Buying Advice M5640SU

[foreman Etexas]

Gotcha. Pardon my bifocals, it looked a bit wide to me.

Tires set on trailer with about 6inches front and back and I strap it down in a X pattern.

 

[xring100]

We have an M8540 with loaded tires and it still needs 4WD to effectively use the FEL; yes, on flat land with sufficient ballast on the back a person can get by, farmers did it here for many, many years and I have driven them. Many compensated by adding dual wheels, as mentioned, workable, but far from optimal.

I agree 100% with you same experience with my m8540. Loaded tires and ~1500 lbs of ballast on the 3pt the in 2wd the loaders effective capacity is barely just the loader and empty bucket as i can't back into my barn in 2wd up the gravel drive that has about 2.5 feet of elevation change in 60 feet of drive without massive wheel spin. But seriously 1000- 1500 lbs is probably max i can move around in 2wd. Or Maybee a 1/3 of an 84" bucket of clay

To the OP you could probably max out the 3pt lift capacity with ballast and still have trouble maxing out the loader on anything other than pavement with a 2wd. I am convinced you would be disappointed with the 2wd i know i am with mine as i often use 4wd with nothing on the loader. I know money is tight i waited 8 years before i could afford the tractor i wanted

The lowes guy was impressed i could lift a 2600 lb pallet. I offloaded 2 3000 lb pallets of decorative stone for my neighbor had to grab the pallet long ways 42" rather than the 36" that was pushing it with only a little over 1000 lbs on the 3 pt the rear tires were not doing much in that case

 

[Notforhire]

Loaded tires and ~1500 lbs of ballast on the 3pt the in 2wd the loaders effective capacity is barely just the loader and empty bucket as i can't back into my barn in 2wd up the gravel drive that has about 2.5 feet of elevation change in 60 feet of drive without massive wheel spin.
View attachment 305151

Not that I doubt anyones facts or experence, but there has to be more involved here. Is the tractor loader combination that different between the 5140 and the 8540?

Using the 8540: "Loaded tires and ~1500 lbs of ballast on the 3pt the in 2wd the loaders effective capacity is barely just the loader and empty bucket. "

Using the 5140, lifting 2400lbs; "I had rears loaded and it was still alittle light,couple more hundred of wheel weights would be good. I had a 700lb box blade on back " Foreman says
"I load round bales 4x5 around 900-1000lbs with just loaded tires nothing on back without any problems.. The issue when you get around the ton mark is the rears slipping and I could run in 4x4 to help out with traction."

Note; AROUND THE TON MARK, with no counterweight.

On the 8540 it needs 1500lbs to counterbalance the loader bucket, yet a 5140 can lift 2400 lbs w/700lbs ballast? The photo of the 5140 has him lifting a 1200# ATV with no ballast! How is this possable?

Based on this I would think that if you picked 2400# with only 700# of ballast on a 8540, it would stand on its nose. There must be something very different in the design of these two machines. Maybe a different anchor point of the loader relative to the WB?

Bill

 

[foreman Etexas]

Not that I doubt anyones facts or experence, but there has to be more involved here. Is the tractor loader combination that different between the 5140 and the 8540?

Using the 8540: "Loaded tires and ~1500 lbs of ballast on the 3pt the in 2wd the loaders effective capacity is barely just the loader and empty bucket. "

Using the 5140, lifting 2400lbs; "I had rears loaded and it was still alittle light,couple more hundred of wheel weights would be good. I had a 700lb box blade on back " Foreman says
"I load round bales 4x5 around 900-1000lbs with just loaded tires nothing on back without any problems.. The issue when you get around the ton mark is the rears slipping and I could run in 4x4 to help out with traction."

Note; AROUND THE TON MARK, with no counterweight.

On the 8540 it needs 1500lbs to counterbalance the loader bucket, yet a 5140 can lift 2400 lbs w/700lbs ballast? The photo of the 5140 has him lifting a 1200# ATV with no ballast! How is this possable?

Based on this I would think that if you picked 2400# with only 700# of ballast on a 8540, it would stand on its nose. There must be something very different in the design of these two machines. Maybe a different anchor point of the loader relative to the WB?

My tractor in picture just had loaded rears,picking up the prowler. Here are some with the 7040 without loaded tires unloading my feed one pallet is 2,000 and the other is 2400lbs


My other 7040 has loaded rears and it handles them way better...

 

[xring100]

Not that I doubt anyones facts or experence, but there has to be more involved here. Is the tractor loader combination that different between the 5140 and the 8540?

