Kubota or mahindra

[4570Man]

Nope not bad at all.
Given other things equal, I will always prefer more weight over less, because maybe you don’t know this, but weight is traction. Weight in the proper place is also stability with something like a raised loader.
Tractors are built for traction and stability.
I see 1-2 threads literally every week about traction and/or stability.

I think weight and HP, outside of build quality, are probably 2 of the most important considerations in a tractor purchase.

I understand weight is important. But comparing a tractor that weighs 3000 pounds and is 40 hp against a different manufacturer tractor that’s 4000 pounds and 40 hp is a stupid comparison. You wouldn’t compare a Ford F150 against a Chevy 2500 because they’re the same HP would you?

 

[Hay Dude]

I understand weight is important. But comparing a tractor that weighs 3000 pounds and is 40 hp against a different manufacturer tractor that’s 4000 pounds and 40 hp is a stupid comparison. You wouldn’t compare a Ford F150 against a Chevy 2500 because they’re the same HP would you?

I don’t think it’s a question of “stupid” to compare them. If one company builds a tractor that’s 40HP and 3,000lbs and another company builds similar frame size tractor that’s 40HP and 4,000lbs and all other things are pretty much equal, then I’d say the tractor company giving you the 4,000lb tractor is giving you more traction and with the 1000lbs properly placed, more stability.

I’ll take the traction, the stability, and probably another thing I didn’t mention, probably greater strength and durability.

 

[Steppenwolfe]

Be it as it may, with all things considered, at the end of this discussion I'll buy the Kubota every time.

 

[4570Man]

I don’t think it’s a question of “stupid” to compare them. If one company builds a tractor that’s 40HP and 3,000lbs and another company builds similar frame size tractor that’s 40HP and 4,000lbs and all other things are pretty much equal, then I’d say the tractor company giving you the 4,000lb tractor is giving you more traction and with the 1000lbs properly placed, more stability.

I’ll take the traction, the stability, and probably another thing I didn’t mention, probably greater strength and durability.

Admittedly I haven’t done a ton of comparing to the Mahindra lineup. I’ve ran them before and they’re crude machines that’s not something I want. But I highly doubt the 1/3 heavier machine is the same size. It’s very likely bigger, has bigger tires and a bigger loader. You’re simply comparing a smaller Kubota against a larger Mahindra. Compare a 4,000 pound Kubota against a 4,000 pound Mahindra and I’d bet the numbers look better.

 

[Hay Dude]

Admittedly I haven’t done a ton of comparing to the Mahindra lineup. I’ve ran them before and they’re crude machines that’s not something I want. But I highly doubt the 1/3 heavier machine is the same size. It’s very likely bigger, has bigger tires and a bigger loader. You’re simply comparing a smaller Kubota against a larger Mahindra. Compare a 4,000 pound Kubota against a 4,000 pound Mahindra and I’d bet the numbers look better.

I have 2 Kubota M's. Most (not all) competitors tractors are heavier.
For example, I was looking at a AGCO RT120. It has a ballasted weight of 16,500lbs. My Kubota has a ballasted weight of 14,500lbs.
The tractors are 122 PTO HP and 123 PTO HP respectively-very evenly matched power-wise. The AGCO tractor would be more stable and get better traction, given equal tires mounted at equal widths, axle lock configurations, terrain and conditions.

I like my Kubotas, but they are not the be all end all. There are better tractors made. They are a good choice, but once you find yourself brand loyal, which was just suggested, that company owns you and has you right where they want you. I have 3 brands of tractors. Several other brands of farm attachments.

Brand loyalty is so stupid. Each time you buy, always do your research and buy what suits your needs and budget.

 

[4570Man]

I have 2 Kubota M's. Tractor data has them listed at ~10,000lbs. Most (not all) competitors tractors are heavier.
For example, I was looking at a AGCO RT120. It has a ballasted weight of 16,500lbs. My Kubota has a ballasted weight of 14,500lbs.
The tractors are 122 PTO HP and 123 PTO HP respectively-very evenly matched power-wise. The AGCO tractor would be more stable and get better traction, given equal tires mounted at equal widths, axle lock configurations, terrain and conditions.

I like my Kubotas, but they are not the be all end all. There are better tractors made. They are a good choice, but once you find yourself brand loyal, which was just suggested, that company owns you and has you right where they want you. I have 3 brands of tractors. Several other brands of farm attachments.

Brand loyalty is so stupid. Each time you buy, always do your research and buy what suits your needs and budget.

I’m not brand loyal. I’m a Chevy guy and I’m driving 2 Ford trucks. I’ve had a Deere backhoe too. I wouldn’t hesitate to buy a Deere mini x either. I’m simply saying comparing equal hp leads to a poor comparison. 100 hp or larger tractors isn’t Kubotas bread and butter either.

