Tractor growing prior to purchase, M6060 or MX6000

[choctawroseranch]

So started looking at the MX5400. keep inching up in the cost and looking at getting most long term tractor for the $. About a $4,500 delta in the cost between the 6060 and 6000. Have 80 acres with someone taking care of baling for me so won't be doing that in the future. roughly half/half pasture to woods. Main uses will be brush hogging, some disking/tillage work w something like the LP 1572 , lots of moving dirt & loading wood etc with bucket, food plots, lots of tree grappling and cutting trails as needed. Land is fairly firm so the extra 1000 lbs on the 6060 doesn't concern me (or should it). If possible would like to by a tractor once and don't want to gave the tractor shrink when I get it on the ranch. thoughts?

 

[bcp]

Land is fairly firm so the extra 1000 lbs on the 6060 doesn't concern me (or should it).

I would want that extra 1000 lbs. It's not "extra."



Bruce

 

[sea2summit]

Could have gone either way until you mentioned disking and tillage. 6060 all the way. I would also go with an 84” disk so you can widen you stance and still cover it with the disk.

 

[Goose1776]

People on here love spending others people money……
For multi use;
home owners, hobby farm, type tractor usage
a tractor with a hydrostatic transmission, just makes everything easier, especially for people with little tractor experience.
The MX6000 will perform all your tasks with ease.

 

[kneedeep]

You will regret not buying more hp

 

[kthompson]

Depending on how many acres you are disking or mowing every hp will help. If you are mowing say 40 acres with a six foot cutter or ten feet big difference time it takes and depending on what you are mowing (rough cut, heavy grass or such) I think you will benefit by the higher hp. If you are pulling disk the "extra" weight is a plus for traction and loader stability.

 

[Jchonline]

So started looking at the MX5400. keep inching up in the cost and looking at getting most long term tractor for the $. About a $4,500 delta in the cost between the 6060 and 6000. Have 80 acres with someone taking care of baling for me so won't be doing that in the future. roughly half/half pasture to woods. Main uses will be brush hogging, some disking/tillage work w something like the LP 1572 , lots of moving dirt & loading wood etc with bucket, food plots, lots of tree grappling and cutting trails as needed. Land is fairly firm so the extra 1000 lbs on the 6060 doesn't concern me (or should it). If possible would like to by a tractor once and don't want to gave the tractor shrink when I get it on the ranch. thoughts?

Have you put eyes on these 2 machines side by side? You will instantly understand. They have very different use cases. The issue you have is the MX will probably be better in the woods. The M60 will be better in the field. As long as you have the clearance (M60 is really tall) in the woods then I would probably still go that route. If things are tight and you feel you will be in the woods most of the time, the MX still might be better.

It’s a dilemna for sure, but hearing what you say I would probably still go M60…it will be much better for mowing and moving bales. If you have livestock especially moving round bales the M60 is the way to go.

 

[mo1]

So started looking at the MX5400. keep inching up in the cost and looking at getting most long term tractor for the $. About a $4,500 delta in the cost between the 6060 and 6000. Have 80 acres with someone taking care of baling for me so won't be doing that in the future. roughly half/half pasture to woods. Main uses will be brush hogging, some disking/tillage work w something like the LP 1572 , lots of moving dirt & loading wood etc with bucket, food plots, lots of tree grappling and cutting trails as needed. Land is fairly firm so the extra 1000 lbs on the 6060 doesn't concern me (or should it). If possible would like to by a tractor once and don't want to gave the tractor shrink when I get it on the ranch. thoughts?

A heavier full-sized utility tractor would be a much better option than a large compact like the MX6000 based on what you said. You mentioned cutting about 40 acres of fields, running tillage equipment including a disc, and moving dirt, wood, and logs with the loader. A regular gear transmission like a full-sized utility tractor has is preferable to a hydrostatic drive such as the MX600 has for running a cutter for hours at a time. For all of the other tasks, more size and weight give more stability, loader capacity, and traction, and this would give you an advantage in doing those tasks over a smaller, lighter unit. The major advantage of a smaller unit would be use in tight quarters but you didn't really mention anything where that would be an issue, unless it's unusually tight in the woods.

 

[choctawroseranch]

thanks for the feedback. The woods aren't as tight as I am used to seeing so shouldn't be a big consideration for me.

 

[jyoutz]

A heavier full-sized utility tractor would be a much better option than a large compact like the MX6000 based on what you said. You mentioned cutting about 40 acres of fields, running tillage equipment including a disc, and moving dirt, wood, and logs with the loader. A regular gear transmission like a full-sized utility tractor has is preferable to a hydrostatic drive such as the MX600 has for running a cutter for hours at a time. For all of the other tasks, more size and weight give more stability, loader capacity, and traction, and this would give you an advantage in doing those tasks over a smaller, lighter unit. The major advantage of a smaller unit would be use in tight quarters but you didn't really mention anything where that would be an issue, unless it's unusually tight in the woods.

