L3940/L42240, LA724/LA854

[kuboman]

I presently have the L3130 with the la 723 loader and want to upgrade to either the l3940 or l4240. The l3940 only comes with the la724 loader. My question is . The la854 specs show a lot more lifting capacity. Does it pan out in reality or will I not notice the difference from the la724. Any of you out there that have gone form one to the other and what is your assessment.

 

[TripleR]

No, I have not done this, but researched it to some extent when I was looking at this size tractor a little over a year ago. We were going to buy an L3940 until I looked at the loader and decided to go with a cab.

When I called to order an L4240 HSTC, my wife insisted, seriously, that I get the price on an L5030 HSTC we had seen on the lot that Sunday. Well it turned out too good to pass up and we love it. It has the heavier loader, predecessor to the 854.

I was recently using our M8540 with the LA1353 and managed to bog it down. I really like a strong FEL.

 

[Piston]

I have the LA852 (older version to the 853/854) and wouldn't want anything smaller.

 

[art]

I'd buy the larger loader! Now that you are questioning it, it will come back to haunt you if you don't!

 

[nybirdman]

I have owned both::an L3130 with the 723 loader traded for a L4240 with the 854 loader..........huge difference,the 854 loader is the reason I purchased the L4240 over the L3940.I added a tooth-bar and grapple...awesome.

 

[kuboman]

I have owned both::an L3130 with the 723 loader traded for a L4240 with the 854 loader..........huge difference,the 854 loader is the reason I purchased the L4240 over the L3940.I added a tooth-bar and grapple...awesome.

Ahhh you would have to say that:laughing:

How did you find the 4240 compared to the 3130. I find the 3130 quite underpowered with the loader and extra ballast. Does the 4240 have enough hp as to not feel underpowered.

 

[nybirdman]

I don't find the L4240 under-powered at all.In the winter (we get a fair amount of snow) I have an eight ft.Curtis FEL mounted snow-plow and a seven ft.rear...use both at the same time.I have an old Ferguson two bottom plow,it pulls that with ease,use a six ft. rototiller and bush-hog.
With the rears loaded(R1 tires) I have hooked rocks and lifted the rear..that's how much power this loader has.Like I said amazing tractor with this loader.

 

[crazyal]

The only real reason to go with the 3940 is if you just don't have or can't justify the extra money to go with the 4240. Any frame size difference, if any, is not going to make any difference. When I was looking there were a couple of dealers that had at least one 3940 in stock and no 4240s. They were eager to give a discount on the 3940 yet no so much on the 4240. I wish i could tell you the difference between the to two loaders but I've never used the 724. Actually the 854 feels weak to me since I'm use to my 580K's loader. :laughing:

 

[PHILIP8N]

The LA854 loader does have more lifting capacity. But, I have filled my L3940/LA724 6' heavy duty bucket with many things, and there is nothing I have not been able to pick up. Philip.

 

[TripleR]

The LA854 loader does have more lifting capacity. But, I have filled my L3940/LA724 6' heavy duty bucket with many things, and there is nothing I have not been able to pick up. Philip.

I use my FELs for digging in hill sides or dirt that has long since settled, so the more power the better. Like I said, I often run out of power with the LA1353 on our M8540. For hauling, a FEL with less power is fine.

 

[kuboman]

I don't find the L4240 under-powered at all.In the winter (we get a fair amount of snow) I have an eight ft.Curtis FEL mounted snow-plow and a seven ft.rear...use both at the same time.I have an old Ferguson two bottom plow,it pulls that with ease,use a six ft. rototiller and bush-hog.
With the rears loaded(R1 tires) I have hooked rocks and lifted the rear..that's how much power this loader has.Like I said amazing tractor with this loader.

Did you find your l3130 that you traded to be underpowered?
I have 370# of cast on the rear wheels and that was not enough to hold the back down so I added 1200# on the 3pt which works great for keeping the back down but sucks the hp when I need to go anywhere. I am hoping the 4240 has enough extra hp to make the trade worthwhile.

 

[nybirdman]

I had a six foot sub-frame mounted snow plow..and the same implements other than a new six foot box blade.The L3130 handled them well...I traded up mostly for a cab.Again I am glad I did.... as I said there is a lot of difference in loaders.The only problem I ever had was(on the L3130) was lifting off a HD seven foot bush-hog off a trailer;I don't know what it weighed but it was for a 100HP tractor.Even with loaded tires it was difficult but did it barely.
If you are deciding between the 3940 and 4240,it's a tough call.Same frame size,both four cylinders.My dealer pointed out the L4240 has a heavier front end and of course the loaders.The L3130 at PTO speeds burned one gal.per hour,the L4240 1.25gph.

