3500 vs 2500 ?

[HK45]

is the 3500 series more of a commercial line? They seem pretty heavy vs the 2555 I was looking at. Also is it true the 3500 is a fully mahindra built machine vs the 2555 a different maker?

 

[Kimber1911]

The 3500 series definitely does weight more like an industrial tractor and are a complete Mahindra design. The 2500 series, if I understand it correctly, are made by TYM for Mahindra. The 3500's are nice and I looked at them recently and got to drive one before deciding it was more tractor than I would need.

 

[HK45]

Thanks for the info Kimber. No dealer in my area has one to go see. Are they pretty big verse like a 2555? The dealer told me weight wise with loader back the 3055 was like 9,000 pounds and the 2555 was like 7000.

 

[Kimber1911]

I don't think they measure much different, they are just incredibly beefy. The axles are huge and they have really large tires. I can't deny I think they are a really neat looking tractor.

 

[Navasot]

They both now will have Mahindra engines... the 3500series is heavier and a really comfortable tractor to operate.... but the 2500series is just way more practical..

The 5545 will put any 2500sieres and 3500series tractors to shame with the loader though... and the same or better price... and im even talkin about the 2565.

 

[MtnViewRanch]

They both now will have Mahindra engines... the 3500series is heavier and a really comfortable tractor to operate.... but the 2500series is just way more practical..

The 5545 will put any 2500sieres and 3500series tractors to shame with the loader though... and the same or better price... and im even talkin about the 2565.

Please explain how the loader on the 5545 puts the loader on the 2565 to shame when the 2555 & 65 have superior lift & breakout specs. :confused3:

 

[Navasot]

Please explain how the loader on the 5545 puts the loader on the 2565 to shame when the 2555 & 65 have superior lift & breakout specs. :confused3:

:laughing: Go unload a rig double stacked with 5x6 bales and you will see.... the skid steer coupler is twice as thick the loader itself is heavier.. and even though it falls a few hundred pounds short of the 2500 series on paper in real life its got a heavier tractor to back it with and can do much more... sure the 2565 can lift more at the pins.... with both the tractors sitting still... BUT... spread weight further forward from those pins and the 2500series drops rapidly were the 5545 keeps on truckin... iv unloaded many bales with a bare 4530 which is what the 5545 use to be... nothing on the back... no loaded tires no nothing just plain old tractor/loader... tosses bales around like its nothing even fully extended... I wont unload a trailer much less lift a bale higher than 4foot with a 2565 like the old 6110 without counter weight or loaded tires...

 

[MtnViewRanch]

:laughing: Go unload a rig double stacked with 5x6 bales and you will see.... the skid steer coupler is twice as thick the loader itself is heavier.. and even though it falls a few hundred pounds short of the 2500 series on paper in real life its got a heavier tractor to back it with and can do much more... sure the 2565 can lift more at the pins.... with both the tractors sitting still... BUT... spread weight further forward from those pins and the 2500series drops rapidly were the 5545 keeps on truckin... iv unloaded many bales with a bare 4530 which is what the 5545 use to be... nothing on the back... no loaded tires no nothing just plain old tractor/loader... tosses bales around like its nothing even fully extended... I wont unload a trailer much less lift a bale higher than 4foot with a 2565 like the old 6110 without counter weight or loaded tires...

Ok, thanks for the explanation.:thumbsup: But then we are not really talking apples to apples here other than cost? Ones a utility tractor and the others are compacts. So how does the 5545 stack up to the Mpower and Mforce tractors? Not even close I would bet.

Maybe we should try to stay within the same size range when making comparisons? Although I understand that you were considering price ranges to make your comparison at roughly 10% less money and about 10% more weight the utility machine seems like a better deal.

All depends on what a person wants-needs.

 

[HK45]

Navasot, What makes the 2555 more practical? Is it because the 3500 are to heavy and large? thanks

 

[Navasot]

The 5545 and 2555 are within Inches of each other in overall width and length... If you have to give it a name then yes id see the 5545 as more of a Utility and the 2555 is more of a HD compact... but all in all your splitting hairs.... now the 3500 series is true HD compact... smaller than both.. very comfortable very easy to operate.. great features.. but you got a 55hp that you can load the tires on in the 2555 and be heavier if needed to use that full loader potential and its not a huge tractor as far as size... lots of room on the operators deck.. and more HP for less cost... if I had the pocket book id choose the 3550 PST but this is being very very picky between the two... from what iv seen and also not considering money either way I really like the 5545... couple it with a 3rd function and a grapple and still be at the cost of a 3550.. hard to beat that