Buying Advice 3700 vs 4400 or L3940

[PHILIP8N]

I have the Grand L brochure right in front of me. The Implement Chart on page 23 lists MMM model #RC72-38 for the 3240, 3540 & 3940, but shows dashes for the 4240 - 5740. However ... to the left on page 22 there's a big picture of a dude driving a 5740 & mowing with a MMM!! :laughing:

I actually asked my salesman about this (I just thought it was curious, never was buyin' bigger than a 3940) when I was buying mine, & he kinda grinned, shook his head, & said, "Yeah, I know, once in a while they mess up. It's not available for the big ones. They probably took that picture at a time when they thought they actually would have a MMM for the 5740, then something ended up changing."

So ... I happen to believe the chart & the salesman ... not the picture.

When they released that brochure, they may not have realized a nerd like me would scour the thing with a fine toothed comb

It gets even better. Look real close at that brochure, pay particular attention to the grill openings. That tractor with the MMM is a L3940HST-2. They photoshopped in the L5740HST-3 decal. If you have one of last years brocures to compare to this years brochures it is easier to tell. Philip.

 

[DiezNutz]

...they may not have realized a nerd like me would scour the thing with a fine toothed comb

What they also didn't realize is there's an entire web community of nerds like us, and it's called TractorByNet.

It gets even better. Look real close at that brochure, pay particular attention to the grill openings. That tractor with the MMM is a L3940HST-2. They photoshopped in the L5740HST-3 decal. If you have one of last years brocures to compare to this years brochures it is easier to tell. Philip.

See??

 

[sbohan]

The MMM question was to see if I should stay with the 3940 and avoid the 4240. But no responses saying oh yeah get a MMM. SO I'm considering the 4240. I have not been able to see either, so local or Barlows I'm buying sight unseen and butt never having sat in the seat. Neither makes me very comfortable.

I've heard the 4240 has a beefier front axle, any truth or more important, any meaning? I doubt Kubota would put a axle on that wouldn't handle the load, but maybe there's more to a 4240 than a couple cubes and a few HP.

The larger loader seems nice too. As for the cab and the triple M. Well got a lil 20HP hydro and it will do the little finish mowing around the house. Maybe add a large finish mower later for the larger 2 corrals. But for now I need a good alll arounder that will drive the things I'll likely acquire in the next couple years.

So 4240?

 

[TripleR]

The MMM question was to see if I should stay with the 3940 and avoid the 4240. But no responses saying oh yeah get a MMM. SO I'm considering the 4240. I have not been able to see either, so local or Barlows I'm buying sight unseen and butt never having sat in the seat. Neither makes me very comfortable.


The larger loader seems nice too. As for the cab and the triple M. Well got a lil 20HP hydro and it will do the little finish mowing around the house. Maybe add a large finish mower later for the larger 2 corrals. But for now I need a good alll arounder that will drive the things I'll likely acquire in the next couple years.

So 4240?

Agreed, if I had bought based only on specs without trying the tractors, I would have been wrong two out of thee times.

The 4240 would be my choice.

 

[PHILIP8N]

The only reason I got a L3940 instead of a larger L series is because the L3940 is the largest L series you can mount a MMM on. Hindsight now, I will probably never mount a MMM on this tractor, so I wish I would have gotten a L4240 or larger. The L4240 and larger have a more powerful FEL than the L3940. But, it all worked out in the end, I purchased a good used FEL from Barlow's for my L3940 for $3000 (local dealer was $5000 plus). I would probably still be loaderless if I had gotten another tractor (at least that is what I tell myself, and I will not hear otherwise). Philip.

At time of purchase, I was planning on MMM on L3940 someday. Now, that will probalbly never happen, I am very happy with 72" rear discharge finish mower, and MMM is probably a pain to remove. If I had to do it today, I would get L4240 (same frame as L3940), or L4740 (larger frame than then L3940/L4240). But, I would probably still be loaderless (I keep telling myself that). Philip.

 

[DiezNutz]

So 4240?

Go back and read the first 30 or so posts - paying particular attention to your own words ... see if the L4240 doesn't bring this discussion full circle.
If you don't come up with a big fat "Yes", then evidently we've missed something.

Otherwise, go order it already and come back with pictures.

This thread may very well be proof of too many choices being offered in the L series.

 

[sbohan]

Yes i got the 20HP garden tractor, so the 3M is out. Frankly I never liked the idea, jsut mounting it alone seemed like a minor nightmare, which means I'd do it twice and forget about it and it'd be sold for pennies. It was a way of considering the larger grand cab to save $, but honestly the 3M is the more than a 20HP hydro mower (better I'm sure); but it's out of the way.

So I'm back to L3940, L4240, MX5100 or my lil dream the M5040. My dealer was pushing against the mx4700 said everyone skips it and gets the 5100, he had 2 of those and 0 4700's.

Brady suggested the all around from our discussions the 3940 would be the best for me. He said he can appreciate the cab, and so would I. But if I forgoe it, the L4240 or M5040 may be possible.

I'm still torn on the 4 in 1 bucket. I know it's not as good as other,s but those will come in time, I was thinking, I could do that, pallet forks and a bush-hog and I'm set for at least a year or two. (OK 8 months)

 

[sbohan]

I'm down to the 3940 or 4240.

