JD 5083e -opinions?

[sunnyside360]

Excellent reference material - ctlguy! :thumbsup: Thanks!

Couple of observations for anyone considering the 65-75hp M series, though.

Cabbed models, 5065M-5075M do not come standard with radial tires. The fuel tank size is also 31 gallons - not 38 gallons.

Of course, you then have the choice to add on a slew of optional features that really open up the differences between the Limited series and the M's.

AKfish

I'm sure the above comparisons were valid for a point in time (when?). However, if I were buying new, I'd check the latest spec's on the models since John Deere does make changes from time to time, sometimes in a year or two between changes. I went through this myself earlier this summer. Also, found that sometimes the brochures at the dealers are old and not current so I use the info posted on the manufacturer website.

 

[charleyfarmall]

AK JUST bought his earlier this year so his comments are current. You do have to be careful when sitting down with the dealer to make sure some of the more obscure things are there - like rear window wipers and washers for example, or external mirrors if you need them.

Many people would be fine with what comes stock, but, some would rather have Michelin radials for example.

In any case, the M and e-Limited are good tractors, you just have to decide what options matter and what you can afford.

 

[PioneerMan]

I do think that JD cheapens out on the seats a little. I have a 4320, and I understand they are not meant to put 40hrs a week on. But after putting several on mine recently, I can't see why a tractor that retails for $40k has a seat that only slides forward.

 

[charleyfarmall]

What do you mean it only slide forward?

They actually buy their seats from a major seat manufacturer that upholsters them in JD brown. They are the same seats available on a number of tractors that aren't just green.

 

[PioneerMan]

I think it only moves forward and back, no seat back tilt or anything. Not a major complaint but a few long days at the wheel made me consider the air seat.

 

[sunnyside360]

I think it only moves forward and back, no seat back tilt or anything. Not a major complaint but a few long days at the wheel made me consider the air seat.

The air seat is really nice -- especially for old tired bones and back aches like mine. Once you have an air ride seat you won't want anything else, imho.

 

[BleedGreen]

...Just wonder about the HP drop from engine HP to PTO HP. It seemed pretty big to me. Like the 5083e drops from 83 to 69. The engine HP is calculated as "at rated speed" w/ the footnote 97/68 EC gross engine horsepower. Whatever that means!! Their other series - M also shows a huge difference btw engine 85HP and PTO 70HP. What's going on with that? ... So my Kubota guy is making a big deal out of this but I'm not sure it's that much of a concern

You bring up two very interesting points:
(1) Deere 5083E - 4.5L Turbo 4 Cyl putting out 83hp at 2400 RPM
Kubota M8540 - 3.76L Turbo 4 Cyl putting out 84.6hp at 2600 RPM
(Just a side note the Deere is a wet-sleeved engine while the Kubota is a parent bore engine)
So we have a smaller displacement engine putting out more HP at a higher RPM, which is understandable to a point. My question would be which engine will last longer?

(2) Deere 5083E - 69 PTO HP at 2400 RPM
Kubota M8540 - 75 PTO HP at 2600 RPM
How does a larger displacement engine running at a lower RPM lose more HP at the PTO than a smaller displacement engine running at a higher RPM? Are there any Kubota experts that would like to explain it? (I cant wait)

My question to a Kubota M8540 owner is what is your PTO rated speed on the tachometer? I dont know and I cannot find the information on Kubota's website. The reason I ask is because if PTO rated speed on your tach is at 2400 RPM, how many PTO HP do you actually have when the PTO shaft is turning at the correct 540 RPM for your implements? And if you run at 2600 RPM to get the advertised 75 PTO HP at what RPM is your PTO shaft now turning? In this case we would have a smaller displacement engine turning higher RPM's (increased wear, shorter lifespan) and an implement running at a higher speed then the manufacturer intended (again - increased wear, shorter lifespan)

Dont get me going on how a tractor that is almost 2,000 pounds lighter can lift over 1400 pounds more at the 3-Point Hitch (a 5400 pound tractor can lift 4630 pounds? What is even more impressive is that the optional 3-Pt lift capacity on this tractor is 7055 pounds! If the Deere weighed 300 pounds or so less, the Kubota could pick it up on it's 3-Point! Amazing!!!) or about how some tractor companies rate thier hydraulic flow...

Next week we can look at Kubota's "Competitive Comparison" of the MX5100 and the Deere 5055E, believe me it is an interesting comparison.

