comparison L3830 vs L4630, fuel use question

[FamilyFarm]

I have narrowed my choices (unless I change my mind /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif) for a larger tractor to the L3830 or the L4630. I can easily get by with the 3830 for the immediate future, but may go for the 4630 to hedge against future needs for larger capacity loader or larger capacity implements. Most of my use will be mowing (brush hog), but also box blade work on 600ft driveway, digging post holes, various landscaping projects with loader, box blade and landscape rake.
I'd appreciate any and all opinions regarding the best tractor to fit the needs. Other than initial costs, my other concern is fuel use. Can anyone give an accurate comparison of the fuel use between these two tractors? I realize one could arguably do the work faster with a more powerful tractor, but in my case I can't count on this. Much of the ground is pretty rough, so the speed of mowing may be limited more by that than the power of the tractor. I will regularly mow 7-8 acres (using rotary cutter as "finish" mower) and cut another 10 acres a few times a year.
Thanks for your help!
Terry

 

[FamilyFarm]

I have narrowed my choices (unless I change my mind /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif) for a larger tractor to the L3830 or the L4630. I can easily get by with the 3830 for the immediate future, but may go for the 4630 to hedge against future needs for larger capacity loader or larger capacity implements. Most of my use will be mowing (brush hog), but also box blade work on 600ft driveway, digging post holes, various landscaping projects with loader, box blade and landscape rake.
I'd appreciate any and all opinions regarding the best tractor to fit the needs. Other than initial costs, my other concern is fuel use. Can anyone give an accurate comparison of the fuel use between these two tractors? I realize one could arguably do the work faster with a more powerful tractor, but in my case I can't count on this. Much of the ground is pretty rough, so the speed of mowing may be limited more by that than the power of the tractor. I will regularly mow 7-8 acres (using rotary cutter as "finish" mower) and cut another 10 acres a few times a year.
Thanks for your help!
Terry

 

[Doc_Bob]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( I have narrowed my choices (unless I change my mind /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif) for a larger tractor to the L3830 or the L4630. I can easily get by with the 3830 for the immediate future, but may go for the 4630 to hedge against future needs for larger capacity loader or larger capacity implements. Most of my use will be mowing (brush hog), but also box blade work on 600ft driveway, digging post holes, various landscaping projects with loader, box blade and landscape rake.
I'd appreciate any and all opinions regarding the best tractor to fit the needs. Other than initial costs, my other concern is fuel use. Can anyone give an accurate comparison of the fuel use between these two tractors? I realize one could arguably do the work faster with a more powerful tractor, but in my case I can't count on this. Much of the ground is pretty rough, so the speed of mowing may be limited more by that than the power of the tractor. I will regularly mow 7-8 acres (using rotary cutter as "finish" mower) and cut another 10 acres a few times a year.
Thanks for your help!
Terry )</font>

Buy what you need and don't worry about fuel use. Look at the cost of all the equipment. The cost of fuel is meaningless. Assume in 100 hours and you might save 1/4 gal/hr. 1/4 gal maybe an overestimate. That is 25 gallons or 75 dollars per 100 hrs. 75 cents an hour. IMO, this is peanuts in the total cost of running a tractor. If you need to save this kind of money, ride your bike to work everyday. I do. Or carpool.
Bob

 

[Doc_Bob]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( I have narrowed my choices (unless I change my mind /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif) for a larger tractor to the L3830 or the L4630. I can easily get by with the 3830 for the immediate future, but may go for the 4630 to hedge against future needs for larger capacity loader or larger capacity implements. Most of my use will be mowing (brush hog), but also box blade work on 600ft driveway, digging post holes, various landscaping projects with loader, box blade and landscape rake.
I'd appreciate any and all opinions regarding the best tractor to fit the needs. Other than initial costs, my other concern is fuel use. Can anyone give an accurate comparison of the fuel use between these two tractors? I realize one could arguably do the work faster with a more powerful tractor, but in my case I can't count on this. Much of the ground is pretty rough, so the speed of mowing may be limited more by that than the power of the tractor. I will regularly mow 7-8 acres (using rotary cutter as "finish" mower) and cut another 10 acres a few times a year.
Thanks for your help!
Terry )</font>

Buy what you need and don't worry about fuel use. Look at the cost of all the equipment. The cost of fuel is meaningless. Assume in 100 hours and you might save 1/4 gal/hr. 1/4 gal maybe an overestimate. That is 25 gallons or 75 dollars per 100 hrs. 75 cents an hour. IMO, this is peanuts in the total cost of running a tractor. If you need to save this kind of money, ride your bike to work everyday. I do. Or carpool.
Bob

 

[grandad]

You may use a bit more fuel with the bigger tractor, but not enough to make any real difference. The 4630 gets you into an excellent larger capacity FEL. If you expect to be doing any extensive work with the loader, the 4630 might be a good step up. Otherwise, the 3830 is a really great all-around tractor for the acreage and work you described.

