Comparison Grand L6060 more expensive than M6060?
- Thread starter Jchonline
- Start date
- Views: 50385
-
- Tags
- kubota l6060 kubota m6060
ovrszd
Epic Contributor
- Joined
- May 27, 2006
- Messages
- 32,246
- Location
- Missouri
- Tractor
- Kubota M9540, Ford 3910FWD, Ford 555A, JD2210
FatTire
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2007
- Messages
- 1,370
- Location
- Colorado
- Tractor
- Kubota L5740, Unimog 404 w/ snowblower, Deere 620i UTV, MX5100 (sold)
"to look cool in/on"? Is that why you think people choose a "Grand L" series Kubota?
That wouldn't even enter my mind in the decision making process.
No kidding. First of all, I never imagined there was anything that I could ever do to "look cool". Secondly, there is nobody around to see me using a tractor, so nobody would know even if I was cool.
Oldoak
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2013
- Messages
- 1,817
- Tractor
- Kubota L5060GST, J D X758 GT, J D 855D XUV
Now that's something I agree with you 100%. :thumbsup:
I have found the same thing, particularly in that tractor weight range. Perhaps when you get into a much higher weight category, 1,000 pounds may not add up to an appreciable performance increase.
I looked at the m6060 when looking at the l6060. One dealer told me same about bang for buck and it threw me for a period. The dealer I bought from asked what I had and what I wanted to do and had recommended the l4701. Decided I wanted more premium features of the grand l because my intent was to keep it long term.
Got the 6060 because I wanted hst as that was my primary reason for trading my last tractor. My needs changed and I went from the New Holland Workmaster 55 (awesome tractor) to the grand l and decided to go cab to help with winter work and summer allergies and insects (and my tractor sits under my lean to and my barn cats would not stop jumping on the open station and getting mud everywhere, just being honest). The l60 has the mid pto option and front hitch system that the m series doesn’t have I believe, aside from the obvious size and weight differences. My needs changed and I didn’t want a utility tractor again and I had to remind myself that when the other dealer enticed me. We have a 20 acre hobby horse farm with only a few acres cleared and I wanted something to help clear my land and be easier to maneuver. Initially looked at the 4760 but after deciding on the cab and with the 0% financing decided to go up in HP since it was closer to what I was used to from my NH.
As messicks and other stated don’t let the numbers sway you between the two and look at your requirements. A good dealer should be able to assess your needs and what your initial interest is and give you feedback.
Got the 6060 because I wanted hst as that was my primary reason for trading my last tractor. My needs changed and I went from the New Holland Workmaster 55 (awesome tractor) to the grand l and decided to go cab to help with winter work and summer allergies and insects (and my tractor sits under my lean to and my barn cats would not stop jumping on the open station and getting mud everywhere, just being honest). The l60 has the mid pto option and front hitch system that the m series doesn’t have I believe, aside from the obvious size and weight differences. My needs changed and I didn’t want a utility tractor again and I had to remind myself that when the other dealer enticed me. We have a 20 acre hobby horse farm with only a few acres cleared and I wanted something to help clear my land and be easier to maneuver. Initially looked at the 4760 but after deciding on the cab and with the 0% financing decided to go up in HP since it was closer to what I was used to from my NH.
As messicks and other stated don’t let the numbers sway you between the two and look at your requirements. A good dealer should be able to assess your needs and what your initial interest is and give you feedback.
majorwager
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2017
- Messages
- 1,062
- Location
- western new york
- Tractor
- kubota mx 5100 IH 484 ford 1620 lull 844b
FatTire is a fellow CO resident, likely good advice. Share the comments on the M7060 12 speed cab, super tractor. A choice I should have made. Having now owned a cab tractor for this bitter winter, I would not buy another open station machine. HST is convenient but very inefficient, Fuel consumption is rather noticeable. Hydro shuttle on gear tractor is very user-friendly. Fortunate to have several tractors for varied applications, but only desire a cab in winter weather. In the middle of a nor'easter snow event at this very moment.
