Grand L vs. MX

[kuboman]

Is there a reason to go with the MX over the Grand L or visa versa? They seem so very similar in size and HP. What would be the advantage of a MX over a L4740 or the other way around.:confused2:

 

[bigbull338]

theres 2 tractors in the MX line.an they are the MX4700 an MX5100,the 4700 has i think 48hp an the 5100 has 52hp.

 

[mikescruggs]

I had the chance to pick up a MX5000 when I was shopping. I looked real hard at it because it was at the old pricing. I drove a HST tractor and decided the L4240 was the right choice. There will always be a time when you want/can use more lift, but it comes with a price...size. I did not want a huge tractor as space is limited in some areas.

The L4240 has done very well and I would recommend it. I think the MX is a more simple model when it comes to features.

Mike

 

[TripleR]

Both are good tractors, but I like the HST+ on the Grand L as well as the amenities not available on the MX47/5100. I seriously doubt one will do any more than the other. To get a substantially heavier duty model, you will need to go to a M which you cannot get with an HST.

Print the specs off, study them and then drive both and you will know which is the one for you.

 

[crazyal]

I think they have roughtly equal loaders but if I was going to buy the tractor for lots of heavy loader work I think I would go with the MX as (I think) it has larger front tires. When lifting real heavy loads I notice my front ag tires sqat quite a bit. That kind of limits you to buying the R4s for the GL over the R1s.

However I really like the extra features of the GL. When using the loader digging into a pile of dirt being able to downshift without letting off the pedal is a great feature that now I have it I wouldn't give it up. I have no idea how well the stall guard works since I always have it on and have never stalled, so I guess it does it's job.

I'm not sure about the 3pt and which one can lift more. I'm not sure if that really matters much though as I think any 3pt attachments will be interchangeable between the two. So if you are wanting a more basic work tractor then the MX may be the best option. If you want a full featured tractor then the GL would be a great option.

 

[kuboman]

So even though as specs go the MX is only inches longer than the GL4240 does the MX give the feeling of being bigger?
The loaders I think are identical except for the loader control so I am assuming as far as the loader is concerned they should lift the same load. Will the GL need to be ballasted more?:confused2:

 

[TripleR]

So even though as specs go the MX is only inches longer than the GL4240 does the MX give the feeling of being bigger?
The loaders I think are identical except for the loader control so I am assuming as far as the loader is concerned they should lift the same load. Will the GL need to be ballasted more?:confused2:

I may be missing something, but why are you comparing the 4240 to the MX5100 rather than a 5240?

 

[kuboman]

I may be missing something, but why are you comparing the 4240 to the MX5100 rather than a 5240?

Hmmm...good question.....brain fart I guess. Got my numbers wrong

 

[crazyal]

I may be missing something, but why are you comparing the 4240 to the MX5100 rather than a 5240?

I had assumed the MX4700.

 

[groundcover]

I came out of the 3130 and went to the L5240 with cab, love it. MX seems more farm / utility while the Grand L had more comfort,features etc.

 

[Grandad4]

Hmmm...good question.....brain fart I guess. Got my numbers wrong

Just going by the specs, the MX5100 and L5240 are darn near the same tractor. An inch or two difference in some dimensions, about 150 lbs difference in weight (the L is heavier), same tires, same hydraulic capacity, same turbocharged engine (I think ), same turn radius, etc. The newer Grand L's have a souped-up, 2 piston 3 point lift system that lifts quite a bit more than the one on the MX, and the Grand L's have the HST+ and the electronic instrument cluster not offered on the MX.

I looked at an MX at a farm auction recently and thought it looked very similar to my older Lxx10, at least mechanically. No electronics, new HST, etc., but still a very nice, hard-working tractor. Considering the MX5100 lists for $5k less than the L5240, it looks to be an excellent value.

 

[dlmpsy]

I bought the MX5100DT w. FEL recently. There are several reasons why I chose this tractor. It has the horsepower/PTO capacity that I may need in the future, it doesn't have a lot of electronics (less to go wrong), HST is nice, but I don't change speeds or direction often and everbody knows how to replace a clutch (as a mechanic pointed-out), the ergonomics were fine for me, and the price was acceptable. One thing to keep in mind is that you need to know what options you need now, or are likely to need in the future and what you plan to do with the tractor. Do you need draft control, various remotes, a mid-mount mower, or whatever. It may be cheaper to get what you need as a complete package (as in the Grand series), or add few or no options at all (to the MX). Does the tractor feel comfortable (seat, controls, steering wheel position, etc.)?

