Looking at a L5740 with 2000 hrs.

[Windsors]

Haven't seen it in person yet, but owner says it runs well, etc. Looks in good shape. Says he has the maintenance records. Really like the loader capacity for lifting, dirt work, etc. which is a big reason I need the tractor. Its HST.

Assuming good maintenance, how many hours can be expected out of the 2.4L turbo engine before rebuild ? Any other components to look for ?

All 4 tires are close to needing replacement as tread is low. Any guestimates on that cost?

Thanks, Bill

 

[CH4Ohio]

There's a drain hole with a little float hanging in it -- under tractor right about in the middle. (Sorry -- I can't think of the correct name for it . . . ) If the main seals are leaking you'll see hydo fluid leaking here. These tractors are pretty notorious for those seals going bad and the tractor has to be split in order to repair it. If a cab tractor that's even more expensive.

What did the previous owner(s) use it for? That will give you the best idea about how it's been treated.

 

[nybirdman]

I have owned a L4240 HSTC(2009) since new,currently has 1400 hrs.Always maintained per the book.
Similar to what you are looking at less the turbo.
Cab,4wd drive,FEL? 35-40K
open station,2WD,no FEL maybe 22K
Check www.tractorhouse.com for prices.
Tires will cost 2k or so.
Mine had the cursed HST leak(seal) about a 2k fix(dealer did mine under warranty).That is the pin under the tractor towards front as mentioned earlier.
If it was maintained ,I wouldn't be concerned with the hours.
P.M. me if any other questions.

 

[WM75Guy]

I paid just under $2K 2 years ago for 4 Titan R4s for the TC40DA. That included mounting them.

 

[Windsors]

Thanks for the comments. very helpful.

Its a ROPS, 4X4, LA854 FEL.

If I go see it, I'll definitely check the HST / hydraulic leak and see if the maintenance records indicate its been addressed.

Based on the LA854 FEL specs, it seems like it would be a digging / lifting machine.

 

[CH4Ohio]

Not sure what you're planning to do with it, but it's not a "digging machine." And since you mentioned the FEL and lifting a couple times, the machine overall is a bit tippy. It's very easy to get it to tip up onto the front tires and to the side. If you're needing to lift anything close to the max weight with the loader, and lift up high, you might think about moving up to a similar tractor in the M class for more weight.

I have a L5740 with loaded R4 tires and rear tires mounted to the fourth (most wide) position. Adding the tire ballast and spreading the rear tires out really helped a lot. (Mine is a cab model so that might make it a little worse.) It works good for what I'm doing but it's easy to get it onto 3 or 2 wheels using the FEL. I carry a weight box on the back when I'm using a hay grapple to load bales and that helps quite a bit too. But you have to be pretty careful about being on fairly flat ground and not turning too sharply when you have a lot of weight on the loader.

All I'm saying is that it will easily pick up enough weight to turn the tractor over. The lifting specs of the loader don't tell the whole story about how the overall package performs. Just seems much more tippy than others that I operate.

 

[Windsors]

I did look at a MX5800 as a similar tractor and from what I saw, its about 200 lbs lighter.

I do understand the importance of counterweight. Pushing the wheels out further makes a lot of sense.

I will be operating on flat ground and using it to unload and move building materials around and digging into sand piles and then moving the sand and grading. I know a skidsteer would be better suited to these tasks, but I will also be using it for bushhogging, moving boat trailers around, etc.

I have a Mahindra 2638 now and its not up to doing what I need in regards to the loader.

Always open to other suggestions. Thanks

 

[CH4Ohio]

I did look at a MX5800 as a similar tractor and from what I saw, its about 200 lbs lighter.

I do understand the importance of counterweight. Pushing the wheels out further makes a lot of sense.

I will be operating on flat ground and using it to unload and move building materials around and digging into sand piles and then moving the sand and grading. I know a skidsteer would be better suited to these tasks, but I will also be using it for bushhogging, moving boat trailers around, etc.

I have a Mahindra 2638 now and its not up to doing what I need in regards to the loader.

Always open to other suggestions. Thanks

MX is not the same as M.

I don’t really know why they do it, but a BX is smaller than a B. A LX is smaller than an L. And an MX is smaller than an M.

 

[CH4Ohio]

It can handle digging into sand piles! It’s nimble and turns tight. We about turned it over unloading a big power concrete troweling machine the other day. It’ll lift more than the frame can balance.

 

[nybirdman]

I have loaded R1 and a cab and the 854 loader will lift back tires(with 500-600lbs on the three point).
On the HST leak,warm it up and put a piece of carboard under;mine didn;t leak when cold.It looks like a pipe plug with a loose pin in center.

 

[dstig1]

I will echo the point CH4 made on tipping. I have beet juice in the rears (R4s) and a heavy rear blade on basically all the time, plus I ,oved the tires to their widest setting. All good moves, but I still can "lift a leg" once in a while. I lifted a 2k pallet of mortar sacks (25x 80 lbs...no guessing) from the bed of my F250 with the SSQA forks without issue, but you can be sure I was moving super low and slow on that! I'm only at ~500 hrs as my use has slowed down to mainly snow removal the past few years and we have had a couple pretty dry winters.

But the engines are known for 10k hrs plus, if maintained.