I won’t disagree with your post, but I see no issue with running a hydrostatic transmission for hours on end running a cutter, especially with cruise control.

 

[mo1]

I won’t disagree with your post, but I see no issue with running a hydrostatic transmission for hours on end running a cutter, especially with cruise control.

The advantages of a hydrostatic drive are clutchless operation and continuously variable speed control. Hydrostatic drives are not as efficient as a geared transmission due to friction losses in the pump and drive motor system that are far higher than frictional losses in a geared transmission. This additional friction leads to additional heat into the hydraulic fluid that needs dissipated and higher fuel use/less available engine power to do other work such as power the implement. Setting a cruise control in a hydrostatic drive unit and going at the same speed for hours at a time uses none of the advantages and suffers all of the disadvantages of this type of drive vs. a mechanical transmission, which is why gear transmissions are generally recommended for this kind of work. The only reason somebody actually could not use a hydrostatic drive for hours on end would be if the cooling of the hydraulic oil was not sufficient for prolonged operation, which I would be very surprised if this was the case.

 

[Torvy]

I only have a bit under 20 acres and I would get something the size of the MX (but a better value)...only my budget contraints are keeping me to something more like a TYM 494. For 80 acres I cannot imagine it being enough in the long run.

 

[jyoutz]

The advantages of a hydrostatic drive are clutchless operation and continuously variable speed control. Hydrostatic drives are not as efficient as a geared transmission due to friction losses in the pump and drive motor system that are far higher than frictional losses in a geared transmission. This additional friction leads to additional heat into the hydraulic fluid that needs dissipated and higher fuel use/less available engine power to do other work such as power the implement. Setting a cruise control in a hydrostatic drive unit and going at the same speed for hours at a time uses none of the advantages and suffers all of the disadvantages of this type of drive vs. a mechanical transmission, which is why gear transmissions are generally recommended for this kind of work. The only reason somebody actually could not use a hydrostatic drive for hours on end would be if the cooling of the hydraulic oil was not sufficient for prolonged operation, which I would be very surprised if this was the case.

If all someone wanted to do was to run a cutter for hours, yes a gear drive is often preferred. But most of us use our machines for other uses too, and hydrostatic transmissions are better for many uses such as loader work and precision maneuvering.

 

[jyoutz]

I only have a bit under 20 acres and I would get something the size of the MX (but a better value)...only my budget contraints are keeping me to something more like a TYM 494. For 80 acres I cannot imagine it being enough in the long run.

I have 20 acres and the MX is perfect for my uses.

 

[Torvy]

I have 20 acres and the MX is perfect for my uses.

Yup. That's why I think he will want more for his 80. I have to keep my tractor/loader combo closer to 30k.

 

[jyoutz]

Yup. That's why I think he will want more for his 80. I have to keep my tractor/loader combo closer to 30k.

It depends on how much of the 80 acres he wants to maintain. He has someone to hay for him. If he wants to mow 40+ acres or hay, he should go bigger. But, if he’s maintaining less acres, the MX could be perfect. I can understand your price constraint. My MX with loader and a few extras was $39k. But I wanted a brand with local dealer/parts availability. That limited my choice to Kubota, JD, or Mahindra. 80 month 0% financing didn’t hurt either.

 

[mo1]

If all someone wanted to do was to run a cutter for hours, yes a gear drive is often preferred. But most of us use our machines for other uses too, and hydrostatic transmissions are better for many uses such as loader work and precision maneuvering.

My original comment was about a gear transmission being preferable for running a cutter for hours at a time, we agree on this. This was the very first thing the original poster mentioned doing on their property. They also mentioned multiple tasks where a physically larger and heavier tractor would be an advantage, so the larger and heavier gear transmission utility tractor would very likely be a better fit than a hydrostatic drive compact tractor in their situation. A regular gear transmission is certainly very usable for loader work and maneuvering in tight spots, so I would not dissuade the original poster from getting a full-sized utility tractor that would otherwise be superior for their usage just because it has a clutch.

The only transmission setup I would really avoid would be a gear transmission with a transmission-driven PTO where it is impossible to clutch the transmission without also clutching the PTO as well. It can be and has been used, but it sure make you plan how you are going to stop and then restart, particularly with an implement like a rotary cutter that takes a while to spin back up. However, the gear transmission discussed here is an electrohydraulically-activated independent PTO unit.