JD 5055E vs Kubota MX 5100

[jfh0jfh]

yep, made in a Deere factory in Pune, India. i was skeptical about that at first but soon came not to be a problem for me for several reasons. if they had quality control issues due to being made in india Deere would not have stuck with this same series of tractor since 2004 to now. it's hard to sell a product that's junk and keep it successful for that long, plus i have yet to see a post on here where this series of tractor is junk. few problems here and there but what machine doesn't have those? never seen or read anything major though. i agree the positing of the seat in reference to the steering wheel could be better, but the location of the controls is almost perfect for me. engaging the 4wd could and should be easier as well. one thing to keep in mind, some dealers will not sell you a tractor with fel without loading the rear tires. i know mine won't due to being liable if an accident occurs.

Thanks for the comments.

I don't have a problem with it being made in Pune. India has good engineers; and JD can't risk a poor product. 10-series problems in the 1960s cost them a lot.

The seat positioning and especially the steering & throttle controls are poor - especially the throttle as I bumped my knuckles just testing. These are small things though. power and low-maintenance are what counts.

The Kubota's ergonomics are much better and Kub makes a good tractor so we'll see.

I have a JD4310 w/ FEL and unloaded tires. I maintain that you don't need to load the tires with a well-designed tractor. Yesterday I picked up the front of a car and moved it. No problem.

I understand what you're saying about safety but loaded tires are just too painful when I'm mowing.

 

[beppington]

... I'm not loading my tires.

I maintain that you don't need to load the tires with a well-designed tractor.

Just an FYI ... The manual for my brand new 2010 Kubota L3940 details exactly how the go about filling the rear tires, how much to use, how much weight it will add, & even says the tire manufacturer has approved it.

Yes, it will be much heavier & therefore harder on your turf. But, filling rear tires is a very common practice for tractors with FEL's.

Also, these modern "well-designed tractors" under discussion are FEL optional, meaning not all will be owned & operated with a FEL. Therfore, the manufacturer balances the base machine for no FEL. And, if you add a FEL, it's wise to either add some weight to the rear to help offset the weight of the FEL-plus-working-load, or be willing to accept that you probably won't get the max usage of your FEL. And ... it will be harder on the front end & front tires since they'll be carrying more/ most of the FEL-plus-working-load weight. And ... if you have a load in the bucket raised a certain height, & drop the weight too quick the rear end can come up off the ground. Maybe you're OK with that somewhat wild ride (kinda fun!), but at that point the entire weight of the tractor-plus-FEL-plus-working-load is on the front end! Might break it!

Just some things to think about.

 

[cspot]

You may want to look at McCormick tractors also. I recently bought a CT65U with FEL for about $27,000 that is a little bigger than the ones that you mentioned. McCormick has been running a free loader program. I looked at John Deere when I was going to buy but I thought I got more bang for my buck with the McCormick. The McCormick has a shuttle shift, looked heavier built, had more gears, etc. I have 25 hrs on it so far and no problems. Here is the website for McCormick for the size tractors you are looking for

McCormick USA HOME

Here are the dealerships in OH.

McCormick USA HOME

There should be a dealer fairly clost to you. McCormick's website is not as nice as John Deere's though.

 

[art]

Thanks for the comments.

I don't have a problem with it being made in Pune. India has good engineers; and JD can't risk a poor product. 10-series problems in the 1960s cost them a lot.


I maintain that you don't need to load the tires with a well-designed tractor. Yesterday I picked up the front of a car and moved it. No problem.

I understand what you're saying about safety but loaded tires are just too painful when I'm mowing.

Deere had issues with the light components in the rear of the 30 series as well as with the 10 series! There were a few other models as well!

I would wonder as to who is putting the specs in on the india tractor, I believe they are working with the varient of the original chassis and they needed the deere engine to pass emissions.

In india the tractors don't often have loaders on them, to say that they weigh in at the 65% rear for a four wheel drive tractor I wouldn't as it is probably designed the same as a two wheel drive 25% front 75% rear to start with.

You should have additional ballast for a loader or be a good operator under control of the tractor and your surrounds. We have customers that do add weight when doing heavy or extended loader work but for there normal duties they don't need it so they are still safe to go onto the lawns and do yard work. I've witnessed some operations that I thought were not practical with a loader much the same a lifting a front of a car with the Kubota's and they still keep going!

I'd still rather listen to the Kubota engine then a 2.9 run any day of the week.

 

[RollingsFarms]

Deere had issues with the light components in the rear of the 30 series as well as with the 10 series! There were a few other models as well!