 

[jyoutz]

MX is not the same as M.

I don’t really know why they do it, but a BX is smaller than a B. A LX is smaller than an L. And an MX is smaller than an M.

Yes, but the MX is far more stable than the L the OP is considering. The larger wheels and more robust axles do add stability.

 

[CH4Ohio]

Yes, but the MX is far more stable than the L the OP is considering. The larger wheels and more robust axles do add stability.

I haven’t done a lot of comparison, but it looks to me like the tires are the same or even smaller on the MX than a comparable HP L model. If the axles are more robust, it doesn’t reflect in the weight comparison.

My points are just based on basic info from Tractordata. Compare the largest MX to the largest L model or the L5740.

I have looked at the MX thinking it might offer more stability than the L5740 but the specs don’t seem to bear that out. It appears to be the same size and weight by most every measure.

Maybe I’m missing something …?

 

[ptsg]

Looks like you're mainly doing loader work. Are you sure you're not better going with either a skidsteer or one of those front loaders like Avant, Giant and more? Machines designed entirely for loader work.

 

[jyoutz]

I haven’t done a lot of comparison, but it looks to me like the tires are the same or even smaller on the MX than a comparable HP L model. If the axles are more robust, it doesn’t reflect in the weight comparison.

My points are just based on basic info from Tractordata. Compare the largest MX to the largest L model or the L5740.

I have looked at the MX thinking it might offer more stability than the L5740 but the specs don’t seem to bear that out. It appears to be the same size and weight by most every measure.

Maybe I’m missing something …?

Messicks has a comparison video. Side by side, the MX front wheels are larger and so is the front axle.

 

[CH4Ohio]

Messicks has a comparison video. Side by side, the MX front wheels are larger and so is the front axle.

Interesting video. Thanks. I see what you mean. In the case of R4 tires, it looks like the MX has the same diameter front tire but it uses a wider tire. (12 vs 10) On the rear, they have the same. For R1 tires, the front are the same and the rear are larger on the Grand L. He does mention that the front axles are "different to accomodate the different gear ratios". I think the axles look very similar but there's no other info about that.

Not trying to argue the point. I'm just looking at the specs. The point I was originally making is that whenever Kubota adds an "X" to the model series, those tractors are more comparable to the next smaller series. Look at the weight of the smallest M tractor and the weight of the largest Grand L compared to the MX6000. It's pretty obvious. A BX tractor is smaller than a B. An LX tractor compares to the B tractors. An MX tractor compares to the Grand L tractors.

I still don't see any difference that would suggest stability related to FEL work would be better with the MX. In my opinion . . .

 

[jyoutz]

Interesting video. Thanks. I see what you mean. In the case of R4 tires, it looks like the MX has the same diameter front tire but it uses a wider tire. (12 vs 10) On the rear, they have the same. For R1 tires, the front are the same and the rear are larger on the Grand L. He does mention that the front axles are "different to accomodate the different gear ratios". I think the axles look very similar but there's no other info about that.

Not trying to argue the point. I'm just looking at the specs. The point I was originally making is that whenever Kubota adds an "X" to the model series, those tractors are more comparable to the next smaller series. Look at the weight of the smallest M tractor and the weight of the largest Grand L compared to the MX6000. It's pretty obvious. A BX tractor is smaller than a B. An LX tractor compares to the B tractors. An MX tractor compares to the Grand L tractors.

I still don't see any difference that would suggest stability related to FEL work would be better with the MX. In my opinion . . .

The X denotes an intermediate size, so the MX is intermediate between the L and M.

 

[CH4Ohio]

The X denotes an intermediate size, so the MX is intermediate between the L and M.

With all due respect, it's not. And that was the also the theme of the Messicks video you referenced. Neither can be compared to the M tractors so he focused just on the MX6000 and the Grand L6060. Except for the wider front tire on the MX with R4s, the Grand L was slightly stronger with more features, but at a higher price.

The largest of the two almost share specs. (MX6000 vs L5740 or L6060) The MX doesn't weigh more than the Grand L. (Actually weighs a little less.) The MX is 2 inches wider but has a slightly shorter wheelbase. Doesn't lift as much with the 3 point or the loader as the Grand L. Ground clearance is slightly less than the Grand L. They are essentially the SAME size.

 

[CH4Ohio]

We've gotten a little off track. My initial response to Windsors question was that the Grand L5740 that he's looking at can be pretty tippy when lifting heavy loads. I just don't think that a nearly identical size, shape, weight tractor will be better simply because Kubota slipped an "M" into the model designation.

 

[jyoutz]

With all due respect, it's not. And that was the also the theme of the Messicks video you referenced. Neither can be compared to the M tractors so he focused just on the MX6000 and the Grand L6060. Except for the wider front tire on the MX with R4s, the Grand L was slightly stronger with more features, but at a higher price.

The largest of the two almost share specs. (MX6000 vs L5740 or L6060) The MX doesn't weigh more than the Grand L. (Actually weighs a little less.) The MX is 2 inches wider but has a slightly shorter wheelbase. Doesn't lift as much with the 3 point or the loader as the Grand L. Ground clearance is slightly less than the Grand L. They are essentially the SAME size.

Kubota has designated the X as an intermediate size denotation. GL is in a different class than standard L. You can argue with the company.