The only differences I see are the few cubes/HP BUT the V2203 engine in it lists an internal balancer and the 3940's v2003 doesn't. Maybe the slightly smaller engine they don't deem as needing it; but I'd really like to hear from anyone who has sat on both and heard them idle and run at speed. Is the 4240 smoother?

The 3940 has one edge in the lower cubes has to drink less fuel and being it will likely be the backup power source (with a PTO genny) that is a distinct advantage.

I wish they had numbers on the burn rate @ rpm.

Otherwise or if the 4240 is smoother, I'm going for the cubes/HP. The 4240 with a 4:1 bucket seems the way at the moment.

Loder wise, is the other large difference, anyone have a preference for the operation of one over the other, things like speed, mounting, visibility, reach etc.. The capacity would be nicer, but probably unnecessary for me at least 90% of the time.

 

[nybirdman]

I had owned a L3130(replaced byL3240) traded it for a cabbed L4240,when I purchased my L4240 it was parked next to a L3940,tough choice...my dealer told me the L4240 was the next frame size up(L4240-L5740) from the L3240-L3940 frame size.Heavier axels,higher capacity loader,I when with the larger tractor.A friend has a L3940.also very nice.Can't go wrong with either,just depends on size requirements.

 

[beppington]

When I was shopping I took an MX4700 HST for a quick spin around the lot, then hopped off it & right onto an L3240 (also HST of course). I thought the L3240 was much smoother; Smoother as far as overall vibrations I could feel, smoother operating controls, steering, quieter engine, etc., less ag-tractor-like than the MX4700. May have all been in my head, not sure, but that was definitely my impression. The L3940 I ended up getting rides, operates & sounds just as nice/ smooth as I remember that L3240.

 

[PHILIP8N]

L3940 and L4240 are same frame size, look at WB length in literature. Front axle may be different? The V2003-M-E3B engine in the L3940 does have twin balance shafts. States so in literature. Where did you see they do not? The bucket cubic yard capacity on both loaders is the same, but the lifting capacity of the L4240 and up is more. Philip.

 

[PHILIP8N]

I'm down to the 3940 or 4240.


The 3940 has one edge in the lower cubes has to drink less fuel and being it will likely be the backup power source (with a PTO genny) that is a distinct advantage.

I wish they had numbers on the burn rate @ rpm.

QUOTE]

The L3940 with V2003-M engine has a brake specific fuel consumption of .41 lb/hp-h @ 2700 rpm. The L4240 with V2203-M engine has a bsfc of .41 lb/hp-h @ 2700 rpm. These values drop to as low as .39 lb/hp-h @ 1600 rpm on both engines. Thus, if both engines are producing the same bhp at the same rpm, both engines will consume the same amount of fuel. Of course, the V2203-M engine is capable of more power, and can consume more fuel if your load exceeds the bhp capabilities of the V2003-M engine. I hope that answers your question and helps make your decision much easier! Philip

 

[sbohan]

when I configure them it gives the specs... here is what is says
L3940HSTC-3
* * * EQUIPMENT IN STANDARD MACHINE * * *


DIESEL ENGINE
Model # V2003
4 Cyl., 122.0 cu. in.
+ 38.5 Net Eng. HP
+ 31.5 PTO HP
@ 2700 Eng. rpm
Indirect Injection (E-TVCS)
Charging Output 55 Amps
Radial Air Flow Cooling

L4240HSTC-3
* * * EQUIPMENT IN STANDARD MACHINE * * *


DIESEL ENGINE
Model # V2203
4 Cyl., 134.1 cu. in.
Internal Balancers
+ 42.0 Net Eng. HP
+ 35.0 PTO HP
@ 2700 Eng. rpm
Interim Tier IV Engine
Indirect Injection (E-TVCS)
Charging Output 60 Amps
Radial Air Flow Cooling

That's why i asked. so the difference is just cubes/HP.

Has anyone seen the front axles on both? They have the same WB and turning radius, but if the 4240 has a beefier axles I'll go with it, otherwise, I think it'll be 3940.

 

[PHILIP8N]

when I configure them it gives the specs... here is

Has anyone seen the front axles on both? They have the same WB and turning radius, but if the 4240 has a beefier axles I'll go with it, otherwise, I think it'll be 3940.

No, I have not seen both axles side by side. Does a dealer near you have both on his lot? The front axle case (case only, not assembly) on the L3940 is part number TD030-12004 and weighs 66 pounds. You could call the dealer you are buying from and ask him the part number of both front axle cases and compare. Philip.

 

[DiezNutz]

L4240 has almost 6" wider front track... something is different.

 

[beppington]

My Grand L series owner's manual lists:

Front axle case oil capacity:

L3240 - L3940: 6.9 quarts
L4240 - L5740: 9.5 quarts

Front tread:

L3240 - L3940: 45.5"
L4240 & L4740: 51.2"

FEL lift capacity:

L3240 - L3940: 1,590 lbs.
L4240 - L5740: 1,880 lbs.

I'd say the L4240 is definitely a bigger beast than the L3940.

 

[sbohan]

That would explain it then, because their wheelbase is the same, and their pump capacity is the same, so the larger loader must be because of the larger front axle. So it looks like that is the other diff. Turning radius it shows the same, but that's with 4wd disengaged and using the inside brake. Hmmm Still looks like 4240 might be worth the difference in the long run. Had I another larger one, I'd probably do the 3940.