New Baby (5045D) Due Date Sometime Next Week

[MBDiagMan]

StLawrence,

I read your 4x4/2x4 thread early this morning but didn't have time to respond.

As I remember your usage involves hills. I'm sure that the hills add lots of scenic value to the place, but if steep, they will indeed possibly require 4X4 even for a larger tractor. I'm old school and just feel that a tractor needs to be heavy. For this reason, I would not be happy with any of the 4000 series tractors. I looked into these in my preliminary online research, but discounted them as possibilities once I went to the dealer and walked up next to one. I've been on a Ford 3000 for the last 24 years or so. They are large and heavy for their horsepower rating, so I just didn't see the 4000 series tractors as viable for my own needs and desires.

I'm sure that the 4000 series includes some very good machines and I'm sure that they serve many people well, but they just aren't for me. For one thing the Yanmar engine is more of a super heavy duty lawn mower engine as opposed to a wet sleeve, sure enough heavy duty industrial engine as found in the 5 series tractors. The next issue is just the pure mass. The added weight of the five series will add traction. In my case on my solid soil and flat land this lets me get by with 2WD. The robust 5 series engine along with the weight of the five series fit my old school thinking best.

In your case, with the hills, if you DO decide to go with a 2WD tractor it MUST BE: 1. Heavy and 2. have R1 Ag tires for max traction.

My goal with these statements is NOT to try to make up your mind for you, but to point out points to consider.

I would suggest that you continue researching and follow through with your talking to people in your area with similar property and needs. Even then, just as with comments and suggestions you read on this site, remember that everyones needs and likes/dislikes are different. Also remember that many people tend to recommend whatever they decided on themselves. By doing so they are justifying their own decision that has already been cast in stone. This goes for my comments as well. I like to feel that I am objective, but I have made my own decision based on my own needs and opinions so that naturally figures into my comments.

You are right in putting lots of consideration into your decision. You are right that if the tractor is properly cared for it can indeed last you the rest of your life no matter what your age.

Shopping and researching will help lead you to the correct decision for YOU. Besides that, the research and shopping is half the fun of buying a new tractor. Throughout the process, remember that you are the one that has to live with it, NOT those of us that might be trying to push their own needs and opinions off on you.

Best of luck and keep us posted on your decision process and what you finally come up with.

 

[stlawrence]

MBDiagman, I'm with you on the old school thinking. A tractor should be solid, with a bulletproof engine.

Do you use a FEL? If so, how does the transmission affect its use? I know we went for decades with regular old transmissions with FELs, and seemed to get by, but now everyone seems to prefer the eHydro transmission with a FEL.

How is your tractor on fuel? How many hours of bush hogging should I expect out of a tank of fuel?

I expect to be clearing saplings (mostly sumac, I think) of up to 2" diameter. What size hub hog should I use to do that?

Thanks for you help. I read on another thread the phrase "analysis to paralysis," and I guess that's where I am - over-analyzing. I don't need the tractor until next spring, though, so I have time.

 

[MBDiagMan]

Yes, I have a front end loader. The 5045D has what is called a syncreverser. It allows you to change from forward to reverse or vice versa while on the move. If you have experience with a clutch pedal it makes it a piece of cake to maneuver the tractor while using the front end loader. For instance I've been dumping brush on a brush pile for burning this Winter. When I roll up to the pile, I am still rolling forward while I slip the lever into reverse and as soon as I dump I'm using the clutch to reverse direction to back away from the pile. Coming off of an old Ford 3000 with no synchro's of any type I find this to be an absolute piece of cake to maneuver with the clutch. Additionally it has a throttle pedal as well as the hand throttle. This allows even more flexibility for FEL maneuvering.

The transmission is layed out with four speeds selected with the right hand trans lever. You find a speed that works well and you are then not messing with that lever any more for that job. On the left hand there is a lever that selects range A, range B or Reverse. This means that you can handle forward reverse with your left hand while you're operating the FEL with your right hand. Since you're almost stopped when dumping for that fraction of a second at such a slow speed you don't need one hand on the steering wheel.

I am personally NOT a fan of automatic transmissions. The Hydrostatic is the tractor equivalent. I find Hydrostatic transmission totallly unnecessary. In addition, should they ever give trouble, you have an expensive proposition on your hands. In todays America, very few young people are capable of using a clutch pedal and most people of all ages these days prefer auto transmissions. That's not me. Everything on my place has a clutch pedal with the exception of my wifes car and pickup. This is personal preference, but I find it economical, reliable and even additional fuel efficiency comes along with a manual transmission.

I believe that the popularity of all these hydro transmissions directly correlates with the fact that so many people drive automatic transmission vehicles, thus are not comfortable dealing with a clutch pedal or simply don't want to fool with it.

