Is a Branson 4520R a good tractor?

[DavesTractor]

I'm sure it's a sturdy, reliable loader, but it's definitely underperforming a fair amount in the 45-52hp range compared with some of the better models out there.

At the top of the HP range, I agree it is 10% less than the average of the data you posted. At the lower HP ranges, it is probably top of the heap or nearly so. Still, over a ton capacity and 8.5' lift does 99% of what most folks do with this tractor. By making just one loader to do the entire 20 series, they can't win at both ends of the HP spectrum.

I don't have the time today to do the same comparison on the same brands at the 30-35 HP range, but I think the Branson will be above average.

 

[GManBart]

At the top of the HP range, I agree it is 10% less than the average of the data you posted. At the lower HP ranges, it is probably top of the heap or nearly so. Still, over a ton capacity and 8.5' lift does 99% of what most folks do with this tractor. By making just one loader to do the entire 20 series, they can't win at both ends of the HP spectrum.

I don't have the time today to do the same comparison on the same brands at the 30-35 HP range, but I think the Branson will be above average.

I figured it at a bit over 13%, but that's without taking in the large difference in lift height most models have. In reality, that probably pushes the real average to 20%. I'd bet that the Kioti and Mahindra loaders can lift something like 800-1000lbs more to the Branson's max lift height since they can lift 500lbs to a higher max height to start with. That starts to get significant for some uses...it definitely would be for me.

As I re-read your comments, it's something of a negative indicator (in my opinion) for Branson, in general. This is one way a company can save money...build one loader that they use on a whole bunch of machines. On one end of the spectrum you're getting a very powerful loader for the smaller machines, which may not really be the best situation with their smaller frames and axles, and less overall weight to stabilize the heaver FEL loads it can lift. On the other end, you're getting an "inferior" loader (relative to the competition) if you buy the larger machine, which costs more. You'd think when you spend more for a bigger machine you should get a better loader for your money....not the case here.

 

[DavesTractor]

GManBart,

I don't agree with your math that 500 lbs turns into 1000 lbs because of a few inches of max lift. The Kubota MX5800, at about 15 more HP than the Branson 4520, lifts 75 lbs more than the Branson. That's probably within the tolerances of pressure relief settings. The Massey, Deere and NH each lift 171 to 281 lbs more. That is more, granted, but let's not make more of it than it really is.

As for your other comments, the 20 series Branson, be it a 3120R or a 5220R share most all parts beyond the engine and are similar in weight. The 4520R/5220R has a wider axle, and the transmission is a few inches longer and it runs larger tires. They are all the 20 series! A series ought to share a lot of parts. If they are guilty of anything it is making the series cover such a HP range. No doubt it saves money. No doubt the 3120 and 3520 are very heavy and over built as they components hold up fine to 55 HP. But this works for Branson. When you go to the 00 series they use a smaller loader, but again that loader works on all 00 series. Same with the new 15 series, same loader for 30, 35 and 40 HP within that series.

You ought to look at the Branson loader before you beat it up much more. Looks at the fact that it is all steel hydraulic tubing except where flex is needed and they go to hose. All the pins go through nice hefty bosses on each side of the pin. All pins are drilled and cross drilled and take grease from the end for easier maintenance. They use a well designed cross tube that goes through the arms and is plated. The quick attach works well each time, no binding. It uses 2 support legs when removing the loader, not just one. It's all little stuff, and nothing all that special, but it has all of this and is built right and built to last.

We know it specs a little lower when you get into the upper HP ranges. Yet most folks load up 1000 lbs of gravel or 600 lbs of manure and are still way, way under max. Yes there is a place for max capacities, especially when using forks to pretend you are a forklift. Things get heavy fast. Like Kubota has figured out, these numbers are more than adequate for most applications.

We sell Mahindra, and Mahindra does its best to be at the maximum lift capacity in each category. We try to match the machine to the customer's needs. You want to lift more, we can do that.

 

[GManBart]

GManBart,

I don't agree with your math that 500 lbs turns into 1000 lbs because of a few inches of max lift. The Kubota MX5800, at about 15 more HP than the Branson 4520, lifts 75 lbs more than the Branson. That's probably within the tolerances of pressure relief settings. The Massey, Deere and NH each lift 171 to 281 lbs more. That is more, granted, but let's not make more of it than it really is.

I'm not sure why you seem so defensive about this, other than it's something you sell, but there's no need for taking things out of context and twisting stuff around. First off, I said the difference could be 800-1000lbs at the same lift height..that's a range, not a set 1,000lbs as you suggest. Second, the Mahindra lifts 500lbs, and raises it 8" higher, which is more than "a few" inches as you suggest. Combined, they make for a very significant difference, and it well could be 800lbs more at the max lift height of the Branson.

Then you start suggesting that the other brands "only" lift 171-281lbs more, but leave out that they all lift that extra weight a minimum of 6" more, which means the actual difference in lifting capacity is significantly greater than the 171-281lbs you mention.

The fact that the Kubota MX5800 makes 15 more horsepower doesn't make any difference....the MX4800 has the same loader, and engine power doesn't dictate the loader on the machine anyway.

