New 5075M is at the dealer's!

[jenkinsph]

Islandtractor,

Consider an x320 as a good starting point for 1.5 acres of lawn. Better transmission than the L130 or D 100 series.

About the engines if you had a premature failure or scratched cylinder the cylinder liners would be much cheaper to change.

 

[Island Farmer]

Islandtractor,

Consider an x320 as a good starting point for 1.5 acres of lawn. Better transmission than the L130 or D 100 series.

About the engines if you had a premature failure or scratched cylinder the cylinder liners would be much cheaper to change.

Jenkinsph,

Thanks for the input. I will go take a look at an X320. After reading about the various JD lawn tractors on the internet, I think I am more afraid to buy a new lawn tractor than I am to buy my new utility tractor.

My old simplicity was not a top of the line unit, it was mid range, but I have gotten the better part of 25 years out of it. It would sure be nice to know if all of these people having trouble with their lawn tractors are just not taking good care of them, or if the tractors are really not being manufactured with very good quality control.

If I am going to buy a new lawn tractor for between $3000 and $4000, with good maintenance, I would like to get at least fifteen years without major repairs out of it.

 

[Island Farmer]

I've been looking at the MX-8 rotary mower for a while, now. Double spindle, easier startup than the MX-7. For maintainence type mowing - I wouldn't be concerned with running the MX-8 in e540.

IIRC - a flail mower is even easier to startup than a rotary mower. Of course, it's also considered to be a safer alternative around buildings, roadways, etc.. If that's what your planning to do; clean up the road ditches, mow the fencelines - I don't think using the 8' flail mower would be a whole lot more work than the 6' rotary. Either one would be used @ e540 - which is very close to the peak torque output for the 5 cylinder in the 5075M.

I stayed with the 16.9-30's. Of course, the radials are the better option... However, I don't have many options in Alaska to buy replacement tires. I'd guess that if I needed an emergency replacement - radials would be on order; and back ordered, most likely. I would have much better odds finding a set of 16.9-30's.

I do like the Quick hitch. It fits the rear blade like a glove and my roto-tiller is also setup for the QH. Back - up, lift and slide the pto shaft on - ready to work!

Regarding the engine block type. The only real advantage - IMO - to having a wet sleeved engine and DIY overhaul is if you do an "in-frame" rebuild. Clearly, that is easier than splitting the tractor and replacing the engine. How much... well, that would depend upon whether you turned the crankshaft down or not - or replaced it with a new crankshaft. That's more time. And if you decided to replace the clutch, resurface/replace the flywheel, new pressure plate, throwout bearing --- well, you've just spit the tractor.....

Time comes - I'm gonna buy a warrantied, Reman from Deere (long block) and redo the clutch, etc. at the same time.

It all comes out a wash - IMO.

AKfish

AKfish,

Your assessment of the eventual major overhaul relative complexities make sense to me. I would like to believe that if I take really good care of this machine, I will only be faced with maintenance costs. It might be different, if I were going to be putting a thousand hours on the machine each year.

I'm still pondering the two machines (5075M / 5085M) In Bigfoot62's post he brought up again the fact that the 5085M has 20% more hydraulic flow. Do you ever feel like you would like more flow, possibly to have your loader operate faster, or for some other reason?

My only loader at the moment is the one on my Bobcat A300. It has tremendous flow, I think that it pumps about 21 GPM in standard flow, and over 37 in high flow. And, it has multiple pumps. It has tremendous lifting capacity and operates very quickly. I am wishing to use my grapple from that machine on the new tractor, and I will use it for other material moving bucket work.

With regard to your suggestion of putting RimGuard in the tires. I wonder if I do that, if maybe I would not need the wheel weights? To some degree there is the balance of having enough weight to stabilize/balance the machine, but on the other hand not having more ground pressure than is necessary.

Island Farmer

 

[AKfish]

I'm still pondering the two machines (5075M / 5085M) In Bigfoot62's post he brought up again the fact that the 5085M has 20% more hydraulic flow. Do you ever feel like you would like more flow, possibly to have your loader operate faster, or for some other reason?

