Large CUT vs Small Utility

[hunterridgefarm]

Since the sun goes down earlier now and I am inside more I have started to look over my comparisons again.

I am at a point where I need the opinions of TBNers for things I may be over looking.

Ok let me just get to the point. I was looking at buying this spring 50-70 hp. If I decide to hay my B-I-L's property that connects mine (50ac)I will buy around 70 HP.

However with building a house on our 50 ac. site in the next few months and all the other task I have time may not allow me to work this additional 50 ac. I will be clearing for yard, barn/workshop, pole barn for tractors and equipment, cutting trails, draging trees(not logging), bush hogging. I also crop about 5 ac with pumpkins, indian corn, gourds, etc for fall sales and plant a winter cover crop. And we are also looking at starting a greenhouse business in a year or two but have not convinced ourselfs of this yet.

Now I am leaning more the 50 hp size tractor and in my comparisons:
NH-TN60 vs TC55
JD-5225 vs 4520/4720
MF-451 vs 1552/1455
Bota-L5030 vs M4900/M5040

All of these are close, not the same but close, in specs, size, weight, hp, pto hp, and price in respect to brand vs brand(JD 4720/4520 vs JD 5225).

With this in mind what is the advantage/disadvantage of a small utility vs a large CUT?

Is the utility just built stronger, handel more abuse? Cost of attachments...both can use Cat l and ll implements.

I will be inheriting another 25-35 ac farm about 45 min south of me. I will most likely lease the farm land but have to travel 2-3 times a year with the tractor to clean up around the old house and barn but both tractors should haul the same.

Both should do what I need. So does one have an advantage over the other?

Your opinions please.

Thanks,
David

 

[timb]

Probably most folks here will advise that safe haying work in many conditions requires more tractor than even a big CUT can deliver. That alone may keep you on the UT side of the fence.

On the JD line I had compared the 4710 to the 5220 quite a bit before I bought.

The large frame JD units (4720) are Cat. I hitch only. There is a big difference between the large frame 4000 and the 5000 class machines in sheer strength - park a 4720 and a 5225 side by side at the dealer and compare axle castings, hitch parts, frame, that sort of thing.

Dig deep into the specs (the Stoneham site is great) and you'll find things like drawbar load limits (tongue weight) twice as high on a 5225 as a 4720. Axle limits far higher. Max front ballast on a 4720 is 840 pounds. Max front ballast on a 5225 is something like 2000 pounds. That gives you the idea.

I ended up going CUT for reduced bulk / manuverability (near the buildings and in the woods) and because of the big step change in price for key attachments like the FEL and BH. While the 5000's attachments were also heavier duty for the price - the CUTs were heavy enough for what I needed.

If the TC55 had been out when I was looking - I would have been very tempted by that somewhat cross-over machine.

 

[HobbleCreek]

I am facing the same decision. Yesterday I went to view and test a MF 481 with FEL. After doing so, I'm still leaning towards the CUT. Here's why:

1) Comfort/Visibility. I am just more comfortable on the smaller tractor. I always have been. On the smaller tractor I just feel more in control.

2) Maneuverability. A lot of my work will involve keeping roads/trails clean and open on my mountainous property. While the larger UT would be better for field work on the flat, I think the smaller tractor will better suit the mountain sides. One aspect of this relates to the size of some of the trails dug into the side of the mountain. They are traversed mainly by ATVs and I do not want to have to build bigger roads just to accomodate the tractor. You probably don't have this particular issue. I also anticipate working around the barnyard, in the barn, in the arena, etc. I think that the smaller size will be an advantage in all of these situations.

3) Hydro. I prefer the eHydro transmission, especially for loader and scraper work. The 481 had a shuttle reverser, but it required clutching. I know many other brands do not require clutching for their power reversers. Whatever weaknesses of the hydro transmissions, I think that I will profit from their utility. I also think that I'm more likely to burn up a clutch than wear out the hydro, and I know that if my daughters use the tractor that comparison won't even be close.

