Comparing 5055e to 4000 series compacts

[Rmd8136]

I have not yet purchased a Deere but zeroing in on 5055 or 5065. I will be maintaining roads on 80 acre timber tract with about 30 naturally regenerating or creeks/drains. 5 or 6 food plots to totaling 5 acres, cutting fire breaks and plowing plots. Also using FEL for moving brush piles, filling ruts with aggregate, etc. In looking at the 4000 series compacts they look more expensive and lighter and less capable. Is this a no brainer that 5000 series is much better value ? Is the benefit of the 4000 series (eg 4320, 4520) that they are easier to transport and that is great for people moving their equipment daily? I would like some perspective on why the 4000 series seem like not nearly the value as the 5000 (smaller ones like 55 or 65) tractors. I started out looking at a 4005 with 300CX loader and it just seems for a few dollars more I am getting 2000 more lbs tractor and much more capability.

 

[JD 4520]

There is a lot more than what you mentioned but you're on the right track. The 5000 is a heavier tractor, has a different power train, larger tires particularly in the front, has same to similar HP and power period. Look at all of the implement options that you think you may eventually need and make sure you don't go wrong on the choice of tractor and not consider long term needs. I would tent to lean to the 5000 series 4WD.

 

[xring100]

For what your doing go for the utility tractor you'll be happier with the capabilities and the lower price tag. From a guy with 10 acres and 85 hp Kubota. I think if you go up to the next frame size you can get a power shuttle on the 5e series

 

[AKfish]

I have not yet purchased a Deere but zeroing in on 5055 or 5065. I will be maintaining roads on 80 acre timber tract with about 30 naturally regenerating or creeks/drains. 5 or 6 food plots to totaling 5 acres, cutting fire breaks and plowing plots. Also using FEL for moving brush piles, filling ruts with aggregate, etc. In looking at the 4000 series compacts they look more expensive and lighter and less capable. Is this a no brainer that 5000 series is much better value ? Is the benefit of the 4000 series (eg 4320, 4520) that they are easier to transport and that is great for people moving their equipment daily? I would like some perspective on why the 4000 series seem like not nearly the value as the 5000 (smaller ones like 55 or 65) tractors. I started out looking at a 4005 with 300CX loader and it just seems for a few dollars more I am getting 2000 more lbs tractor and much more capability.

I went through the same "brushpile" that you're currently working through a couple of years ago. I wanted a tractor with at least 55hp @ pto and a cab. I have been super impressed with the durability and reliability of the eHydro transmission - so, I seriously considered a 4720.

Well, after the first 5-6 quotes it became very apparent; very quickly that the cost of a well-optioned 4720 was gonna be more money than a 5065e! And definitely within reasonable striking distance of a cabbed, 5083e limited! Whoa..

With that realization, I resolved that if I was gonna make the investment in a new tractor; I might as well get into a model that was gonna have the level of "creature comforts" that I figured were important for the long-term as well as have the size and capability that would grow with my farm and the workload I have planned for the next decade or so.

That criteria made it pretty straightforward - 5000 series.

AKfish

 

[vtsnowedin]

I have not yet purchased a Deere but zeroing in on 5055 or 5065. I will be maintaining roads on 80 acre timber tract with about 30 naturally regenerating or creeks/drains. 5 or 6 food plots to totaling 5 acres, cutting fire breaks and plowing plots. Also using FEL for moving brush piles, filling ruts with aggregate, etc. In looking at the 4000 series compacts they look more expensive and lighter and less capable. Is this a no brainer that 5000 series is much better value ? Is the benefit of the 4000 series (eg 4320, 4520) that they are easier to transport and that is great for people moving their equipment daily? I would like some perspective on why the 4000 series seem like not nearly the value as the 5000 (smaller ones like 55 or 65) tractors. I started out looking at a 4005 with 300CX loader and it just seems for a few dollars more I am getting 2000 more lbs tractor and much more capability.

That is very much in line with what I was thinking. The power to weight ratio is much better and that is what controls loads that are trying to push you down a hill. 3PH capacity and loader capacity etc. All very good on the 5000 series for less money. If you don't need to squeeze into places the 4000 series will go that the 5000 series can't then what advantage does the 4000 series have? An HST , a self leveling loader, armrests on the seat, nifty cup holders? Both are nice tractors of course but the more real work you have in front of you the more you are going to want the 5000 class machine.

 

[dusty3030]

For what you describe I'd say 5000 series too. I have a 4120 and love it, but would buy a 5000 series for what you describe.

 

[Rmd8136]

For what you describe I'd say 5000 series too. I have a 4120 and love it, but would buy a 5000 series for what you describe.

Thanks for advice. I am definitely a newbie but when I look at $/lb the value of the 5000 series looks great. If I was grading home lots or digging footings with a backhoe and needing to haul the equipment many places I could see the compacts being more suited for that. One more question (AKfish would be interested in your opinion too), what HP should I get? I will be pulling a Bush Hog 296 and it says minimum PTO is 45 HP. Deere advertises 45 HP on the 5055 but the Nebraska test (tractor data.com) shows actual is 48-49 PTO HP. I will be pulling Frontier 1296 at about 900 lbs and with 9 inch spacing and 16 discs it is about 56 lbs/disc. The 5065 uses more fuel but I can see myself getting a wood chipper down the road. Will I have regrets if I don't get 5065? Money is relevant and I am about at my limit. I am an Engineer but newbie to tractors. Will the 5055 handle these needs? That is where I am headed. I will get the 16.9 rears vs 14.9 std on 5055.