I'm talking objective facts, not opinions, or emotion....just facts.

You ought to look at the Branson loader before you beat it up much more. Looks at the fact that it is all steel hydraulic tubing except where flex is needed and they go to hose. All the pins go through nice hefty bosses on each side of the pin. All pins are drilled and cross drilled and take grease from the end for easier maintenance. They use a well designed cross tube that goes through the arms and is plated. The quick attach works well each time, no binding. It uses 2 support legs when removing the loader, not just one. It's all little stuff, and nothing all that special, but it has all of this and is built right and built to last.

Again, defending something you sell. I'm not beating up anything, I'm simply talking about facts that aren't really open for debate...they are what they are. As I said very early on, I'm sure they're a well made, dependable loader. I've only looked at them in passing, but I have seen one in person...nothing jumped out at me as unusual. I wouldn't bother looking at one again because it's nowhere near as capable as I'd want in a machine that size. In fact, it would absolutely rule out that machine if I were shopping for one again.

We know it specs a little lower when you get into the upper HP ranges. Yet most folks load up 1000 lbs of gravel or 600 lbs of manure and are still way, way under max. Yes there is a place for max capacities, especially when using forks to pretend you are a forklift. Things get heavy fast. Like Kubota has figured out, these numbers are more than adequate for most applications.

I guess that's a matter of opinion, but I'd say 500lbs+ and 6+ inches less lift height is more than "a little lower" but that's something folks can decide for themselves.

This is simply a discussion of the pros/cons of a particular machine. In this case, compared with similar machines, from most all other manufacturers, the FEL is inferior by a significant amount. Those are just the facts.

 

[DavesTractor]

GManBart,

I give up. I use your figures from your post and you beat that up. I say 6" at 100" is a "little" lower. You criticize that. I say the Branson (even the 31 HP 3120R) lifts 75 lbs less then a 60HP Kubota to demonstrate that the Branson rating isn't too far from the norm and you can't acknowledge that. I am using your facts, but you feel I am defensive because I am a dealer. I make no secrets about being a dealer, and we are all biased, even you.

Unless something more interesting comes up in this thread, I think there is no good reason to continue the back and forth.

 

[GManBart]

GManBart,

I give up. I use your figures from your post and you beat that up. I say 6" at 100" is a "little" lower. You criticize that. I say the Branson (even the 31 HP 3120R) lifts 75 lbs less then a 60HP Kubota to demonstrate that the Branson rating isn't too far from the norm and you can't acknowledge that. I am using your facts, but you feel I am defensive because I am a dealer. I make no secrets about being a dealer, and we are all biased, even you.

Unless something more interesting comes up in this thread, I think there is no good reason to continue the back and forth.

When you're talking about 2,000lbs+ loaders, lifting an extra 6" is significant. Further, you said "a few" inches which is usually considered to be 2-3", not half a foot.

You're only using half of the facts when you say the difference between the Kubota and the Branson is only 75lbs. That is simply untrue. The Kubota lifts that 75lbs 8" higher which means at equal lift heights the Kubota will lift a lot more than 75lbs additional compared with the Branson...easily several hundred pounds.

This is the lack of objectivity I'm talking about. The Branson FEL isn't close to the norm...it's on the bottom of the scale when compared with all the machines I listed, that make up most of the major manufacturers. I'm sure I could find similar figures from Yanmar, TYM, and throw in Massey since we're piling on, that would be similarly better than the Branson FEL.

I'm not biased...I don't own any of the machines in this thread, and I certainly don't make a living selling any of them.

 

[DavesTractor]

GMan,

So according to your words, I am biased, defensive, lack objectivity, don't know the difference between a "couple" and a "few" and so on. I am a dealer and I help a lot of folks on this forum, and I am friends with many. Sure I promote my brands, I believe in them, but I am careful to not denigrate other brands. There are so many good tractors out there today! Rarely will I get into a back and forth about a brand unless someone gets silly and I feel a correction is needed for fairness. I think the way you are approaching this conversation is not helpful. When you state the Branson is "underperforming, not close to the norm" and so on, which is your opinion - and said in a way that begs for a defensive response. Apparently max loader lift height is really, really important for the kind of work you do. If so, you ought to focus on that. But I have sold thousands of tractors and the average CUT tractor carries around a bucket of material at or below hood height and only goes higher to dump over a fence, or a dump trailer rail, etc. Seldom is max height an issue. Now if you stack bales high in a barn, load a 10-wheeler or some other tasks, the height can be absolutely critical. A few inches is a go or no go. I understand that, but this is not the most important column on the spreadsheet when most folks buy a tractor.

You can find a spec on about any tractor to beat up. For example, I can probably find one of these heavy lifters that uses a pump that isn't proportionally larger in relationship to the larger cylinders. This will be a slower loader. That to me is a bigger issue. I really dislike a slow loader. So then we can make a huge deal out of why I wouldn't even think of buying an underperforming brand x tractor because I don't have all day to wait for the loader to do it's job because one loader takes 6 seconds and another 8 seconds, 33% slower! But I would not then declare that tractor as substandard and under performing. Pretty much every model will have some areas where they top the chart, and some areas where they do not. The key is to figure out what is important for the operator and/or the tasks at hand. But at the end of the day, the average user has just wasted 1 minute with the slower loader! Why would they care? Most wouldn't, but just like you care so much about lift height, some people focus on some other issue. So if this is important to you, good. But man, let's keep it in perspective.

