M vs. L series in 45-60 HP range

[Brambleberry]

I've been looking for a used Kubota to upgrade from my old Ferguson to35 that is accumulating too many problems.

I'm wanting something a little more powerful to run my flail mower without bogging down, possibility of haying in the future, and strong 3pt to lift those occasional loads that my Bobcat 743 skidsteer (1300lb roc) can't do.

4wd is a must since I'm dealing with hilly terrain. Wide base/low center of gravity is also ideal for the same reason. I do not want a FEL since I have the skidsteer which is a much better tool for material moving, though if I find the right tractor that has one and still a decent price, I'd be okay with it, or possibly sell it to help with the purchase price. Actively do NOT want a cab.

I've been avoiding looking at L series tractors almost entirely because I hate the tiny front wheels on them. I've seen those get stuck so easily compared to the M series larger front wheels for 4wd.

I also get the sense that L series is altogether a lighter duty machine, but also smaller overall for the power they have. I'm starting to wonder if the smaller size would be a good thing for the hills that I'll be working on, and also working around and under trees a lot.

My actual question then is this:

Am I correct in avoiding the L series or should I open my mind a little to considering them? I see a lot more L series out there so I have more options to choose from, but I also wonder if that's because everyone has just traded theirs in for a M series.

Thanks for any help!

 

[jeff9366]

You have identified the main differences between the L series and M series.

You have to make up you mind which set of tractor attributes will serve you best.

The only advantage I see to the L series is potential compatibility with some of your to35 implements.



I've been avoiding looking at L series tractors almost entirely because I hate the tiny front wheels on them. I've seen those get stuck easily.

Posting your location would aid this evaluation.




When considering a tractor purchase bare tractor weight first, tractor horsepower second, rear axle width third, rear wheel/tire ballast fourth.

I sense the L series is altogether a lighter duty machine, but also smaller overall for the power they have.

The heavier M series are constructed of thicker steel.

 

[jeff9366]

Ferguson TO-35 Dimensions​

1954 - 1960 Utility tractor

Series:	TO-35
	35 ↓

Dimensions
Wheelbase:	72 inches 182 cm
Length:	117 inches 297 cm
Width:	63.5 inches 161 cm
Height:	57 inches 144 cm
Operating weight:	3200 lbs 1451 kg
Ballasted weight:	5775 lbs 2619 kg
Ground clearance:	13.5 inches 34 cm
Front tread:	46 to 80 inches 116 to 203 cm
Rear tread:	48 to 76 inches 121 to 193 cm

Ferguson TO-35 Power
Drawbar (tested):	30.51 hp 22.8 kW
PTO (tested):	32.93 hp 24.6 kW
Belt (tested):	33.24 hp 24.8 kW

A Kubota MX series tractor would provide a minor increase in weight, a 50% increase in engine and PTO power and a minor increase in width. Diesel Kubota MX will require fueling less frequently than a gas engine TO35. Big wheels/tires on the MX series.

You will not find a more satisfied tranche of tractor owners than those operating Kubota 'Grand L' tractors. The MX is an economy tractor, the Grand Ls are deluxe models in the same weight range. If you will tractor into your 70's as I have, the higher acquisition cost of a Grand L will be offset by greater comfort and ease of operation as you age.


Wide base/low center of gravity is also ideal for the same reason.

Unusally for an economy tractor the current MX series have adjustable rear wheel/tire spreads with R4s. The Grand L tractors have featured adjustable rear wheel/tires spreads for at least the last two interactions spanning twenty years. If you widen the wheel stance you will leave tire tracks behind the tractor if your existing implements are used

 

[sea2summit]

What kind of haying do you plan on? For what it's worth I just got a new field to hay and worked it the last eight days with a square baler behind my MX and never put it in 4wd, and the MX is on R4s, while working slopes that laterally would have instantly rolled the tractor. It's really not a lot larger physically than the L, probably a little less than half way to an M.

If you're making squares the L47xx is probably fine, I wouldn't go any smaller for weight and power. MX would be my choice for a small square baler but anything else I think you need to go up to the M, and really 70+ engine if you're pulling a large round baller in hilly terrain is probably what you will need.

 

[sea2summit]

Ferguson TO-35 Dimensions​

1954 - 1960 Utility tractor

Series:	TO-35
	35 ↓

Dimensions
Wheelbase:	72 inches 182 cm
Length:	117 inches 297 cm
Width:	63.5 inches 161 cm
Height:	57 inches 144 cm
Operating weight:	3200 lbs 1451 kg
Ballasted weight:	5775 lbs 2619 kg
Ground clearance:	13.5 inches 34 cm
Front tread:	46 to 80 inches 116 to 203 cm
Rear tread:	48 to 76 inches 121 to 193 cm

A Kubota MX series tractor would provide a minor increase in weight, a minor increase in engine and PTO power and a minor increase in width. The weight increase would not be discernible during operation.