 

[Cahaba Valley Farm]

I'll add in that a lot of people don't have any other choices then Deere or Kubota. In my particular town there isn't a New Holland dealer in the whole state. The closest Kioti dealer is at least an hour away from me and had bad follow up. The Yanmar dealer is not even a tractor dealer and says he can't get any. The local Bobcat dealer doesn't want anything to do with the tractor line. The Agco dealer is not conveniently located to us and made no effort to earn our business. So I don't think it's always brand loyalty as much as there are no other good choices in the market for many of us. People are often forced to choose between those two brands whether they like them or not. When Ford pulled out of the market in '89-'90 that was the worst day of the tractor industry. There is no doubt in my mind had they not sold off their tractor division they would still be on top and everyone else would of been second and third in this business.

 

[5030]

Anyone who thinks lighter castings on machinery is better, doesn't know much about casting durability on machinery.

SR

The strength in any casting is entirely dependent not on the thickness but on how the internal gusseting is designed and cast in.

 

[paulfun9]

I’m not brand loyal. I’m a Chevy guy and I’m driving 2 Ford trucks. I’ve had a Deere backhoe too. I wouldn’t hesitate to buy a Deere mini x either. I’m simply saying comparing equal hp leads to a poor comparison. 100 hp or larger tractors isn’t Kubotas bread and butter either.

So if my needs dictate a 40 hp tractor to achieve my PTO needs then to get what I need in wieght for my other tasks I need to buy a 60 HP kubota to achieve my needs in whieght?
Looking at the overall use of a tractor I would say baseline HP is the best place to start and not having to pay more for extra HP to achieve everything else is a good way to drop the riff raff and ******** that comes with brand loyalty from my shopping list!

 

[Hay Dude]

So if my needs dictate a 40 hp tractor to achieve my PTO needs then to get what I need in wieght for my other tasks I need to buy a 60 HP kubota to achieve my needs in whieght?
Looking at the overall use of a tractor I would say baseline HP is the best place to start and not having to pay more for extra HP to achieve everything else is a good way to drop the riff raff and ******** that comes with brand loyalty from my shopping list!

Or you can add weight in various forms
Cast rims
Wheel weights
Fluid filled tires
ballast box on 3 point hitch

Kubota isn’t the only tractor made with a high HP to weight ratio.

 

[Cahaba Valley Farm]

So if my needs dictate a 40 hp tractor to achieve my PTO needs then to get what I need in wieght for my other tasks I need to buy a 60 HP kubota to achieve my needs in whieght?
Looking at the overall use of a tractor I would say baseline HP is the best place to start and not having to pay more for extra HP to achieve everything else is a good way to drop the riff raff and ******** that comes with brand loyalty from my shopping list!

Everyone has different needs for a tractor and that was what I was discussing with Jeff in a different thread. In my particular situation I didn't need a lot of weight. In fact the lighter the better for me because all I am doing is mowing and property maintenance. Now if I was going to do a sizable food plot and pull a 3 to 4 bottom plow then the opposite would be true. That's why you have to take horsepower in relation to weight and vice versa. It's always the application that will determine the horsepower to weight ratio.

 

[Hay Dude]

The strength in any casting is entirely dependent not on the thickness but on how the internal gusseting is designed and cast in.

So we are discussing 3 factors associated with weight
Strength
Stability
Traction

if the extra weight is placed low on the tractor, it will add traction and stability. Usually it is. It’s in the form of thicker frame.
Your comment about bracing/gusseting is legit, but Id be willing to bet that the majority of the time, the heavier tractor is stronger.

For that reason, everything else being equal, the heavier tractor is the better choice where traction, stability and strength are desired.

That’s not to say lighter is never an advantage. Lighter is an advantage to some who are trailering a tractor and their trailer or tow vehicle can only handle a certain weight limit, or an owner who wants lighter weight on lawns or soft areas for flotation.
Theres a couple very large areas I mow which are constantly mushy, but I still need a lot of HP for the tall, thick grass it grows and flotation tires to keep it from sinking. My M135X does very well in that scenario

 

[bdhsfz6]

You can add weight to a tractor but not quality.

 

[Sawyer Rob]

The strength in any casting is entirely dependent not on the thickness but on how the internal gusseting is designed and cast in.

AND the heavier they are, the better they take vibrations, that are always present in a machine as it runs.

Heavy castings just take abuse better...

SR

 

[5030]

...and the heavier they are the more ground compaction they impart and the heavier they are, the more plant damage they do. Why large tractors are now starting to come out with tracks on them. Tracks lessen the compaction and tracks destroy less crop too.

Of course with a CUT, none of that matters. In my scenario it does.

 

[4570Man]

So if my needs dictate a 40 hp tractor to achieve my PTO needs then to get what I need in wieght for my other tasks I need to buy a 60 HP kubota to achieve my needs in whieght?
Looking at the overall use of a tractor I would say baseline HP is the best place to start and not having to pay more for extra HP to achieve everything else is a good way to drop the riff raff and ******** that comes with brand loyalty from my shopping list!