Using the 8540: "Loaded tires and ~1500 lbs of ballast on the 3pt the in 2wd the loaders effective capacity is barely just the loader and empty bucket. "

Using the 5140, lifting 2400lbs; "I had rears loaded and it was still alittle light,couple more hundred of wheel weights would be good. I had a 700lb box blade on back " Foreman says
"I load round bales 4x5 around 900-1000lbs with just loaded tires nothing on back without any problems.. The issue when you get around the ton mark is the rears slipping and I could run in 4x4 to help out with traction."

Note; AROUND THE TON MARK, with no counterweight.

On the 8540 it needs 1500lbs to counterbalance the loader bucket, yet a 5140 can lift 2400 lbs w/700lbs ballast? The photo of the 5140 has him lifting a 1200# ATV with no ballast! How is this possable?

Based on this I would think that if you picked 2400# with only 700# of ballast on a 8540, it would stand on its nose. There must be something very different in the design of these two machines. Maybe a different anchor point of the loader relative to the WB?

Bill

Bill

I think you missed the point of my message when i said effective capacity. If all i can do is lift up a load and not move it's not effective.

All of these guys have 4wd if they had 2wd they would not be moving 2400 lbs pallets or utvs. At least in reverse. On anything other than purely flat ground and not wet ground. In 4wd you can move stuff with the rear tires floating in the air. Just because you can lift it does not mean you can move it in 2wd. If all or most of the weight of the tractor is shifted to the front wheels good luck moving in 2wd.
In 2wd i can very easily spin my tires with nothing in the bucket on even a slight incline.
In the attached picture i have an 8ft piece of swamp oak that measured 36" at the small end and about 48" across the y i have no rear ballast as i had to pull out of a tight spot earlier that day. This log wet weighed in excess of 3300 lbs i had no trouble moving it in 4wd. My rears tires were almost off the ground just look at the picture. The rear wheels bounced off the ground upon lowering the loader and stopping to abruptly.
Without 3pt weight my tractor weighs in at about 10000 lbs.

TripleR basically said the same thing about the value of 4wd with a loader

The dynamics of the m8540 are not really much different from the M5140. M8540 weighs another 1000 pounds base machine weight. And the loader lifts 1000 lbs more 800 mm ahead of pivot to full height.

 

[Notforhire]

My tractor in picture just had loaded rears,picking up the prowler. Here are some with the 7040 without loaded tires unloading my feed one pallet is 2,000 and the other is 2400lbs

View attachment 305205View attachment 305206
My other 7040 has loaded rears and it handles them way better...[/QUOTE]

Impressive! One picture is truly worth a thousand words.

Now after lowering the load if you needed to travel up a slope, I imagine you would need 4wd, or ballast. Yes?

Just the weight of the cab must help some.

Are those bags empty?:laughing:

 

[xring100]

But seriously 1000- 1500 lbs is probably max i can move around in 2wd. Or Maybee a 1/3 of an 84" bucket of clay

Bill I should have elaborated this with nothing on the 3 pt on Nearly flat ground. And that pallet of shingles weighs about 2700 lbs. I only had my empty carry all on the back which only weighs about 500 lbs max

 

[foreman Etexas]

Its really nice to have the 4x4 when you need it. The more weight you can put on the rear tires the better off you are with just 2wd,and even then your going to have trouble now and then. I just went down to move some hay for a neighbor who has a older 60hp international 2wd with loader,and I was able to move them without using my 4wd with just the difference is my tires are loaded. Well I had my radio going also...

 

[Notforhire]

Bill

I think you missed the point of my message when i said effective capacity. If all i can do is lift up a load and not move it's not effective.

View attachment 305207

I have had similar situations with my L3240 ( with much lighter loads of course) I can pick up a 4x4 round bale with no counterweight. The rear is light and I cannot go up a grade without 4wd. So I do understand your point. However, if I hang 800# on the 3PH I can climb the grade in 2wd.

"To the OP you could probably max out the 3pt lift capacity with ballast and still have trouble maxing out the loader on anything other than pavement with a 2wd."

Is it your experence that if I had a 3,300# counterweight on the 3PH and maxed out the loader @ 2,500# that the tractors wheels would spin on anything but pavement?

I may be wrong but I wouldn't think that Kubota would want to install a loader that would nullify the maximum counterweight.

Something to think about; If you lift 3,300lbs with your loader, and the rears are off the ground, you have 3,300# + 10,000# all on your front axle.

Best, Bill

 

[Notforhire]

I guess The big question is, not whether 4WD is better. I think that's a given, but whether a properly ballasted 2WD will work.
The fact of the matter is I cannot now, or most likely in the future, afford a tractor that will lift 2500# AND 4wd.
If a 2wd is not going to work except in ideal conditions, then I'm better off with the smaller L series that I now own and move smaller loads.