I am wishing to use my grapple from that machine on the new tractor, and I will use it for other material moving bucket work.

With regard to your suggestion of putting RimGuard in the tires. I wonder if I do that, if maybe I would not need the wheel weights? To some degree there is the balance of having enough weight to stabilize/balance the machine, but on the other hand not having more ground pressure than is necessary.

Island Farmer

Island Farmer,

Neither the 5075M or the 5085M is a "great" loader tractor - IMO. They're adequate... they're ag machines.

I have a JD110TLB, too. It has multiple hyd pumps. That little 43hp tractor has more hyd pump output (IIRC - 23.6GPM) than the 5075M (think the 75 has 21GPM). (Haven't verified - but, I'd bet it's probably got more GPM than the 85, too!)

Moving from the 110 to the 5075M on the loader - I was very disappointed by the poor visibility to the bucket. It's guess and feel; and instinct (after using loaders for a number years). But, it's not pretty... irregardless of which tractor you buy - you're in for "loader shock" when you move over from your A300!

And... while the PowrReverser transmission is a very good transmission - it is not as good a loader transmission as either the eHydro (JD110) or the HydroStatic transmission on a Bobcat - no way; no how!

So; in a nutshell - 20% more hyd capacity with the 5085M is not an important consideration for my purposes - given the tractor's "footprint" (it's more agile than alot of tractors; but it ain't no ballet dancer) and the ergomonics of the loader (you're not gonna drop that bucket into a pile in the same way as a loader tractor) and the transmission - the 110 will outload either the 75 or the 85 (except on a >9.5ft truck). And, yes I can appreciate bigfoot's dirt work this past summer - I moved well over 300 yards on my pole barn and greenhouse this past summer, too; 95% of it with the 110.

I've got a 66" very, HD root grapple with SS mounts for my 110. It will crowd 800lbs. I have to be very careful how I use it on the 110. I have the flat-face connectors on the 3rd SCV on the 5075M loader and will use the grapple on it, too.

Agree completely on the filled tires and wheel weights. If you're going to fill the rears - skip the weights. If you go with just wheel weights; plan on having a pretty heavy implement that you can hook up pretty readily and drop off easily whenever you use the loader on heavy lifting. Just for clarity - if I know the load is not too heavy; <1,000lbs - I'll work the tractor without something on the 3pt. Not a big deal.

One added consideration... if you notice on the JD configurator; you can build either a 2011 or a MY2012. The 2012 model is a significant change from the 11's. Wheelbase is 5" longer. And as noted - loader's and transmission options and EH options are different between the different engines.

So, the picking's might be slimmer on dealer's lots for the 2011's...

Best of luck.

AKfish

 

[Island Farmer]

Island Farmer,

Neither the 5075M or the 5085M is a "great" loader tractor - IMO. They're adequate... they're ag machines.

I have a JD110TLB, too. It has multiple hyd pumps. That little 43hp tractor has more hyd pump output (IIRC - 23.6GPM) than the 5075M (think the 75 has 21GPM). (Haven't verified - but, I'd bet it's probably got more GPM than the 85, too!)

Moving from the 110 to the 5075M on the loader - I was very disappointed by the poor visibility to the bucket. It's guess and feel; and instinct (after using loaders for a number years). But, it's not pretty... irregardless of which tractor you buy - you're in for "loader shock" when you move over from your A300!

And... while the PowrReverser transmission is a very good transmission - it is not as good a loader transmission as either the eHydro (JD110) or the HydroStatic transmission on a Bobcat - no way; no how!

So; in a nutshell - 20% more hyd capacity with the 5085M is not an important consideration for my purposes - given the tractor's "footprint" (it's more agile than alot of tractors; but it ain't no ballet dancer) and the ergomonics of the loader (you're not gonna drop that bucket into a pile in the same way as a loader tractor) and the transmission - the 110 will outload either the 75 or the 85 (except on a >9.5ft truck). And, yes I can appreciate bigfoot's dirt work this past summer - I moved well over 300 yards on my pole barn and greenhouse this past summer, too; 95% of it with the 110.

