JD X500 Series

[JDIOWA]

This thread started with a Kubota owner asking why anyone would spend more for a new X series. In reply, other Kubota owners and owners of other model JDs have discussed the debate of $$$ for quality. There were several posts on this thread that have been deleted because they might have been viewed by Muhammed as attempts to incite agrguments, but one of them linked to no less than six very recent posts on chronic issues with the BX; the 3PH issue is still active and Kubota appears to still have problems with the toplink. They redesigned the toplink but it didn't change the basic geometry. Furthermore, Kubota doesn't seem to be proactive about a dangerous steering condition--this sounds like a recall level problem. They have issued a service bulletin just like JD did with the front axle/scuffing front tires on 4200s, which is far less dangerous and not related to the models that are topics of this discussion. There is also a long thread on BX Quality decline which appears to have gotten some good discussion about issues with the BX.

DGM, you post anonymously to try to shore up some self-deluded notion that Kubotas are perfect and they are not. Neither are JDs. I've seen that "I have a JD and I'm done with them..." post a hundred times, always anonymous. It would be similarly uninformed and inflamatory for me to say you are wrong about JD having more problems(how would I substantiate that? Count posts? Hardly scientific or arguable) --that would be an unfounded statement, just like yours.

There are never any facts presented in these types of arguments and the glaring issues to me are the thought behind the original post and the fact that there is not a single post describing satisfaction, dissatisfaction, or glowing praises of higher quality with the X series. There are not enough out there yet to make any well-founded statements about whether there are problems or how it performs compared to the BX line.

For what it's worth, there is JD mechanic on another tractor board discussing any issues with the Xseries as he preps new units arriving. Apparently there is an issue with the height adjustment control for the mower decks (it doesn't lock effectively and will slip out of its setting unless the dealer performs a minor fix. Delaers are now doing this as part of prep) and the mower decks are being referred to a "noisy." After a couple of months there are no major issues being reported.

Some of you guys make it sound as if JD doesn't fix problems or redisign engineering flubs as they they are discovered. There isn't a single tractor manufacturer or car manufacturer who hasn't made a mistake in that area. I'm also reading about one miscreant JD dealer in Missouri and we'll see if our fellow TBN'er recieves some satisfaction for that problem.

Quite frankly, I could care less whether the tractor has its origins in a compact, or in a garden tractor. If one does the same job as the other, and it has either a cost or quality advantage (whichever I seek), that's the one for me.

Let's just let the X series evolve before we praise or impune it.

Cornfed Boy

 

[SethO]

The BX series tractors are SUBCOMPACT tractors, the X500 series are GARDEN tractors.

There is no basis for any comparison. Enough said.

By the way, the segment of tractors referred to as compact tractors was introduced by KUBOTA. They have now carved out another market for "estate owners" that desire more functionality than that provided by garden tractors called SUBCOMPACT, I know that JD has not yet named any entrants in this category, but will soon if it turns out that the market is profitable.


Seth

 

[JDIOWA]

So, Seth...

If it has the same specs and can do the same work, is it not a Subcompact by specs and not by name? Okay, the X series doesn't offer a seatbelt or ROPS.

What else do you know for a FACT that differentiates the two products? All I've heard from the X-pundits is that "it, um, might not have the same type of cooling for the hydro, but I'm not sure because I've never seen one..."

I'm all ears

A rose is a rose, if by any other name. A belt, ROPS and a 150 lbs won't get my job done any faster. Sure, the X is more expensive. So what? A Jaguar is more expensive than an Lexus. I guess the Lexus is more of a luxury car because it's cheaper? Is that your argument?

?

 

[bigpete]

JDIOWA,

I've seen both the X595 and BX very close up and have briefly operated both. By comparison, the BX is a slightly heavier, slightly less comfortable tractor but is a little more capable. They are almost exactly the same physical size (the JD X wheel base is actualy longer). The BX will have a little over 100 lbs more lift capacity on both the loader and the 3-point. The X series is a little noisier than the BX when mowing. JD continues to make money through the required add-ons of the 3-point and rear PTO. Annoying, but its just marketing and profiteering. I don't think it dinishes the capabilities. That in itself desn't make it NOT a "sub-compact" as some will argue.

All of these things add up to a different package, but I agree that for most intents and purposes, It will do almost anything the BX will do. Neither machine is industrial enough that I would buy them for commercial construction or ag use. Either one would make a fine addition to a landscaper's fleet but he would probably choose the BX for the bundle and the price, and also for the ROPS and belt as OSHA might require (?).

I do get a kick out of the disinformation that a few keep throwing around about "things-that-make-the-X series-less-of-a-machine-if-perhaps-that-is-how-they-are-made." A vocal few did the same for months, for some reason, about the 400 series. Claiming that Deere's weight specs included the deck; that the radiators were on top of the engines; that the engine is not water-cooled; that the frame was a lawnmower frame--blah, blah, blah.

My favorite is the claim of the BX being a "sub-compact" and since nobody else call their tractors a sub-compact, they must not be, even though they are the same size and similar in systems and weight. Kubota invented the term to differentiate their product, which differentiated itself by its specs anyway. Now rabid BXers love to say that the Masseys and the X series are not in the same class just because they do not say they are in that class. I love the way Massey deals with it when referencing its BX competitor the GC2300 series. I think they call it a "Garden Compact" tractor. Also stating something like "This style of tractor is sometimes referred to as a Sub-Compact - a hybrid between a compact tractor and a large garden tractor." So you're all correct--it's not a sub-compact because Massey doesn't make the claim.

"Sometimes referred to" means marketing vernacular to me.

