Comparison Decision time. L4701/L3901/L4060/L3560/B3350

[rjsats]

Sorry just to follow up. In some ways I really would like to just snowblow in reverse when I need to clear snow. For one thing it would allow me to keep my bucket on for help with the process of snow clearing. However, it seems like being turned around for say the hour it'd take me to clear the driveway would really be a pain. Maybe not though, anyone have experience with that? Sorry meant to put this in the first post, but it slipped my mind, regarding the advantages of keeping a bucket on working with the blower for snow clearing.

 

[s219]

Being turned around for extended periods wears on me and I don't even snowblow (I clear with a rear blade since we rarely get more than 10" at a time here). When I do grading or landscaping and run the box blade for hours at a time, my neck and shoulders get sore due to the amount of time I spend turned around. It does help a bit to sit cocked 45-deg in the seat so you can rotate front to back more quickly with less neck swiveling, but still I feel it in my neck.

I put in front and rear cameras -- main interest was front for precise loader work, but the rear comes in handy to let me glance at the implement without having to turn around, and it's great for backing up. However, I wouldn't want to exclusively get my rear view through the camera all the time, such as for snow blowing. It's great for monitoring the rear implement when going forward though.

As for the L4701, it most definitely is more tractor in every way. But from what you described, nothing suggested you needed that larger frame size. If you do plan to do any skidding or logging in the woods, it will be important to get the smallest tractor that will still do what you need, as maneuverability in the woods can be a key factor. It was for me, which is why I purposely went with a smaller tractor (B2920) when logging our property and then later moved to a larger tractor (L3200) since I was doing more work out in the open and needed more capability. I am now looking at maybe getting an L4060 at some point for even larger tasks out in the open, but that will be even more cumbersome in the woods. I can say with certainty that for my initial logging/skidding work, that B2920 was a better tool than the bigger options, by a long shot. It was like a mountain goat in the woods, whereas the bigger tractors are more like elephants.

noose covered the important benefits of the 4701 well, but one of them -- four-cylinder versus three-cylinder -- is actually not a benefit, or at best a wash. Three-cylinder engines are significantly smoother than fours, and that is an inherent trait. There have been some threads about this here where some people discover this by accident, but it comes down to the inherent balance in an inline-three that you cannot get with an inline-four. So with tractors, I do not see four-cylinder as an advantage over three-cylinder. All else equal, you will be more comfortable and the engine will be more refined with three-cylinders. There comes a crossover where you have to go to four-cylinders for more power, and at that point you have no choice.

There is quite a bit more value in the Grand L models, regardless of whether you get the cab. The more advanced HST is a big one. Weight is another. And overall comfort/refinement is a third. Yes, it's a big price jump, but I feel like you do get what you pay for in the Grand L models. It comes down to how important those extras are to you and your uses as to whether it's of value to *you*.

 

[noose]

Noose would you say you bought "too big" of a tractor? And would prefer a smaller frame because the size increase would be more of the tractor "getting into its own way"? Is the turning radius too big? The tractor handle not comfortable enough for you? Would you say the loader was slower, faster, smoother or jumper than smaller models? Over all was the increase in size worth the investment for X amount more tractor?

I think it's borderline for sure. The 4701 was a pretty big jump for me size-wise coming from a compact frame John Deere. The 33/39 frame was bigger than my previous already. I do know this for certain: I do NOT want anything bigger than my 4701. With 5' implements on a compact frame, it's still maneuverable in tight spaces (though never with a rotary cutter on the back, lol). I could just fit through a 6' gate into my cabin area to mow and the lighter weight didn't dig into the mud. I now cannot do that. The MUCH heaver machine digs into the wet soil (I have R4s) quite a bit more than the much lighter deere I had so it is, without a doubt, going to do more turf damage. I expected one day to need a subcompact or zero turn so I'd have a belly mower for finish cutting but that problem is at least a year or two away. At that time, I may look for a used BX with a tiny backhoe and belly mower to add to the fleet. That said, the larger tractor is for WORK and I have a LOT of WORK to get done and more horses/hydraulic flow/weight the better. I'm absolutely certain that even my 47 will be underpowered for some of what I want to do... life is filled with compromises but the truism here on TBN is unfailing: buy the biggest, baddest tractor you can afford.

Hey Noose, very timely, was doing a lot of homework late last night and noticed that the 47 was a lot more tractor for not a lot more money (in particular I had keyed in on the big jump in weight and the hydraulic flow oddly enough, for not that much more cost). More important is your remark about having a lot of the good stuff on the budget series, very interesting there, that was definitely not clear. Congrats on your purchase.

If I was buying tomorrow I might be going with the 47. Seems like the B series is just too little. My residual concern I suppose lies in the snow clearing. Noose do you clear a driveway or work areas with the tractor? If so, is the clearing in reverse just something you're ok with on the few occasions you need to do it? Why the heck doesn't Kubota just engineer these things to take a front mounted blower?

