M59 Discussion Thread

[mike69440]

The L39 relief is supposedly set at 2750 Psi, mine was set low. Bet the M59 is 2700 Psi or so.

M62 $$$$$

 

[mikester]

Main hydraulic circuit relief valve setting 2780 to 2910 psi

 

[Piston]

Thanks Mike and Mike.

Now, does anyone have the ground clearance handy? The specs show the ground clearance of the tractor itself, but don't seem to account for the loader frame.

I'd like to compare it to my ground clearance on my 4610.

I'll stop asking questions now.

 

[mike69440]

Thanks Mike and Mike.

Now, does anyone have the ground clearance handy? The specs show the ground clearance of the tractor itself, but don't seem to account for the loader frame.

I'd like to compare it to my ground clearance on my 4610.

I'll stop asking questions now.

I got a question!

Why are you interested in an M59 when you have a very capable Ag. tractor in the L4610 and a beast TLB with the JD410 TLB. Is it weight limitation, transport, soft ground?

 

[Piston]

I got a question!

Why are you interested in an M59 when you have a very capable Ag. tractor in the L4610 and a beast TLB with the JD410 TLB. Is it weight limitation, transport, soft ground?

Well, I could make a whole new thread on that subject, but to avoid taking this discussion too far off topic, the main points are transporting the 410, as well as it being too large for most of the work I'm doing with my business. The only time we ever use the 410 anymore is for parking lot snow removal/management in large storms, and for lifting when the 4610 is maxed out.

I actually don't really need a backhoe at all, I came close to buying a used one without the backhoe a few months back, but ultimately decided "it would be nice to have." Realistically though, I'm still a ways from biting the bullet on one regardless. I think there is a good chance the M62 might be the replacement for both the 410 and my tractor after it's been out a year or two, depending on the factory cab.

I waffle back and forth between keeping my tractor and buying a skidsteer, or replacing it with a more capable tractor. The main determining factor for me is all my implements I currently have would be matched perfectly with the M59, aside from the stumpgrinder which really could use 50+ PTO hp but it would at least work better than my current 39. The stumpgrinder is one of my better money makers.

 

[rScotty]

Thanks Mike and Mike.

Now, does anyone have the ground clearance handy? The specs show the ground clearance of the tractor itself, but don't seem to account for the loader frame.

I'd like to compare it to my ground clearance on my 4610.

I'll stop asking questions now.

I don't see anything about ground clearance in the manuals, so I went out and looked at the tractors themselves - both our M59 and our JD310SG. BTW, for those who don't know John Deeres, the JD310 is that well-known common yellow construction backhoe/loader tractor that you see on most construction projects. It's 90 to 100 hp and weighs somewhere in the 16 to 18,000 lb range. With 4x4, a cab with heat/AC, comfort-ride and extendahoe...... a good five year old low hour 310/410 costs about the same as a new M59.

Back to ground clearance, there's never been a ground clearance problem anywhere with the John Deere. It's got plenty.
The M59 doesn't have as much.

On the M59, clearance is not a problem under the tranny, under the axles, or beneath the loader rails, .....but I'm thinking you'll notice a lack of ground clearance on the back hoe support if you back up over a pile of rocks to use the backhoe. When backing up over broken ground the part that bottoms out first is the bottom of the backhoe support. Specifically it's the lower support collar on the boom swing pivot. That part is about 9" off the ground on the M59 and the same measurement is about 13" on the JD.

The good news is that bottom boom pivot is a pretty heavy piece of steel on both tractors, so it doesn't hurt anything to slide up on it nice and slowly. Sometimes on the M59 I'll even deliberately slide the tractor up on a rock and then use the outriggers to lift it free. But I have to mention it because clearance right there is a limitation on the M59. It would be nice if it were a few inches higher. Of course then the hoe would lose the same number of inches in digging depth. Frankly making that change wouldn't bother me much. I rarely dig full depth, but often need to back up into a rock pile to do some landscaping with the thumb. We probably use the thumb for placing things as much or more than we use the bucket for digging.

It's just a guess, but we might be using the M59 ten hours for every one hour we use the JD310. That's nothing against the 310 - it's a classic. But the M59 is plenty strong, moves nearly as much material, and it's just nicer to use. Sort of like doing a job wearing gloves versus mittens.
luck, rScotty

 

[Hersheyfarm]

Do any of you M59 owners have a service manual? If so, would you be so kind as to look up the hydraulic pressure that the M59 puts out for implements? I've tried finding this online but only seem to come up with the hydraulic flow of 16gpm, but can't find the pressure anywhere, and without both numbers, it's hard to really figure anything out regarding hydraulic power available to run implements.

Also, anyone have any secret information about the M59's replacement? The M62.

An Important bit of info for the m62- NO AC!

 

[ultrarunner]

I think that would be a deal breaker at this level...

 

[mike69440]

I don't see anything about ground clearance in the manuals, so I went out and looked at the tractors themselves - both our M59 and our JD310SG. BTW, for those who don't know John Deeres, the JD310 is that well-known common yellow construction backhoe/loader tractor that you see on most construction projects. It's 90 to 100 hp and weighs somewhere in the 16 to 18,000 lb range. With 4x4, a cab with heat/AC, comfort-ride and extendahoe...... a good five year old low hour 310/410 costs about the same as a new M59.

Back to ground clearance, there's never been a ground clearance problem anywhere with the John Deere. It's got plenty.
The M59 doesn't have as much.

On the M59, clearance is not a problem under the tranny, under the axles, or beneath the loader rails, .....but I'm thinking you'll notice a lack of ground clearance on the back hoe support if you back up over a pile of rocks to use the backhoe. When backing up over broken ground the part that bottoms out first is the bottom of the backhoe support. Specifically it's the lower support collar on the boom swing pivot. That part is about 9" off the ground on the M59 and the same measurement is about 13" on the JD.

