65HP Utility Tractor

[buckeye21]

the 5E series should all come with the mid valves installed.

with a FEL you can always back down a hill and keep weight n the rear wheels

I could be wrong but I don't believe so since they are always included as a feature when they are included, with the price to reflect it.

That's a good idea but some of the hills I climb are around 80-100 ft. That would get old doing that every time.

 

[rustyshakelford]

To run a 7ft rotary cutter, 2 bottom plough and a 6ft disk? Lol I feel it's overkill

5HP per foot on the cutter, 35 PTO HP, JD calls for 40hp. With a 75hp tractor, you could easily run a 15ft batwing cutter.

You could also pull a 3-6 bottom plough depending on the day and soil conditions, 15-25hp per bottom or 1-1.5hp per inch of the bottoms.

I think 2k is more than worth 25 more hp, if there around the same hours that's kinda a no brainer.

Tractor is to small to run a batwing unless it's strictly smooth, flat pasture. Batwing weight to much and really toss this size tractor around. A mx7 could be a heck of a load on my old mx7, to the point of taking 15 hours to mow 23 acres of pasture. Wasn't because of the ride but the power

Also with a 73hp tractor if it was properly weighted you could pull a 18ft disk on flat ground, 14ft and below for sure. That would prob mean lots of weight and maybe duals to run at a decent speed on the bigger disks, depends on the angle of cut, dual disks, size of disk blades and the concave angle of the blades ext.

A 6ft disk on a 75 HP tractor would be laughable lol.

as far as the 75hp tractor being too big for the 7ft cutter? My thoughts is as long as the PTO spins at 540 you should be ok.

I could see where the extra HP might damage the cutter if the shear bolt or clutch fails and it's a 75hp engine vs a small tree with a metal cutter blade in between. Like Scotty said, you don't have to run full throttle. At full throttle you burning a lot more fuel anyway.

After doing some research the 5055E and 5075E look to be the exact same tractor other than the 5075e it turned up more, 23 more HP and 40 lb-ft more torque looks like. All the lift capacity ext is the same on both. You would gain 16 PTO HP going with the 5075. The tractors even weigh the same.

It's interesting that that line of tractor has a 2.9L 3 cylinder and mine has a 2.4L 4 cylinder, both are turbocharged.

They are the same frame size, if that makes sense because they don't have a frame. The 5075 gets an intercooler and larger rear end. Think you can get a little larger tires. The 5075 would be a good match for the mx7, definitely not to much tractor. It comes standard with a slip clutch. Do the maintenance annually and let her rip.

Yeah thanks John, I was wondering the same thing. It would be nice to jump to a 10-15 bushhog down the road to get more mowing done. I didn't know if it could hurt the mx7 any by going with that much HP. I read online that a guy had a mx7 with the 5075e and he said it was working great for him.

I don't plow much at all, only to break new ground. So the 6ft disc is the main implement for plots.

If you want to move to a batwing and don't want to tractor shop again, get something bigger now. You will not be happy with a 15' behind a 5055-5075. I have a 5100 after having a 5055 cab and it's in an entire different league. My 15 hrs mow job with an mx7 is now 4-4.5 hrs with an mx15. Haven't really loaded the tractor down yet...pastures really haven't thickened up yet either.

I would certainly give all of this a hard look. What is the net difference in cost between your existing tractor and this 5075E with weights on front? There is about big difference in weight between the 2350 and a 5075E, about 2,200 lbs more for the 2350, very noticeable with a MX7 on the three point. Have you tried the electric pto with the 5075E starting up an MX7 yet? IIRC the 2350 has a lever to engage the pto clutch, see which one you prefer.

It would be great if we could see ahead another 5000 hours to compare the costs of operation having the 5075E at 5000 hours vs. the 2350 at 10,000 hours. I am betting the 2350 cost would be a lot less even including some restoration.

ePTO would be fine in lighter stuff, any appreciable grass you'll want everything. The mx7 doesn't weight a lot but sticker way out there. I think it would be fine without a loader but weights might be appreciated depending on your terrain.

Ok yeah I did read without 4WD, you lose braking ability with full load. If I did go with a 4WD and decide to put off the loader for the first year or two, would I need weights up front still or would that take away the slipping.

You'll love having the fwa. Very handy and adds to braking when engaged

Brett

 

[BrokeFarmerJohn]

I was under the impression of 5 PTO HP per ft so the 5075 with 61 HP at the PTO should be able to handle 12ft of cutter? And the 5055 could handle 9ft of cutter? (if they made a 9 footer.

