Price Check 2014 vs 2015 MX5200

[k0ua]

That 1691lbs number for the LA1065 is for 500mm forward of the lift pin at max height where the loader is the weakest. Lift capacity at 1500mm and 500mm in front of pins is 2319lbs so make sure you are comparing apples to apples.
Here are the tables/graphs from my LA1065 manual.

View attachment 449810



View attachment 449811



View attachment 449812

Luke, those charts really illustrate how much more lift a loader has down low as compared to full height. it is one thing to see figures, but I think the graphic depiction of the lift really shows you what can be done at the various heights, at both the pins and 500mm out. Good on Kubota for actually publishing that data.

 

[Luke'sScreenName]

Yes, and breakout REALLY drops off too.

 

[Grateful11]

This is a LA1065 loader on an MX5100 my son bought this past Spring, guess they out of the older loaders. Don't know all about those numbers but this is good size scoop of poop, it was very wet too, for a 6' bucket. He spread 15 loads Saturday with the old IH 155 bushel spreader.

 

[k0ua]

Obviously the La1065 is a very powerful loader. Poop don't weigh as much as rock, but the specs look very good for that loader. I think it would lift about anything you put in the bucket easily. That was probably the loader that Ted the wildman had on his Kubota in the EA grapple torture test video.

 

[Grateful11]

Obviously the La1065 is a very powerful loader. Poop don't weigh as much as rock, but the specs look very good for that loader. I think it would lift about anything you put in the bucket easily. That was probably the loader that Ted the wildman had on his Kubota in the EA grapple torture test video.

You are correct. Never really thought about so I looked it up and a "wet", and this stuff was quite wet, cubic foot of poop weighs about 62 lbs. according to UVM. Wet 1/2" to 2" gravel weighs about 125 lbs. per cubic foot. I know they said the MX5100 was getting light in the rear with the bucket heaped that much. It has loaded tires only, I think he's going to put 2 or 3 sets of wheel weights on it next Spring.

 

[salsaboy]

I'm surprised at that number too. I checked it against the la844, which came on the previous generation of MXs, and according to Kubota, the 844 is stronger, which doesn't make much sense. I will say that between those two, the MX would get my vote. I'm very pleased with mine so far. Are they pretty similar in terms of features, namely, do both have SSQA, cruise control, and telescoping link arms?

The L doesn't have the telescoping link arms but the other features are the same.

Thanks all for the explanation on the loader. My friend just bought the L4701 and with pallet forks he said the LA765 would not lift a pallet of goat food (2000lbs) out of his truck. He had to offstack 10 bags (500lbs) to lift it. If I go with Kubota I'll get the MX but the loader capacity question was moving it to the bottom of the list behind Mahindra 2555. With the above explanation I'm thinking the MX will lift my pallets of feed so big orange is back to the top.

Comparing Apples to Apples (pivot pin @ 1500mm) The LA765 is 1684lbs vs LA1065 2864lbs

 

[Luke'sScreenName]

Only 1200lbs different!

If u get the MX, load the rears and put 700-1000lbs on the back minimum for loader work.
I may also be looking at wheel weights.

 

[motownbrowne]

The L doesn't have the telescoping link arms but the other features are the same.

Thanks all for the explanation on the loader. My friend just bought the L4701 and with pallet forks he said the LA765 would not lift a pallet of goat food (2000lbs) out of his truck. He had to offstack 10 bags (500lbs) to lift it. If I go with Kubota I'll get the MX but the loader capacity question was moving it to the bottom of the list behind Mahindra 2555. With the above explanation I'm thinking the MX will lift my pallets of feed so big orange is back to the top.

Comparing Apples to Apples (pivot pin @ 1500mm) The LA765 is 1684lbs vs LA1065 2864lbs

A couple more things to add:

Mine with the la844 will not lift pallets of feed out of a semi trailer. We buy 2400lbs of feed and it comes on a heavy 50-60# oak pallet. What I do is back up to the truck and toss about 8-10 50#bags onto whatever implement I have on the three point. This lowers the amount I'm trying to lift and increases my rear ballast. I can personally tell you that the more weight on the back the better. I do have filled 13.6x28 ags, but I wouldn't try to lift that load without at least 800 lbs on the back. 1800 would be better.

If picking up pallets is your only use for the forks, then getting a lighter set will increase your lift capacity. Mine weigh at least 450#, so I could lift another couple hundred pounds of feed with a 250# set of forks. I got heavier ones because they were available on the lot and I don't have to worry about bending them. Also, I've never checked my loader relief valve pressure setting. Many people here have reported that their tractors came from the factory with a relief setting lower than factory spec. Perhaps you can have the dealer check this when you purchase.

Lastly, the telescoping link arms are worth the price difference in themselves. If you only change implements a few times a year, then it won't be as important, but if you're going to be changing them with any frequency at all, you'll really like them. I don't have them and sure wish I did because sometimes I change implements 5-6 times/day (really need another tractor to add to the stable).

 

[Luke'sScreenName]

I tested and adjusted my relief valve a couple months ago. Very easy. I plan on posting a "how to" soon.

 

[MessickFarmEqu]

The reason the new loader looks less powerful is because a SSL coupler is now standard equipment and it moves the pivot point out. The older MX loader is the same spec, but the SSL coupler was not standard so the spec sheet was done with a pin-on bucket. Good for customers to make it standard, but bad for those who shop based on spec sheets.