This is the point where the argument turns to "JD themselves call it a Lawn and Garden tractor...!" I ask, what would happen if nobody ever calls another large garden tractor a sub-compact? I wonder if anyone will ever really accomplish what they need to around their estates. Certainly everyone must either own a Bx or be "overtooled" or "undertooled"

Just look at the weight and capabilities and call it whatever you want. If you like green and you need something a little more than the X595, look at the 4010 or 4110 . No gap in capabilities in that product line.


Now, that BX22 is really the innovative little bugger. I have no debate on those lines. Of course I don't need a backhoe either. /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif

Maybe we should invent our own tractor class that fits them all so we can all get along. I like the idea of calling them all "Condensed Compacts." Anybody else have a diplomatic and inclusive name?


Pete

 

[cowboydoc]

JD continues to make money through the required add-ons of the 3-point and rear PTO. Annoying, but its just marketing and profiteering.

bigpete,
Have to disagree with you here. I am looking at the x400 series strictly for a mower. I don't want the pto and I don't want the 3 pt. arms either. I just want a bigger lawn mower and to haul a cart around that is pretty heavy that I made. What JD has done is make the x available in any configuration that a person wants. When you do that you save the person that wants less some money and charge a little more for the person that does want more. This isn't profiteering it's very smart marketing. It's making your product available to a larger group of people. In my case I certainly don't need any of the other stuff and because I don't need it I can pay $7k for the basic unit with a mower deck instead of $11k for a full-blown unit with three point, pto, etc. How is that profiteering and poor marketing?

 

[bigpete]

Cowboydoc,

Point well made and well taken. I didn't mean to sound so derogatory and should have edited out the term "profiteering." BTW, I don't have any problem with the profit motive whatsoever, and do consider the "option" concept of vesatility a smart customer-oriented marketing design. There's absolutely nothing wrong, in my opinion, with JD making money on a thoughtful design. My background is in marketing and I applaud both JD and Kubota for their strategies.

I'm just playing middle ground here as I have heard lots of negative chatter about how JD "gouges' (their words, not mine) at the garden tractor level for features available on bigger tractors. Why not offer individual big tractor options for those who want to get more out of their GT and don't really need a CUT? Kubota just chose to "bundle" these features, which is a succesful marketing principle in its own right.

I see my fleet possibly evolving into a two tractor solution sometinme in the next 3-5 years. When that happens, I may be looking for the high-end mower just like you describe. It's this notion that may cause me to keep my 445 forever and look in the JD 4310 or K 3010 range. If not, I'll pick up a 4110 or 4115 as a single-machine solution.

Thanks for the good perspective.

Regards,

 

[SethO]

JDIOWA,

Specs do deceive, for instance look at the garden tractors that Sears offer, 27HP machines with more horsepower than a lot of compact tractors, but you are not going to be doing any trenching with all that power.

My argument however was that Kubota decided to create a machine that is more like a scaled down tractor as opposed to an upgraded up lawn mower. Whether or not that is a smart move remains to be seen, but a lot of folks that grew up outside a farm are now moving into properties that require more than riding your mower, and may see such a machine as meeting their needs.

 

[bigpete]

Seth,

The point you make about horsepower being exploited in specs is important for retail box store model consideration, but the X series and the BX series quoted horsepower is comparable. Both models can actually use the increased HP and displacement which is not the case for the lower end of the spectrum. You are right that there is a trend to make the models at Lowes/HD/Sears appear to be more capable to the uninitiated, but there is more sincerity in these specs. Unfortunately, JD doesn't speak in terms of PTO horsepower at this level, but I'm pretty certain it's close to the BX and, believe me, both models can put the power to the ground and to the attachments.

By inference, it sounds like you are now comapring either the Sears line with the BX or the Sears line with the X series. I would suggest you put an X595 under your dungarees before you compare it to box store brands.

As I mention, in my reply to JDIOWA, I have seen both and operated both. The weights and capacities are all within a very close range. The BX wins by 150 lbs, or so, in lift and loader capacity and by the same margin in net weight. Whether you are bridging up to, or down from, the compact tractor class, these two machines are very, very close in capabilities. The difference in design and product positioning is in how each company sees its potential market, as Cowboydoc and I just discussed. What matters is that the specs are not that far apart and within the same range of variance as you would see between, say, the B7500 and JD4110; or the B2410 and JD 4115 (I may not have chosen the best comparisons, but I'm sure you get my point). There may even be larger variances between those models than between the X595 and the BX2200. Nobody is bragging about the extra horsepower of the X595 over the BX2200, because it is nominal. I think the word "nominal" is an operant/key word when comparing models like this, as in "Will I be able to detect any real difference or do something more with the greater spec? If not, it's nominal."

I like both lines. Right now, I get all my work done efficiently with my 445. I'm buying one of three acreages I'm looking at next year and know I need more than the BX, and certainly more than my 445. The toughest decision is whether to struggle to match my needs with an "all-in-one" tractor or bite the bullet and get a second machine. I think JD and Kub provide great solutions for the estate "all-in-one" market which makes the decision difficult (a good thing), which in turn makes us proud of our decisions (kind of a good thing), which makes some people zealous to a fault (not a good thing).

I think that the differences between the X595/BX2200 class and the 4110/B7500 class is NOT nominal. That part of the decision should be easy for all of us.

Enjoy your seat time.

 

[Anonymous Poster]

I was considering the 595 and have to say I went with the bx2200. My reasons were as follows, the bx includes the tph and 540 pto as you all know, however, a big factor for me was the hyd controls. On the jd one lever lifts the front blade, mmm, and, tph all at once, on the bx the front blade and tph are seperate controlls. This will be much easier when useing a stone rake out back and blade up front. Price was also a factor, the jd would have been over 2500 more than the bx. Just my .02

 

[TresCrows]

Bigdave, I think the fenders are rubber shock mounted on some Kubotas, especialy the bigger ones. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif .