Buying Advice 3700 vs 4400 or L3940

[sbohan]

I understand and qualified the environment, most of these see 40% at idle and another 30-40 well under 2K RPM. Far and few between see WOT or cruise just due to weather, lack of fuel $, time and the like.

But same same, X cu/in with and without a turbo, the turbo even at a low 3-5psi is increasing the proportion of fuel/air mixture into the same space and it's more combustion and that is more heat/stress. I'm certain engines can be and I know of many designed around those factors (and many more technical issues such as intercooling, rpm, fuel/rpm ratio's, metallugy, casting vs forged, bearing sizes, lubrication enhancements; all way too technical to discuss here); but seriously doubt those changes are on a sub $25K machine. The big full six or seven figure AG tractors sure, it's their bread n butter.

All that being said both dealers I've talked to indicated they've each only had one failure each on the little ones. Though one seemed very towards the in stock turbo over the not in stock NA.

Probably I'm more likely to see a hydraulics or another issue than a turbo even from what you're all saying, which is great news.

My larger concern at this point is how large a bushhog the 3700, 4400 and the 3540/3940 L's will pull; and for the same reasons, maybe I should go larger to have less stress on it, but for loader work around the barn, I really wanted smaller in size, and easier bullet proof operation, which is why I chose HST over gears. Truth be told I'd prefer the gears, but the wife wouldn't.

One dealer said any will pull a 6ftr, the other said no way, only a 5 with the 3700 or 3540. I want to keep it wide enough to keep me from hugging the fences.:thumbsup:

 

[Grandad4]

Most people buy a "medium duty" cutter, which is fine for typical uses. You can get a "heavy duty" one, meant for severe duty... forestry, right of way maintenance, etc... and you'd need a lot more tractor for it, so let's figure you will need the more normal "medium duty" type cutter.

Those smaller hp models are on the margin with a 6ft cutter. It would depend a lot on the mowing conditions... flat vs. hilly terrain, pasture vs. overgrown brush, frequency of mowing, smooth vs. bumpy ground, presence of rocks, roots and other debris, how low are you mowing, etc. In favorable conditions, they would probably do OK with the 6ft size, but under 35 hp is going to be marginal if some of those adverse elements are working against you. The smaller ones will have not only hp issues, they will also be smaller and lighter, thus less able to keep a 6ft cutter under control. The cab tractors weigh an extra 4-500 lbs. vs the same model open station tractors, a weight advantage but a hp disadvantage. 3940 cab will be happier pulling a 6ft cutter than a 3540 cab, for example.

Your dealer is going to give you conservative advice, but only you can judge your situation. A 39+ hp model should do fine with a 6ft cutter under almost all conditions.

 

[TripleR]

Pretty much in agreement with Grandad4. I use the medium or light duty cutters on everything. The weight difference between even a light duty and medium duty can be significant.

Since you are going to be on flat land, you can flip your wheels and make your width quite a bit narrower to keep from having to hug the fence rows with a smaller cutter. I work in the hills and have all of mine set out as far as possible. I pull a Land Pride RCR2672 with my L5030. It will pull a 7' foot, but I like the maneuverability of the smaller one and know it tracks right behind my wheels, so I snag stuff less often.

 

[DiezNutz]

But same same, X cu/in with and without a turbo, the turbo even at a low 3-5psi is increasing the proportion of fuel/air mixture into the same space and it's more combustion and that is more heat/stress. I'm certain engines can be and I know of many designed around those factors (and many more technical issues such as intercooling, rpm, fuel/rpm ratio's, metallugy, casting vs forged, bearing sizes, lubrication enhancements; all way too technical to discuss here); but seriously doubt those changes are on a sub $25K machine. The big full six or seven figure AG tractors sure, it's their bread n butter.

I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the possibility... more than likely if the same components are used, it is only because they've been engineered for either application. We'd have to compare parts breakdowns to know for sure.

To use an example I'm more familiar with, remember the old VW Rabbit Diesels? You wouldn't think of them as performance powerhouses or the equivalent of an M-series, right?

When the first VW Turbodiesels appeared in the early 80's, they had the same bore/stroke/displacement (1.6L) and CR as VW's NA Diesels and made only 16 additional HP. Yet, there were a plethora of internal differences... block, crank, rods, pistons, head, valves, etc. - all slightly varied. Stuff the casual observer wouldn't realize, like oil squirters for the undersides of the pistons, sodium-injected cylinder head alloy, and plasma-coated exhaust valve faces, to name a few. Some of these old mills are still out there running around with a few 100K's of miles on them.

