L4630 vs. L5030

[MossyDell]

Has anyone compared these two tractors closely? Their hydraulic specs are almost identical as far as gpm and capacity, making me think loader operations would be the same, but the 5030 does have a higher 3 pt lift capacity.

Also, how much difference does the extra 5 hp of the L5030 make in terms of overall performance and ability? The L5030's hitch is listed for both Category I and II. Are there connected bushings on the lower links that can be slipped over the pins for Category II or what?

Is this a case where the L4630 is a real bargain, because it is the same size and similar in performance, or is the $2,000 or whatever more for the L5030 the bargain?

Mossy Dell

 

[JATO_RaT]

The L5030 is slightly larger and weighs a little more.
It also has different diameter wheels on the front then the L4630. The displacement is higher so I suspect the torque is greater besides a little extra HP. It uses the same loader as the L4630 and probably has slightly larger hydraulic rams on the 3pt hitch or has a leverage factor working for it to increase the lift. My L48 has the same engine as the L5030. Very smooth and powerful. If I was looking at these two tractors, it would be a decision made as much to do with price as they are so similar. There is a member here who goes by 3050, (kinda got his numbers messed up) that has a L5030. He has a cab model which I don't believe is available for the L4630. Both look like superb tractors. The loader is heavy looking as though it could take some punishment and abuse. I don't think any of the other compacts have a loader that is so well rounded out in the specifications. Rat...

 

[MODiesel]

I believe all the but smallest of the Grand L30's are available with a cab. However, the dimensions do differ. If you look at the specs side-by-side, you'll see that the 5030 has a slightly longer length & wheelbase than the 4630. Likewise, the ground clearance and tread width are higher.

The 5030 just seems to be a slightly larger model, with more HP & torque, and that probably accounts for the slightly higher lift ratings.

As for the Cat I & II hitch, I'd guess the 5030 just has removeable/replaceable balls.

Later,
Jay

 

[grandad]

Kubota seems to be seeking a market niche with these large compacts, offering models with just a bit more hp on a short-wheelbase chassis than what NH or JD offers, and also offering the factory cab models. (No offense meant to any JD or NH partisans... just what it looks like to me!). They may also be hearing some footsteps from some of the other up-and-coming brands like Kioti, who also have some real hosses in their compact lines.

No matter why, the dealers seem to sell every one they can lay their hands on.

I have yet to find a situation where my 4610 lacks power... maybe bush hogging in the Amazon or something, but 3050's new rig sure is nice!

 

[5030]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Has anyone compared these two tractors closely? Their hydraulic specs are almost identical as far as gpm and capacity, making me think loader operations would be the same, but the 5030 does have a higher 3 pt lift capacity.

Also, how much difference does the extra 5 hp of the L5030 make in terms of overall performance and ability? The L5030's hitch is listed for both Category I and II. Are there connected bushings on the lower links that can be slipped over the pins for Category II or what )</font>

Okay Guys:

Here it comes, I mean my 5030 or my 3050. You'll have to excuse me, I have a 4020 J.D. too and I get my numbers mixed up. That's probably because I'm old....

I paid $33,930.00 for the 5030. That included the front loader which is an LA853 and the H.D. excavation bucket. I traded in an L-3710 and a Bobcat so the actual price was much less. I opted for the H.D. bucket as I attach a bale spear for moving round bales and I broke the material bucket on the 3710 at least 3 times and I hate to keep on welding a bucket.

I am very pleased with the 5030 and it will handle a 4 square round with no additional weight on the rear of the tractor. The 3710 required an implement, usually a back blade on the rear for stability.

I opted for the R4 tires as they wear much better than ag tires and do better on pavement. I optioned the cab out with every option, am/fm, rear defogger, rear wiper and heat grid. I also got the auxilliary lighting package.

The 5030 comes with Cat. II and bushings for Cat. I.

I have already worked the 5030 pretty hard moving bales from the outside stockpile to the barn in the mud and have used my rear mount blower to clear the road.

I considered the 46, but for our operation, the 50 is a better choice. Actually, the 5030 is very comparable to Kubota's M series Ag. tractors. Height consideration was the deciding factor in my purchase. The overall height of the 5030 is no more than the L-3710 and I keep the tractor in my shop and the door height is low. The 5030 is a very easy tractor to operate and I opted for full hydrostatic. We are in the commercial forage business and baling with a hydrostatic tractor is a joy as you can control the infeed to the baler whether a round baler or square baler with great precision insuring proper feed stops plugging of the baler and the controlled ground speed with a hydro is better than getting a cramp in your clutch foot. We are on our 3rd. cluthch in the 4020 because we always used it for running the balers.