4) Price. When you add the FEL to the 5525 it comes in substantially higher than the 4720, and with less HP (50 at the PTO for the 4720, 45 for the 5525). Also I'm sure that the implements would be more expensive too. I would like to have CAT II capability, and I'm working on how to do that with the 4720, but I think CAT I implements will do most of what I want and be much less expensive than a similar CAT II item.

If I were going to be cutting and baling 50 acres of hay every year, and if I didn't have my mountain trail/roads issues, I might think differently.

-- Grant

 

[hunterridgefarm]

I agree that the utility is made more for hay work than the CUT. But the problem is I may decide not to do the hay.
And that some of the larger CUT's are not Cat ll. But some of the other are, but what I shoud have said was I can use Cat l implements on the small utility.
Another example would be the L5030 vs the M4900, not much difference in size or price. Both cost about the same money.

I just want to get the most tractor for my dollar. And just want to see if there is a difference or advantage I am over-looking.


("Dig deep into the specs (the Stoneham site is great) and you'll find things like drawbar load limits (tongue weight) twice as high on a 5225 as a 4720. Axle limits far higher. Max front ballast on a 4720 is 840 pounds. Max front ballast on a 5225 is something like 2000 pounds. That gives you the idea.")

I agree with this statement and this may be the deciding factor.

timb- thanks for your reply.

 

[hunterridgefarm]

HobbleCreek,
I have been following your post since I am trying to make the same decision. The points you make are good and that is one reason this is a hard decision. And thats another reason I decided to post this question now instead of Feb, March or April of next year. Because it will take me that long to decide.

I was hoping to get alot of feedback. This will help in my decision and since I most likely won't buy until spring I will have a few months to "clear my head" then come back to this post and re-read and see if I still feel the same way. This way it is not an emotional buy. I have found for me it is best to decide early what you want or need, then walk away for a while, in this case 2-4 months, then come back and see if I still feel the same way.

The only problem is if I don't feel the same way it then becomes an emotional buy /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

 

[bam747]

This is just my opinion, it's your money, and you'll have to live with the final decision...

If you're already considering a 5225, yet you *may* want to get into haying later, I personally would jump right up to the 5525, which is rated at 75 PTO HP. That would give you a LOT more options for haying equipment, yet the 5525 is only marginally bigger than the 5225.

Note that you can get all the same options on the 5225 and the 5525, except that the 5525 has significantly more hydraulic flow capacity than the 5225. That will make it work the loader (nothing less than the 542 MSL in my opinion) faster.

The other option I would be sure to get is the 540/540E PTO. That can save a lot of fuel when you don't need full power for PTO driven implements.

I'd also get ALL the optional hydraulics including the 3-spool mid mount SCVs and the 3-spool rear SCV. Not to mention the EH 3PH control and the 24/24 Power Reverser transmission. And the cab. And the regular speed creeper option. And, and, and...

The way I look at the cost issue is that I would own something like the 5525 all decked out for a VERY long time and it would probably do most anything asked of a "utility" tractor. If you went with the CUT, there is a high probability you'd end up replacing it if you got into anything other than very minimal haying work.

I'm not absolutely sure about this, but I think if you go through Deere's online tractor advisor and you check off the "will use it for haying" box, they will immediately recommend the 5425 or 5525. Take that for what it's worth.

 

[bam747]

HobbleCreek...

Just pointing out that the 5225 is rated at 45 PTO HP. The 5525 is rated at 75 PTO HP.

