are indispensable!

I've drug out various pieces of wood. Mostly, and now more so, I cut out in the field and then haul back in more convenient bits: load into a trailer or, as I did early on, load on an old truck hood and skid that out. I do have a nice choke cable to yank stuff out from areas that are of short distances: this past summer I used a rented excavator to get out some huge trunks from the brush- really easy! (it was a task that I'd added to my "Projects needing bigger power" list; didn't have my Kioti at the time)

Regarding DPF, as long as you aren't idling the heck out of a tractor with one (and one really shouldn't do this with one that doesn't have a DPF!) you're supposed to get (warrantied for) at least 3,000 hours, and that's for it to be "cleaned." Sounds like 10,000 hours before an actual replacement is needed. At my current tractor usage rate (I've put on about 750 hours in six years on my B7800; it would take 24 years before I needed to have the DPF on the Kioti cleaned. Once the emotions settled down and the math was absorbed I decided on getting a tractor with better features, which also had a DPF: quiet, which as I get older I'm appreciating more; and less smelly (as long as you're moving the old smelly diesels are fine, but when you're stopped you'll then really tell the difference!).

More on DPFs:

Kubota 856 DPF - CattleToday.com
http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/kubota-buying-pricing/286911-can-you-help-me-understand.html
http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/kubota-buying-pricing/294560-cost-new-dpf-filter-l60.html (be sure to read what MHarryE wrote)
Diesel Particulate Filters - Article - TruckingInfo.com

It's "new," it's "different." Even Tier 3 has its "issues" (EGR), so it's not necessarily free from worry either. I'm fairly familiar with gunked up EGRs after having several older VW TDIs (ALH engines- two I've cleaned their intakes [one I had to scrape the ports in the head]); because I know how to operate these cars I never really expect to have to clean them again: the wife's and mine run mostly all highway miles, in which case plenty of time running at a good temperature.

Bottom line: DPF isn't enough to worry about to justify staying away from a given tractor. More possible trouble lies with CR (Common Rail) and all the computer controls than with the DPF, and such has been there since (some even before) Tier 3.

Hi DieselBound: We might consider renting or hiring someone with bigger or specialized equipment as the need arises. Because of our limited budget, we are going to try to get by with one machine and multiple implements for it. We hope to cluster the chores so that we don't have to swap implements on and off. For example, if we're doing construction, we will trench for water lines or conduit or dig a pit for a septic tank, but we won't turn around the next day and split and chip bucked rounds from pine logs. If we had the extra $, I think I might go for a towable chipper. We will just have see how it goes. I'm going to check on the cost of adding a grapple to the FEL on our current quotes.

We've owned this property for 6 years, but we are just now getting to the serious forest maintenance tasks. The land has been neglected for several generations. It is overgrown with manzanita (and poison oak--OK, not a tractor problem), and the pines are too dense for the recurring droughts. As a result, the soft pine woods have fallen to beetle infestations. Now, a large percentage of the big trees are dead, and that is what we have been dealing with. A timber company took out the largest, most economically attractive, pines on the property, but we have small & medium dead trees and lots of slash with which to contend. I don't think a PTO-powered brush hog could help us too much, given the thickness of the manzanita. Some of it is 1-2" thick at the base, and 5-7 feet high, but elsewhere on the west and east sides of the parcel, it's 2-5", and some of it is even larger. We do have some giant manzanitas that we'd like to keep, and we want to preserve some of the brush as shade for the young pines and oaks. It just needs to be thinner. We will also put in some berms and swales to capture water--not sure how much we can accomplish with large, powered tools. It will be selective hand removal, chipping of the branches, and spreading the chips for moisture retention. We will burn debris as permissable days come up and we have the time to monitor the piles. It's a generational thing.

I like your idea of using an old auto hood for a log skid. I'm going to start looking for one. It seems perfect for the job--concave, tapered front, latch for attaching the cable, maybe even nice paint. Just have some bungy cords to strap down the rounds & slash and winch it up out of the arroyo. Nice! Thanks for the tip.

Appreciate as well your links to advice about DPFs. It's not such a big deal, after all. If we buy a tractor with a DPF, we'll probably replace the transmission before the filter. Thanks again! --Ron and Bev

 

[allenron]

I did this for the first several years at my place. Pulling with a log chain is slow, man-killing work, particularly for an old galoot like me. I got lots more done and didn't wear myself out nearly as much when I got a PTO operated winch. It was also a much safer way to move the material. The winch, moreover, lets you lift one end of the log off the ground for transporting out of the woods... fewer snags, thus safer, and the bark on the log isn't as full of dirt to dull your saw when you cut it up. There is another current thread on this subject and many previous ones also if you do some searching.

