Kubota L4802 vs MX5400

[Jrasband]

With steering brakes you should have no problem maneuvering around the woods with the MX. The only thing that should be on the back is a boom pole or logging winch. If you get a grapple do not get one that is as wide as the wheels as it greatly reduce your maneuverability . It sounds to me like the L series would not be much of a upgrade from your current machine.

Do not base your decision on what can fit in your garage!

 

[John_Mc]

With steering brakes you should have no problem maneuvering around the woods with the MX. The only thing that should be on the back is a boom pole or logging winch. If you get a grapple do not get one that is as wide as the wheels as it greatly reduce your maneuverability . It sounds to me like the L series would not be much of a upgrade from your current machine.

Do not base your decision on what can fit in your garage!

I use a logging winch some of the time, and pull a forwarding trailer at other times. On rare occasions, I have both on the back (as seen in the picture.) I don't like attaching the trailer to the logging winch - just makes everything longer and less manueverable.

I hear you about the wide grapple. That's why I use a forestry grapple on my TC33D: narrow and easy to maneuver (at least when I'm not carrying a log). I was amazed at how much easier it is to get around in the woods as compared to when I have my 66" wide bucket on.

 

[2manyrocks]

Question for my education. Since your forwarding trailer has a grapple on it, do you actually need more grapple lifting capacity than what you already have?

 

[5030]

I'd keep what you already have (I presume it's paid for) and save up some bucks and buy a Clearspan arch building to keep ALL your equipment in. I own a Clearspan arch building my wife and I and one more helper put up many years ago and I just had to replace the cover (which they guarantee for 10 years), mine went 20 years before I replaced it.

I keep all my tractors, hay tools as well as my tractor trailer in it, totally out of the weather. Mine has a 15 foot high rollup metal door as well as a man door. Best investment I ever made and at least in this state, it's not considered a permanent building so it's exempt from all property taxes. No pictures but mine is 100 feet long by 45 feet wide by16 feet high.

 

[5030]

IMO, now is not a good time to buy a new (over 25 horsepower tractor) anyway. Over 25 horse puts you in the emissions realm and from what I read, emissions on tractors in general are a PITA. That and the current tariff squabbles will cost you additional funds.

 

[John_Mc]

Question for my education. Since your forwarding trailer has a grapple on it, do you actually need more grapple lifting capacity than what you already have?

Forwarding trailer is a small one. Lifts about 600# at full reach, and 1500# at 4' out (essentially, right next to the trailer). I can get bigger logs on with. bit more effort: remove all but the front log bolster from one side of the trailer, lift up one end of the log and tuck it in behind that one bolster, then lift up the other end, put it on the trailer, and reinstall the other bolsters (unless I have another large log to load). The loader on my tractor will lift up about 1100# (more if I'm only trying to get. foot or two off the ground)

 

[Carl_NH]

You have some options nearby used Log into Facebook

Then there is a Kubota MX5200 1995 restored in VT for $16K on FBM - and keep your existing machine!

 

[MJZ]

I currently have a New Holland TC33D that is set up for work in the woods: limb risers with Falling Object Protection of sorts (won't stop a large tree, but will stop a good sized limb), belly pan, grapple for FEL, logging winch, forwarding trailer). I did not like the NH 7308 loader, so ordered mine with the Woods 1012 Loader (slightly larger lift capacity and larger dump & rollback angles). I did not originally buy this tractor with forestry work in mind, but my needs have grown over the years. I now use it working in the woods a lot, and picking up some of the larger logs can be a challenge. I do like that it can get in to space where a larger tractor could never go, but the limitations become an issue at times. I get by with what I have (the forestry work started in about 2006, about 5 years after I bought the tractor). I really should be using something bigger, but since I'm not logging for a living, cutting the big diameter logs shorter, taking more trips and taking my time has worked out - though I did manage to crack the clutch housing a few years ago.

I'd have to start over on the modifications if I got a new tractor. I would also most likely want a larger brush hog and boxblade. My old 5' brush hog has been beat to death and really needs to be retired anyway - I would have replaced it before now, but have been putting it off while trying to make the decision about whether to upgrade to a larger tractor.

I've been considering a Kubota L4701/L4802 or an MX5400. The L4701/L4802 only has about 500+ lbs greater lift capacity to full height than what I have now. The MX5400 has about double my current lift capacity (about 1100# more than my TC33D). The downside is that the MX5400 is physically bigger than I would like to go (almost 70" wide). The real kicker is that one of my favorite modification is the Limb Risers and Falling Object Protection. Adding them means I can no longer fold down the ROPS. At 95.7" tall, there is no way the MX5400 will fit into my garage.

