need 100 pto/hp 4wd....

[Landfusion]

Hey there, I'm new to the site and am looking for some guidance in purchaseing a new tractor.
What I'm looking for is between 90-100 pto hp, 4wd, in the smallest chassis avail. The unit will be used for snow removal and equipped with a 92" blower on the rear and a 9' Horst 4200 blade with hyd. wings mounted on the front.
I am mounting the blade via a frame mount (no loader).
I have looked at some options in my area and looking for some input on any pros an cons of ethier.
The units that I have looked at are: NH T5070, MF 5455, Case 105U,
Valtra A92, and a Mccormick 105.
No green cause of dealer issues.
The NH dealer is the closest, but the others are not far.
I liked the Valtra and my father has had one for 6 yrs and loves it.
Basically I need some unbiased info.
Thanks

 

[greggh]

Yeah, sure, unbiased info... There's plenty of that here.

 

[LD1]

Of the ones you mentioned the case and the Mccormick are the smallest. They both weigh about 7900lbs with cab, the case has a WB if 91.1 and the Mcc 92.1 and have about the same pto power of 90 adn 91. The MCC is 163" overall length and the case is not listed.

The NH is in the middle at 9370 lbs, 162.2" overall length and a 92.5" wheelbase and 96hp. It is about the same size just a lot heavier.

The MF you listed is only 85 HP @ the pto but it is physically the biggest @ 9800lbs 167.7 overall length and a 100.5" WB.

I didn't look up the specs on the valtra as they seemed incomplete, and metric measurements.

You didn't explane as to why you wanted the smallest frame possible. Is it because of weight, trailering, tight areas, etc???

The smallest frame size that is close to what you are looking at is the kubota 9540. It has 84 PTO HP, weighs 6175lbs w/cab, 148" overall length and a 88.6" WB. @ 2000lbs lighter than any listed above and over a foot shorter, could this be an option for you @ 84HP?????

 

[Landfusion]

Good info.
When I referred to the chassis I meant smallest far as moving around tight places, visiblity, etc.. As far a wieght, I guess heavier would be better for pushing snow.
Not interested in Kubota and as far as the MF, the dealer said they dynoed it at 101 hp. Not sure if this is BS.

 

[LD1]

I forgot to add that if you can get by with the 85hp, which I assume you can since the MF5455 only has 85, the MF 596 might be an option as well. It has the same 85PTO HP as the 5455, but it is smaller and lighter. 8000lbs with cam, 142.8 overall length, and a 93.7" WB. It is actually a litter shorter than the kubota, but weights a ton more.

 

[LD1]

Good info.
When I referred to the chassis I meant smallest far as moving around tight places, visiblity, etc.. As far a wieght, I guess heavier would be better for pushing snow.
Not interested in Kubota and as far as the MF, the dealer said they dynoed it at 101 hp. Not sure if this is BS.

I would take that as BS no doubt. He's just trying to sell you a tractor. It is a good posibillity that it may make a little more than 85 @ the PTO, but then again, the other brands/models might make more than spec as well. It's just for comparison.

So why are you not interested in kubotas????

 

[Landfusion]

Dealer support. After all, they all break, reguardless of color.
Thats what I figured on the MF, so 90 hp is still my min.
I want to make sure that it will handle blowing back snow that has been pushed up by plows.

 

[whitedogone]

Dealer support. After all, they all break, reguardless of color.
Thats what I figured on the MF, so 90 hp is still my min.
I want to make sure that it will handle blowing back snow that has been pushed up by plows.

Just that MF breaks a lot more.

 

[Farmwithjunk]

Just that MF breaks a lot more.

So now the BS portion of our show has begun......(see above quote)

The quote has NO basis in reality.


I own 2 relatively new Masseys (583's) and 3 Deere's (6430's) of the same age. They log many more hours in a season than the typical "farm tractor". They're used on highway right-of-way mowing. Hours per year average around 1400, but one of the 583's accumulated over 1800 hours last summer. They run with a constant heavy PTO load (15' batwings), and with "hired operators" (Anyone who's been around equipment operated by someone other than the owner knows how they get more abuse) . In two years, the Masseys have proven to be FAR LESS apt to "break" than the Deere's. In fact, they've proven to be EXTREMELY reliable in use that's much harsher than what would be considered typical for the average tractor.

You may rule out the Masseys for other reasons, such as not meeting your required needs, but I can attest to the fact that they are in no way an inferior product. I like my Masseys. Can't deny that. But I'm NOT color blind. I own Deere's, have owned Ford (New Holland), IH, a Kubota, and several other "orphan" brands in the past. I look at tractors from a "what have you done for me lately" perspective. If there were inherent issues with the brand, they wouldn't be on my equipment roster. I'm looking at adding a couple more additional tractors for next year. Currently, Massey Ferguson is still high on the list. A LOT of bang for the buck.

 

[RickB]

One of your stated uses is a rear blower for clearing snow that has been pushed up by plows. The two critical tractor features for that use are PTO HP and a wide selection of reverse speeds, mostly SLOW. The OP lists a requirement of 100 HP which has been diluted in the replies to as little as 85. That's a mistake. You say you want 100HP, that's what you should be looking at. And start looking at transmission options instead of focusing on paint color and all the BS that follows a discussion on that.