 

[dusty3030]

5065.

 

[AKfish]

5065.

^2 here. The Nebraska test result's are noteworthy and important when comparing different tractor's as well as determining how a particular tractor might handle the kinds of work you have in mind. But, all tractor's age and begin to lose performance over time. And that process definitely increases the longer you work the tractor at or near it's maximum.

IMO - I factor in a margin below the stated rating's offered by the Manufacturer for whatever job or attachment I plan to run. The Neb. tests usually lend an additional margin over and above the manufacturer's. For example, I've been looking at 4'x4' and 4'x5' round balers. My 5075M is rated at 60hp @ pto. I want a baler that the manufacturer rates as needing 50-55hp. The Neb hp results are just icing on the cake and I figure that my tractor will work those sized balers without "pulling the guts" out of it.

AKfish

 

[charleyfarmall]

I went through the same evaluation. I ended up with a 4520 and its a great tractor. I was within striking distance of a the 5083e in price but I really don't need a tractor the size of the 5083e on 34acres. On my other farm I have a NH TN75DA which is very comparable to the 5083e so I have some experience there. When that farm sells I will sell the NH and keep the 4520. Occasionally I wish I had the lift capacity and height of the bigger tractor but I really don't need the weight and the 4520 is far more maneuverable and the eHydro makes a lot of tasks easier.

The 5055e and 5065e are outstanding values but I do not like the transmission. Once they have the power reverser they will be incredibly appealing utility tractors.

 

[Rmd8136]

Isn't the Sync Reverser a very reliable and time tested transmission ? I won't be doing repeated material moving tasks requiring frequent direction changes which would make the Power Reverser appealing. I admit the wet clutch is attractive on the PR. But even for modest loader work the Sync Reverser accommodates direction changes but not as many gear ratio choices. Are there any known reliability problems with Sync Reverser? It is synchronized while in any one of the 3 transfer case ranges.

 

[Rmd8136]

My mistake on transmission name . The Sync Shuttle is what I described, not Sync Reverser.

 

[vtsnowedin]

Isn't the Sync Reverser a very reliable and time tested transmission ? I won't be doing repeated material moving tasks requiring frequent direction changes which would make the Power Reverser appealing. I admit the wet clutch is attractive on the PR. But even for modest loader work the Sync Reverser accommodates direction changes but not as many gear ratio choices. Are there any known reliability problems with Sync Reverser? It is synchronized while in any one of the 3 transfer case ranges.

Second to reverse works in all three ranges.

 

[Verticaltrx]

Second to reverse works in all three ranges.

Actually it's synchronized between any forward gear and reverse in each range. So you can shift from 1st, 2nd, to 3rd, or from any of those to reverse without stopping. The ranges are not synchronized however.

As for the power, if implement calls for 45pto hp minimum, they truly mean minimum to make the thing function. You will not get good performance at all when operating at the minimum power level. For a bush hog that calls for 45hp min, I'd want at least 55hp, so that puts you into a 5065e.

 

[Brooke Boy]

We have a 5065E with a 553 loader that we've got just over a hundred hours on now. Would recommend budgeting for at least 4 rear wheel weights if you're going to do much pulling, or a weight box if u are mainly doing FEL and PTO work. Good tractor so far, just found it to be a little light.

 

[Rmd8136]

So if I get my rear tires filled I should be fine? The FEL capabilities on 5055e and 5065e are identical with same hydraulic pump flow, same 553 loader and I am getting the 16.9 rear tires like you have. Are your rear tires filled or are you substituting wheel weights for water ? Thank you for your advice. I am a newbie. I believe the water will add 700-1000 lbs between both rears. Anyone have an accurate estimate of weight added for water?

 

[vtsnowedin]

So if I get my rear tires filled I should be fine? The FEL capabilities on 5055e and 5065e are identical with same hydraulic pump flow, same 553 loader and I am getting the 16.9 rear tires like you have. Are your rear tires filled or are you substituting wheel weights for water ? Thank you for your advice. I am a newbie. I believe the water will add 700-1000 lbs between both rears. Anyone have an accurate estimate of weight added for water?

16.9-28 tires hold 747 lbs of calcium chloride solution per tire." Rimguard" is slightly different. (from page 70-5 of the owners manual)

 

[Rmd8136]

Dealer uses water and antifreeze. Will that rust the interior of the wheels?

 

[vtsnowedin]

Dealer uses water and antifreeze. Will that rust the interior of the wheels?

No but it is not as heavy as Rimguard or CC. which both weigh about 11 lbs to the gallon.
Rim Guard - Liquid Tire Ballast Product Information
I have no biz interest in the product so not pushing anything.

 

[Brooke Boy]

So if I get my rear tires filled I should be fine? The FEL capabilities on 5055e and 5065e are identical with same hydraulic pump flow, same 553 loader and I am getting the 16.9 rear tires like you have. Are your rear tires filled or are you substituting wheel weights for water ? Thank you for your advice. I am a newbie. I believe the water will add 700-1000 lbs between both rears. Anyone have an accurate estimate of weight added for water?

That should be good for weight, ours aren't filled. The last loader tractor we had, had calcium filled tires, trying to stay away from that though as any small leak causes the rims to rust badly, and it's hard on clutches, but for what you're doing it should be fine.