I mention to you that even at 60 HP, the Kubota only lifts 75 lbs more at max height, and then you make a huge deal about how the Kubota, as it passes through the lift arc would lift hundreds of lbs more at the same point indicated as the max lift height for the Branson. Why confuse things with that concept that probably is not true? That is silly math, if math at all. I suspect at 104" the Kubota would still be at or near max at 2275 lbs. My point was that the Branson is in the ballpark with the other players. Yes less then average for the group you listed, but certainly not embarrassingly so, and more than adequate for 95% of what most folks do with this size tractor.

I'm not sure why you are going after Branson with such vigor. I find most of your posts helpful and valuable. I suggest we have made our points and little will be gained by repeating them once more. Shall we move on?

 

[GManBart]

I think the way you are approaching this conversation is not helpful. When you state the Branson is "underperforming, not close to the norm" and so on, which is your opinion - and said in a way that begs for a defensive response. Apparently max loader lift height is really, really important for the kind of work you do. If so, you ought to focus on that. But I have sold thousands of tractors and the average CUT tractor carries around a bucket of material at or below hood height and only goes higher to dump over a fence, or a dump trailer rail, etc. Seldom is max height an issue. Now if you stack bales high in a barn, load a 10-wheeler or some other tasks, the height can be absolutely critical. A few inches is a go or no go. I understand that, but this is not the most important column on the spreadsheet when most folks buy a tractor.

I'm only comparing specs, and talking about facts. Since the machine you're supporting, and sell, has lower specs I can see how you'd find that less than helpful. I never said it was the most important factor, just that it is a factor to consider and then the defense of factual numbers kicked in.

You can find a spec on about any tractor to beat up. For example, I can probably find one of these heavy lifters that uses a pump that isn't proportionally larger in relationship to the larger cylinders. This will be a slower loader. That to me is a bigger issue. I really dislike a slow loader. So then we can make a huge deal out of why I wouldn't even think of buying an underperforming brand x tractor because I don't have all day to wait for the loader to do it's job because one loader takes 6 seconds and another 8 seconds, 33% slower! But I would not then declare that tractor as substandard and under performing. Pretty much every model will have some areas where they top the chart, and some areas where they do not. The key is to figure out what is important for the operator and/or the tasks at hand. But at the end of the day, the average user has just wasted 1 minute with the slower loader! Why would they care? Most wouldn't, but just like you care so much about lift height, some people focus on some other issue. So if this is important to you, good. But man, let's keep it in perspective.

If you'd like to discuss pump flow and cycle times, they would be completely valid numbers to compare, but I haven't seen you do that. Why not post some of those facts as an offset to the lower lift height and lower lift capacity that's been pointed out? Now THAT would be useful coming from a dealer, not simply defending a low lift height and a low lift capacity figure that isn't in question. If you said "well, it might not have the lift capacity, but let's look at how cycle times compare" or something similar, nobody would take issue with it.

I mention to you that even at 60 HP, the Kubota only lifts 75 lbs more at max height, and then you make a huge deal about how the Kubota, as it passes through the lift arc would lift hundreds of lbs more at the same point indicated as the max lift height for the Branson. Why confuse things with that concept that probably is not true? That is silly math, if math at all. I suspect at 104" the Kubota would still be at or near max at 2275 lbs.

Again, the horsepower of the machine is irrelevant, especially when it's already been noted that the 48hp version of the same tractor has the same loader specs.

If you think my statements about lift capacity changing with lift height are wrong, you may want to do some additional research. A loader that lifts 2,000lbs to 100" will be able to lift a fair amount more to only 90". The exact amount will vary based upon geometry, cylinders and hydraulic pressure, but it will be enough to notice a difference. Some brands list lift capacity at 59" as well as at max height, and it's frequently many hundreds of pounds more. It would be great if all brands listed that spec as it would remove all doubt as to the relative strength of any loader.

My point was that the Branson is in the ballpark with the other players. Yes less then average for the group you listed, but certainly not embarrassingly so, and more than adequate for 95% of what most folks do with this size tractor.

It's probably enough for what many people do, but it's still near the absolute bottom of all loaders in that size machine...lift height, lift capacity, even the rollback and dump angles you mentioned are all at the bottom of the class. If someone is fine with their machine having bottom of the class performance in their FEL, more power to them (they might need it).

I'm not sure why you are going after Branson with such vigor.

Again, I'm not "going after" anything, I'm simply talking about the specs of the machine this thread is about. The facts are what they are, and if they aren't flattering, that's got nothing to do with me. There's an old saying: "Don't shoot the messenger." You may have missed that I was even more critical of the lift height limitations of the LS that I owned previously (and said as much in this thread). It was only 96" to max lift height (2,500lbs) and that seems to be the worst around for that size machine, but that's just the way it is.

Moving on would be awesome!