I've been getting by with my TC33D, so I'm sure I could get by a little better with the L4802. The best fit for my forestry work would be the MX5400. However, I'm just not sure I want to go that big, and really don't want to leave a new tractor outside full time. I can afford either tractor, but I'm having trouble justifying a new, larger tractor, when I could continue to "get by" with what I have now. I really can't justify a new tractor PLUS a new building.

I'm having a tough time deciding which way to go: I don't want to buy the L4802 now and then wish I'd gone bigger a couple of years down the road. However, that MX5400 is just so dang big for my other needs. I'm not getting any younger, and sooner or later I'll need to cut back on what I'm doing in the woods anyway... in fact, I probably could just continue to get by with the trusty old TC33D if I had to.

I have a good relationship with my dealer, who sells both NH and Kubota. I looked at New Holland offerings, but really don't like how exposed the hydraulics are on their offerings in this size range. I've not had great experiences with the JD dealer in my area, so I'm not considering them. Nearest TYM Dealer is an hour away and in a direction I rarely travel - further than I want to go if I need something. Nearest Kioti dealer is about 1/2 hour away. Close enough for me to consider, but I know nothing about them - I'd consider them after researching their reputation a bit.

John, I may be the counterpoint in all this...based on what I'm hearing a new, bigger tractor sounds like a big trade off. Navigating it through the woods and all the mods sound like big drawbacks considering you're doing fine now. I'm actually looking for a smaller tractor to navigate my woods. A bigger tractor may just mean you're doing more, unplanned work to get where you need to go.

Perhaps the new building with a fridge would bring more return

 

[drumminj]

You could split the difference with a L3560. A little more weight and lift capacity than the L4802, not as big as an MX or larger framed Grand L. The L3560 costs less than a L4802 too.

And the 3560 can lift a bit more than the L4701 with the 805 loader

 

[jyoutz]

And the 3560 can lift a bit more than the L4701 with the 805 loader

Neither the L3560 or L4701 (4802) are significantly smaller than the MX in terms of footprint. The difference is mere inches and should not be criteria for the decision.

 

[drumminj]

Neither the L3560 or L4701 (4802) are significantly smaller than the MX in terms of footprint. The difference is mere inches and should not be criteria for the decision.

We've had this exchange before but I will re-hash it regardless

"Mere inches" is in the eye of the user. 6 inches in width can be a huge deal if you're already pushing the limit.

According to Kubota sales literature, MX is 69.7" wide, 125.9" long. 4802 is 62.4" wide, 119.5" long. So the MX is 10+% wider than the L4701. I don't think that's by default inconsequential. 3560LE falls in between the two.

The way Kubota's product line is set up, you can always go "just a little bigger." We don't all need the biggest model.

 

[John_Mc]

We've had this exchange before but I will re-hash it regardless

"Mere inches" is in the eye of the user. 6 inches in width can be a huge deal if you're already pushing the limit.

According to Kubota sales literature, MX is 69.7" wide, 125.9" long. 4802 is 62.4" wide, 119.5" long. So the MX is 10+% wider than the L4701. I don't think that's by default inconsequential. 3560LE falls in between the two.

The way Kubota's product line is set up, you can always go "just a little bigger." We don't all need the biggest model.

I've never been a fan of the "go as big as you can afford" club. However, I'm sure I'd feel differently if I were doing this for a living. This is really just about how much I want to go through just to bump up my efficiency/capabilities a bit.

You are very right about 'mere inches being in the eye of the user." Compare those measurements you noted to what I'm using now: A NH TC33D is 106.2" long, 54.3" wide, and 87.8" tall. (The width dimension is based on Ag tires. I'm running R4 tires, so I end up a bit wider. However, as far as I can tell, the other tractors' reported dimensions are also based on Ag tires. I would be running R4 tires on them as well, so the relative width is still in the ballpark.)

In addition to the tractor length itself, the loaders on bigger tractors are longer, to you are making it even more cumbersome to operate in tight quarters. So that 20" of extra length for the MX or the 13" extra for the L4802 is just the beginning of the story. (I have not bothered to research the difference in overall length including loaders.)

