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

[TripleR]

I obviously found the added features of the Grand L worth the added cost, but it certainly won't be for others. No doubt the 4701 is a nice tractor, but like BrokeFarmerJohn, I think it would be beneficial to look at other brands, you may well find one you like better or as well for less money.

If, you've already done this then I apologize for my assumption.

 

[ProjectKing]

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

Whoops... no I didn't. Not sure how well a drive forward rear snowblower works. No experience with them. I guess tractor drives through snow and then blower pulls it up. Like a hay baler! Haha

 

[Fallon]

I saw something about moving bales when I skimmed the thread. My l3200 would move big rectangular bales, barely. It was not safe or pleasant to do though & I'd say a 3000 series economy tractor is inappropriate for the job.

My l3200 did a decent job plowing with a SSQA plow, think it was around 72". Ran a 60" rear 3pt blower fine. Moving up to a L4701 will get you more capacity.

LS , TYM & Kioti are good 2nd tier competitors that are cheaper than Kubota with a pretty close quality. Engineering & fit & finish lags a hair, but is decent.

 

[MtnViewRanch]

Whoops... no I didn't. Not sure how well a drive forward rear snowblower works. No experience with them. I guess tractor drives through snow and then blower pulls it up. Like a hay baler! Haha

I have no experience with them either, but if I had a need, that is what I would be using. Run with the bucket 12" off the ground curled all the way back and go. If the tractor can't drive through 12" of snow, then you need a bigger tractor.

The few guys that I have read about that have them sure seem to like them.

 

[BrokeFarmerJohn]

I saw something about moving bales when I skimmed the thread. My l3200 would move big rectangular bales, barely. It was not safe or pleasant to do though & I'd say a 3000 series economy tractor is inappropriate for the job.

My l3200 did a decent job plowing with a SSQA plow, think it was around 72". Ran a 60" rear 3pt blower fine. Moving up to a L4701 will get you more capacity.

LS , TYM & Kioti are good 2nd tier competitors that are cheaper than Kubota with a pretty close quality. Engineering & fit & finish lags a hair, but is decent.

Fun fact LS is owned by LG, LG and Fiat are the primary share holders of CNH so all the LS, New Holland and Case compacts are the same tractors made in South Korea. I read guys that bought a workmaster with LS badge on the rear end. That being said, I got my hands on the workmaster 37 and liked it a lot, way more expensive than non grand L and JD E series but at a build quality close to the 1533 Mahindra I looked at.

 

[Steppenwolfe]

The 3901 is a very nice machine, great power, very quick on the fel, and just the right size for most uses. It is a bit light in the rear, so load the tires and even add wheel weights for more stability. Compared to the B series, there is no comparison. I bought my little 2320 for our 5 acre mountain property and it does fine. However, I wouldn't consider it for a larger property and any kind of heavier work. Check out the MX, they are beasts.

 

[kubotacres]

I saw something about moving bales when I skimmed the thread. My l3200 would move big rectangular bales, barely. It was not safe or pleasant to do though & I'd say a 3000 series economy tractor is inappropriate for the job.

That's odd. My l3200 would lift and move 4x5 round bales with ease. That was with loaded rears also.

 

[Fxfymn]

Why a snow blower instead of a plow? In most cases a plow will more than adequately move the snow more quickly and efficiently than a blower will. Unless you have a situation where you must lift the snow over a steep bank or you get very deep drifts a plow should work just fine.

Once you decide if a blower is absolutely needed than you can make a rational choice on the tractor. I just went to a 4060 HSTC from a L3430 open platform because I was tired of freezing my butt off plowing snow. Based on your location a cab tractor would seem to be a logical choice.

I also use my tractor in the woods quite a bit and I share your concern about using a cab tractor for that, but you can do a lot to shield the tractor with some pieces of plate and a little ingenuity.

 

[s219]

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.

I'm not really talking about displacement, but rather, engine configuration. The best way to look at it is "all else equal". If just want/like more displacement, then a larger three-cylinder would be smoother than the same displacement four-cylinder and capable of the same power. It might be too wide or tall, however, so there may be a packaging disadvantage.

The smoothness is all about balance, reciprocating mass, and harmonics and there is a real fundamental difference in various engine configuration. If you're a car guy, you will know straight-six engines and V-12 engines are legendary for their smoothness, and it's the same reason a three-cylinder is smoother than a four-cylinder. Which engine is chosen for a given application, and why, is often dictated by packaging.