If I changed directions and/or speed often, HST would be very useful (and is available on the MX). If I needed more than one or two remotes...a different model tractor may have been cheaper than configuring the MX to that standard. If the MX had felt uncomfortable, I would have looked at a different model. Anyhow, that's some of the things I considered with the money I had available.

 

[slowzuki]

Last time I checked the MX has the same sized tires. The MX is somewhat based on the old Grand L 4610 that had the old style 3 point lift and planetary rear reduction.

The full M series were the ones with the larger front tires.

I think they have roughtly equal loaders but if I was going to buy the tractor for lots of heavy loader work I think I would go with the MX as (I think) it has larger front tires. When lifting real heavy loads I notice my front ag tires sqat quite a bit. That kind of limits you to buying the R4s for the GL over the R1s.

However I really like the extra features of the GL. When using the loader digging into a pile of dirt being able to downshift without letting off the pedal is a great feature that now I have it I wouldn't give it up. I have no idea how well the stall guard works since I always have it on and have never stalled, so I guess it does it's job.

I'm not sure about the 3pt and which one can lift more. I'm not sure if that really matters much though as I think any 3pt attachments will be interchangeable between the two. So if you are wanting a more basic work tractor then the MX may be the best option. If you want a full featured tractor then the GL would be a great option.

 

[TripleR]

Last time I checked the MX has the same sized tires. The MX is somewhat based on the old Grand L 4610 that had the old style 3 point lift and planetary rear reduction.

The full M series were the ones with the larger front tires.

I believe the "M" in MX is misleading people into thinking it is more than it is and an "M" rather than essentially a GL. I also think a lot of people misinterpret "Grand" in Grand L and think the difference is in the amenities and not performance.

 

[crazyal]

Last time I checked the MX has the same sized tires. The MX is somewhat based on the old Grand L 4610 that had the old style 3 point lift and planetary rear reduction.

The full M series were the ones with the larger front tires.

The Kubota website has the standard front tires for the MX as 9.5-16 while the GLs are 8.3-16. Both have the same rear tires. I'm assuming that the standard tires ar the R1's. The R4 tires may be the same size.

 

[TripleR]

Probably irrelevant, but the Kubota M9540 and M8540 show different size standard Ag tires, but the tractors are essentially identical physically. We had the M9540 tires on our M8540.

 

[crazyal]

I don't think there's any real difference in front axles but with different sized tires I would expect different gear ratios. When I was looking I did look at the MX. There was one next to a 4740 at a dealer in a different state. You could tell the tires were a little bigger.

On my 4240 with a full load in the bucket the tires really squish out. I think the industrials would handle the weight much better. It's just my opinion but I think I would opt for the larger tires if the extra features of the GL was of little use to me if I planned on doing lots of heavy lifting. Or I would get the R4's on the GL.

 

[TripleR]

I don't think there's any real difference in front axles but with different sized tires I would expect different gear ratios. When I was looking I did look at the MX. There was one next to a 4740 at a dealer in a different state. You could tell the tires were a little bigger.

On my 4240 with a full load in the bucket the tires really squish out. I think the industrials would handle the weight much better. It's just my opinion but I think I would opt for the larger tires if the extra features of the GL was of little use to me if I planned on doing lots of heavy lifting. Or I would get the R4's on the GL.

Over the years, I have noticed that as in car/truck tires, tractor tires differ as well. We have had Ag tires that squished and rolled off the rim as well as Ag tires that held up very well with a heavily loaded FEL. The Ag tires on our M8540 have been put to the test and do not distort under load, but as mentioned, I have had them that did. I have Industrial tires on my L5030 that work really well with heavy loads.

I know of people who have paid a little extra to get "better" tires on new tractors and sometimes it works out and sometimes it doesn't. My father in law paid a premium for special Good Year tires when he bought his Case CX 80 and they were some of the worst tires we have ever used; were eventually discontinued.

 

[slowzuki]

The Grand L5030 series and the L4610 had 9.5x16's, I can't imagine they've gone smaller on the 40's. I'd check those sizes again.

 

[Grandad4]

The Grand L5030 series and the L4610 had 9.5x16's, I can't imagine they've gone smaller on the 40's. I'd check those sizes again.

I think the R1 fronts were 8.3x16's and the R4 fronts were 9.5x16's on the L4610's and L5030's. Likewise, the rear R1's were 14.9x24 vs 17.5x24. Don't see the tire specs on the Kub website for the L40's, but I think they've stayed the same, and match the MX series. You are correct that the MX resembles an updated L4610, minus the rubber floormat. Original MX5000 even had the same LA852 FEL.