The good news is that bottom boom pivot is a pretty heavy piece of steel on both tractors, so it doesn't hurt anything to slide up on it nice and slowly. Sometimes on the M59 I'll even deliberately slide the tractor up on a rock and then use the outriggers to lift it free. But I have to mention it because clearance right there is a limitation on the M59. It would be nice if it were a few inches higher. Of course then the hoe would lose the same number of inches in digging depth. Frankly making that change wouldn't bother me much. I rarely dig full depth, but often need to back up into a rock pile to do some landscaping with the thumb. We probably use the thumb for placing things as much or more than we use the bucket for digging.

It's just a guess, but we might be using the M59 ten hours for every one hour we use the JD310. That's nothing against the 310 - it's a classic. But the M59 is plenty strong, moves nearly as much material, and it's just nicer to use. Sort of like doing a job wearing gloves versus mittens.
luck, rScotty

Back just a few years ago it seems when I was carving our farm out of a blasted piece of NH Ledge, I debated between an excavator vs. a commercial TLB to spare my undersized and overwhelmed L39 from some of the brutal tasks at hand.

Although the commercial strength FEL of a construction full size TLB and the ability to transport itself and move spoils over a distance would have been nice, the Excavator filled the bigger machine requirement better, now that i look back upon it.

As strong as a full size TLB, the excavator digs just faster, The Thumb and 360 swing can pick and move object better within its swing circle, An excavator is more maneuverable, and does less ground damage with better traction. Full size TLBs do not do well on muddy ground. The dozer blade grades and pushes material at least as well as a big backhoe bucket.
For moving spoils I still had the L39, and if a rock or other object was to large for the L39, I 'd host it up on the dozer blade, praying I could hold it in place with the bucket and thumb and not have a several ton rock bash me or the cab, then crawl it to its final resting place. In the woods the excavator was at least as nimble as the L39, and a much better logger. An excavator is a better crane than an older full size TLB, I understand the new TLBs have boosted their lift capacities.

I’m not discounting the versatility of a full size TLB on a construction site, but on raw land and farm use, I can see why a machine like an exvator and/or a lighter TLB like the M59/M62 would be a better choice. I still find it hard to swallow that an M59 new costs as much as a good used late model low hour full size TLB!

 

[mike69440]

I don't see anything about ground clearance in the manuals, so I went out and looked at the tractors themselves - both our M59 and our JD310SG. BTW, for those who don't know John Deeres, the JD310 is that well-known common yellow construction backhoe/loader tractor that you see on most construction projects. It's 90 to 100 hp and weighs somewhere in the 16 to 18,000 lb range. With 4x4, a cab with heat/AC, comfort-ride and extendahoe...... a good five year old low hour 310/410 costs about the same as a new M59.

Back to ground clearance, there's never been a ground clearance problem anywhere with the John Deere. It's got plenty.
The M59 doesn't have as much.

On the M59, clearance is not a problem under the tranny, under the axles, or beneath the loader rails, .....but I'm thinking you'll notice a lack of ground clearance on the back hoe support if you back up over a pile of rocks to use the backhoe. When backing up over broken ground the part that bottoms out first is the bottom of the backhoe support. Specifically it's the lower support collar on the boom swing pivot. That part is about 9" off the ground on the M59 and the same measurement is about 13" on the JD.

The good news is that bottom boom pivot is a pretty heavy piece of steel on both tractors, so it doesn't hurt anything to slide up on it nice and slowly. Sometimes on the M59 I'll even deliberately slide the tractor up on a rock and then use the outriggers to lift it free. But I have to mention it because clearance right there is a limitation on the M59. It would be nice if it were a few inches higher. Of course then the hoe would lose the same number of inches in digging depth. Frankly making that change wouldn't bother me much. I rarely dig full depth, but often need to back up into a rock pile to do some landscaping with the thumb. We probably use the thumb for placing things as much or more than we use the bucket for digging.

It's just a guess, but we might be using the M59 ten hours for every one hour we use the JD310. That's nothing against the 310 - it's a classic. But the M59 is plenty strong, moves nearly as much material, and it's just nicer to use. Sort of like doing a job wearing gloves versus mittens.
luck, rScotty

Back just a few years ago it seems when I was carving our farm out of a blasted piece of NH Ledge, I debated between an excavator vs. a commercial TLB to spare my undersized and overwhelmed L39 from some of the brutal tasks at hand.

Although the commercial strength FEL of a construction full size TLB and the ability to transport itself and move spoils over a distance would have been nice, the Excavator filled the bigger machine requirement better, now that I look back upon it.

As strong as a full size TLB, the excavator digs just faster, The Thumb and 360 swing can pick and move object better within its swing circle, An excavator is more maneuverable, and does less ground damage with better traction. Full size TLBs do not do well on muddy ground. The dozer blade grades and pushes material at least as well as a big backhoe bucket.
For moving spoils I still had the L39, and if a rock or other object was to large for the L39, I'd host it up on the dozer blade, praying I could hold it in place with the bucket and thumb and not have a several ton rock bash me or the cab, then crawl it to its final resting place. In the woods the excavator was at least as nimble as the L39, and a much better logger. An excavator is a better crane than an older full size TLB, I understand the new TLBs have boosted their lift capacities.

I'm not discounting the versatility of a full size TLB on a construction site, but on raw land and farm use, I can see why a machine like an exvator and/or a lighter TLB like the M59/M62 would be a better choice. I still find it hard to swallow that an M59 new costs as much as a good used late model low hour full size TLB!