JD 5055E vs Kubota MX 5100

[jfh0jfh]

jfh0jfh, you said,

"I like the 5055 but the ergonomics are clumsy. The Kub is nicer to operate but a lot (> 1K pounds) lighter and has poor balance for the FEL. I'm not going to load my tires. I'll make a counterweight out of my old diving weights 1st."

I know you have strong feelings re weight, etc.

I'd be remiss if I didn't comment that Kubota gives you flexibility, not 1000 lbs you have to carry around all the time.

You can drive it as is.
You can add fluid to the tires (pretty permanent)
You can add wheel weights (mostly permanent)
You can add various implements to the rear for various weights (flexible)
You can add a weight only on the 3ph. (flexible)
I've even loaded the FEL for extra front weight when HEAVY ground pulling.

You get to choose, based on how you use the tractor.

The Kubota metal is engineered to handle these additional loads, no problem. Never heard of anyone having metal fatigue with a Kubota.

Me, I like the flexibility. My tractor has filled tires (1100 lbs extra total) and I add an additional 1000 in 3ph implement (box blade) for lifting max on FEL (2800 lbs 1 ft off the ground).

So, I select my weight options for the task at hand and carry the proper task related weight.

I, also, like the ergonomics of my tractor....and consider ergonomics extremely important to safety... all day on a tractor can get tiring, and this leads to accidents.... ease of use is something I gained with the Kubota over my previous Case and Massey Ferguson tractors (much older models)

Thanks, good comments.

Believe me, I like my Kubota now. But my JD 4310 is fine without loaded tires so I'm balking at having to load tires. Because I'm not going to do it.

I understand about the flex you describe. Before the 4310 I was set up to run an FEL with various rear weight incl a home-made 3-point weight. Problem I found was that I needed max clearance inside buildings when grading, leveling, etc. So I loaded the tires but then found it sank in soft dirt more easily and was harder when I mowed .... so I bought a 2nd set of tires ....

At this point I'm leaning towards JD because of the balance but the Kubota ergonomics are way better and I agree that's important. Also the Kub is easier on-off. Yesterday I probably got on-off the 4310 30+ times (moving materials around a new barn).

 

[ctlguy]

jfh0jfh, you said,


The Kubota metal is engineered to handle these additional loads, no problem. Never heard of anyone having metal fatigue with a Kubota.
)

Doesn't necc apply to this discussion but just recieved a quote from a major mower mfg to have a side mounted flail mower installed on a utility tractor. In bold red letters at the bottom is stated that if installed on a Kubota tractor the mower mfg takes no responsibilty if the tractor frame breaks. Like I said not necc for this exact discussion but found it interesting, the quote was for another tractor mfg so makes me believe there may have been some Kubota's that can not take the additional weight?

 

[art]

Doesn't necc apply to this discussion but just recieved a quote from a major mower mfg to have a side mounted flail mower installed on a utility tractor. In bold red letters at the bottom is stated that if installed on a Kubota tractor the mower mfg takes no responsibilty if the tractor frame breaks. Like I said not necc for this exact discussion but found it interesting, the quote was for another tractor mfg so makes me believe there may have been some Kubota's that can not take the additional weight?

It might have been for the type of mounts that that company uses!!!!

 

[Kansas Slim]

I get max usage now out of my 4310 JD - if I can haul a full load of wet clay out of a pond w/ unloaded rear tires, drive down a hill, raise the FEL and unload with no rear-end bounce - the tires don't need to be loaded. There's no better test I can think of. (and note that I went through all this w/ JD before I chose the 4310).
----------------------------------------

Just curious, if you're so happy with the 4310, why are we getting rid of it? Also, I just glanced at the JD web site. There are other models in your horsepower range. Are the ergo's on those any better? The McCormick man's suggestion meant a slightly larger machine. What about the slightly larger JD that compares to it?

I've just noticed that sometimes stepping back from my dilemma and approaching it with a fresh viewpoint sometimes gets me out of a rut I've dug for myself. If we're trading because we want to go bigger, then maybe a touch bigger than we expected could make all the difference. The few extra bucks may very well be worth it in the end. Especially if you are having fun while you're working instead of cussing your new machine for hours on end with bloody knuckles.

Just a thought.

 

[ctlguy]

It might have been for the type of mounts that that company uses!!!!

Nope, all mounted mowers are mfg in house. This is in direct relation to the tractor frame durability. Please understand I am not referring directly to a tractors ability to take ballast.

 

[piller]

At the beginning of the thread you mentioned you were looking at about a 50 HP utility tractor, have you considered the M5040, perhaps it has the ergonomics and balance that you would like?

Next, you mentioned that you don't want to load tires because of problems that loaded tires will cause when mowing and causing the tires to sink down into the soil. If the Kubota is lighter to start with perhaps adding some fluid to the rears will not cause these problems and you will get the right balance?