I would wonder as to who is putting the specs in on the india tractor, I believe they are working with the varient of the original chassis and they needed the deere engine to pass emissions.

In india the tractors don't often have loaders on them, to say that they weigh in at the 65% rear for a four wheel drive tractor I wouldn't as it is probably designed the same as a two wheel drive 25% front 75% rear to start with.

You should have additional ballast for a loader or be a good operator under control of the tractor and your surrounds. We have customers that do add weight when doing heavy or extended loader work but for there normal duties they don't need it so they are still safe to go onto the lawns and do yard work. I've witnessed some operations that I thought were not practical with a loader much the same a lifting a front of a car with the Kubota's and they still keep going!

I'd still rather listen to the Kubota engine then a 2.9 run any day of the week.QUOTE]




i don't know why, but i've never cared for the sound of Kubota's or Yanmar engines. don't mistake me, they make great engines, i'm not disputing that, i just can't stand that high reving diesel engine they make. they just have a different sound compared to other diesel engines. it's not just Kubota or Yanmar, it's Shiabura, Korean engines, etc. give me the sound of a Perkins or Powertech anyday of the week, and to me that's how a diesel should sound.:thumbsup:

to the op, good luck with your decision between tractors. you can't go wrong eith either one really. sounds like you're leaning towards the Kubota.

 

[texasjohn]

jfh0jfh, you said,

"I like the 5055 but the ergonomics are clumsy. The Kub is nicer to operate but a lot (> 1K pounds) lighter and has poor balance for the FEL. I'm not going to load my tires. I'll make a counterweight out of my old diving weights 1st."

I know you have strong feelings re weight, etc.

I'd be remiss if I didn't comment that Kubota gives you flexibility, not 1000 lbs you have to carry around all the time.

You can drive it as is.
You can add fluid to the tires (pretty permanent)
You can add wheel weights (mostly permanent)
You can add various implements to the rear for various weights (flexible)
You can add a weight only on the 3ph. (flexible)
I've even loaded the FEL for extra front weight when HEAVY ground pulling.

You get to choose, based on how you use the tractor.

The Kubota metal is engineered to handle these additional loads, no problem. Never heard of anyone having metal fatigue with a Kubota.

Me, I like the flexibility. My tractor has filled tires (1100 lbs extra total) and I add an additional 1000 in 3ph implement (box blade) for lifting max on FEL (2800 lbs 1 ft off the ground).

So, I select my weight options for the task at hand and carry the proper task related weight.

I, also, like the ergonomics of my tractor....and consider ergonomics extremely important to safety... all day on a tractor can get tiring, and this leads to accidents.... ease of use is something I gained with the Kubota over my previous Case and Massey Ferguson tractors (much older models)

 

[TripleR]

jfh0jfh, you said,

"I like the 5055 but the ergonomics are clumsy. The Kub is nicer to operate but a lot (> 1K pounds) lighter and has poor balance for the FEL. I'm not going to load my tires. I'll make a counterweight out of my old diving weights 1st."

I know you have strong feelings re weight, etc.

I'd be remiss if I didn't comment that Kubota gives you flexibility, not 1000 lbs you have to carry around all the time.

You can drive it as is.
You can add fluid to the tires (pretty permanent)
You can add wheel weights (mostly permanent)
You can add various implements to the rear for various weights (flexible)
You can add a weight only on the 3ph. (flexible)
I've even loaded the FEL for extra front weight when HEAVY ground pulling.

You get to choose, based on how you use the tractor.

The Kubota metal is engineered to handle these additional loads, no problem. Never heard of anyone having metal fatigue with a Kubota.

Me, I like the flexibility. My tractor has filled tires (1100 lbs extra total) and I add an additional 1000 in 3ph implement (box blade) for lifting max on FEL (2800 lbs 1 ft off the ground).

So, I select my weight options for the task at hand and carry the proper task related weight.

I, also, like the ergonomics of my tractor....and consider ergonomics extremely important to safety... all day on a tractor can get tiring, and this leads to accidents.... ease of use is something I gained with the Kubota over my previous Case and Massey Ferguson tractors (much older models)

Couldn't have said it better. Weight can be added to a lighter tractor, but can't be taken away from a heavier one.

As to the weighted tires or other ballast, yes you "can" get by without it, (done it myself), but your tractor will be safer and work better with proper weight distribution.

 

[jfh0jfh]

Believe me, I understand the safety aspects. I've had several FEL tractors; some w/ loaded tires and some not. I get max usage now out of my 4310 JD - if I can haul a full load of wet clay out of a pond w/ unloaded rear tires, drive down a hill, raise the FEL and unload with no rear-end bounce - the tires don't need to be loaded. There's no better test I can think of. (and note that I went through all this w/ JD before I chose the 4310).