It takes at least 45 pto to operate my 630 NH Round baler and every bit of the 5030's power to operate the J.D. Hydra Swing 13 foot mower conditioner but I am confident that the 5030 will handle it as it is my experience from my past 3 Kubota's that Kubota rates their PTO power conservatively. I also like the digital panel as it is similar in function to our large row crop Deeres.

Another deciding factor for this tractor was the actual weight to power ratio. The 5030 has a low gross weight which equates to lower crop loss due to crushing under the wheels during the harvest operation, and ground clearance is more than adequate for straddling a large windrow while baling.

I'm looking forward to getting her out in the field and putting it through the paces or should I say harvest. When we start the 1st. cut, I be shooting pictures and will post them on TBN for your enjoyment.

I have attached a picture looking through the cab at a bale, so you can see what I see. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Daryl
Forage Services L.P.

 

[5030]

Another Picture

Daryl

 

[5030]

Another picture

Thanks "Henro"

Daryl

 

[5030]

And finally, a picture of me in the tractor and again thanks to "Henro"

Daryl

 

[5030]

I got's to go to bed so I can get up and go to work, but tomorrow I'll post some under pictures on the main page. /forums/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

Daryl
Forage Services, L.P.

 

[MikePA]

Are your rear tires loaded to be able to carry a bale like that?

 

[MossRoad]

Seems like a lot of weight out front that far. Do you have any traction problems on the rear tires when heading down inclines?

 

[MODiesel]

Correction:

The 3430, 4330, 4630 and 5030 are available with cabs. The 3130 and, oddly, the 3830 are only available as ROPS models. I'm not sure why the 3430 is available with a cab but the 3830 is not.

Later,
Jay

 

[JATO_RaT]

So 3050, how do you like HST? Was the 3710 HST? I'm curious about your opinions as there is always plenty to discuss about over whether HST is good, better, or best. Thanks for sharing the pictures of the L5030. I am curious about how you like the loader after you had a L3710. Quick? Powerful? About the same? I'm looking at either a L3430 or L4330. The biggest difference for me is the loader, a LA 723 vs LA 853. I have a L48 with a TL 1150 which has considerably more umph then either of these but is not removable, at least not without a tremendous amount of work. Like the smaller size of the L3430 but don't want to be disappointed with the smaller loader. Thanks, Rat...

 

[gordon]

I'm leaning toward hst as best. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Gee didn't we have this discussion awhile back ? HST tractors were said to be just play toys. That isn't true is it?

The loader on my L4310 is weaker, compared to my ole L 3750. But other than that I really like it.

How do you like that L48 rat? Tough as nails or what.

Gordon

 

[JATO_RaT]

Gordon, the L48 is about as strong a compact as is made regardless of make. The loader is so strong that to buy anything but a HD bucket will surely bend it sooner or later. I can grab onto a root for example with the cutting edge and rollback the bucket lifting the entire rear end off the ground with a 1200 lb box scraper and filled tires. The biggest drawback for me is
1. The loader does not remove, which of course I knew but did not think it would be the issue it is for mowing.

2. When mowing in (M) or medium, the speed is still to slow and high is not strong enough. Unlike your tractor and other L series which do about 7 mph in medium, the L48 does about 4 mph. Great for moving into a pile of dirt, but mowing is just a bit to slow for me. Low is so low that I have very little need for it. I have yet to run into many situations that require it's use. The nice thing about the L48 is its very smooth and super easy to operate. I do not have the hoe but folks that do have commented about its strength. For a compact, the hoe is fantastic is what they comment I hear. I am about ready to put my L48 on the market. I have to hurry because I've done this before, get it all cleaned up and something comes up where I need it. A couple weeks ago it was all ready to sell and my neighbor called asking for help. He collapsed a retaining wall with his double axle dump trailer. It was listing so bad it was ready to roll right into his shop. I was able to lift and pull the trailer out after a bit of work. Rat...

 

[5030]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Are your rear tires loaded to be able to carry a bale like that? )</font>

Nothing but air.

Daryl
Forage Services, L.P.