It’s not very often a buyers pto hp needs dictate the tractor buying choice with no consideration for anything else. But if 40 hp was all that matters Kubota would get you there with a smaller tractor than Mahindra. If you wanted to lift a 2500 pound pallet than you probably need a Kubota with more than 40 hp. Is more power supposed to be bad? BTW Kubota doesn’t just slap one hp rating in every size class tractor. You can buy the same tractor with fairly wide range of power ratings.

 

[LD1]

I don’t think it’s a question of “stupid” to compare them. If one company builds a tractor that’s 40HP and 3,000lbs and another company builds similar frame size tractor that’s 40HP and 4,000lbs and all other things are pretty much equal, then I’d say the tractor company giving you the 4,000lb tractor is giving you more traction and with the 1000lbs properly placed, more stability.

I’ll take the traction, the stability, and probably another thing I didn’t mention, probably greater strength and durability.

If one company builds a 4000# 40HP and another builds a 3000# 40HP machine...I doubt all other things would be equal.

Heck, Even if you ONLY look at the mahindra line....They make a ~40hp machine in the 1600 series all the way up to the 5500 series.
Mahindra
1640......3175 pounds
2465......3285 pounds
3640......4367 pounds
4540......5192 pounds
5545......5567 pounds

BIG spread of size and weight for a 40HP machine even just from mahindra.

While Im not saying there isnt a need for a 5567# 40hp tractor.....I think a majority of people wanting a tractor that physically large and heavy are gonna want 60-70hp to go along with it.

It isnt an accurate or fair comparison to compare a 4540 or 5545 mahindra to a 1640 or 2465 mahindra even though they are all 40hp. So why do some think its accurate and fair to compare mahindras to the competition in the same manner?

At the end of the day you can say mahindras are heavier and if it makes you feel good you can think that they are stronger and more durable.

But IMO you are comparing it to the WRONG models of the competition. And when comparing physical sizes and weights of the machines....I say the mahindras are underpowered.

Its kinda like what the manufactures are doing in the 25HP class. You can get a 2500-3000 pound machine in 25HP (usually detuned engines to meet the EPA requirements). You can also get a SCUT or a garden tractor in the 25HP class. But it makes for foolish comparisons. Mahindra is choosing to do this across the board and put in smaller engines so their tractors look like bad@$$es when people foolishly compare paper specs behind a computer screen by classing them according to HP.

 

[paulfun9]

You can add weight to a tractor but not quality.

But if I have to add wieght to every tractor to get the best ballast, then kubota is still the underdog and to even attempt to get it close to the other it will cost more in ballast.
Secondly your statement about quality is highly subjective and in question from many like me who have owned many brands including kubota. They are not the first words out of my mouth when referring to quality!

 

[Cahaba Valley Farm]

It’s not very often a buyers pto hp needs dictate the tractor buying choice with no consideration for anything else. But if 40 hp was all that matters Kubota would get you there with a smaller tractor than Mahindra. If you wanted to lift a 2500 pound pallet than you probably need a Kubota with more than 40 hp. Is more power supposed to be bad? BTW Kubota doesn’t just slap one hp rating in every size class tractor. You can buy the same tractor with fairly wide range of power ratings.

"It’s not very often a buyers pto hp needs dictate the tractor buying choice with no consideration for anything else."

That statement is true but in my particular circumstances it was also the case. I personally believe that the PTO hp on most of these compact tractors is too low. That's part of their "bleed your wallet" game to push you up to a much larger tractor then what you want or need and make you spend a lot more money then what you want or should need to spend. This is where you hit the point of frustration and tractor shopping becomes like a complex math problem to solve.

 

[Hay Dude]

It’s not very often a buyers pto hp needs dictate the tractor buying choice with no consideration for anything else. But if 40 hp was all that matters Kubota would get you there with a smaller tractor than Mahindra. If you wanted to lift a 2500 pound pallet than you probably need a Kubota with more than 40 hp. Is more power supposed to be bad? BTW Kubota doesn’t just slap one hp rating in every size class tractor. You can buy the same tractor with fairly wide range of power ratings.

Not very often?
Oh wow I couldn’t disagree more. PTO HP is one of probably the 3 or 4 most important things dictating my tractor buying choices. It has to be a certain HP to run balers, discbines, rakes, tedders, etc. Note I said 3-4 most important. Of course there’s other considerations.
In fact, my last 2 tractors were PTO dyno tested.

Probably doesn’t matter to you since you’re a contractor and a PTO to you is something you put the plastic cover on and has a little pile of dirt on top of it all year.
Got to remember to see things through other people’s eyes sometimes. Tractors used in agriculture, cutting or rototilling, snowblowing, PTO HP is a huge purchase factor.