 

[ejkessler]

When I was looking for my cab tractor to replace my L3540 I was originally going to go with a 4240 because of the loader specs also but the dealers that had them did not want to deal as much as the ones with the 3940. For me, I honestly did not need the extra capacity but like to go bigger if I can. The weight difference is less than 10 pounds on each base tractor. The subframe for the larger FEL and the FEL itself will give you a heavier machine once configured. For me the price difference would have been close to 6K to go with a 4240 and that was too much for me to justify. If your findings put you in a place of about 2K to 3K difference and that is not a strain go with the 4240. The 3940 has been working great for me and I have been taking FULL bucket loads of rock and gravel reclaim without hesitation. I do not regret my decision at all. If the FEL with forks on the 4240 were able to handle a full ton pallet load then I would have wanted to go with the 4240. It's capacity is 2 to 3 hundred pounds lees than that in that application. The extra height on the 4240 FEL is also nice if you need that.

 

[kuboman]

I had a six foot sub-frame mounted snow plow..and the same implements other than a new six foot box blade.The L3130 handled them well...I traded up mostly for a cab.Again I am glad I did.... as I said there is a lot of difference in loaders.The only problem I ever had was(on the L3130) was lifting off a HD seven foot bush-hog off a trailer;I don't know what it weighed but it was for a 100HP tractor.Even with loaded tires it was difficult but did it barely.
If you are deciding between the 3940 and 4240,it's a tough call.Same frame size,both four cylinders.My dealer pointed out the L4240 has a heavier front end and of course the loaders.The L3130 at PTO speeds burned one gal.per hour,the L4240 1.25gph.

Well 'if' I trade it will definitely be to the L4240 or a nice used 4330. I just have not decided whether to trade or not. I like the L3130 but as I said before just disappointed on the hp. It requires the engine to be revved up to get anything done. I am not use to that. My B3200 will do darn near anything I want at any rpm above idle.

 

[ejkessler]

Well 'if' I trade it will definitely be to the L4240 or a nice used 4330. I just have not decided whether to trade or not. I like the L3130 but as I said before just disappointed on the hp. It requires the engine to be revved up to get anything done. I am not use to that. My B3200 will do darn near anything I want at any rpm above idle.

If it's any consolation, those engines are designed to run at those higher RPM's. It is nosier for sure but if it's getting the job done go with it as long as you can unless the money really isn't an issue. I may be wrong but my understanding is that running any of the machines under a real load at lower RPM's (below 2K on average) is harder on the engine, similar to lugging an engine on a car with manual transmission.

 

[kuboman]

If it's any consolation, those engines are designed to run at those higher RPM's. It is nosier for sure but if it's getting the job done go with it as long as you can unless the money really isn't an issue. I may be wrong but my understanding is that running any of the machines under a real load at lower RPM's (below 2K on average) is harder on the engine, similar to lugging an engine on a car with manual transmission.

I am not worried about the high rpm and the noise is not that bad. I am maybe not use to it yet but have found the loader movements especially the bucket almost to fast to control with the high rpm's. When dumping the bucket if I am not right on it the bucket slams against the stops with great force. Like I said I have not used it that much yet but......

 

[mikescruggs]

I was in your shoes about three years ago. Fortunately money was available to go to the L4240. Otherwise there is NO excuse. I still have a few rocks and logs that would be better handled by something bigger, but a tractor of that size would be unreasonable. I just have to think physics and other ways to move the items.

I have never had any problems with snow removal with the L4240. I mounted a 8' fisher plow to the front and run a 7' snow blower on the rear. I use a 5' grapple, 6' box blade, 5' forks, 7' york rake, and a Farmi 351. I run a PTO pump for a 4' log splitter that is very helpful for my outdoor furnace.

I highly recommend the L4240 with the 854.

Mike

 

[kuboman]

I thank everyone for their input and I get the drift to go with the bigger loader. Just to stir things some more I started another thread about going with the MX or sticking to the Grand L. The GL strikes me as being a tougher more refined tractor but you do get 'more tractor' with the MX for the same money.
I am :confused2::confused2::confused2:

 

[beppington]

I thank everyone for their input and I get the drift to go with the bigger loader. Just to stir things some more I started another thread about going with the MX or sticking to the Grand L. The GL strikes me as being a tougher more refined tractor but you do get 'more tractor' with the MX for the same money.
I am :confused2::confused2::confused2:

I think you're mixing terms a little: The GL is more refined; The MX is tougher

 

[TripleR]

I think you're mixing terms a little: The GL is more refined; The MX is tougher

Less filling...:laughing:

Well to stir things up a bit more, an M might be tougher, but I am not convinced an MX is.