The difference in maneuverability when working in the woods was significant just going from my 66" wide bucket to my narrow forestry grapple. If 13 or 20" of extra length (plus more for the loader) along with 8 or 15" extra width is not a significant difference to someone, then they are just not working in the kinds of areas I am. Yes, the trails can all be modified (though most will already accommodate my neighbors 50 HP JD tractor, with a bit of extra care/maneuvering in a couple of places). However, I can often get places he can't without having to open up a new trail or bark up some nice trees just to get there.

Then I still have the whole new building thing... I'm not sure I want another building on the property, even if I can find a place that my wife agrees with.

So yeah... still wrestling with the trade-offs.

 

[jyoutz]

We've had this exchange before but I will re-hash it regardless

"Mere inches" is in the eye of the user. 6 inches in width can be a huge deal if you're already pushing the limit.

According to Kubota sales literature, MX is 69.7" wide, 125.9" long. 4802 is 62.4" wide, 119.5" long. So the MX is 10+% wider than the L4701. I don't think that's by default inconsequential. 3560LE falls in between the two.

The way Kubota's product line is set up, you can always go "just a little bigger." We don't all need the biggest model.

I will make my last observation on this topic. As a forester, I will say that if 70’ is too wide to fit between trees, the forest is in serious need of thinning. And if using a grapple to lift logs and the tractor for skidding, heavier is safer and better overall, especially having larger wheel sizes. But these are simply my opinions derived from being very experienced with forestry work.

 

[drumminj]

I will make my last observation on this topic. As a forester, I will say that if 70’ is too wide to fit between trees, the forest is in serious need of thinning. And if using a grapple to lift logs and the tractor for skidding, heavier is safer and better overall, especially having larger wheel sizes. But these are simply my opinions derived from being very experienced with forestry work.

Absolutely agree that heavier is safer and larger wheel sizes are better. I'm not arguing at all against the pros of the MX over the L.

Not every forest is being managed for logging, and not everyone lives west of the Missippi where fire is such a large risk. I get more privacy having a bunch of saplings/undergrowth vs only mature trees spaced wide apart (I assume you mean 70" not 70'?) and with lower limbs cut.

 

[jyoutz]

Absolutely agree that heavier is safer and larger wheel sizes are better. I'm not arguing at all against the pros of the MX over the L.

Not every forest is being managed for logging, and not everyone lives west of the Missippi where fire is such a large risk. I get more privacy having a bunch of saplings/undergrowth vs only mature trees spaced wide apart (I assume you mean 70" not 70'?) and with lower limbs cut.

Even in the East, managed forest trees are spaced further apart than 7’ apart to promote growth and form for lumber products. I guess that a home wood lot might be left fairly dense. However based on the OP’s post, I assumed that he is managing for wood production.

 

[John_Mc]

I will make my last observation on this topic. As a forester, I will say that if 70’ is too wide to fit between trees, the forest is in serious need of thinning. And if using a grapple to lift logs and the tractor for skidding, heavier is safer and better overall, especially having larger wheel sizes. But these are simply my opinions derived from being very experienced with forestry work.

If everything was nice and neat and I could travel in mostly straight lines and on fairly level ground, I would agree. That's not the case here.

I do agree that heavier is safer and better if you are doing heavy work. Which is why I'm often limited to shorter lengths or finding other ways to accomplch my objectives with my current equipment, and why I'm considering larger. I will not keep both tractors. I have not been putting enough hours on the one I have now to justify owning two. The key is figuring out how to del with the situations where a smaller tractor just fits the need better, if I no longer own such a tractor.

There are certainly places that are overstocked on my own property, on the cooperatively-owned forest I'm also a part of, and on neighbors' properties where I help out with forestry work and maintaining a neighborhood trail system... and I'm working on them. I also manage various parts of the property differently. In some area, the focus is timber value, in others, I'm managing for various types of wildlife habitat. I've also been outting a fair amount of effort into controlling invasive species (50 acres had a moderate to heavy buckthorn infestation. I do not want to open those areas up until I have the invasives under better control. I finally gave up on doing all of that myself and hired a contractor to help with that. It's been a multi-year program funded in part by the USDA's EQIP program - glad I got through that before those programs started getting the rug pulled out from under them.) In one trail-less area, I'm shifting the goal to managing for old growth characteristics (which still takes some active management as I work to overcome the results of past management practices).