The winch was more vital for me than a chipper for the stated reasons, although you may have other priorities such as brush abatement out your way.

I also have a backhoe for my tractor, but switching between backhoe and 3 point operation is not that big a deal, at least on my rig.

Final point: Few "compact tractors" are built for extensive forestry duty. Their undersides are typically full of exposed hydraulic lines, filters and control linkages, for example, just waiting for a stray stick or sapling to find a vulnerable place to do some damage. Since that work seems to be a key part what you'll be doing with your tractor for a while, I'd be thinking of ruggedness and survivability more than horsepower or "performance" as hyped by some sales person. Don't know anything about the other ones you're looking at, good or bad, but the L47 is designed specifically for construction/industrial work and would definitely be on my short list.

Hello again Grandad4: Thanks for following along on this thread.

I worked with our regular backhoe contractor for the better part of a day not too long ago doing the kind of forest maintenance work we've been talking about. I was on the ground with the logs and the chain&hook end, and he operated the hoe. We were extracting medium (up to 27" diameter) pine logs out of the woods, through narrow paths, to a mill site. I was trying to see how he did things with his Case backhoe (a fairly big machine, maybe 90HP, with grapple on FEL and grapple on backhoe bucket), so that I could learn what we ourselves might need in terms of a utility tractor with implements.

You're right: It's a job for the young and strong; neither of us were that. I was filthy and beat to crap at the end of the day, and Bob knocked his head against the backhoe bucket at one point while we were noosing up a log, got a good cut in his forehead, and had red stuff dripping down through a band-aid for the remainder of the job. Forestry workers earn their money. OK.

I didn't know about a PTO winch. We have a utility winch. Is it really different in performance from using a backhoe with a chain to lift, noose, and drag logs? Sure, the winch with cable can drag them up a slope, and that's a nice benefit, but it terms of lifting them for dragging, it seems like backhoe and chain or winch are a wash, right? Or am I missing something? Neophyte, here.

Thanks for the data point on switching between backhoe and other implements. Other replies have suggested that this is drawn out and difficult, whereas our salesmen say it's a cinch. We hope to not do it too often, maybe once a year. We are not urgent about anything, unless a wildfire comes, and we have not made sufficient fire breaks, in which case we are running for our lives with minutes to spare.

Hey, thank you for the point about forest duty. We looked at at MF 1734 and noticed that the steering cylinders were in front of the front axle on this model. Means that they could be damaged if you ran into a stump or rock with this model. The 2706E and (I think) the MF 1759 did not have this liability; their front steering mechanisms are located behind the (cast steel) front axle housings. We are not sure about the other models in our target list. Another poster on TBN says that the Kubota L47TLB is best equipped in this regard.

What's a CUT? The JD 4052x and the Kubota L47s we've been looking at are classified as Compact Utility Tractors. The MF 2706E is a UT, but with fewer features than the comparable CUTs. The 2706E has more engine HP, more PTO HP, longer wheelbase, and more weight than these others. We did not consider the MF 2706E at first, because we were looking at Compact UTs, not just UTs. If it's capable of what we are anticipating, then it's a kind of Volkswager Beetle, Honda Civic, or Ford Falcon of the tractor world: simple, cheap, maintainable, and productive.

The L47 would be on anybody's short list. For us, it just comes in at a high price and with a low PTO HP output. If we bought the L47TLB, with our down payments, it would be as much to finance as buying the MF tractors outright and the JD tractors with a little monthly payment penalty. So, it comes down to whether the additional backhoe performance (granted) is worth the extra $ up front (our quotes) or whether the additional PTO deficit (from what I read) can be accepted (the Kubota is the lowest on PTO HP), given the implements we want to swap out with the backhoe. We either chip large logs with a PTO chipper ($3k) or with a standalone chipper ($20k), and this guides how we want to use the CUT or UT that we eventually buy.

I hope this makes sense. Thanks for your inputs. --Ron

 

[2ndhalf]

My advice would be to take your time. You don't have to be in any hurry... most "Deals" will be there again and maybe better. Make a list of what you really think you will do with that land and woods (You probably have). Don't just think about the tractor think about the implements you will need to do what you want to do: Grapple, Hoe, etc. Stop worrying about the things you don't need to worry about (i.e. how does it get to that HP or lift capacity etc.).