 

[5030]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Seems like a lot of weight out front that far. Do you have any traction problems on the rear tires when heading down inclines? )</font>

The new loader mounts on 2 pins, back of the front wheels (look at one of the pictures). I'm not a geometery whiz, but it seems to move the roll center back. The 3710 I had, got light in the rear even with a backblade going down hill. The 5030 doesn't even with nothing mounted on the rear. We have a pretty steep incline behind the barn and I have to traverse it to put bales in the feeders. I always have the tractor in 4wd with a bale on the front.

A nice added feature of the 5030 is a tremendous amount of wheel cut as compared to the L3710. The 5030 will actually turn a tighter radius than the 3710 would.

Daryl
Forage Services, L.P.

 

[5030]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( So 3050, how do you like HST? Was the 3710 HST? I'm curious about your opinions as there is always plenty to discuss about over whether HST is good, better, or best. Thanks for sharing the pictures of the L5030. I am curious about how you like the loader after you had a L3710. Quick? Powerful? About the same? I'm looking at either a L3430 or L4330. The biggest difference for me is the loader, a LA 723 vs LA 853. I have a L48 with a TL 1150 which has considerably more umph then either of these but is not removable, at least not without a tremendous amount of work. Like the smaller size of the L3430 but don't want to be disappointed with the smaller loader. Thanks, Rat... )</font>

This is probably going to be pretty long.....
The HST for me is ideal for the type of operation we have (read my first post). I was concerned about the ability of the HST oil to stay cool during hard use in hot weather, but the 5030 has a much larger oil cooler than the other models. We also have 2 powershift J.D.'s. They are in the 150 pto range and are used for tillage. Our 4030 J.D. is a manual also. As I stated before, the hydro is just about perfect for haying as you can control the groundspeed without shifting or clutching.

The above said, I would never consider a hydro for tilliage or ground breaking operations because of the power loss through the fluid coupling. The fluid coupling/hydraulic link also causes heat and a continuous heavy load such as tilliage or groundbreaking would probably destroy the transmission.

I have had 3 hydro's and one 8 speed Kubota's. As I have stated, I prefer the hydro. My left foot falls asleep. Whether a hydro is best for your operation is best decided by you and your wallet as the hydro is more expensive than a gear transmission and the maintanence is also more (holds way more oil). Controlling ground speed is of paramount importance to me so the hydro is the logical choice.

The LA853 loader is better in many ways than the loader I had on the 3710. The 853 takes about 1 minute to dismount and 1 1/2 minutes to re-attach. The remote joystick in the cab is slicker than snot and has the best feel I have ever experienced on ANY Kubota that I have ever owned. I've not really done any continuous loader work yet so I can't comment about cycle times, but she has plenty of lifting power. I picked the rear of my wife's Ranger about 1-1/2 feet off the ground to change a tire. Sure beats the bottle jack!!, and this is with nothing attached to the 3 point. I opted for the Bobcat style quick detach bucket and as soon as the tractor was delivered, we took the bucket off (to put the pin in for the spear) and put on a set of pallet forks (which we took off the Bobcat) to lift seed corn bags up to the upper loft. The Bobcat pallet forks went right on without any problem.

I had a 753 on my 3710 and the 853 is much bulkier in structure than the 753 but at the same time it is much easier to dismount and remount and the quick attach works better for me.

Daryl
Forage Services, L.P.

 

[5030]

I wanted to add this, Kubota, for some reason pushes their glide shift for front loader work. In my opinion and from previous experience with other tractors, the Hydro is the BEST for loader work.

Because we own a number of other tractors of different brands, before I bought the 5030, I tested the largest Boomer, a Deere, and a Massey. I settled on another Kubota, probably because I am familiar with them and I have NEVER had any trouble or breakdowns with Kubota. We have a very tight maintenance program and probably over maintain our equipment, but when it's time to hay or plant, your "window" is limited and a breakdown will always be costly.

Daryl
Forage Services, L.P.

 

[JATO_RaT]

Daryl, I have numerous Kubota dealers near me. All, and I mean all the dealers push the HST for most work if not all, especially loader work where it is arguably, the best way to go. For ripping soil, I would agree, a manual type transmission would be better suited. After hours of ripping in hot weather, the oil will be very hot. The problem gets to be in the decreased efficiency with hot hydraulics, that coupled with the loss inherent to hydrostatics makes the manual a logical choice. On the other hand, for occasional ripping, I'll still stick with HST. After trying various models and manufactuers HST's, I still think Kubotas are the smoothest and quietest made. Rat...