 

[Glenn9643]

I've found that most utility tractors are substantially heavier than a CUT with comparable HP. This was a big factor with me when deciding what to buy, because I have to trailer the rig 175 miles one-way once or twice a year. I'm a little too heavy now for my trailer with the tractor, FEL, and bushhog but it works. Just have to take it slow and easy. Any comparable HP utility tractors that I've looked at with FEL would require a larger trailer and pickup to haul.
That said, I've been thinking about a cab lately... and if I decide to make that change I'm considering a utility tractor instead of the CUT. If hauling either one isn't a factor with you, I would recommend a utility tractor based on your acreage and description. Unless you move down in size, I think you'll find that there's not a huge difference in agility/mobility between a 60HP utility and a 50HP CUT.
Are you planning to get a FEL? If not, please reconsider. That's the single best investment I've made in equipment. You'll find a use for it almost daily. Some sort of quick-attach system also. Forks are almost as useful as a bucket with toothbar.
And get your remote hydraulics when you get the tractor. I highly recommend top&tilt for the 3ph. Great when boxblading. Helps to align and attach implements.
Some utility tractors ship with interchangeable 3ph balls so you can use either cat I or II. The TN65 that I had did.

 

[hunterridgefarm]

bam747
You make some good points and if I decide to hay I will go bigger.

Glen9643
("I've found that most utility tractors are substantially heavier than a CUT with comparable HP.")

I agree but the ones I am comparing don't seem to be that much difference.

("I think you'll find that there's not a huge difference in agility/mobility between a 60HP utility and a 50HP CUT.")

That is what I am thinking...at that HP.
And yes I will have an FEL and TnT.

This is a process for me I had a post on rear remotes and received great information. I know I will have min. of 3 sets. Now I just have to decide on small utility or large CUT.

I am also thinking CAB. If I go CAB I my want the large CUT since I will be using it in the woods.

I guess my biggest concern is I can't see the big difference in the size I am looking at. All have about the same 45 PTO hp.

 

[HobbleCreek]

That's right. My typo. Thanks. I meant the 5225.

-- Grant

 

[Glenn9643]

I am also thinking CAB. If I go CAB I my want the large CUT since I will be using it in the woods.

I don't really understand here. From a 50HP CUT to most 60-70HP Utility you're not moving from a lawnmower to a D8.
First, I would recommend a larger tractor than the 45PTO HP you're talking about for your acreage. There's nothing that will aggravate you more than not having enough tractor to do what you need to do at the moment. You'll have a lot of these moments on your 50 acres, without considering the additions.
Look at the capacity of the FEL's on CUT's VS a Utility with 60-70HP. There's a lot of built-in limitation with the front axle on the CUT. It doesn't take a lot of log to get over 2000 lbs. If you need to pick it up and move it, that's going to be close to your limit with the CUT.
Working in the woods with a cab will be a problem whether it's a CUT or Utility. You'll have to be careful to keep limbs from scratching or breaking the plexiglass as much as possible. I believe you'll be better satisfied in the long run with about a 70HP Utility, and work around the obstacles best you can. The only drawback might be trailering from one site to another. Otherwise, get as much tractor as you can afford.

 

[BarryinMN]

I had the same decision tree starting back in '02. Ended up with this machine in photo. 55 pto hp and 10K lbs of ground pounding workability.

www.zetor.com

The madness to my method was to buy one new tractor as the critical path & everything else was already here or used at auction. Existing attachments are sized to a JD A ~ 38 pto so did not need to go much bigger.

A cab AC takes about 10 hp. First time bush hogging in a ac cab - no bugs, dirt, etc, no need to go back /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif A cab option is a factory passenger seat & seatbelt for those city visitors you want to keep track of. Initially bought for my brothers little kids, turns out retiree's want to go with as well /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif The heat makes snow plowing @ -20 fun /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Engaged MFWD imitates 4 wheel braking on hills pulling a load - a safety benefit. Most of the attachments I've added (read cheap) either are or can get fairly heavy. 4x18 plow, dump wagon, rock picker, etc.

I use a cat 0 lawnmower with a 6' landscape rake & box blade for road fixing & yard work. Much smaller & faster able to go up & down, side to side, smoothing stuff /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

It's been here almost 2 years & have not needed to add anything to the original tractor config: quik tach loader, 84" bucket, 66" rock bucket with dual grapples, forks, rear wheel weights (not loaded), 2nd seat.