Thanks again!

Sorry, man, no snow in the south so I can't comment on that but I can tell you this: if you buy a B series for heavy work, you are going to regret it. There's just not enough lift capacity and flow for a tim-the-toolman tractor session. Maybe one day I'll get one but it will be a detail work unit and not a brute. the 47 is a brute. If you end up going in the 33/39 frame size, get the 39 as the money difference is almost nothing and you'll appreciate the additional capability.

 

[noose]

noose covered the important benefits of the 4701 well, but one of them -- four-cylinder versus three-cylinder -- is actually not a benefit, or at best a wash. Three-cylinder engines are significantly smoother than fours, and that is an inherent trait. There have been some threads about this here where some people discover this by accident, but it comes down to the inherent balance in an inline-three that you cannot get with an inline-four. So with tractors, I do not see four-cylinder as an advantage over three-cylinder. All else equal, you will be more comfortable and the engine will be more refined with three-cylinders. There comes a crossover where you have to go to four-cylinders for more power, and at that point you have no choice.

May I respectfully disagree with you? I've read about the 3 vs. 4 smoothness concerns and I guess that could be a concern for some (many?). It's not for me, though. I always put on hearing protection in anything that is a constant drone as it tends to exhaust me over time. My JD was a 3 cyl and could wake the dead. It was an older tractor and, of course, with new tractors comes refinement. The difference in smooth operation for me wasn't even a concern as this 4 cyl is so refined compared to my old deere that I feel like I bought a rolls royce vs my old pinto. As an old school automobile HP freak, there's always the saying, there's no replacement for displacement. I have always firmly stood on the grounds that I'd rather have a bigger engine that isn't pushed nearly as hard as a smaller engine pushed to its max to accomplish the same task. Yep, the bigger ones burn more gas and go thumpety-thump... Of course I reserve the right to be completely wrong here but I personally want the bigger engine without it being pushed to its limits -- i.e. that point at which the 3 cyl just doesn't have enough to git 'er dun and you have to jump to a 4 or turbo the 3 to squeeze out more. I'm well aware that F1 cars are turbo-charged 1000HP 6 cyl monsters. That argument is always used as proof that you don't need displacement. They are, however, $100,000 or more per engine and get maybe 5 races in before they are replaced. I need my tractor for more than 5 outings.

 

[nybirdman]

I would vote for the L4701 and a FEL mounted snow plow vs a snow blower.SSQA snow plow and bucket if you get less than 100in/year.

 

[ProjectKing]

I would vote for the L4701 and a FEL mounted snow plow vs a snow blower.SSQA snow plow and bucket if you get less than 100in/year.

Good advice. A L4701 will plow a lot of deep snow. And if it gets really deep put the bucket on and scoop it out!

You should not put a rear mounted blower on a tractor if you have neck/back issues.

 

[BrokeFarmerJohn]

I can agree with noose on tractor size, I bought a 4320 JD used, I needed something big enough to more round bales. I use the thing all the time with pallet forks to move stuff around and I can say also it's not too big of a tractor, mine is cabbed and a bit too tall in situations but tractor is nimble and doesn't have a too big tractor feel, I should never out grow this tractor so I'm happy with the size of tractor I chose.

You can read 100s of posts here of people who started out too small the first time.

The tractor I have was my first tractor as well, I went from a 445 2wd 21hp garden tractor to a 4320 48hp cabbed 4x4, man this thing opened me up to so much work I wasn't able todo before.

 

[MtnViewRanch]

Good advice. A L4701 will plow a lot of deep snow. And if it gets really deep put the bucket on and scoop it out!

You should not put a rear mounted blower on a tractor if you have neck/back issues.

I agree with this 100%. Why would you voluntarily make things worse for your body??: :confused2:

In the Op's situation, what about a drive forward 3pt blower?

Should be able to handle 12" snow falls without problems, yes or no??

 

[ProjectKing]

I agree with this 100%. Why would you voluntarily make things worse for your body??:confused2:

In the Op's situation, what about a drive forward 3pt blower?

Should be able to handle 12" snow falls without problems, yes or no??

He said a few posts back that maybe he should suck it up and put a blower on the back. I'm saying he should not do that. I think you are agreeing with me. (0:

He wants a drive forward blower... but the standard L Series don't have mid PTO so he would have to by Grand L which is more money.

I think he maybe able to get by with a FEL mounted snow plow if he doesn't get huge drifts.

 

[MtnViewRanch]

He said a few posts back that maybe he should suck it up and put a blower on the back. I'm saying he should not do that!

He wants a drive forward blower... but the standard L Series don't have mid PTO so he would have to by Grand L which is more money.

I think he maybe able to get by with a FEL mounted snow plow if he doesn't get huge drifts.

Guess you didn't look at the link? That is a drive forward blower that connects to the 3pt hitch.