Kubota L4802 vs MX5400

[drumminj]

Neither the L3560 or L4701 (4802) are significantly smaller than the MX in terms of footprint. The difference is mere inches and should not be criteria for the decision.

We've had this exchange before but I will re-hash it regardless

"Mere inches" is in the eye of the user. 6 inches in width can be a huge deal if you're already pushing the limit.

According to Kubota sales literature, MX is 69.7" wide, 125.9" long. 4802 is 62.4" wide, 119.5" long. So the MX is 10+% wider than the L4701. I don't think that's by default inconsequential. 3560LE falls in between the two.

The way Kubota's product line is set up, you can always go "just a little bigger." We don't all need the biggest model.

 

[John_Mc]

We've had this exchange before but I will re-hash it regardless

"Mere inches" is in the eye of the user. 6 inches in width can be a huge deal if you're already pushing the limit.

According to Kubota sales literature, MX is 69.7" wide, 125.9" long. 4802 is 62.4" wide, 119.5" long. So the MX is 10+% wider than the L4701. I don't think that's by default inconsequential. 3560LE falls in between the two.

The way Kubota's product line is set up, you can always go "just a little bigger." We don't all need the biggest model.

I've never been a fan of the "go as big as you can afford" club. However, I'm sure I'd feel differently if I were doing this for a living. This is really just about how much I want to go through just to bump up my efficiency/capabilities a bit.

You are very right about 'mere inches being in the eye of the user." Compare those measurements you noted to what I'm using now: A NH TC33D is 106.2" long, 54.3" wide, and 87.8" tall. (The width dimension is based on Ag tires. I'm running R4 tires, so I end up a bit wider. However, as far as I can tell, the other tractors' reported dimensions are also based on Ag tires. I would be running R4 tires on them as well, so the relative width is still in the ballpark.)

In addition to the tractor length itself, the loaders on bigger tractors are longer, to you are making it even more cumbersome to operate in tight quarters. So that 20" of extra length for the MX or the 13" extra for the L4802 is just the beginning of the story. (I have not bothered to research the difference in overall length including loaders.)

The difference in maneuverability when working in the woods was significant just going from my 66" wide bucket to my narrow forestry grapple. If 13 or 20" of extra length (plus more for the loader) along with 8 or 15" extra width is not a significant difference to someone, then they are just not working in the kinds of areas I am. Yes, the trails can all be modified (though most will already accommodate my neighbors 50 HP JD tractor, with a bit of extra care/maneuvering in a couple of places). However, I can often get places he can't without having to open up a new trail or bark up some nice trees just to get there.

Then I still have the whole new building thing... I'm not sure I want another building on the property, even if I can find a place that my wife agrees with.

So yeah... still wrestling with the trade-offs.

 

[jyoutz]

We've had this exchange before but I will re-hash it regardless

"Mere inches" is in the eye of the user. 6 inches in width can be a huge deal if you're already pushing the limit.

According to Kubota sales literature, MX is 69.7" wide, 125.9" long. 4802 is 62.4" wide, 119.5" long. So the MX is 10+% wider than the L4701. I don't think that's by default inconsequential. 3560LE falls in between the two.

The way Kubota's product line is set up, you can always go "just a little bigger." We don't all need the biggest model.

I will make my last observation on this topic. As a forester, I will say that if 70’ is too wide to fit between trees, the forest is in serious need of thinning. And if using a grapple to lift logs and the tractor for skidding, heavier is safer and better overall, especially having larger wheel sizes. But these are simply my opinions derived from being very experienced with forestry work.

 

[drumminj]

I will make my last observation on this topic. As a forester, I will say that if 70’ is too wide to fit between trees, the forest is in serious need of thinning. And if using a grapple to lift logs and the tractor for skidding, heavier is safer and better overall, especially having larger wheel sizes. But these are simply my opinions derived from being very experienced with forestry work.

Absolutely agree that heavier is safer and larger wheel sizes are better. I'm not arguing at all against the pros of the MX over the L.

Not every forest is being managed for logging, and not everyone lives west of the Missippi where fire is such a large risk. I get more privacy having a bunch of saplings/undergrowth vs only mature trees spaced wide apart (I assume you mean 70" not 70'?) and with lower limbs cut.

 

[jyoutz]

Absolutely agree that heavier is safer and larger wheel sizes are better. I'm not arguing at all against the pros of the MX over the L.

Not every forest is being managed for logging, and not everyone lives west of the Missippi where fire is such a large risk. I get more privacy having a bunch of saplings/undergrowth vs only mature trees spaced wide apart (I assume you mean 70" not 70'?) and with lower limbs cut.

Even in the East, managed forest trees are spaced further apart than 7’ apart to promote growth and form for lumber products. I guess that a home wood lot might be left fairly dense. However based on the OP’s post, I assumed that he is managing for wood production.

 

[John_Mc]

I will make my last observation on this topic. As a forester, I will say that if 70’ is too wide to fit between trees, the forest is in serious need of thinning. And if using a grapple to lift logs and the tractor for skidding, heavier is safer and better overall, especially having larger wheel sizes. But these are simply my opinions derived from being very experienced with forestry work.

If everything was nice and neat and I could travel in mostly straight lines and on fairly level ground, I would agree. That's not the case here.

I do agree that heavier is safer and better if you are doing heavy work. Which is why I'm often limited to shorter lengths or finding other ways to accomplch my objectives with my current equipment, and why I'm considering larger. I will not keep both tractors. I have not been putting enough hours on the one I have now to justify owning two. The key is figuring out how to del with the situations where a smaller tractor just fits the need better, if I no longer own such a tractor.