As far as fuel usage goes, I haven't run enough to have to put fuel in it yet, but that is more indication that it is stingy on fuel. My Ford 3000 used so little fuel that it was unbelievable. These tractors are also very fuel stingy. I can't imagine anyone finding fuel consumption to be a problem with them. I was told that there is EASILY enough fuel in the tank for a very hard days work. From that and my experience with this and similar tractors, I would expect a tank of fuel to be good for 10 or 12 hours of shredding.

I have used up a light duty 6 foot shredder over the years running over saplings. 2 inches is a pretty good sized sapling, but even my light duty one has dealt with them. If you will be regularly dealing with such heavy saplings I would recommend one of the heavier built shredders as we call them in this part of the country. Make sure you run it at standard 540 RPM PTO speed for such work and keep the blades sharpened.

As far as Analysis to Paralysis, everyone is different. Many folks are just not built to research something like this to death. I am the opposite and do lots of research before any major purchase. For those of us who are into such research, it's part of the fun of the purchase. Since you have time to do so, why NOT do lots of research?

 

[TripleR]

I am personally NOT a fan of automatic transmissions. The Hydrostatic is the tractor equivalent. I find Hydrostatic transmission totallly unnecessary. In addition, should they ever give trouble, you have an expensive proposition on your hands. In todays America, very few young people are capable of using a clutch pedal and most people of all ages these days prefer auto transmissions. That's not me. Everything on my place has a clutch pedal with the exception of my wifes car and pickup. This is personal preference, but I find it economical, reliable and even additional fuel efficiency comes along with a manual transmission.

I believe that the popularity of all these hydro transmissions directly correlates with the fact that so many people drive automatic transmission vehicles, thus are not comfortable dealing with a clutch pedal or simply don't want to fool with it.

Man, I am almost embarrassed to admit I like my Shuttle Shift and HST tractors. Our renters run 8420's 7210's, a IH1486 and a couple of HST utility tractors and are full time farmers, so I am not alone or in bad company.

 

[jenkinsph]

Well the hydro compact vs. utility gear tractors debate never seems to end.

The truth of the matter is that all of them work well for their intended uses. I have gear and ehydro tractors and have had lots of standard and auto transmissions in trucks and cars. Never had much of an issue with any of them. I like the ehydro the best because it is so easy to manuever with in tight quarters.

For new tractor buyers though I recomend you try them all out before jumping to conclusions. Please test them with an open mind.:laughing:

 

[MBDiagMan]

Yes indeed, it is certainly personal preference. I was merely stating my own personal preference and trying to explain why this works for ME.

I am not attempting to make a debate of it. Everyone has different needs and preferences. That's why they make different tractors. I NEVER mean to belittle anyone else because they prefer something different. I'm happy that others are able to find what works for them.

StLawrence is asking questions and I'm simply trying to explain WHY I bought and like what I have so that he can take this into consideration while making his own decisions.

Yes, it would definitely be a good thing for someone in the midst of such a decision to drive everything for which he gets the opportunity, before laying down that hard earned cash.

 

[JDGreenGrass]

Yep.E

I would love to have the 5045, because, like you, I think a tractor should be a tractor. I just can't afford the 5045E, though, and with my hills I guess I need the 4-wheel drive. I'm still thinking on it, though.

I may end up with a 4105, which I can afford and which is 4x4.

I'm going to talk with some of the farmers around here and see what they say about the 4x4 as opposed to the 2 wheel.

It's a decision, isn't it? I view a tractor as a lifetime purchase, and I want to get it right.

I like that 4105. That's a real tractor riggin' that's got some weight to it.

That'll get the taskl done.:thumbsup:

 

[JD755]

I like that 4105. That's a real tractor riggin' that's got some weight to it.

That'll get the taskl done.:thumbsup:

Agree the 4105 is a good machine, but note that it is not the same weight as the 4x20 series. The 4105 is 2987 pounds vs 3700 pounds for a 4120. Of course a 5045E is 5070 pounds.

 

[MBDiagMan]

I have no doubt that the 4105, 4120 and 5045 are all good machines. Selecting the right one for the tasks at hand is the question.

In looking at those three machines a question comes to my mind. The 4105 has a Yanmar engine. A great engine, but is NOT a wet sleeve industrial engine as is in the 5045. The question for me is the engine in the 4120. It says that it is a John Deere PowerTech engine, but does that mean it is a wet sleeve engine or not? The buzz word "PowerTech" doesn't tell me if it is an industrial engine like the "PowerTech" in the 5000 series machines.

 

[jenkinsph]

MB,

I understand the issues you are raising and agree with you for the most part.

When shopping for a new tractor last year a little quick research I found this out; the 3000 series and down all have spur gears, you have to go to the 4000 to get the planetary gears, the 4000 and smaller have pressed in sleeves, you have to go to 5000 series to get wet sleeves.

One reason i still have the 820 is it is a 31 hp Deere diesel with planetary drives and a wet sleeved motor and is about 5 ft wide and 4000 lbs. For me this takes the place of most of the 3000 series tractors.