My tractor 3pt lifts far more than a JD 5420 (one early task was to position a shipping container) and cost $20K less which kind of tipped the decision.

Happy deciding /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

 

[Kyle_in_Tex]

I would say at first, for heavy clearing, you would be glad you had bought the bigger/heavier tractor. But later, when manuevreability is a factor, you'd appreciate a CUT. A 58 HP CUT is no slouch. They are however, "less heavy duty".

The biggest problem about our 5420 is I miss the tight turning radius of my 4310. But you can't do a draft horse's work with a cutting horse nor vice versa.

Lastly, If you really want a cab, I would recommend the bigger tractor. Here's my 2 cents. The bigger diameter wheels will ride smoother across a field and not "rock" the cab so much. I would think that would make everything in the cab last longer. I almost need a kidney belt to traverse our fields on my 4310 while the 5420 rides over bumps that the 4310 falls into.

 

[slowzuki]

Kyle in Tex is right on. We moved from a 52 pto hp ag tractor to an L5030 hstc.

We lost smooth field driving and massive loader capacity but gained:
-manouverabilty from the sharp steering and short wheelbase
-compact size for ducking around in the woods winching logs out
-fast loader
-the hst pedal, indispensible for up tight close work

We hay with ours as well, baled about 4000 bales this summer but did barely any raking or tedding. It was too bumpy to rake with the short wheelbase.

I did some bushhogging at the end of the summer too, about 15 acres of one fellows places had draintile and rough fill over it. Talk about a kidney shaking to run over that stuff at full tilt. It was much rougher than a hay field though.

I do like the 5030 ducking around the woods, even with the cab it is so much shorter my skid trails are small. If I didn't skid tree length I could have some tighter turns too.

 

[n4807g]

I've never heard anyone complain about buying too "much" tractor (unless your talking about a lawn mower). I know a lot of people who wish they'd bought a bigger tractor. Just for comfort I'd buy a cab. AC alone is worth it. Of course if $'s are an issue that creates another set of questions.

 

[hunterridgefarm]

Kyle in Tex and slowzuki,
Thank you, you made some good points and your replies are about the same as I was thinking. I will most likely go with a small utility 50-60 HP. Of my 50 ac. most of it (85%) is wooded so I will be clearing trails and cutting a road down to the 5 ac. bottom.

If I decide to work my B-I-L's property with cattle or horses I will most likely pay a neighbor to bale the hay. I don't think for that amount of land, aprox 30 ac. of pasture, that it would pay me to buy hay equipment.

Thanks to all for your thoughts.

 

[Soundguy]

Looking in the Heavy equip trader mag today, I see that JD dealers have a deal going on the 5103 model.. 12999.00 0% fin WAC.

Darn that's a good price for a 50hp machine!


Soundguy

 

[AndyMA]

Having both a large CUT (Ford 2120- same frame size as TC48/55) and a Utility Tractor (TN75D). from my opinion there is quite a step up. And I mean that literally. Climbing into the TN is a lot more work that getting on the 2120. The TN will also way out lift and out pull the 2120. I have had the 2120 since 1987 and it has done a lot of serious work, but it is no match for the TN series. I feel much safer towing a heavy load with the TN than the 2120. A lot of it has to do with frame size, weight and hp. The same can be said for the 2120, TC48/55 vrs the TC40/45. They just aren't the same frame size. In my opinion, it's more a frame size issue than a weight issue for many tasks. Obviously there are some tasks that hp really comes into play for, but that is not the case in many instances. I do agree with the above posters that the JD machine for $13K appears to be a excellent price for a basic 50+ hp tractor.

Andy

 

[Soundguy]

I agree. I like the feel of climbing the stps onto the op platform of my 7610s... Good high fenders.. nice comfy spring ride chair.. roomy op platform... Ford 5000 has that same feeling.. though no rops, and fenders alre clamshell not flat top, and not as high.

Soundguy