There are certainly places that are overstocked on my own property, on the cooperatively-owned forest I'm also a part of, and on neighbors' properties where I help out with forestry work and maintaining a neighborhood trail system... and I'm working on them. I also manage various parts of the property differently. In some area, the focus is timber value, in others, I'm managing for various types of wildlife habitat. I've also been outting a fair amount of effort into controlling invasive species (50 acres had a moderate to heavy buckthorn infestation. I do not want to open those areas up until I have the invasives under better control. I finally gave up on doing all of that myself and hired a contractor to help with that. It's been a multi-year program funded in part by the USDA's EQIP program - glad I got through that before those programs started getting the rug pulled out from under them.) In one trail-less area, I'm shifting the goal to managing for old growth characteristics (which still takes some active management as I work to overcome the results of past management practices).

For the most part, I'm managing to shift to a more uneven-aged forest. I'm doing a fair mount of crop tree release. I'm also doing a fair amount of storm damage clean-up -- the need for that seems to have accelerated over the last 10 years or so as we've been alternating between drought years and years where the ground is thoroughly saturated followed my gully-washing rain events and high winds: One year I lost a bunch of 24"+ Oaks (in areas that I have not thinned, so it was not a response to greater exposure from thinning) another year it ws mostly hemlocks. In the most recent storm damage events, it has been White Pine.

All of my work is planned in consulation with my forester - chosen because he is highly respected in the area for his knowledge & experience in the areas of my interest. I'm following a management plan that is regularly updated (pretty much have to do that, if I want to stay in Vermont's Use Value Program. That gives a substantial break from Vermont's otherwise exhorbitant property taxes.)

 

[jyoutz]

If everything was nice and neat and I could travel in mostly straight lines and on fairly level ground, I would agree. That's not the case here.

I do agree that heavier is safer and better if you are doing heavy work. Which is why I'm often limited to shorter lengths or finding other ways to accomplch my objectives with my current equipment, and why I'm considering larger. I will not keep both tractors. I have not been putting enough hours on the one I have now to justify owning two. The key is figuring out how to del with the situations where a smaller tractor just fits the need better, if I no longer own such a tractor.

There are certainly places that are overstocked on my own property, on the cooperatively-owned forest I'm also a part of, and on neighbors' properties where I help out with forestry work and maintaining a neighborhood trail system... and I'm working on them. I also manage various parts of the property differently. In some area, the focus is timber value, in others, I'm managing for various types of wildlife habitat. I've also been outting a fair amount of effort into controlling invasive species (50 acres had a moderate to heavy buckthorn infestation. I do not want to open those areas up until I have the invasives under better control. I finally gave up on doing all of that myself and hired a contractor to help with that. It's been a multi-year program funded in part by the USDA's EQIP program - glad I got through that before those programs started getting the rug pulled out from under them.) In one trail-less area, I'm shifting the goal to managing for old growth characteristics (which still takes some active management as I work to overcome the results of past management practices).

For the most part, I'm managing to shift to a more uneven-aged forest. I'm doing a fair mount of crop tree release. I'm also doing a fair amount of storm damage clean-up -- the need for that seems to have accelerated over the last 10 years or so as we've been alternating between drought years and years where the ground is thoroughly saturated followed my gully-washing rain events and high winds: One year I lost a bunch of 24"+ Oaks (in areas that I have not thinned, so it was not a response to greater exposure from thinning) another year it ws mostly hemlocks. In the most recent storm damage events, it has been White Pine.

All of my work is planned in consulation with my forester - chosen because he is highly respected in the area for his knowledge & experience in the areas of my interest. I'm following a management plan that is regularly updated (pretty much have to do that, if I want to stay in Vermont's Use Value Program. That gives a substantial break from Vermont's otherwise exhorbitant property taxes.)

Sounds like you are getting great advice and having a lot of fun managing your land. And have learned a lot about forestry along the way. Hopefully you’ll find the right machine for your purposes.

 

[2manyrocks]

Will turn in places no tractor can, low to ground, good lift, but no rear 3pt or rear pto to power a forestry winch. T18 Class

 

[big bubba]

OP: sounds as if you have about made your decision. maybe 6mo+ after purchase, give the forum a report if you feel you made the right decision on the size tractor you've chosen & if it meets the expectations you describe above. & if the weight/hp is safe & adequate for your tasks. all the best,

 

[John_Mc]

Still considering whether to make the jump or not.

Wife is nixing another building to store it in. We already have the house, 3 bay garage w/guest room upstairs, workshop, and storage shed - oh, and a treehouse. Plus we are finding a semi-permanent place to store the Tiny House on wheels our son is building. Between that, the dump trailer, forwarding trailer, and "landscape" trailer (the only street legal trailer I own), the homestead area is looking rather cluttered.

Happily, she has no objection to a larger tractor, as long as it's not constantly parked out in the "yard" where she has to look at it all the time. So if I do decide to make the leap, finding one short enough to fit in our garage, or removing the upper folding part of the ROPS and building up from there for my FOPS/limb risers to a height that fits is where I'd have to go. (Interestingly, the cab models of many of these tractors are shorter, and would fit with just a minor modification to the garage door. I don't want a cab for working in the woods, but at least that's an indication that shorter does not necessarily cause a problem with head height or rollover protection.)