Tractors are just like any other application, and as HP needs go up, the natural progression is to increase displacement up to some practical limit, and then start adding cylinders beyond that limit. There are quite a few examples of this in Kubota's lineup, and some oddities too. The previous generation B series had three-cylinder engines in the B2320,2620,2920, displacing 61.1, 68.5, and 77.0 cubic inches respectively, with a 2800rpm power rating, while the larger B3200/3300SU had a four-cylinder of 91.5 cubic inches rated at 2700rpm. At the same time, the larger L-series 3200/3800 models had three-cylinder engines with 91.5 and 111.4 cubic inch displacement rated at 2700 and 2800 rpm, respectively.

So there is an interesting crossover, with a smaller B3200 having a 91.5 cu.in four-cylinder (which was commonly noted to be a real buzzy engine, BTW) and the larger L3200 having a 91.5 cu.in three-cylinder engine. Why would that be? Most certainly, it was because the B didn't have the space to squeeze in the wider and taller three-cylinder (lengthwise, the engines are within about an inch of each other). If it did, it would have gotten a smoother engine with the same displacement, rpm rating, horsepower, and torque. The L's 91.5 cu.in three-cylinder is known to be a stronger, smoother, better engine than the B's 91.5 cu.in four-cylinder (the three-cylinder also weighs more, at 148# compared to the four's 110#). This is a case where, all else equal, the B would have been better off with the three-cylinder if it could have fit. Or coming at it from the the other direction, it just wouldn't make sense for anyone to want the four-cylinder in the L -- the three-cylinder fits and is a better, smoother, heavier engine.

This is one example of many where you should not conclude that more cylinders are better, and it's the same reason I don't consider the L4701's four-cylinder to be an advantage over three-cylinder engines as you claimed. If the L4701 had enough space to accommodate a three-cylinder of the same displacement/power as its 148.5 cu.in 47HP four-cylinder engine, I think you'd find it was a smoother, better engine. But, once you start getting into that displacement range, three-cylinder engines would be quite wide/tall and not practical for packaging.

 

[BrokeFarmerJohn]

I'm not really talking about displacement, but rather, engine configuration. The best way to look at it is "all else equal". If just want/like more displacement, then a larger three-cylinder would be smoother than the same displacement four-cylinder and capable of the same power. It might be too wide or tall, however, so there may be a packaging disadvantage.

The smoothness is all about balance, reciprocating mass, and harmonics and there is a real fundamental difference in various engine configuration. If you're a car guy, you will know straight-six engines and V-12 engines are legendary for their smoothness, and it's the same reason a three-cylinder is smoother than a four-cylinder. Which engine is chosen for a given application, and why, is often dictated by packaging.

Tractors are just like any other application, and as HP needs go up, the natural progression is to increase displacement up to some practical limit, and then start adding cylinders beyond that limit. There are quite a few examples of this in Kubota's lineup, and some oddities too. The previous generation B series had three-cylinder engines in the B2320,2620,2920, displacing 61.1, 68.5, and 77.0 cubic inches respectively, with a 2800rpm power rating, while the larger B3200/3300SU had a four-cylinder of 91.5 cubic inches rated at 2700rpm. At the same time, the larger L-series 3200/3800 models had three-cylinder engines with 91.5 and 111.4 cubic inch displacement rated at 2700 and 2800 rpm, respectively.

So there is an interesting crossover, with a smaller B3200 having a 91.5 cu.in four-cylinder (which was commonly noted to be a real buzzy engine, BTW) and the larger L3200 having a 91.5 cu.in three-cylinder engine. Why would that be? Most certainly, it was because the B didn't have the space to squeeze in the wider and taller three-cylinder (lengthwise, the engines are within about an inch of each other). If it did, it would have gotten a smoother engine with the same displacement, rpm rating, horsepower, and torque. The L's 91.5 cu.in three-cylinder is known to be a stronger, smoother, better engine than the B's 91.5 cu.in four-cylinder (the three-cylinder also weighs more, at 148# compared to the four's 110#). This is a case where, all else equal, the B would have been better off with the three-cylinder if it could have fit. Or coming at it from the the other direction, it just wouldn't make sense for anyone to want the four-cylinder in the L -- the three-cylinder fits and is a better, smoother, heavier engine.

This is one example of many where you should not conclude that more cylinders are better, and it's the same reason I don't consider the L4701's four-cylinder to be an advantage over three-cylinder engines as you claimed. If the L4701 had enough space to accommodate a three-cylinder of the same displacement/power as its 148.5 cu.in 47HP four-cylinder engine, I think you'd find it was a smoother, better engine. But, once you start getting into that displacement range, three-cylinder engines would be quite wide/tall and not practical for packaging.

I'm no motor guy but common sense says a 4 cylinder motor would be more balanced than a 3 cylinder, common sense also would suggest a lower RPM equal cylinder motor would be quieter and smoother.

I don't understand the strait 6 and V12 comparison if you say there both legendary smooth.

I guess I'm not understanding the pro 3 cylinder, I would have to respectfully disagree from my perspective.