LS vs. Kubota questions

[grm61]

People lift bales with that series tractor, but it always makes me nervous. If you know anything about making bales, their weight is not consistent. A wet bale can be quite a bit heavier than a dry one. I'd want a bigger frame tractor from any vendor.

I wouldn't buy from anyone I didn't like. That being said, if your not handy with tools you need to be sure and have a good full service dealer that's going to be there for you. I would definitely sell my old tractor outright and probably get a better price for it even though it will take more of your time.

I just went through looking for and buying a tractor. The best thing that I can tell you is the same thing most everyone here says and that's get a bigger tractor that you think you need. I was originally looking at the LS 3000 and 3100 series. I listened to the advice given on this forum and I wound up with a LS 4100 series and couldn't be happier.

The one thing that I would add to the TBN advice is get a cab on whatever tractor you choose if there is any way you can possibly afford it. Especially if your going to blow snow and need to feed round bales in the winter.

Listen to these guys, you need more tractor than what you are looking at.

 

[Monster5601]

Well the tractor weighs nearly 30% less so straight physics start there

If I take the heaviest in the list at 3285 and the lightest at 2778, the difference in percentage is just over 15%.

 

[George2615]

That pic was from the LS site.

I went to the official site for LS (lstractorusa.com) and didn't see any comparison chart like yours. Hope you find the tractor you need..

I forgot to ask, was the Kubota trade in quote for your tractor as is.
And you may want to consider a larger tractor other mentioned.

 

[Deezl Smoke]

With the GL60 series, Kubota standardized all FEL's to have SSQA mounts, pushing the mounting points a few inches out from previous pin-on configuration. That accounts for the apparent de-rating of the lift capacities. In terms of the rest of it - hyd. PSI, cylinders, basic geometry, etc., I think the FEL's are essentially the same as previous.

I agree with your point about looking at the machine as a whole. Putting a 2,000 lb capacity loader on a tractor that's just 5 ft. wide with a short wheelbase probably sells tractors but doesn't particularly make for safe, well-balanced equipment. Kind of reminds me of the '60's muscle cars I loved when I was much younger. Really impressive but not the most practical things to drive.

The SSQA adds almost 6" to the pin placement does it not? That is a very large addition to consider, as if the math were done, the reduction in measured capacity vs. a pin on would vary greatly. IMO.

 

[HCROW]

I went to the official site for LS (lstractorusa.com) and didn't see any comparison chart like yours. Hope you find the tractor you need.. I forgot to ask, was the Kubota trade in quote for your tractor as is. And you may want to consider a larger tractor other mentioned.

It's directly from the .pdf brochure that you can click on to download when you navigate to the XR3037H page on the LS website.

The trade in quote was as-is. The 3037/3135 LS specs are nearly identical to my 4310, with the exception of HP.

 

[George2615]

Found it. Thanks, its a different brochure from when I bought mine. That's a great deal IMO if you can get front and rear remotes included per the brochure. You may want to check the price difference moving up to the 4000 series.

 

[DT86]

Something else to think about, is a snow blower sufficient counterweight for a hay bale on a tractor that size?

With my tractor weighing 5,xxx lbs and 2,800 lbs of lift it can get interesting the few times I do lift a bale with out proper counterweight.

 

[MessickFarmEqu]

The SSQA adds almost 6" to the pin placement does it not? That is a very large addition to consider, as if the math were done, the reduction in measured capacity vs. a pin on would vary greatly. IMO.

You are correct, and this is why spreadsheets lie. We keep going back to purely comparing numbers as a poor way to evaluate a tractor unless you really know what your doing. ex, most of the Kubota's now have SSQA as standard equipment are therefore a spec'ed with the coupler on. A tractor that offers a pin-on bucket and is spec'ed with it has a significant mechanical advantage. If you order said tractor with an SSQA coupler, your not getting the performance thats on the spec sheet. This kinda stuff is done with skid loaders all the time as well, some vendors will spec them with a super short foundry bucket because it pumps the numbers compared to a long floor that most people actually use.

 

[TSO]

You are correct, and this is why spreadsheets lie. We keep going back to purely comparing numbers as a poor way to evaluate a tractor unless you really know what your doing. ex, most of the Kubota's now have SSQA as standard equipment are therefore a spec'ed with the coupler on. A tractor that offers a pin-on bucket and is spec'ed with it has a significant mechanical advantage. If you order said tractor with an SSQA coupler, your not getting the performance thats on the spec sheet. This kinda stuff is done with skid loaders all the time as well, some vendors will spec them with a super short foundry bucket because it pumps the numbers compared to a long floor that most people actually use.

I am finding cause to doubt your example... It's likely that the SSQA weight is added in, but not the movement of the lift point. Moving the lift point would result in a more drastic amount than what we see. The number seem to suggest this too, as it's reasonable to figure that the difference in the LA1055 (2361 @ pins) and LA854 (2489 @ pins) would account for the weight of the SSQA (approx 128 lbs)

 

[MessickFarmEqu]

I am finding cause to doubt your example... It's likely that the SSQA weight is added in, but not the movement of the lift point. Moving the lift point would result in a more drastic amount than what we see. The number seem to suggest this too, as it's reasonable to figure that the difference in the LA1055 (2361 @ pins) and LA854 (2489 @ pins) would account for the weight of the SSQA (approx 128 lbs)

I'm not quite following you. Try comparing LA853 to LA854 where the SSQA when from being optional to standard. The biggest change should not be in the lift capacity, but in the roll back.