EDIT: Follow-up to post 28 appears in post 30
EDIT: Follow-up to post 28 appears in post 30
Last edited:
Fallon
Super Member
The generally accepted number is 15% less efficient. Not sure if call 15% less effivient on a HST VERY INEFFICIENT compared to a gear machine. But it is a little less so. Personally I couldn't notice that difference unless I was calculating "mileage" on similar usage patterns.
well can see the open station vs cab debate is alive & well. no doubt a wealth of info on that issue in the forum, just like the oil wars and gear vs hst
also observe this debate is among seniors as to comfort and gadgets (grand L). thankfully, the market accommodates to the aging consumer as it should be. & couldn't be more pleased w/my open station set up
so if you truly know your needs, this is no debate. otherwise, just rant & rave. i know my needs, therefore (finally) have the equip to do the job. (& at a later stage in life).
thankfully, i don't make my living doing all this,
my reply is not advice, just a statement through the years best regards
also observe this debate is among seniors as to comfort and gadgets (grand L). thankfully, the market accommodates to the aging consumer as it should be. & couldn't be more pleased w/my open station set up
so if you truly know your needs, this is no debate. otherwise, just rant & rave. i know my needs, therefore (finally) have the equip to do the job. (& at a later stage in life).
thankfully, i don't make my living doing all this,
my reply is not advice, just a statement through the years best regards
majorwager
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2017
- Messages
- 1,062
- Location
- western new york
- Tractor
- kubota mx 5100 IH 484 ford 1620 lull 844b
Fallon,
Originally Posted by majorwager
Haneyrm,
You should have purchased a kubota, then you would be able to complain about fuel consumption. I like my tractor but fuel economy is not a attribute of the brand.
No argument from me here. (by SDT)
This post below by SDT, I was reflecting upon his comment. Also there is another member who posted the disparity between gear and hydro. Tend to side w/ folks who own both types, as I do, in recounting real life experiences. This is from KIOTI forum should you wish to confirm. His experience appears to exceed 15%
(QUOTE) I bought a Kubota Grand L 6060 (53 PTO HP) about two years ago knowing full well that it was known as a guzzler.
I use it to pull a very HD 6' rotary cutter in areas that are steep, irregularly shaped and have MANY obstacles, mostly trees. A Hydrostat transmission is ideal for such work, if inefficient.
The 6060 replaced a 2007 MF 533 (2007 version of the 135), which was VERY economical. Mowing the same parcels with the same mower with the 6060 uses about three times as much fuel as did the low tech, long stroke, high torque, low RPM NA 202 CI Perkins in the 533. I expected about twice as much.
That said, the features and creature comforts of the 6060 allow me to get the mowing done in less time and with less wear and tear on me, which is why I bought it.
I might add, that the 6060 uses nearly twice as much fuel to mow other open parcels with the 6' mower as does my gear drive 90 PTO HP Kubota M9960 does with a 7' (soon to be replaced) mower.
Hydrostatic transmissions are not known for economy because considerable HP is being converted to heat. They are, however, wonderfully convenient.
SDT
Originally Posted by majorwager
Haneyrm,
You should have purchased a kubota, then you would be able to complain about fuel consumption. I like my tractor but fuel economy is not a attribute of the brand.
No argument from me here. (by SDT)
This post below by SDT, I was reflecting upon his comment. Also there is another member who posted the disparity between gear and hydro. Tend to side w/ folks who own both types, as I do, in recounting real life experiences. This is from KIOTI forum should you wish to confirm. His experience appears to exceed 15%
(QUOTE) I bought a Kubota Grand L 6060 (53 PTO HP) about two years ago knowing full well that it was known as a guzzler.
I use it to pull a very HD 6' rotary cutter in areas that are steep, irregularly shaped and have MANY obstacles, mostly trees. A Hydrostat transmission is ideal for such work, if inefficient.
The 6060 replaced a 2007 MF 533 (2007 version of the 135), which was VERY economical. Mowing the same parcels with the same mower with the 6060 uses about three times as much fuel as did the low tech, long stroke, high torque, low RPM NA 202 CI Perkins in the 533. I expected about twice as much.
That said, the features and creature comforts of the 6060 allow me to get the mowing done in less time and with less wear and tear on me, which is why I bought it.
I might add, that the 6060 uses nearly twice as much fuel to mow other open parcels with the 6' mower as does my gear drive 90 PTO HP Kubota M9960 does with a 7' (soon to be replaced) mower.
Hydrostatic transmissions are not known for economy because considerable HP is being converted to heat. They are, however, wonderfully convenient.
SDT
