L3560 vs L4060 from L3200

[jeff9366]

FALLON: RE tractor power: What is your altitude in Parker, CO?

 

[murphy1244]

FALLON: RE tractor power: What is your altitude in Parker, CO?

5,869′

 

[kubotacres]

I sold my L3200 a month ago & my new L4060hstc is now in my garage... May have the info you are looking for.

The L3560 is 2 more HP than the L3200 & not quite double the weight... it's under powered. All the Grand Ls other than the L3560 are the same frame just with different engines & tires. My L4060 roads hills about the same as my L3200, not as good as I like, but $5k more for the L4760 was to much. If you don't road it or run PTO gear the L3560 probably works well, & would often be traction limited. But lots of people including myself think it's under powered.

Despite being the same frame you can only get the big LA10something loader on the L4760 & bigger. The L3560 is a few inches shorter & smaller than the big frame. Really wish they would have offered the 3000 series grand with a 40-42hp engine.

The L3200 is fixed at 60" with R4s. The grands at their narrowest are 66" & I think that's only with R1 ags. My R4s are set to 72" on the adjustable R4s. Might be able to squeeze em in to 70" or even 68", I haven't looked. As I need to upgrade from 60" implements, 72" is a good next step so I'm sticking there. I'm sure I'd get more stability going wider, but it's already less maneuverable than the L3200.

The L4060 is noticeably bigger than my old L3200. More stable & more powerful, but less maneuverable too. I can't see the bucket or SSQA as well either.

Not many people judge a tractors performance at high range pulling hills and a load. Low and medium ranges are where these size tractors work best. If that is indeed the case, not even a 50 horse tractor will do that. 2 horsepower or not there is no comparison between the l3200 and l3560.

 

[Fallon]

5,869′

6,465' actual here 15 minutes east of Parker. A turbo would be nice to mitigate some of the altitude, but we aren't up in the Rockies where it would be mandatory. The LS & TYM had turbos, but you have to go up 2 or 3 HP levels to get a Kubota turbo.

I definitely understand roading can be a less mainstream use case on a frequent basis. Spinning a bigger mower is probably more common. Haven't done mowing, but the frame feels like it could lift & handle a bigger mower than the motor can spin. That's what the 5 & 6 thousand Ls are for though I guess.

Need to do some winter mowing on the pasture here soon. Might be a bit before I can report on how it spins my ancient 7' Ford 917 flail. My old L3200 actually ran it surprisingly well although I had to go a bit slow.

 

[s219]

I don't know why the HP and model nomenclature ratings between the L3200 and L3560 (or other Grand L models) are not consistent, but they are not quite apples to apples.

The L3200 was rated for 30.4 HP net and 31.9 HP gross, so the "32" in the model number would seem to be based off gross HP.

The L3560 is rated 35.0 HP net and 37.0 HP gross, so the "35" in the model number would seem to be based on "net" HP (similar for the L4060).

So these tractors are not really 35 versus 32 HP, it's more like 37.0 versus 31.9 HP (gross), or 35.0 versus 30.4 (net). Either way, about a 5 HP difference from the L3200 to the L3560, not the 3 HP the model numbers led me to believe.

That said, the 5 HP jump in the L3560 is not nearly enough to offset the extra weight in the L3560, but neither is the 10 HP jump in the L4060! These Grand L models are underpowered on paper if you just look at power/weight. The L3560 would need over 42 HP (gross) to be even with the L3200 in terms of power/weight, and the L4060 would need over 45 HP (gross).

I guess if I was just concerned with power/weight, the L3560 wouldn't be very compelling compared to my L3200, but neither would the L4060 (it's better but still comes up short). On paper, all of these tractors have far worse power/weight than my old B2920. It just tells me not to put too much emphasis on power/weight, because clearly it's misleading.

I guess the real question I have -- if I noticed my L3200 running out of steam pulling a heavily loaded box blade, how are the L3560 and L4060 going to compare, all else equal? Theoretically, they would do worse, not better. Unless I am missing something related to gearing or tire size......

 

[Fallon]

I don't know why the HP and model nomenclature ratings between the L3200 and L3560 (or other Grand L models) are not consistent, but they are not quite apples to apples.

The L3200 was rated for 30.4 HP net and 31.9 HP gross, so the "32" in the model number would seem to be based off gross HP.

The L3560 is rated 35.0 HP net and 37.0 HP gross, so the "35" in the model number would seem to be based on "net" HP (similar for the L4060).

So these tractors are not really 35 versus 32 HP, it's more like 37.0 versus 31.9 HP (gross), or 35.0 versus 30.4 (net). Either way, about a 5 HP difference from the L3200 to the L3560, not the 3 HP the model numbers led me to believe.

That said, the 5 HP jump in the L3560 is not nearly enough to offset the extra weight in the L3560, but neither is the 10 HP jump in the L4060! These Grand L models are underpowered on paper if you just look at power/weight. The L3560 would need over 42 HP (gross) to be even with the L3200 in terms of power/weight, and the L4060 would need over 45 HP (gross).

I guess if I was just concerned with power/weight, the L3560 wouldn't be very compelling compared to my L3200, but neither would the L4060 (it's better but still comes up short). On paper, all of these tractors have far worse power/weight than my old B2920. It just tells me not to put too much emphasis on power/weight, because clearly it's misleading.

I guess the real question I have -- if I noticed my L3200 running out of steam pulling a heavily loaded box blade, how are the L3560 and L4060 going to compare, all else equal? Theoretically, they would do worse, not better. Unless I am missing something related to gearing or tire size......

My L3200 struggled with traction on my 72" king kutter box blade when it was fully loaded. I expect my L4060 will pull it with ease. Exra weight is what matters there, not HP. Even an under powerd L3560 would do there.

 

[jeff9366]

My L3200 struggled with traction on my 72" king kutter box blade when it was fully loaded. I expect my L4060 will pull it with ease. Exra weight is what matters there, not HP. Even an under powerd L3560 would do there.

Extra tractor weight, slightly larger tire 'patch' in ground contact, and the three half gear steps and STALL GUARD on the HST/PLUS transmission.

A non-turbocharged diesel engine will be down "some" horsepower at 6,465' altitude.

 

[jeff9366]

I don't know why the HP and model nomenclature ratings between the L3200 and L3560 (or other Grand L models) are not consistent, but they are not quite apples to apples.

Tractor model designations, like firearms model designations, are partly marketing devices.

With the added complexity and cost of Tier 4 emissions controls I expect Kubota wanted to emphasize continuity in models, rather than change. As you know, the change from the XX40 to XX60 Grand L models involved some significant changes besides the Tier 4 controls but tractor purchasers are among the most conservative of buyers and it was not time to emphasize change.

 

[LD1]

I went from a L3400 to a MX5100. So cannot really comment on the deluxe features or HST+. But can say, that initial intimidation of how large they are, fades quickly. They seem to get small in no time

 

[MtnViewRanch]

Extra tractor weight, slightly larger tire 'patch' in ground contact, and the three half gear steps and STALL GUARD on the HST/PLUS transmission.

A non-turbocharged diesel engine will be down "some" horsepower at 6,465' altitude.

Very close to 8.2HP at 3% per 1000' of elevation. So now Fallon is down to 33.8 HP. This is exactly why a turbo makes so much since. Basically zero HP loss below 15,000 feet.