Should we upgrade for 5 HP? Same model same options ... Hmmmm....

[RickB]

It takes a 50% increase in (Three Point Hitch) bare tractor weight before you notice a discernible increase in tractor capability. You would need to move from a Grand L at least to a Kubota 'M' for weight to make a difference you will feel.

That's a generalization based on a single opinion. My opinion is that your generalization is absurd.

 

[jyoutz]

I definitely get the picture there! I believe you’re thinking outside the box on this for sure. I suppose dropping down a size on the implements might be o e the best suggestions yet. Maybe most folks (me included) seem to want to answer these type of questions with simply adding more power. And while it may be the simplest in principal, who says taking a more conservative approach wouldn’t be just as fruitful.

For reference, I’m using a 72” cutter on my 60hp tractor.

 

[Doughknob]

That's a generalization based on a single opinion. My opinion is that your generalization is absurd.

Geez rick. Y dont u just throw in an obscenity while at it......

 

[jeff9366]

The 3560 is a 3 cylinder while the 4060 is a 4 cylinder. We wonder if we would increase fuel usage appreciably on the 4060 due to the added cylinder even though its only 5 HP more in size...? Is a 4 cylinder going to have a noticeable impact on torque and the other behaviors of the system... (Backhoe, Grapple, Bucket) considering everything else is going to be the same...


A four cylinder engine will have 25% more parts than a three cylinder engine. Any one of an engine' s parts can fail.

Considering the cost of your deluxe tractor and its low operating hours it is hard to comprehend how a minimal increase in fuel consumption, which I speculate might change from .6 gallon per hour to .7 gallon per hour, will influence your tractor operating budget significantly. Difference should be minimal as your contemplated change is from one naturally aspirated engine to another naturally aspirated engine. Going to a turbo-charged engine could increase fuel consumption to .8 gallon per hour, but with more power output and possibly more efficient mower operation.

( From my own L3560 records I consider my open station tractor operating cost to be $35/hour, but I have a big stable of implements which contribute perhaps $10/hour to tractor operating cost. With a cab and air conditioning I speculate your inclusive long term operating/depreciation cost is $30/hour.)

Running a 72" finish mower behind a cabbed tractor powering cab air conditioning I would order 45-horsepower minimum. If I contemplated mowing brush with a 72" bush hog I would order 50-horsepower minimum.

 

[RickB]

Geez rick. Y dont u just throw in an obscenity while at it......

There's no point in that.

 

[jeff9366]

That's a generalization based on a single opinion. My opinion is that your generalization is absurd.

Thank you. How is this?

From my experience of owning three tractors, each heavier than the one before, it takes a 50% increase in (Three Point Hitch) bare tractor weight before you notice a discernible increase in tractor capability. You would need to move from a Grand L t to a Kubota 'M' for weight to make a difference you will feel.

I stand by the above statement.

Neighbors around 85 years of age occasionally ask me to operate mid-weight Deere tractors over three distinct hobby farms, the point being my operating experience is reasonably broad.

 

[RickB]

Thank you. How is this?

From my experience of owning three tractors, each heavier than the one before, it takes a 50% increase in (Three Point Hitch) bare tractor weight before you notice a discernible increase in tractor capability. You would need to move from a Grand L t to a Kubota 'M' for weight to make a difference you will feel.

Neighbors around 85 years of age occasionally ask me to operate Deere tractors over three distinct hobby farms, the point being my operating experience is reasonably broad.

My contention is in the scheme of things your experience is quite narrow. Your claim that a 50% weight difference is required for a discernible difference in performance is a prime example. Thousands of real world examples of tractors with added ballast in the range of 5%-10% of their base weight bear witness.
Much of your own rhetoric concerning ballast and counterweight for FEL applications indicate much the same.
An inexperienced sales person sold an MX6000 less loader with an 8' heavy duty mounted cutter to a municipal purchasing agent that didn't know any better. It was literally impossible to drive the tractor up any grade with the mower raised without lifting the front tractor wheels off the ground. Less than 1000 lbs of front ballast made the combination safe to operate. That made a very "discernible difference" in the tractor's capability.

 

[Jchonline]

We are at an interesting point in time, with the demand for used Tractors up, and thinking that we may want to just make a slight change ... would it possibly pan out to Trade our almost pristine Kubota Grand L3560 HSTC Cab with an L805 Loader and BH92 Backhoe for an L4060 with the same accoutrements???

Can we Trade or sell the L3560 and still be happy?

I received an email from a Kubota Dealer that said that they can only sell a tractor brought in on trade within specified range based on its condition, but that I could get a "Lot more from an open market sale rather than trading it in". Hmmm so are there any dealers out there that want to chime in on this condition that Kubota may be holding their dealers to - with respect to trade in values offered within a Sellers market?