I've got a 66" very, HD root grapple with SS mounts for my 110. It will crowd 800lbs. I have to be very careful how I use it on the 110. I have the flat-face connectors on the 3rd SCV on the 5075M loader and will use the grapple on it, too.

Agree completely on the filled tires and wheel weights. If you're going to fill the rears - skip the weights. If you go with just wheel weights; plan on having a pretty heavy implement that you can hook up pretty readily and drop off easily whenever you use the loader on heavy lifting. Just for clarity - if I know the load is not too heavy; <1,000lbs - I'll work the tractor without something on the 3pt. Not a big deal.

One added consideration... if you notice on the JD configurator; you can build either a 2011 or a MY2012. The 2012 model is a significant change from the 11's. Wheelbase is 5" longer. And as noted - loader's and transmission options and EH options are different between the different engines.

So, the picking's might be slimmer on dealer's lots for the 2011's...

Best of luck.

AKfish

AKfish,

I agree with your assessment of the difference between the Bobcat and a utility tractor, even a very nice one. Either model of utility tractor is not going to hold a candle to my A300 when it comes to efficiently moving material. So, why would I even get a loader on the new utility tractor, when I already have such a good machine for the job? Here are my reasons. I would like to use my A300 sparingly, because even though I bought it with the sound kit in the cab (which supposedly makes it a little quieter) it is still a little like strapping an 81 hp Kubota engine to your back and climbing into a steel box, oh -- then there are the hydraulic pumps. I do wear the best earmuffs I can find, but over the course of a significant job my ears will still ring. I think it is the combination of noise and vibration. In the case of the isolated cabbed utility tractor, at least, you really are somewhat isolated from the pump and engine.

So I am wishing to save what is left of my ears, and the second value to me of having a loader on the utility tractor is to have my hired hand feed round bales to the cows when I am not around. He is conscientious and has no problem running a tractor, but the A300 is a little more complicated: joysticks, and completely computer controlled. If you don't know it well, and pay attention, even beyond what is required to run a tractor, it won't always do exactly what you expect. In my case, I have plenty of experience, and I find it to be a truly phenomenal machine in many ways. Orders of magnitude more sophisticated and capable than the standard skidsteer Bobcats that I have owned in the past.

I even had a passing thought of getting the lighter 553 loader, because for the round bales and other lighter work that really should be fine. Just use the A300 for all the heavy work. But I don't like to get a piece of equipment that could wear out prematurely because I was trying to save some money up front. More often than not, at least for me, that has been false economy.

Lastly, thank you very much for the heads up on the wheel base change for 2012. I was not aware of that. I wonder why they are making that change? For me, it would not be at all desirable. For my farm, I would not want a tractor that was any bigger or more ponderous.

Island Farmer

 

[bigbull338]

if your going to feed big heavy 5 by 6 bales id get a nice heavy loader thatll lift an carry them.

 

[Island Farmer]

if your going to feed big heavy 5 by 6 bales id get a nice heavy loader thatll lift an carry them.

Bigbull338,

I do agree with you. After using my A300 for the last several years, which has the capacity to pick up and run easily with a 5x6' round bale - hay or silage - with ease, I would not want to go backwards to something that would either frustrate me or not hold up.

Island Farmer

 

[Edward. S]

Radials. They're worth it. :thumbsup: 18.4R30 rear, and 12.4R24 front.
Larger footprint = less ground pressure, and better traction.
Radial sidewalls flex = better ride.

Deere needs to add a wider tire for the fronts. When I look at my rear and front tire. I think "what the heck? why is my front tire so narrow..." Maybe 14.9R24 but 13.6R24 is a must. 12.4R24 is just too narrow.

 

[JoramH]

I bought a JD 5095M this year, it is a big bigger, but it can fit large tires. Altough the dealer had to bring the fenders 5 cm up.

 

[AKfish]

Very nice, JoramH! Welcome to TBN.

Thanks for the pictures.

If I jumped on a direct, "over-the-pole" flight from Anchorage -- where would I have to land to get a close up look at your 5095M?

Those front tires are really something!

AKfish