LS vs. Kubota questions

sea2summit · Mar 8, 2016

HCROW said:
This is exactly what I'm planning on doing with it. I need to figure out how much my round bales weigh.

I went to the MX specifically so I'd never have to worry about the weight of a round bale, JMHO.

HCROW · Mar 8, 2016

It seems like its hard to beat the capability/price ratio (I just made that up) that you get from the XR's, or am I missing something?

antlers125 · Mar 8, 2016

I notice that the LS XR3135 has larger hydro pumps( total gpm. 13.7) compared to the Kubota L3901 ( total gpm. 10.1) This could explain the higher lift capacity.

TSO · Mar 8, 2016

antlers125 said:
I notice that the LS XR3135 has larger hydro pumps( total gpm. 13.7) compared to the Kubota L3901 ( total gpm. 10.1) This could explain the higher lift capacity.

No that's just hydraulic speed... Lift strength is a result of cylinder size, hydraulic relief PSI, and geometry.

MessickFarmEqu · Mar 8, 2016

People lift bales with that series tractor, but it always makes me nervous. If you know anything about making bales, their weight is not consistent. A wet bale can be quite a bit heavier than a dry one. I'd want a bigger frame tractor from any vendor.

rgr33 · Mar 8, 2016

I think you are seeing the same thing I did when I bought my LS. It's hard to beat the price and features of a well equipped LS when comparing it to other brands. They just offer more. I am not saying they are better tractors than any of the other well known brands, because they aren't, they are just a better value for the features they include. If you are transporting round bales, I would want a lift capacity of twice what the average bale weight is, no matter which brand you end up with.
That said, if I was toting 1000 lb bales around hilly terrain, I think I would want a bigger tractor than you are looking at. I think 45 hp seems a lot safer, and then the lift capacity wouldn't be as problematic. With that size you also get a heavier tractor with better brakes. If price is a big factor than maybe LS of Kioti?

RollingsFarms · Mar 8, 2016

The MX series is the one you need to be looking at.

TSO · Mar 8, 2016

RollingsFarms said:
The MX series is the one you need to be looking at.

Or for a better value, more features, and added 3pt lift capacity, an LS XR4140-55

RollingsFarms · Mar 8, 2016

TSO said:
Or for a better value, more features, and added 3pt lift capacity, an LS XR4140-55

Yep that one too. I am just not as familiar with LS's model lineup as others.

Grandad4 · Mar 8, 2016

TSO said:
If you want to compare a Kubota model to the LS XR3037/3135, then you need to compare the L3540/3560.

One of the factors that go into the loader lift ability, I've learned, is not just the loader itself, but the machine as a whole. Overall weight, wheelbase, and front axle capacity play a big part. As an example, the loader on the L5740 (LA854) is rated for more weight (2361 lbs) than the new, Tier 4 loader that replaced it on the L6060 (LA1055) @ 2361 lbs.

I couldn't imagine why Kubota would actually build a weaker loader on their Flagship HST machine... But my assumption is that the loader is practically identical to the previous loader, and the front axle is likely the same... So they probably de-rated the loader due to the added weight of the tier 4 engine components, being that it all contributes to weight on the front axle.

Now... going by price, I'd go with the LS XR3135 because it has the newest engine design from LS and it's a full featured machine.
g
If price wasn't a consideration, and comparing apples to apples, I'd choose the Kubota L3560 because it has even more features than the LS.

With the GL60 series, Kubota standardized all FEL's to have SSQA mounts, pushing the mounting points a few inches out from previous pin-on configuration. That accounts for the apparent de-rating of the lift capacities. In terms of the rest of it - hyd. PSI, cylinders, basic geometry, etc., I think the FEL's are essentially the same as previous.

I agree with your point about looking at the machine as a whole. Putting a 2,000 lb capacity loader on a tractor that's just 5 ft. wide with a short wheelbase probably sells tractors but doesn't particularly make for safe, well-balanced equipment. Kind of reminds me of the '60's muscle cars I loved when I was much younger. Really impressive but not the most practical things to drive.