On my kubota I have fluid in the rears and I remove my FEL if I'm going to do a lot of mowing and that setup works out well for me.

Good luck which ever way you go.

 

[cspot]

Thanks. I didn't even know McCormick was making tractors. Korean?

I believe they are made in England and the transmissions are made in France.

 

[TripleR]

I agree 100% on "proper weight distribution". "Proper" is the key. The tractor can be designed around a loaded FEL. Or not. That could be a marketing call. Or engineering. JD favors heavier units with more rear weight balance. Kubota favors lighter units.

A friend works on both but is partial to JD and thinks Kubotas are flimsier. Maybe they are but this is a cost-efficiency decision. Maybe the JDs are heavier than they need to be? I have both and like both.

Here's another test of the 4310's balance: I'm building a barn. The posts are one. One was too low. I hooked a chain to the post and lifted is 6" w/ the FEL. No rear implement or weight. The front tires squeezed a lot but 0 tipping forward - even with me (a substantial counterweight) out of the seat.

None of this is to say that folks shouldn't load their tires. It's not my business.

But I don't want to mow with loaded tires: ground's too rough and I sink more easily in our Ohio clay-muck.

A tractor can be designed to run an FEL safely without loaded tires. As my 4310 shows. Kubotas are designed w/ loaded tires in mind. On that basis I won't buy one.

"but your tractor will be safer and work better with proper weight distribution." I can't say that my 4310 doesn't need to be safer because there are all sorts of things I might run into. But it's done everything I've asked of it and there's still a large margin of safety.

Oh, for the record: I have a full-size (yellow) backhoe w/ extend-a-hoe and I can lift the back of that by digging to deep or turning w/ the bucket too high. So weight in the back is no guarantee that you won't tip.

Pillar and Kansas Slim made some good points. Weight is weight whether it is made that way or you add it. Also, there is no such thing as a free lunch or at least that's what I hear. "Usually" if you design a "one size fits all", it's going to come up short in some other area. If you don't need weight in the back when you put a FEL on, how is it going to handle a heavy 3-point implement without adding weight to the front? My uncle was a mechanical engineer and I am sure he could explain it. It sounds as though your mind is made up anyway, so enjoy your new tractor, no one makes a bad one anymore so you really can't go wrong.

 

[jfh0jfh]

Doesn't necc apply to this discussion but just recieved a quote from a major mower mfg to have a side mounted flail mower installed on a utility tractor. In bold red letters at the bottom is stated that if installed on a Kubota tractor the mower mfg takes no responsibilty if the tractor frame breaks. Like I said not necc for this exact discussion but found it interesting, the quote was for another tractor mfg so makes me believe there may have been some Kubota's that can not take the additional weight?

I had a side-mounted flail on an older Ford. It takes a heck of a counter weight and it was still tippy on hills.

 

[jfh0jfh]

Just curious, if you're so happy with the 4310, why are we getting rid of it? Also, I just glanced at the JD web site. There are other models in your horsepower range. Are the ergo's on those any better? The McCormick man's suggestion meant a slightly larger machine. What about the slightly larger JD that compares to it?

I've just noticed that sometimes stepping back from my dilemma and approaching it with a fresh viewpoint sometimes gets me out of a rut I've dug for myself. If we're trading because we want to go bigger, then maybe a touch bigger than we expected could make all the difference. The few extra bucks may very well be worth it in the end. Especially if you are having fun while you're working instead of cussing your new machine for hours on end with bloody knuckles.

Just a thought.

I didn't mean to say I was happy w/ the 4310 overall. I am OK with it's capabilities with a full FEL and non-loaded tires. If I seemed overly-enthusiastic about the 4310 it was because so many folks think tires need to be loaded with an FEL. I don't agree with that based on empirical evidence. And on engineering & design possibilities.

I'm thinking about trading the 4310 for a larger tractor - large enough to run a 7' bush hog. I bought the 4310 w/ a backhoe when I was working on our houses in town and doing some custom work - it's an exact fit in my dump trailer. I no longer have those properties and don't really need a lightweight tractor.

The 4310 is a compact tractor which to me means it lacks a strong frame. I'm not sure how long a compact will hold up in rougher farm use. Most of them seem to have turf tires and mid-mount mowers - a good suburban tractor for casual but not regular/ heavy utility work.

JD has 4000- and 5000-series tractors w/ HP in the mid-40s. The 4000s are compacts; the 5000s are utilities with a full frame. There would be no point in getting a 4000-series as it's just a newer version of what I have,

A 5045 would be fine for me but the 5055 is on sale.

I take your point about stepping back and taking a fresh look. If the newer JD and Kub tractors need loaded tires to run an FEL, that's a point for keeping the 4310. One option is to just get an additional tractor - a 40-50 HP older one. I had a Massey 240 a few years ago and that was about perfect. But they are hard to find with good hours.

Thanks again for the comments.