Tractor Sizing 2wd MX4700 vs 4wd L3200

[GManBart]

Yeah that's not a big deal or anything being able to run little bigger implements. Why they even make different HP tractors:confused3: You bought the 4047 over the 4041,i mean its just 6hp... Oh wait that's just like the L3200 and L3800,huh that's weird.

It's not weird at all, but you do have to look at the OP's stated situation if you don't want to make a silly recommendation.

If the OP thinks a 3200 will run the size 3pt implements he plans on using, then it would be a waste to pay extra for a 3800, because it's the same machine otherwise. Going up in size to the MX is a completely different scenario, that adds a lot of capability, for the loss of FWA.

 

[xring100]

To The OP. If you have any thoughts or desire to ever add a Loader i would definitely go for 4wd on whatever model you get. The 4wd would also be great for logging in the woods if you have any hills the 4wd is also nice because you get 4 wheel braking when its engaged. The MX is an excellent value tractor that kubota introduced I'm sure to compete with some of the other lower price point brands. They stripped some of the bells and whistles off the Grand L Compacts. If i remember correctly the Forward and reverse gears are not synchronized meaning you have to come to a complete stop. unlike the Shuttle shift on the M40/M60 series. I have no issues running a gear trans and respect your dads preference for this style.

My Next door neighbors buddy bought a MX5100 4wd and loader earlier in the year and loves it.

Again I would strongly consider 4wd on what ever decision, as a loader in the future would be extremely useful especially with a root rake/grapple.

The M series are real farm tractors. The L series are wannabees.

Funny Here I was thinking the MX4700 was was just a Cost effective Striped down L4740 in disguise with a manual or a basic hydrostatic trans and slightly bigger tires. Same Engine. And heres a partial list of areas where the MX is less tractor than the L.
MX has 450 lbs less 3 pt capacity .
The MX 4 wd is 137 lbs lighter than the Grand L GST 4wd.
MX LA 844 loader has 46 lb lower loader capacity than the Grand L LA854 (M series LA1153 loader lifts 453 lbs more at pin or roughly 19% more)

Not sure how you consider this a real farm tractor it seems like a cheaper "wannabee" to me?

The True M series are more of a farm tractor but the MX series in my mind might just as well just be called an L4700 and L5100.

 

[GManBart]

The silly thing is you didn't agree and he said would be a great compromise and adding HP doesn't just make you be able to run little larger equipment it will allow you to load the tires and pull without bogging the engine down as much. Adding 4wd will help skidding logs with pulling,turning and braking. Just cause a tractor has same frame power to weight ratio will make a difference.

I didn't agree, or disagree. He said he was looking at the 3200, and never made any mention of needing or wanting the extra power of the 3800.

The difference between a 3200 and a 3800 is minor. The difference between either and an MX4700 is huge.

If loaded tires cause your machine to bog down, you've got bigger problems than needing an extra 5hp.

 

[JC-jetro]

There is no comparison between L3200 VS MX-4700. Hydraulically activated wet PTO clutch by itself is way better than live pto(dual clutch) on l3200. Much beefier frame on MX-4700. In all aspects MX-4700 wins over L3200 with the same price only with the exception of 2wd vs 4wd.

JC,

 

[GManBart]

So I guess I can explain this also to you loading the tires adds weight,now this will not bog the tractor down but this will add traction. So with added weight it will eat up some HP and now with added traction and do a task like pulling it will work the engine and sometimes cause it to bog easier now. So I don't really believe I made that silly of a recommendation.

Don't kid yourself, you're not explaining anything to me, but you certainly are contradicting yourself. A few posts back, you said this:

"adding HP doesn't just make you be able to run little larger equipment it will allow you to load the tires and pull without bogging the engine down as much".

Regardless, the difference between a 3200 and 3800 is minimal. The difference between either, and an MX4700 is huge. A 3800 isn't even remotely close to bridging the gap between a 3200 and an MX4700....no matter what kind of crazy rationalization you use.

 

[milkman636]

Having both a 2WD utility tractor with 53 engine hp and a loader and a 4WD CUT with 35 engine hp, my vote wold be for the mx4700 for what he is describing.

I haven't put the two head-to-head but I believe that my 2WD tractor w/loaded R1s would be able to drag my 4WD tractor around kicking and screaming.

Opting for the wider front tire option on the mx4700 would be beneficial for the boggy areas mentioned by the OP and for adding a loader in the future.

 

[hammackw]

I don't think so Ham. All a 3800 is a 3200 with more hp. Same frame otherwise. A compromise would be the L4600.

We did look at the L4600 2wd. It was about the same money, a couple hundred less. It is a little less tractor than the MX-4700, per dealer. Beefier front end on MX, larger standard tires. So for the money in a 2wd, we decided on the MX. The L3200 sort of came out of left field, dealer had one gear model remaining, and offered it at the same price. Just wanted to see what others thought about a smaller 4wd in terms of capability vs the larger 2wd for our needs. One dealer told us the L3200 4wd was equivalent to a 40 hp 2wd. If that is true, the MX-4700 would still appear to be more tractor.

 

[milkman636]

I believe that 4wd may be equivalent to 15-20% increase over 2wd in pulling hp. For turning a rotary cutter clearing brush or mowing your acreage that 4wd will mean nothing in terms of additional hp.

 

[foreman Etexas]

We did look at the L4600 2wd. It was about the same money, a couple hundred less. It is a little less tractor than the MX-4700, per dealer. Beefier front end on MX, larger standard tires. So for the money in a 2wd, we decided on the MX. The L3200 sort of came out of left field, dealer had one gear model remaining, and offered it at the same price. Just wanted to see what others thought about a smaller 4wd in terms of capability vs the larger 2wd for our needs. One dealer told us the L3200 4wd was equivalent to a 40 hp 2wd. If that is true, the MX-4700 would still appear to be more tractor.

Congrats on the new tractor,and apoligize for the BS had to listen too.

 

[hammackw]

Congrats on the new tractor,and apoligize for the BS had to listen too.

No problem at all. Thanks to everyone. I'll post a picture once we make the deal. Hopefully, this next week or the following.