 

[grandad]

You may use a bit more fuel with the bigger tractor, but not enough to make any real difference. The 4630 gets you into an excellent larger capacity FEL. If you expect to be doing any extensive work with the loader, the 4630 might be a good step up. Otherwise, the 3830 is a really great all-around tractor for the acreage and work you described.

 

[jmc]

Sorry to muddy the water but there has been at least one thread on the L4630 vs the L4330. As i recall, several people couldn't justify the cost difference when comparing them on paper.

John

 

[jmc]

Sorry to muddy the water but there has been at least one thread on the L4630 vs the L4330. As i recall, several people couldn't justify the cost difference when comparing them on paper.

John

 

[CDsdad]

I'm going 3830, eventually. Have been comparing for a year, and for the money, 3830 fits better. More loader is better on 4630, but I'll never push the limits of either one. Several dealers here don't even stock 4630, reasoning that most folks will go to the 5030 if 4330 isn't enough, they will locate or order a 4630, though. FWIW.

 

[CDsdad]

I'm going 3830, eventually. Have been comparing for a year, and for the money, 3830 fits better. More loader is better on 4630, but I'll never push the limits of either one. Several dealers here don't even stock 4630, reasoning that most folks will go to the 5030 if 4330 isn't enough, they will locate or order a 4630, though. FWIW.

 

[FamilyFarm]

Thanks for the input! I probably research things too much, but I am in the "more information is better" category of planner. I had an opportunity today to get more price quotes and take a closer look at the tractors (as opposed to doing online research /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif). At this point, I think I will just move on up to the 5030 if I decide I want more than the 3830. There aren't as many 4630's in this area as 5030's and the dealers want to add a few dollars to find a 4630 - may as well put those dollars to the larger tractor. Besides the increased loader capacity, I like the cat. II setup since I am a just in case I need it kind of guy /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
Hopefully I'll get it right in the end and not find myself looking at a cab model M8540 /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Terry

 

[FamilyFarm]

Thanks for the input! I probably research things too much, but I am in the "more information is better" category of planner. I had an opportunity today to get more price quotes and take a closer look at the tractors (as opposed to doing online research /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif). At this point, I think I will just move on up to the 5030 if I decide I want more than the 3830. There aren't as many 4630's in this area as 5030's and the dealers want to add a few dollars to find a 4630 - may as well put those dollars to the larger tractor. Besides the increased loader capacity, I like the cat. II setup since I am a just in case I need it kind of guy /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
Hopefully I'll get it right in the end and not find myself looking at a cab model M8540 /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Terry

 

[jdavis3099]

The 4630 will approach 1.5 gal/hr when using the PTO at 540 RPM. It will use around 1.0 gal/hr for general loader work. The 5030 will cost almost $2000 more. You may want to move up to the 5040 for about the same as a 5030 if you are going past the 4630.

Are you selling the BX?

 

[jdavis3099]

The 4630 will approach 1.5 gal/hr when using the PTO at 540 RPM. It will use around 1.0 gal/hr for general loader work. The 5030 will cost almost $2000 more. You may want to move up to the 5040 for about the same as a 5030 if you are going past the 4630.

Are you selling the BX?

 

[Bob_Young]

These small diesels are quite efficient and don't waste fuel in proportion to their size like gasoline engines do. The thing that's impressed me about them is that for 'like work', the fuel consumption is virtually the same, regardless of the engine size. My 45HP L4300 burns almost exactly the same amount of fuel as my 55HP (and much larger engine displacement) Ford 4000 when running a 6' bush hog at equivalent PTO rpms. Difference is, the Ford has more Umph when it's needed.

Diesel fuel consumption is closely tied to the load on the engine. With gas engines, especially carbureted versions, engine size and operating RPM seem to be the determining factors.
Bob

 

[Bob_Young]

These small diesels are quite efficient and don't waste fuel in proportion to their size like gasoline engines do. The thing that's impressed me about them is that for 'like work', the fuel consumption is virtually the same, regardless of the engine size. My 45HP L4300 burns almost exactly the same amount of fuel as my 55HP (and much larger engine displacement) Ford 4000 when running a 6' bush hog at equivalent PTO rpms. Difference is, the Ford has more Umph when it's needed.

Diesel fuel consumption is closely tied to the load on the engine. With gas engines, especially carbureted versions, engine size and operating RPM seem to be the determining factors.
Bob