DK5010 vs NX4510 HST both with loaders and rear remotes

[swilk]

I am in the market for a tractor ... I own roughly 200 acres of WRP ground and have permits to run 7 acres or so of foodplots on the ground as well as maintain 6000' or so of 8' wide trails.

I currently have a 1965 Ford 4000 diesel, a 6' king kutter 3pt cutter, a 6.5' box framed king kutter disc and a 10' cultipacker with cultivator tines on it.

My county soil and conservation office has a 8' no till drill a person can use for just a few bucks per acre but it requires a rear remote which my current Ford does not have.

I would eventually like to also get a bit larger pull behind disc as well.

Now, having said all that .... I was looking at buying a Kioti DK5010 because I saw what looked to be a pretty good deal on a new one on craigslist .... I called my local dealer and asked their price on the DK5010 and after a short conversation he was willing to beat the other price by $100 and it allows me to buy local which I like. Then he asks if I would be interested in a NX4510 HST ...... I hadnt thought about it until he mentioned it. He has one of those and he would have to order the DK5010.

He offered me the NX4510 for $1000 more than the price on the DK5010 and he offered to add the rear remotes as part of the deal.

I like the physical size of the NX but man does that hydro eat up some horsepower. Looks like it is rated at 45 / 34 where the DK5010 is rated at 50 / 45.6.

Just looking for some opinions here .... $22500 for a new DK5010 with loader and remotes and $23500 for a new NX4510 HST with loader and remotes.

Would the NX be enough HP for what I want to do?

Southern Indiana .... flat river bottom ground. Sandy loam type soil.

 

[NC419N]

Guessing that the DK is gear and not Hydro?? Even so I don't think either has enough HP to pull a 8' no till drill. A true 8" no till drill will require 60+ HP to pull. The only reason I know is just recently checking specs for Great Plains/Land Pride we learned what is needed and the 606NT was the largest no till that our NX4510H HST would pull. So I'm thinking that the 6010 would be the smallest to consider based on that and really the RX6620 or 7320 maybe the best choice.

 

[swilk]

well .... I just looked at my county site and the smaller drill is no longer listed for rent. Seems they bought a new 12' Great Plains no till. I dont see myself ever having enough tractor to pull that thing.

And yes, they DK is a gear transmission.

 

[870wing]

Does your Ford 4000 have a cat. 1 or cat. 2 3 point hitch?
If it's a cat. 2 you'll have to go with the 55 hp models in either DK or NX series.

Take care

870Wing

 

[gladehound]

well .... I just looked at my county site and the smaller drill is no longer listed for rent. Seems they bought a new 12' Great Plains no till. I dont see myself ever having enough tractor to pull that thing.

And yes, they DK is a gear transmission.

Now that the drill of off the table, does that change your HP needs?

Did you make a decision yet? It seems a very good deal on the NX4510HST. But I don't really know what your HP / weight needs are. IF the NX puts enough HP to he PTO / ground for your needs I think that's the one to get. If it doesn't, you have your answer. Keep in mind that the HP difference in operation will be even greater than the PTO hp numbers suggest due to the inefficiency of HST when under load compared to gear.

If you are looking to get bigger field implements, a used RX might be one to consider for the extra weight and hp - or is that too big for your trail maintenance?

 

[sirrobinhood]

Now that the drill of off the table, does that change your HP needs?

Did you make a decision yet? It seems a very good deal on the NX4510HST. But I don't really know what your HP / weight needs are. IF the NX puts enough HP to he PTO / ground for your needs I think that's the one to get. If it doesn't, you have your answer. Keep in mind that the HP difference in operation will be even greater than the PTO hp numbers suggest due to the inefficiency of HST when under load compared to gear.

If you are looking to get bigger field implements, a used RX might be one to consider for the extra weight and hp - or is that too big for your trail maintenance?

I would go with the 50HP. HST is good if you do a lot of loader work, not so important working ground. I went with the 5510 (I think it was about 1K more)with rear remotes so I could run a bigger tiller and a 7' Foot drill

 

[jeff9366]

Keep in mind that the HP difference in operation will be even greater than the PTO hp numbers suggest due to the inefficiency of HST when under load compared to gear.

Correct me if I am wrong: ~~ The consensus on TBN seems to be that fuel consumption for HST is 10% (+/-) greater relative to gear transmissions under load, but power to the ground and/or PTO is equal. So the HST inefficiency is expressed in greater fuel consumption, pumping HST fluid, not reduced engine output.

A related question: Do turbo-charged diesel tractor engines gain or lose fuel efficiency, relative to normally aspirated tractor engines ~~ 1. at sea level? ~~ 2. at 7,000 feet?

 

[gladehound]

Correct me if I am wrong: ~~ The consensus on TBN seems to be that fuel consumption for HST is 10% (+/-) greater relative to gear transmissions under load, but power to the ground and/or PTO is equal. So the HST inefficiency is expressed in greater fuel consumption, pumping HST fluid, not reduced engine output.

A related question: Do turbo-charged diesel tractor engines gain or lose fuel efficiency, relative to normally aspirated tractor engines ~~ 1. at sea level? ~~ 2. at 7,000 feet?

The consensus used to be that the earth was flat and we know how that worked out. Here's my 2 cents. Others may disagree. However, all tests I've seen in this area confirm what I state below.

Same model with gear vs HST and same engine, gear will have more PTO hp and much more draw bar hp. You can confirm the difference in PTO hp by looking at published specs. There are a few Nebraska tests out there that show the even greater difference in draw bar hp gear vs HST. The difference is quite large and most people don't understand this because it is not a spec that is frequently published for small tractors. Given this difference, there is no doubt that a gear tractor should be the choice for field work. Add in that for the price of HST you can typically get a bigger engine instead and available hp for field work at a price point is much higher with gear.

I'll take a stab at the turbo question but I have never done/seen any testing in this area and I'm sure there are others who can shed more light on this. In short... it depends...

Take any normally aspirated diesel engine and make it spin a turbo and it will suck more fuel (it takes power to spin that turbo!) until you load it so much that the normally aspirated versions burn efficiency suffers enough (due to not enough oxygen) to offset the mechanical load of the turbo version which has much more oxygen available to it. Part of the efficiency gained in turbo applications often comes from down sizing the engine for a given hp so that when at low pressure you're running a smaller air pump (and engine is just an air pump) and when needed it becomes a bigger air pump by increasing air pressure and getting more oxygen through the engine. This kind of gives you the efficiency of the small engine when full power isn't needed, and the ability to become a bigger air pump by increasing air pressure when needed. So you can see there are lots of variables and it's hard to even give a theoretical answer to your question without knowing more about what you're trying to ask.

At higher elevation, the power output at which the turbo version becomes more efficient (back to assuming same engine displacement) is lower than at lower elevation because there is less oxygen available (meaning less fuel can be burned, less power made) but a waste gaited turbo can go a long way to fixing this. A 45hp naturally aspirated engine wont make 45hp at 7000 ft. It might make ~30-35hp. But a turbo 45 hp engine may still be able to make the full 45hp depending on how the turbo is set up. And at the limit of the power the non-turbo engine can make (i.e. starting to blow black smoke), I would think that the improved burn efficiency of the turbo version would more than offset the mechanical load of running the turbo.

 

[swilk]

Ive not pulled the trigger on anything yet ... been talking to a LS dealer as well and seriously considering the XR4150C ..... figure ill decide this next week or shortly after new years

 

[swilk]

Im nearly certain I dont want the HST .... I think with a syncro manual and shuttle loader work will be more than tolerable and implement pulling will be better.