Looking at a L5740 with 2000 hrs.

[dstig1]

I will echo the point CH4 made on tipping. I have beet juice in the rears (R4s) and a heavy rear blade on basically all the time, plus I ,oved the tires to their widest setting. All good moves, but I still can "lift a leg" once in a while. I lifted a 2k pallet of mortar sacks (25x 80 lbs...no guessing) from the bed of my F250 with the SSQA forks without issue, but you can be sure I was moving super low and slow on that! I'm only at ~500 hrs as my use has slowed down to mainly snow removal the past few years and we have had a couple pretty dry winters.

But the engines are known for 10k hrs plus, if maintained.

 

[jyoutz]

MX is not the same as M.

I don’t really know why they do it, but a BX is smaller than a B. A LX is smaller than an L. And an MX is smaller than an M.

Yes, but the MX is far more stable than the L the OP is considering. The larger wheels and more robust axles do add stability.

 

[CH4Ohio]

Yes, but the MX is far more stable than the L the OP is considering. The larger wheels and more robust axles do add stability.

I haven’t done a lot of comparison, but it looks to me like the tires are the same or even smaller on the MX than a comparable HP L model. If the axles are more robust, it doesn’t reflect in the weight comparison.

My points are just based on basic info from Tractordata. Compare the largest MX to the largest L model or the L5740.

I have looked at the MX thinking it might offer more stability than the L5740 but the specs don’t seem to bear that out. It appears to be the same size and weight by most every measure.

Maybe I’m missing something …?

 

[ptsg]

Looks like you're mainly doing loader work. Are you sure you're not better going with either a skidsteer or one of those front loaders like Avant, Giant and more? Machines designed entirely for loader work.

 

[jyoutz]

I haven’t done a lot of comparison, but it looks to me like the tires are the same or even smaller on the MX than a comparable HP L model. If the axles are more robust, it doesn’t reflect in the weight comparison.

My points are just based on basic info from Tractordata. Compare the largest MX to the largest L model or the L5740.

I have looked at the MX thinking it might offer more stability than the L5740 but the specs don’t seem to bear that out. It appears to be the same size and weight by most every measure.

Maybe I’m missing something …?

Messicks has a comparison video. Side by side, the MX front wheels are larger and so is the front axle.

 

[CH4Ohio]

Messicks has a comparison video. Side by side, the MX front wheels are larger and so is the front axle.

Interesting video. Thanks. I see what you mean. In the case of R4 tires, it looks like the MX has the same diameter front tire but it uses a wider tire. (12 vs 10) On the rear, they have the same. For R1 tires, the front are the same and the rear are larger on the Grand L. He does mention that the front axles are "different to accomodate the different gear ratios". I think the axles look very similar but there's no other info about that.

Not trying to argue the point. I'm just looking at the specs. The point I was originally making is that whenever Kubota adds an "X" to the model series, those tractors are more comparable to the next smaller series. Look at the weight of the smallest M tractor and the weight of the largest Grand L compared to the MX6000. It's pretty obvious. A BX tractor is smaller than a B. An LX tractor compares to the B tractors. An MX tractor compares to the Grand L tractors.

I still don't see any difference that would suggest stability related to FEL work would be better with the MX. In my opinion . . .

 

[jyoutz]

Interesting video. Thanks. I see what you mean. In the case of R4 tires, it looks like the MX has the same diameter front tire but it uses a wider tire. (12 vs 10) On the rear, they have the same. For R1 tires, the front are the same and the rear are larger on the Grand L. He does mention that the front axles are "different to accomodate the different gear ratios". I think the axles look very similar but there's no other info about that.

Not trying to argue the point. I'm just looking at the specs. The point I was originally making is that whenever Kubota adds an "X" to the model series, those tractors are more comparable to the next smaller series. Look at the weight of the smallest M tractor and the weight of the largest Grand L compared to the MX6000. It's pretty obvious. A BX tractor is smaller than a B. An LX tractor compares to the B tractors. An MX tractor compares to the Grand L tractors.

I still don't see any difference that would suggest stability related to FEL work would be better with the MX. In my opinion . . .

The X denotes an intermediate size, so the MX is intermediate between the L and M.

 

[CH4Ohio]

The X denotes an intermediate size, so the MX is intermediate between the L and M.

With all due respect, it's not. And that was the also the theme of the Messicks video you referenced. Neither can be compared to the M tractors so he focused just on the MX6000 and the Grand L6060. Except for the wider front tire on the MX with R4s, the Grand L was slightly stronger with more features, but at a higher price.

The largest of the two almost share specs. (MX6000 vs L5740 or L6060) The MX doesn't weigh more than the Grand L. (Actually weighs a little less.) The MX is 2 inches wider but has a slightly shorter wheelbase. Doesn't lift as much with the 3 point or the loader as the Grand L. Ground clearance is slightly less than the Grand L. They are essentially the SAME size.

 

[CH4Ohio]

We've gotten a little off track. My initial response to Windsors question was that the Grand L5740 that he's looking at can be pretty tippy when lifting heavy loads. I just don't think that a nearly identical size, shape, weight tractor will be better simply because Kubota slipped an "M" into the model designation.

 

[jyoutz]

With all due respect, it's not. And that was the also the theme of the Messicks video you referenced. Neither can be compared to the M tractors so he focused just on the MX6000 and the Grand L6060. Except for the wider front tire on the MX with R4s, the Grand L was slightly stronger with more features, but at a higher price.

The largest of the two almost share specs. (MX6000 vs L5740 or L6060) The MX doesn't weigh more than the Grand L. (Actually weighs a little less.) The MX is 2 inches wider but has a slightly shorter wheelbase. Doesn't lift as much with the 3 point or the loader as the Grand L. Ground clearance is slightly less than the Grand L. They are essentially the SAME size.

Kubota has designated the X as an intermediate size denotation. GL is in a different class than standard L. You can argue with the company.