 

[piller]

You bring up two very interesting points:
(1) Deere 5083E - 4.5L Turbo 4 Cyl putting out 83hp at 2400 RPM
Kubota M8540 - 3.76L Turbo 4 Cyl putting out 84.6hp at 2600 RPM
(Just a side note the Deere is a wet-sleeved engine while the Kubota is a parent bore engine)
So we have a smaller displacement engine putting out more HP at a higher RPM, which is understandable to a point. My question would be which engine will last longer?

(2) Deere 5083E - 69 PTO HP at 2400 RPM
Kubota M8540 - 75 PTO HP at 2600 RPM
How does a larger displacement engine running at a lower RPM lose more HP at the PTO than a smaller displacement engine running at a higher RPM? Are there any Kubota experts that would like to explain it? (I cant wait)

My question to a Kubota M8540 owner is what is your PTO rated speed on the tachometer? I dont know and I cannot find the information on Kubota's website. The reason I ask is because if PTO rated speed on your tach is at 2400 RPM, how many PTO HP do you actually have when the PTO shaft is turning at the correct 540 RPM for your implements? And if you run at 2600 RPM to get the advertised 75 PTO HP at what RPM is your PTO shaft now turning? In this case we would have a smaller displacement engine turning higher RPM's (increased wear, shorter lifespan) and an implement running at a higher speed then the manufacturer intended (again - increased wear, shorter lifespan)

Dont get me going on how a tractor that is almost 2,000 pounds lighter can lift over 1400 pounds more at the 3-Point Hitch (a 5400 pound tractor can lift 4630 pounds? What is even more impressive is that the optional 3-Pt lift capacity on this tractor is 7055 pounds! If the Deere weighed 300 pounds or so less, the Kubota could pick it up on it's 3-Point! Amazing!!!) or about how some tractor companies rate thier hydraulic flow...

Next week we can look at Kubota's "Competitive Comparison" of the MX5100 and the Deere 5055E, believe me it is an interesting comparison.

On question 1, Kubota uses variations of the M8540 engine (V3800DI-T) in several tractors, the M8540, M9540, M96S, M108S, M100X, M110X. I'm not aware of any problems with this Kubota engine. It does use 4 valves per cylinder and center direct injection, perhaps that explains the power.

On question 2, you will have to ask JD why their machine is less efficient, I have heard that perhaps there are more losses between engine and PTO than for the Kubota.

On the M8540, the engine speed is 2205 rpm for a pto speed of 540 rpm. I had the same questions as you, what is the PTO power at 2205 engine RPM, Kubota does not publish the figures, I contacted Kubota and was told that it does make 75 HP at the PTO when the PTO is at 540 rpm.

See this post for more info: http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/...lly-kubota-rated-speed-395-a.html#post2475636

So the answer to your question is that the M8540 will make 75 PTO HP with the engine running at 2205 RPM and the PTO turning at 540 rpm.

Three point lift is built strong on the Kubota: the M8540 can lift 4600 lbs standard and something like 7000 lbs with the option. My M8540 never weighed just 5400 lbs; with filled rears, FEL, bucket, canopy, and grill guard it weighs about 9600 lbs. With a cab, cast rear wheel centers, front weight bumper and weights it would be around 12,000 lbs.

 

[sunnyside360]

You bring up two very interesting points:
(1) Deere 5083E - 4.5L Turbo 4 Cyl putting out 83hp at 2400 RPM
Kubota M8540 - 3.76L Turbo 4 Cyl putting out 84.6hp at 2600 RPM
(Just a side note the Deere is a wet-sleeved engine while the Kubota is a parent bore engine)
So we have a smaller displacement engine putting out more HP at a higher RPM, which is understandable to a point. My question would be which engine will last longer?

HP is directly proportional to Torque X RPM's. Higher RPM's is helping the smaller Kubota engine HP. So, what is the real hp of the smaller engine at the lower rated PTO speed? A fair amount lower. I think it is a marketing ploy.

 

[PioneerMan]

Maybe not really a ploy, but IMO a tractor uses torque to work, the smaller engine would definitely have less torque...

 

[MessickFarmEqu]

HP is directly proportional to Torque X RPM's. Higher RPM's is helping the smaller Kubota engine HP. So, what is the real hp of the smaller engine at the lower rated PTO speed? A fair amount lower. I think it is a marketing ploy.

Your suggesting they took the measurement for PTO HP at somthing other than 540 RPM? Thats a big accusation from a company who took years to use anything but bucket center loader measurements! Why is this even a talking point? I could not tell you the last tractor I was on that had its PTO speed at max rpm.

on the weights. Kubota's book weights are always shipping weights, they are not configured ballasted weights. Most of those tractors go out with cast iron rims, loaders, etc that normally put them up in the 8000-9000lb range.