I do take your point about unloaded rear tires putting more stress on the front end. When I was using an FEL a lot for heavy loads (a different tractor) I loaded the tires for that reason.

Yes, I've gone through the manuals and discussed with local and factory reps filling tires on JD, Kubota and NH (and a JD engineer I know). It does come down to a design issue: if you believe that most of your tractors will be used w/ FEL, you can engineer the distribution with that in mind. JD does that on some smaller units; Kubota doesn't. NH isn't sure.

I'm not one bit interested in a wild ride. When I got the 4310 I filled the FEL and did what you describe: dropped the load quickly. No rear-end lift but of course it's REALLY hard on the machine.

IMO, designing a utility tractor to require loaded tires is weak engineering. It's like telling a truck buyer the vehicle will skid in the rain without weight in the bed. But that's just me.

In any case, I'm not loading the tires unless I have to because it's harder on me and the machine on rough ground. And my 4310 is proof that loaded tires aren't requisite with an FEL.

I have a Kubota also and like it a lot but I'm not impressed with the balance of the current machines.

----------------------------------------

Just an FYI ... The manual for my brand new 2010 Kubota L3940 details exactly how the go about filling the rear tires, how much to use, how much weight it will add, & even says the tire manufacturer has approved it.

Yes, it will be much heavier & therefore harder on your turf. But, filling rear tires is a very common practice for tractors with FEL's.

Also, these modern "well-designed tractors" under discussion are FEL optional, meaning not all will be owned & operated with a FEL. Therfore, the manufacturer balances the base machine for no FEL. And, if you add a FEL, it's wise to either add some weight to the rear to help offset the weight of the FEL-plus-working-load, or be willing to accept that you probably won't get the max usage of your FEL. And ... it will be harder on the front end & front tires since they'll be carrying more/ most of the FEL-plus-working-load weight. And ... if you have a load in the bucket raised a certain height, & drop the weight too quick the rear end can come up off the ground. Maybe you're OK with that somewhat wild ride (kinda fun!), but at that point the entire weight of the tractor-plus-FEL-plus-working-load is on the front end! Might break it!

Just some things to think about.

 

[jfh0jfh]

Couldn't have said it better. Weight can be added to a lighter tractor, but can't be taken away from a heavier one.

As to the weighted tires or other ballast, yes you "can" get by without it, (done it myself), but your tractor will be safer and work better with proper weight distribution.

I agree 100% on "proper weight distribution". "Proper" is the key. The tractor can be designed around a loaded FEL. Or not. That could be a marketing call. Or engineering. JD favors heavier units with more rear weight balance. Kubota favors lighter units.

A friend works on both but is partial to JD and thinks Kubotas are flimsier. Maybe they are but this is a cost-efficiency decision. Maybe the JDs are heavier than they need to be? I have both and like both.

Here's another test of the 4310's balance: I'm building a barn. The posts are one. One was too low. I hooked a chain to the post and lifted is 6" w/ the FEL. No rear implement or weight. The front tires squeezed a lot but 0 tipping forward - even with me (a substantial counterweight) out of the seat.

None of this is to say that folks shouldn't load their tires. It's not my business.

But I don't want to mow with loaded tires: ground's too rough and I sink more easily in our Ohio clay-muck.

A tractor can be designed to run an FEL safely without loaded tires. As my 4310 shows. Kubotas are designed w/ loaded tires in mind. On that basis I won't buy one.

"but your tractor will be safer and work better with proper weight distribution." I can't say that my 4310 doesn't need to be safer because there are all sorts of things I might run into. But it's done everything I've asked of it and there's still a large margin of safety.

Oh, for the record: I have a full-size (yellow) backhoe w/ extend-a-hoe and I can lift the back of that by digging to deep or turning w/ the bucket too high. So weight in the back is no guarantee that you won't tip.

 

[jfh0jfh]

Thanks. I didn't even know McCormick was making tractors. Korean?

You may want to look at McCormick tractors also. I recently bought a CT65U with FEL for about $27,000 that is a little bigger than the ones that you mentioned. McCormick has been running a free loader program. I looked at John Deere when I was going to buy but I thought I got more bang for my buck with the McCormick. The McCormick has a shuttle shift, looked heavier built, had more gears, etc. I have 25 hrs on it so far and no problems. Here is the website for McCormick for the size tractors you are looking for

McCormick USA HOME

Here are the dealerships in OH.

McCormick USA HOME

There should be a dealer fairly clost to you. McCormick's website is not as nice as John Deere's though.