A 5075 would have 4 PTO Hp per foot on a 15ft batwing.

Heck I was thinking I could run up to 8ft of cutter on my 4320, 40 PTO Hp.

I looked at a Mx7 cutter on CL and was thinking about buying it but passed at the time.

 

[rustyshakelford]

I was under the impression of 5 PTO HP per ft so the 5075 with 61 HP at the PTO should be able to handle 12ft of cutter? And the 5055 could handle 9ft of cutter? (if they made a 9 footer.

A 5075 would have 4 PTO Hp per foot on a 15ft batwing.

Heck I was thinking I could run up to 8ft of cutter on my 4320, 40 PTO Hp.

I looked at a Mx7 cutter on CL and was thinking about buying it but passed at the time.

Having the hp and having the tractor size are two different things. Yes, 5hp per ft of cutter is a good guide for power. When you see the ratings on shredders, you can have a 7' requiring 40-45 pto hp or an 8' requiring 35 pto hp. The power isn't as important as tractor size as far as weight is concerned. It requires less to run an mx8 than mx7 because the 7' sticks so far back and the 8 can come with a drawbar, semi mount or 3pt. The 3pt is clearly the largest load on the tractor.

I tried my spare 15' cutter behind my 5055e cab just to see what it would do. It was slinging that tractor all of the place. Definitely not something I would want to do often. Also, the tractor was so short that I couldn' t load it on my old trailer. It was fine in the light brush but would be drug down to a creep in heavier stuff. The mx7 was all that 5055 wanted unless it was weeds or light grass

I think a 12' would be a good match but nothing more for the 5075.

For your tractor, look for a semi mount mx8, pulls great. I bought one off CL that had 50 hrs on it and was pulled with a 4066r cab. He went up to a 12' batwing. Don't know how it's working out but he had plenty of hp but I bet is he nervous with the weight.

Brett

 

[BrokeFarmerJohn]

Having the hp and having the tractor size are two different things. Yes, 5hp per ft of cutter is a good guide for power. When you see the ratings on shredders, you can have a 7' requiring 40-45 pto hp or an 8' requiring 35 pto hp. The power isn't as important as tractor size as far as weight is concerned. It requires less to run an mx8 than mx7 because the 7' sticks so far back and the 8 can come with a drawbar, semi mount or 3pt. The 3pt is clearly the largest load on the tractor.

I tried my spare 15' cutter behind my 5055e cab just to see what it would do. It was slinging that tractor all of the place. Definitely not something I would want to do often. Also, the tractor was so short that I couldn' t load it on my old trailer. It was fine in the light brush but would be drug down to a creep in heavier stuff. The mx7 was all that 5055 wanted unless it was weeds or light grass

I think a 12' would be a good match but nothing more for the 5075.

For your tractor, look for a semi mount mx8, pulls great. I bought one off CL that had 50 hrs on it and was pulled with a 4066r cab. He went up to a 12' batwing. Don't know how it's working out but he had plenty of hp but I bet is he nervous with the weight.

Brett

Thanks for the info, that's very valuable info at that, I think if I get a bush hog I will stick with a 6ft, I think a 8ft would be a pain to transport, I don't need a bush hog at my property, it would solely be for custom work. The reason I haven't bought one yet.

 

[terryknight]

I could be wrong but I don't believe so since they are always included as a feature when they are included, with the price to reflect it.

m,y mistake. it appears they currently are an option, though looking back at the brochure from when i bought mine, they were standard.

 

[jenkinsph]

Thanks for the info, that's very valuable info at that, I think if I get a bush hog I will stick with a 6ft, I think a 8ft would be a pain to transport, I don't need a bush hog at my property, it would solely be for custom work. The reason I haven't bought one yet.

A 6' medium duty brush hog is a good fit for your tractor and I agree is easier to transport. I had an MX6 for a few years and the size was a good fit for the 4520 but sold it before it had a chance to grenade the gear box shaft.

 

[buckeye21]

I think I may have found a good deal on a 4WD 5065 with just under 300 hours. Would I need the weights up front if I went with it?

 

[BrokeFarmerJohn]

I think I may have found a good deal on a 4WD 5065 with just under 300 hours. Would I need the weights up front if I went with it?

For traction, not likely, for stability? The 5065 will weigh close to the 5055 and 5075, you will need just as much ballast as before.

JD has ballast calculators you can work.

 

[rustyshakelford]

I'd run it as is before spending money on something you may not need. Give it some seat time and go from there

Brett