For the most part, I'm managing to shift to a more uneven-aged forest. I'm doing a fair mount of crop tree release. I'm also doing a fair amount of storm damage clean-up -- the need for that seems to have accelerated over the last 10 years or so as we've been alternating between drought years and years where the ground is thoroughly saturated followed my gully-washing rain events and high winds: One year I lost a bunch of 24"+ Oaks (in areas that I have not thinned, so it was not a response to greater exposure from thinning) another year it ws mostly hemlocks. In the most recent storm damage events, it has been White Pine.

All of my work is planned in consulation with my forester - chosen because he is highly respected in the area for his knowledge & experience in the areas of my interest. I'm following a management plan that is regularly updated (pretty much have to do that, if I want to stay in Vermont's Use Value Program. That gives a substantial break from Vermont's otherwise exhorbitant property taxes.)

 

[jyoutz]

If everything was nice and neat and I could travel in mostly straight lines and on fairly level ground, I would agree. That's not the case here.

I do agree that heavier is safer and better if you are doing heavy work. Which is why I'm often limited to shorter lengths or finding other ways to accomplch my objectives with my current equipment, and why I'm considering larger. I will not keep both tractors. I have not been putting enough hours on the one I have now to justify owning two. The key is figuring out how to del with the situations where a smaller tractor just fits the need better, if I no longer own such a tractor.

There are certainly places that are overstocked on my own property, on the cooperatively-owned forest I'm also a part of, and on neighbors' properties where I help out with forestry work and maintaining a neighborhood trail system... and I'm working on them. I also manage various parts of the property differently. In some area, the focus is timber value, in others, I'm managing for various types of wildlife habitat. I've also been outting a fair amount of effort into controlling invasive species (50 acres had a moderate to heavy buckthorn infestation. I do not want to open those areas up until I have the invasives under better control. I finally gave up on doing all of that myself and hired a contractor to help with that. It's been a multi-year program funded in part by the USDA's EQIP program - glad I got through that before those programs started getting the rug pulled out from under them.) In one trail-less area, I'm shifting the goal to managing for old growth characteristics (which still takes some active management as I work to overcome the results of past management practices).

For the most part, I'm managing to shift to a more uneven-aged forest. I'm doing a fair mount of crop tree release. I'm also doing a fair amount of storm damage clean-up -- the need for that seems to have accelerated over the last 10 years or so as we've been alternating between drought years and years where the ground is thoroughly saturated followed my gully-washing rain events and high winds: One year I lost a bunch of 24"+ Oaks (in areas that I have not thinned, so it was not a response to greater exposure from thinning) another year it ws mostly hemlocks. In the most recent storm damage events, it has been White Pine.

All of my work is planned in consulation with my forester - chosen because he is highly respected in the area for his knowledge & experience in the areas of my interest. I'm following a management plan that is regularly updated (pretty much have to do that, if I want to stay in Vermont's Use Value Program. That gives a substantial break from Vermont's otherwise exhorbitant property taxes.)

Sounds like you are getting great advice and having a lot of fun managing your land. And have learned a lot about forestry along the way. Hopefully you’ll find the right machine for your purposes.

 

[2manyrocks]

Will turn in places no tractor can, low to ground, good lift, but no rear 3pt or rear pto to power a forestry winch. T18 Class

 

[big bubba]

OP: sounds as if you have about made your decision. maybe 6mo+ after purchase, give the forum a report if you feel you made the right decision on the size tractor you've chosen & if it meets the expectations you describe above. & if the weight/hp is safe & adequate for your tasks. all the best,

 

[John_Mc]

Still considering whether to make the jump or not.

Wife is nixing another building to store it in. We already have the house, 3 bay garage w/guest room upstairs, workshop, and storage shed - oh, and a treehouse. Plus we are finding a semi-permanent place to store the Tiny House on wheels our son is building. Between that, the dump trailer, forwarding trailer, and "landscape" trailer (the only street legal trailer I own), the homestead area is looking rather cluttered.

Happily, she has no objection to a larger tractor, as long as it's not constantly parked out in the "yard" where she has to look at it all the time. So if I do decide to make the leap, finding one short enough to fit in our garage, or removing the upper folding part of the ROPS and building up from there for my FOPS/limb risers to a height that fits is where I'd have to go. (Interestingly, the cab models of many of these tractors are shorter, and would fit with just a minor modification to the garage door. I don't want a cab for working in the woods, but at least that's an indication that shorter does not necessarily cause a problem with head height or rollover protection.)