If HST I think power would be barely noticeable over the geared MF as well, but an L series would be at a real disadvantage compared the the MF I think.

 

[Grandad4]

I've been looking for a used Kubota to upgrade from my old Ferguson to35 that is accumulating too many problems.

I'm wanting something a little more powerful to run my flail mower without bogging down, possibility of haying in the future, and strong 3pt to lift those occasional loads that my Bobcat 743 skidsteer (1300lb roc) can't do.

4wd is a must since I'm dealing with hilly terrain. Wide base/low center of gravity is also ideal for the same reason. I do not want a FEL since I have the skidsteer which is a much better tool for material moving, though if I find the right tractor that has one and still a decent price, I'd be okay with it, or possibly sell it to help with the purchase price. Actively do NOT want a cab.

I've been avoiding looking at L series tractors almost entirely because I hate the tiny front wheels on them. I've seen those get stuck so easily compared to the M series larger front wheels for 4wd.

I also get the sense that L series is altogether a lighter duty machine, but also smaller overall for the power they have. I'm starting to wonder if the smaller size would be a good thing for the hills that I'll be working on, and also working around and under trees a lot.

My actual question then is this:

Am I correct in avoiding the L series or should I open my mind a little to considering them? I see a lot more L series out there so I have more options to choose from, but I also wonder if that's because everyone has just traded theirs in for a M series.

Thanks for any help!

The "L" series includes a WIDE range of sizes, weights, horsepower and features. At the top end, with the "Grand L" models over about 40 hp, they are largely comparable to some of the smaller utility models in power and weight.

I used a 46 hp Grand L for more than 15 years. It was not an "altogether lighter duty machine" at all... it moved many yards of dirt and hundreds of trees we cut.

With today's shortages, I don't know what you'll find when you go shopping, but I wouldn't turn up my nose at one of the bigger GL models if you find one. Worth a least a look.

 

[big bubba]

having owned L, MX, & M series, my take is that MX tries to bridge the L & M gap, but never really rises to the occasion & is always a wanna be M (at least my experience). i still consider the MX as a smaller cut tractor. the M series is in a league by itself for hd utility use. but expensive. try to find the XX40 series & avoid def, etc best regards

 

[Fallon]

The "L" series includes a WIDE range of sizes, weights, horsepower and features. At the top end, with the "Grand L" models over about 40 hp, they are largely comparable to some of the smaller utility models in power and weight.

I used a 46 hp Grand L for more than 15 years. It was not an "altogether lighter duty machine" at all... it moved many yards of dirt and hundreds of trees we cut.

With today's shortages, I don't know what you'll find when you go shopping, but I wouldn't turn up my nose at one of the bigger GL models if you find one. Worth a least a look.

The Grand Ls all have the same frame..

Differences:
Front axle - L3560 & L4060 have a lighter front axle (and hence can only spec the small & medium loader but not the big one)
Tires - the more HP the bigger the tires at a few points
Engine - Bigger engine, turbo & intercooler at various points
3pt ball ends - L6060 & one or 2 of the bigger ones have Cat 1/2 ball ends on the end of the 3pt
Weight - Engine & tires, at best its 300 maybe 400lbs between a L3560 & L6060 all due to Engine & tires
Length & Height - entirely due to tires

My Grand L is the right size for me. Wish I had a L6060 instead of L4060 at times. More traction would be cool, but hauling & maneuvering a bigger heavier machine would not.

Only you (OP rather) can decide if bigger & heavier with more traction outweighs maneuverability & utility. Think he's already aware of the differences & it just comes down to evaluating his needs.

 

[ranger danger]

I replaced my mx5100 with a m6060. My opiniun is that I need a tractor to do work so I went with a more industrial model. In the long term, I am much happier with a "work" tractor.

 

[SDT]

If HST I think power would be barely noticeable over the geared MF as well, but an L series would be at a real disadvantage compared the the MF I think.

Trust me, my L6060 is enormously more powerful than either of the MF 35 diesels that I once owned. Even noticeably more powerful than the 2007 MF 533 with 202 CI Perkins engine that I also once owned.

No comparison to any of the three regarding power convenience or work output, but it uses much more fuel than any of the MFs.

SDT