 

[sunnyside360]

Your suggesting they took the measurement for PTO HP at somthing other than 540 RPM? Thats a big accusation from a company who took years to use anything but bucket center loader measurements! Why is this even a talking point? I could not tell you the last tractor I was on that had its PTO speed at max rpm.

Here are some facts which come straight out of the Operators Manual for my recently purchased 2011 Kubota M110X tractor.

Net PTO hp is 95 at engine speed of 2600 rpms (ref Specifications Table, page 3)

PTO rpms is 540 at engine speed of 2205 rpms (ref Specifications Table, page 4)

Net Engine HP is 107.5 at 2600 rated engine rpms (ref Specifications Table, page 3)

 

[piller]

HP is directly proportional to Torque X RPM's. Higher RPM's is helping the smaller Kubota engine HP. So, what is the real hp of the smaller engine at the lower rated PTO speed? A fair amount lower. I think it is a marketing ploy.

Here are some facts which come straight out of the Operators Manual for my recently purchased 2011 Kubota M110X tractor.

Net PTO hp is 95 at engine speed of 2600 rpms (ref Specifications Table, page 3)

PTO rpms is 540 at engine speed of 2205 rpms (ref Specifications Table, page 4)

Net Engine HP is 107.5 at 2600 rated engine rpms (ref Specifications Table, page 3)

Look at this link:
http://tractortestlab.unl.edu/Misc-tests/Kubota_M100X.pdf
you will see a Nebraska Tractor Test report for the kubota M100X tractor, which is similar to your tractor.

In the report you will see that this tractor made 85.15 PTO HP @ 2600 engine rpm, it made 87.2 PTO HP @ 2401 engine rpm, and it made 85.61 PTO HP @ 2205 engine rpm. So, this tractor makes slightly more PTO HP at 2205 engine rpm (this corresponds to 540 PTO rpm) than it does at the 2600 engine rpm speed. I'm pretty sure that your tractor will make 95 PTO HP at a PTO speed of 540 rpm. Does this help to answer your question?

I would also like for Kubota to make this more clear, I don't think I've ever run my M8540 close to 2600 rpm. I've seen in the engine section of a Kubota brochure a graphic for the M9540 with engine HP vs. rpm, engine torque vs. rpm, and fuel usage vs. rpm but the picture is small (also does not show PTO HP vs. rpm).

 

[sunnyside360]

Look at this link:
http://tractortestlab.unl.edu/Misc-tests/Kubota_M100X.pdf
you will see a Nebraska Tractor Test report for the kubota M100X tractor, which is similar to your tractor.

In the report you will see that this tractor made 85.15 PTO HP @ 2600 engine rpm, it made 87.2 PTO HP @ 2401 engine rpm, and it made 85.61 PTO HP @ 2205 engine rpm. So, this tractor makes slightly more PTO HP at 2205 engine rpm (this corresponds to 540 PTO rpm) than it does at the 2600 engine rpm speed. I'm pretty sure that your tractor will make 95 PTO HP at a PTO speed of 540 rpm. Does this help to answer your question?

I would also like for Kubota to make this more clear, I don't think I've ever run my M8540 close to 2600 rpm. I've seen in the engine section of a Kubota brochure a graphic for the M9540 with engine HP vs. rpm, engine torque vs. rpm, and fuel usage vs. rpm but the picture is small (also does not show PTO HP vs. rpm).

My previous comments on the topic of engine and PTO horsepower are all in reference to BLEED GREEN's entry #27 above in this thread for the Kubota M8540. The question of "what is the hp of the smaller engine at the lower rated PTO speed " is still not answered anywhere, not for the M8540, M100X or M110X. The Kubota 3.7 L diesel engine is used in several different tractor models with varying PTO and engine horsepower and I don't think one can extrapolate engine and PTO HP data or tendencies between the models. The main reason I showed the M110X data was to illustrate the same point of "what is the engine hp at the lower rated 540 PTO speed" which I feel is the standard and close to where equipment is to be operated, not 2600 rpm (maybe I should have reiterated that above).

BTW, I never run my M110X over 2200 engine rpms where the PTO speed is 540 rpms. Haven't figured out why Kubota specifies rated engine speed of 2600 rpms (maybe to achieve higher travel speed on the road?). Thanks for pointing out the Nebraska test data is available for the Kubota M100X tractor.