Another interesting comparison... the first VW NA Diesels had the same displacement as my B3030. But whereas the VW 1.5D made a whopping 48HP at 5000rpm, the B3030 1.5 is rated 30HP at 2600 max rpm. Knowing how reliable the old VW Diesels are/were, to me it says a lot about how these modern Ag Diesels are "tuned", and the kind of longevity you can expect from one.

All that being said both dealers I've talked to indicated they've each only had one failure each on the little ones. Though one seemed very towards the in stock turbo over the not in stock NA.

Probably I'm more likely to see a hydraulics or another issue than a turbo even from what you're all saying, which is great news.

Fair enough. Peace

My larger concern at this point is how large a bushhog the 3700, 4400 and the 3540/3940 L's will pull; and for the same reasons, maybe I should go larger to have less stress on it, but for loader work around the barn, I really wanted smaller in size, and easier bullet proof operation, which is why I chose HST over gears. Truth be told I'd prefer the gears, but the wife wouldn't.

If you have much loader work to do, you wouldn't prefer the gears.

Regarding the bushhog... I agree with Grandad and TripleR. Don't know if you've been following ugabulldog's thread:

http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/kubota-buying-pricing/178987-still-deciding-size-looking-l.html

but you two are in a similar boat. To generalize/summarize:
Big B/Small L = 5 ft hog max; may be better off with 4'
Bigger L = 6 ft hog max; may be better off with 5'

And that assumes light-to-medium duty.

 

[EThogfarmer]

EThogfarmer, you use a 5ft behind the 3700 for bushhoggin? Do you think it could do a 6'? Is the 5' wide enough to cover the wheel width? My biggest concern is I have about 15 acres to bushhog and theres a fair bit by the fences and corrals. Hence I'm trying to get wide enough that I'm not stuck trying to back in to get all the edges, that would add a lot of time.

My 6' rotary cutter is a Modern super highway special that goes over a 1000 lbs. I know the little 3700 couldn't handle that. The specs on the 3700 say it can pull a maximum of 6' rotary cutter, but limit it to 770 lbs (I don't have the manual handy but I think thats right).

All I can say for a fact is it handles the 5 footer with no problems.

 

[Grandad4]

My 6' rotary cutter is a Modern super highway special that goes over a 1000 lbs. I know the little 3700 couldn't handle that.

That would definitely fit in the "heavy duty" category

 

[sbohan]

I was looking at a light or medium duty, because it's mostly hay and wild brush. Being an old orange grove converted to fields for quarter horses like 40 years ago. Other than some very large trees, it's mostly just brush. I just really wanted one that would cover the width of the tractor, and the l3940 which is where I'm leaning, is 66 Wide. The 3240 and 3540 are 59.8 which is right on the edge for a 5 for me. Maybe I can find a 5'6" cutter...:laughing:

The 3940 it seems is right between the 3700 and 4400 in displacement. They seem to align with the 3540 and 4240. So if the 3700 it's a struggle and 4400 no issues, then maybe I should do the 4240?!? I'd hate to spend the extra dough on a cab and for $1600 more coulda been great instead of OK.

 

[Grandad4]

You need to check those width dimensions precisely for a couple of reasons. First, the rear wheels can be installed in several configurations of varying widths. Some customers with entirely flat land may want a narrow setup to match some agricultural requirement; another customer will want the widest possible setup for stability. Secondly, the width depends on which tire type is installed. R1's are the narrowest, R3's are the widest, and R4's are in the middle. So that 66" width is a nominal value - I don't know - maybe the widest part of the tractor itself, and the actual footprint width depends on how it is setup by the dealer when delivered. Any dealer worth his salt can provide exact measurement information.

A 66" cutter will favor a narrow configuration for the tractor; 72" would be better. If your budget will support the 4240 over the 3940, the extra few ponies will probably be helpful in some situations, but many owners have found the 3940 (and similar sized prior models, so there is quite a track record here), does just fine with those 72" cutters.

 

[sbohan]

I"ll ask the dealer again. I was going to leave the wheels set standard, not out for turning and not in because with the loader I'd like the stability, especially if I get a wider cutter.

I could do 4240, but then I'll lose the cab. 3940 with the cab is already pushing beyond probably what I should do. Without cab I'm tempted to just do the mx4700.

 

[Grandad4]

Mine are set standard, and it's never been a problem, even on some moderately uneven terrain. Unless you plan on only mowing once a year, you should do fine with the 3940 cab and a 72" cutter. While my tractor has about 15% more hp, the 72" cutter does not even begin to bog it down, no matter how heavy the material being mowed or the type of terrain. We mow 6 acres of thick pasture grass every few weeks, among other tasks and it has been fully trouble-free for 8 years now.