Buying Advice 3700 vs 4400 or L3940

[dex3361]

Brevard county, to answer the previous post. yes I'm supposed to be talking to Barlow's later today.

Wise move to get pricing from Brady @ Barlows. Thats where I bought.

 

[PHILIP8N]

Philip,

How do you like your terf tires?

I found a good deal on a L5740, and it has foam filled rears, terfs all-around. I would like to buy it; the concern about the terf tires is the only concern. I would prefer not to buy another set of tires (likely R4) and rims.

My terrain is not too hilly. Just slopes around the tanks and creek. There are 3 tanks (north to south) that are filled from regional drainage flowing into the northern-most, across pasture, to the middle, across pasture, into southern-most, and finally flows off property. Since it is north Texas, the pasture is most often dry, but with rain the sandy clay gets soupy.

I appreciate your insight.

Thanks,
Erik

It has been almost a year now, and I believe I made the right decision with the turf tires I got. Kubota offers 3 styles of turfs, but this style was best for my needs. My impressions are: Mowing, the best, even on slopes. Moving snow with front blade, I was very impressed, I would say same or better than R1 or R4. Going thru mud pulling 8000 pounds, got the job done, but R1 or R4 would have better. FEL work, no issues for what I do. In my opionon, R1's are for plowing in field and mud work. R4's are for construction where you need puncture resistant tread and sidewall, high weight ratings for lots of FEL work, and wear resitance for traveling down road. Still, it depends on what you use your tractor for. I condiser myself a hobby farm, with 50% of my time mowing. Now, if I had to do agian, I would get same tires. Philip.

 

[ecoslik]

Thanks for your thoughts about the turf tires.

 

[EThogfarmer]

A few thoughts on the thread...I recently purchsed a L3700 and am pleased with it. But as a caveat, it is used for areas that my larger tractor is too big or tall for; or when I would rather use my 16' foot lowboy rather than my gooseneck for hauling. I use it with a 5' bush hog squealer that I bought many years ago to go behind an old Ford 8N (still miss that tractor). The 3700 does a good job within its' limitations.

As for turbos, I traded in my '92 Dodge turbo diesel on a '06 Dodge turbo diesel. Never had any problems with the turbo even with many, many miles spent pulling loaded livestock and equipment trailers No problems with the new one either for that matter.

 

[sbohan]

Well, I after years on large boats, i can tell you that yes, most are turbo's now, and while generally reliable, for every 10yr one there's one that went within the first year. On average they get about 1000hrs if everything is well maintained and maintenance is followed. I know the marine environment is much harsher, and Kubota seems to have a great track record, but unless I 'need' the extra power I'll stick to the NA in these smaller motors.

I'm leaning towards the 3540/3940 at the moment. But the extra cost seems a hair hard to justify, vs a similar size with larger pto HP. Seems the grands have a nicer link setup and stronger lift system than the regular L's. So that puts the CAB back on the table and really jumps the price.

So the question is, get the rear wiper and defroster for the CAB? How about the quarter vents?

 

[sbohan]

EThogfarmer, you use a 5ft behind the 3700 for bushhoggin? Do you think it could do a 6'? Is the 5' wide enough to cover the wheel width? My biggest concern is I have about 15 acres to bushhog and theres a fair bit by the fences and corrals. Hence I'm trying to get wide enough that I'm not stuck trying to back in to get all the edges, that would add a lot of time.

 

[sbohan]

Anyone here had and difficulty with implements for 30HP for their 3540 hst? What size rotary's do you pull?

 

[DiezNutz]

Well, I after years on large boats, i can tell you that yes, most are turbo's now, and while generally reliable, for every 10yr one there's one that went within the first year. On average they get about 1000hrs if everything is well maintained and maintenance is followed. I know the marine environment is much harsher, and Kubota seems to have a great track record, but unless I 'need' the extra power I'll stick to the NA in these smaller motors.

I would hope you realize you have apples & oranges here. A marine turbo performance application is no comparison to an agricultural turbodiesel reliability application. These Kubota engines aren't spooling up gobs of boost and don't typically see constant peak loads. There's every expectation that the Kubota turbo will last as long as the engine, and both will typically outlast any non-commercial user's needs, perhaps for life.

As you said, marine environment is much harsher. 1000hrs = 60,000 mi (rough equivalent), which would be a pretty poor track record for even most road vehicle turbodiesels.

I appreciate that your mind is made up, and I respect your decision. I do believe your boating experience may have tainted your perception of turbos in general, however. I just wouldn't want another reader who might be on the fence, to be swayed by this, without at least attempting to level the playing field.

In the unlikely event that a new owner's turbo would grenade in the first couple of years of ownership (i.e., infant mortality), they have warranty coverage.

 

[beppington]

I would hope you realize you have apples & oranges here. A marine turbo performance application is no comparison to an agricultural turbodiesel reliability application. These Kubota engines aren't spooling up gobs of boost and don't typically see constant peak loads. There's every expectation that the Kubota turbo will last as long as the engine, and both will typically outlast any non-commercial user's needs.

As you said, marine environment is much harsher. 1000hrs = 60,000 mi (rough equivalent), which would be a pretty poor track record for most road vehicle turbodiesels.

I appreciate that your mind is made up, and I respect your decision. I do believe your boating experience may have tainted your perception of turbos in general, however. I just wouldn't want another reader who might be on the fence, to be swayed by this, without at least attempting to level the playing field.

In the unlikely event that a new owner's turbo would grenade in the first couple of years of ownership (i.e., infant mortality), they have warranty coverage.

Seems you're assuming boaters go full speed at all times. I have a boat that goes about 65, yet 80-90% of the time we cruise at 35-40, occassionally up to 50-55, & once in a blue moon top it out for a short blast. It's not a turbo, but if it was it would be used pretty sparingly.

 

[DiezNutz]

Seems you're assuming boaters go full speed at all times. I have a boat that goes about 65, yet 80-90% of the time we cruise at 35-40, occassionally up to 50-55, & once in a blue moon top it out for a short blast. It's not a turbo, but if it was it would be used pretty sparingly.

No, I don't believe I said that. However, you must realize that your boat motor is working a lot harder than it would be if it was in your car/truck, and it's (typically) a higher-performance motor. Think of the difference in drag. You can take your foot off the pedal in your car on a level road and gradually slow down. Do the same thing in a powerboat, and you're coming off plane within seconds.

You're putting some amount of load on the engine just to maintain a 35-40 cruise speed, and your speed is directly proportional to engine rpm because you have no benefit of multiple gearing.

Or to put it another way, which one sucks gas faster?

The point of my post was that a Kubota turbodiesel is at the opposite end of the spectrum from a performance turbo engine.