On the other side of things, there is a lot that goes into deciding to sell or trade your tractor, especially if its a unit that you have been extremely happy with and have taken extreme care of.

We used a 72" King Kutter finish mower that we rebuilt for the first time this year on the Tractor, and although it doesn't struggle, it seems to us that for a 72" mowing implement while driving up a hill, the tractor drags a bit.

Not an issue overall... but still, if we can feel better about a bit more HP without sacrificing much more in the weight of the tractor on turf (the 4060 is about 250 pounds heavier than the 3560), we would be probably be happier.

The 3560 is a 3 cylinder while the 4060 is a 4 cylinder. We wonder if we would increase fuel usage appreciably on the 4060 due to the added cylinder even though its only 5 HP more in size...? Is a 4 cylinder going to have a noticeable impact on torque and the other behaviors of the system... (Backhoe, Grapple, Bucket) considering everything else is going to be the same...

The physical characteristics of the 4060 are negligible sans the additional 4 to 6 inches in length and the additional weight.

One caveat...

On the L3560 I had issues with the tire hitting the front Lower Loader Mount when turning and under load. The 4060 is 4 to 6" longer to compensate for the 4 cylinder over the 3 cyl model 3560. (you can see the distance difference between the back of the hood at the windshield, to the opening for the engine compartment in the sheet metal that makes up the hood. My guess is the front lower Frame assembly is the same length, but the engine assembly mounted to the transmission is the difference in length. Therefore the axel is probably moved forward away from the FEL lower mount, and that would totally alleviate any issues with interference of the tire and the Lower FEL on either side of the tractor...

Should we upgrade?

You are NOT going to notice a 5HP difference. Go for the 4760, 5460 or keep your machine.

 

[DonaldP]

The 3560 is a 3 cylinder while the 4060 is a 4 cylinder. We wonder if we would increase fuel usage appreciably on the 4060 due to the added cylinder even though its only 5 HP more in size...? Is a 4 cylinder going to have a noticeable impact on torque and the other behaviors of the system... (Backhoe, Grapple, Bucket) considering everything else is going to be the same...


A four cylinder engine will have 25% more parts than a three cylinder engine. Any one of an engine' s parts can fail.

Considering the cost of your deluxe tractor and its low operating hours it is hard to comprehend how a minimal increase in fuel consumption, which I speculate might change from .6 gallon per hour to .7 gallon per hour, will influence your tractor operating budget significantly. Difference should be minimal as your contemplated change is from one naturally aspirated engine to another naturally aspirated engine. Going to a turbo-charged engine could increase fuel consumption to .8 gallon per hour, but with more power output and possibly more efficient mower operation.

( From my own L3560 records I consider my open station tractor operating cost to be $35/hour, but I have a big stable of implements which contribute perhaps $10/hour to tractor operating cost. With a cab and air conditioning I speculate your inclusive long term operating/depreciation cost is $30/hour.)

Running a 72" finish mower behind a cabbed tractor powering cab air conditioning I would order 45-horsepower minimum. If I contemplated mowing brush with a 72" bush hog I would order 50-horsepower minimum.

Now see... you are hitting the nail right on the head!!!

I have heard that AC can decrease HP by 5 to 10hp when its on... and in the summer on hills (only two 150 foot hills to deal with), I find myself attempting to push the seat forward help maintain speed . not that it bogs down, but it does slow down a bit.

I need to be more specific here though. I run the tractor in nothing but straight Auto Throttle Advance... that is, it drives like a Car... you push on the gas and it goes. I don't manage the throttle unless I'm using the backhoe or moving lots of dirt (usually while excavating). So given that the RPM is possibly sub 1800 to 2000 or so with the PTO engaged, there is probably a bit more top end that I could give her to make it maintain. Maybe therein lies the issue ?

You are probably very close on that $30/hr cost!!! I've paid off about $10,000 of the original $51,500 financed price of the unit. and that would work out close to that number for cost/hr.

And again you're right about the fuel usage... but I do look at refills as somewhat of a nuisance factor at times. even though I keep 2 to 4 full 5gal cans on hand depending on how much I'm using the tractor, and the season.

Really great input from you here on this.

 

[DonaldP]

You are NOT going to notice a 5HP difference. Go for the 4760, 5460 or keep your machine.

You make a ton of sense... I was looking at the specs for the tractor and am seeing that the actual increase in HP at the PTO is 4hp...

The torque goes up from 84.2 Lbf-ft to 98.5.... or 14 Lbf-ft. going to yhr 4060 from the 3560.

What I have seen locally is that the there is some inventory of the 3560 and 4060 but they may not be sharing the wealth of anything bigger as of yet. Its like playing cards... Do I hold it or throw it down!