If your list indicates a lot of grapple, loader or backhoe work, consider the tractor weight and lift capacities as a big data point even over engine HP. You can all the HP in the world but if your tractor is too light you won't be able to use it.

I really like MF and the bang you get for your buck so I would lean toward the two MFs (I am biased since I own one) but keeping everything above in mind. Both of the engines in the MFs have great reputations for quality engines. All the rigs you mentioned are great rigs.

Lastly, Welcome to TBN and enjoy your search!

 

[Grandad4]

I didn't know about a PTO winch. We have a utility winch. Is it really different in performance from using a backhoe with a chain to lift, noose, and drag logs? Sure, the winch with cable can drag them up a slope, and that's a nice benefit, but it terms of lifting them for dragging, it seems like backhoe and chain or winch are a wash, right? Or am I missing something? Neophyte, here.

I've attached a couple of photos of my PTO winch (aka forestry winch). There are a couple of other threads going on at the moment about logging, tree removal and the related equipment. Compared with utility winches, the key takeaways concerning PTO winches include: built specifically for forestry, with protective screens, etc.; frame digs into the ground like a dozer blade to anchor the tractor when pulling in a log; winch retracts much faster than a utility winch, so more work gets done; once you've pulled the log or logs up to the back of the tractor, you just lock the winch drum, raise the 3 point lift and drive off carefully with the logs in tow behind the tractor. Everything is tucked up snug to the back of the tractor with the end of the logs off the ground so they won't snag.

Hate to sound like a winch fanboy, but it's much the easiest, lightest footprint and safest way to get timber out of the woods on a small scale. A key advantage is you don't need to make a trail, across who knows what kind of terrain, so your expensive equipment can get up close to each log you're trying to extract from the woods; you keep the tractor in a more accessible location and run a cable out to the log. Another key advantage is it gives you a purpose built towing assembly for hauling the logs out of the woods for processing. Stringing a log from the backhoe bucket of a 15,000 lb full sized backhoe may work well because of the size of the machine, but the equipment you're considering will be half as heavy and not nearly as stable when pulling the same logs. The first time you snag a log while pulling from your backhoe, you'll have a thrilling wheelstand; should it happen when in a turn or on a sideslope, "thrilling" may not be the right adjective.

Thanks for the data point on switching between backhoe and other implements. Other replies have suggested that this is drawn out and difficult, whereas our salesmen say it's a cinch. We hope to not do it too often, maybe once a year. We are not urgent about anything, unless a wildfire comes, and we have not made sufficient fire breaks, in which case we are running for our lives with minutes to spare.

My backhoe has been on and off the tractor at least a half a dozen times since August. It's not as easy as removing the loader or switching 3 point attachments, but it can be done in maybe 45 minutes working alone. Being old and slow, what's time consuming for me is getting the backhoe and tractor in exactly the right position so the attachment points are lined up. A spotter on the ground would speed things up quite a bit. Mine is an older vintage backhoe; the newer ones may be more user-friendly

What's a CUT? The JD 4052x and the Kubota L47s we've been looking at are classified as Compact Utility Tractors. The MF 2706E is a UT, but with fewer features than the comparable CUTs. The 2706E has more engine HP, more PTO HP, longer wheelbase, and more weight than these others. We did not consider the MF 2706E at first, because we were looking at Compact UTs, not just UTs. If it's capable of what we are anticipating, then it's a kind of Volkswager Beetle, Honda Civic, or Ford Falcon of the tractor world: simple, cheap, maintainable, and productive.

CUT = Compact Utility Tractor. A lot of hair-splitting about these categories. The larger CUT's that you are contemplating have comparable horsepower to the lower end of the Utility Tractor (UT) models and the distinctions get kind of blurry between these categories. Usually the CUT will have a shorter wheelbase, a smaller set of front wheels and less hydraulic flow. Nearly all the large CUT's are hydrostatic drive. The UT will not offer the hydrostatic transmission and has more weight and ground clearance. UT's are designed mainly for farm use; CUT's are more for general property management. Not sure the L47 is either a CUT or a UT, in my opinion; since it's for commercial or industrial use.

 

[terryknight]

how do the value Utility tractor lines from some of the manufactures rate? the JD 5Es, the NH workmaster/case farmall a, the kioti (don't know what the model is)

we bought our stand alone chipper, vermeer 1600a, at auction paid less than $2500 for it. has a 300 6cylinder ford, did a tune up and a new battery, it's not fancy, doesn't have all the safety features, but it has been great