 

[MessickFarmEqu]

"what is the engine hp at the lower rated 540 PTO speed" which I feel is the standard and close to where equipment is to be operated, not 2600 rpm (maybe I should have reiterated that above).

Isn't the rated PTO HP your answer?

 

[TripleR]

The OP has taken delivery of a Kubota M8540 HDC.

 

[bunchgrass]

Sorry - I should have posted that I went with the Kubota but I think the discussion about HP is a valid one. Please continue.

 

[sunnyside360]

Sorry - I should have posted that I went with the Kubota but I think the discussion about HP is a valid one. Please continue.

Congrats!! I had an M8200 cab tractor (predececessor to M8540) which served me well for 8 years before trading on the new M110X model a few months ago. I'm confident your new Kubota will serve you well. Good Luck.

 

[pclausen]

The e's will now have electrohydraulic pto engagement, so no more dry pto clutch (room for a buddy seat now), and an air seat option.

I was pretty much set on a MY2012 5085M, but after taking a closer look at the MY2012 5083e, I'm wavering towards that instead, especially now that you can get the same hydraulics and the control layout on the right of the operator seat is identical. Sure, implement gpm is 15.9 as opposed to 18.4, but I doubt that will be noticeable under most conditions.

Here's the 5085M right hand controls:

And the MY2012 5083e:

So I would loose the throttle control on the fender and instead of being able to select 540 vs 540E via this lever next to the PTO knob:

I would select it via this handle (where is this btw?):

I'd give up the EH Hitch controls: (and the ability to adjust from the rear fender mounted switch)

And instead use these mechanical controls: (They do look a lot nicer and easier to get to than on older E Limited tractors)

And instead of selecting MFWD via this EH toggle switch (which also features auto MFWD engagement):

I'm stuck using this "old fashion" lever to the left of the operator seat: (and I think this is the only item that could possibly interfere with being able to install a buddy seat)

But I do get this indicator now:

Instead of this EH diff lock:

I get an "old fashioned" mechanical foot pedal:

Which, if anything like the one on my 4700, sometimes mean you really have to step on it to get it engaged, and then more or less stand on it to keep the diff locked.

A big plus is that I'm now able to get the M deluxe air seat as a standard $675 option:

My out the door price for a decked out 5083e w/ H260 loader would be around $15,500 less than a decked out 5085M w/ loader. This, combined with the fact that my dealer has a virtually brand new 49 backhoe with a frame that fits the e-series for $4,900, makes the 5083e vs. the 5085M with a 595 backhoe even more attractive, around $22,000 more attractive in fact.

In addition to the differences outlined above, I would loose the radial tires, corner post exhaust, 16/16 transmission and the single point hydraulic disconnect for the H260 loader, but for $22k in savings, I'm thinking that I might just be able to live with that, although I'm going to talk to my dealer about the possibility of getting the radial tires.

I do need to make the buddy seat work (wife is dictating). The only control on the left of the operator seat now is the MFWD lever as shown in the pic above. I suspect I'll still be able to get to it, at least when nobody is in the buddy seat. According to the dealer, the buddy seat bolts directly to the inner fender by drilling 3 holes in it.

Anyone here with a 2012 5083e yet that would be able to comment on what's on the left inner fender that would prevent bolting in a buddy seat?

Here's the comparison between the two configs that I'm looking at:

With the savings of going with a 5083e w/ 49 backhoe, vs. 5085M w/ 595 backhoe, I could get some really nice additional implements!

I really like the Ms, but since I'm only a weekend farmer, it is really hard to justify. I'll be putting in an order with the dealer next week for either the 5085M or the 5083e.

 

[AKfish]

Looking at the location of the 4x4 lever and considering the layout of my 5075M - I don't think you'll have a problem installing a buddy seat at all.

I've got a buddy seat and the location of the shift lever is right where I store a roll of paper towels and whisk broom. :laughing:

So, if the lever doesn't stick up too high - it shouldn't hit the side/rear of the buddy seat at all.

One observation regarding "apples vs apples" - you've got the price of the M loaded up with about $3,600 in optional tires that you don't have on the 5083e. And another $1,300 with the corner post exhaust and buddy seat that's not included with the 5083e. So, there's $5K of "saving's" that's not really savings...

Just sayin'...

The e is a great deal - no gettin' around it!

One added consideration that I've seen discussed here on TBN - the differences between the engines on the e and the M. IIRC - there was a distinction regarding the turbo's and the injector pump and injector system.

Check the Nebraska tests... I think the M has better fuel economy than the e, as well.

AKfish