Comparison Massey GC1715 vs. Kubota BX2670-1

[MJB62676]

Greetings,
I am now considering the Massey GC 1715 sub compact vs. a Kubota Bx 2670-1 (both new product) .

My question is . . . how does anyone find out about the GC1700 series actual features and benefits? Every important thing I learned came from 1 youtube item or reading TBN posters and 1 test ride I did . . Not from 2 dealerships info . . not reviews or company literature or website.

1. What implements and attachments are available for the Massey GC1715 beyond fel, mmm, and a front blade?

2. Iseki engines . . how do they compare to yanmar and kubota engines?

3. I've listed below some things I discovered by deep digging . . what else or where else do I find info?

I like:
a. Dual hydraulic pumps . . Good thing
b. 54 and 60 inch decks
c. Comfortable driver layout /viewability.
d. Can run lower rpm
e. Cast iron thru out not cast iron/cast aluminum
f. Flow forward engine cooling just like kubota (good thing)
g. Driver's deck floor is open and easy laid out.
h. fully tier 4 and easy engine compartment access.
I. Differential lock.

What can others add . . I found nothing else. To be a competitor to Kubota it has to have some implements, quick hitch and quick attach abilities, etc. etc.. does it have any of those things?

Hope everyone has lots of input because reviewers, dealers, and brochure & company websites haven't. And it seems like a very nice unit to consider.

Thanks.

When I was shopping and buying my 1705, I exhausted myself looking through all the options and trying to find stuff. The one complaint I have about Massey so far is they do a terrible job marketing their product....I honestly believe if they did a little better job marketing, these GC1700 series tractor would really, really take off...

Anyway, I was able to find this page, then go to what attachment I wanted and then they have a compatibility chart at the bottom.


Massey Ferguson | Implements & Attachments

As a side note, I asked my dealer about the 1705 vs. 1715 and all he said was "tried them both, and I see no point in giving 1500 extra for little/no extra benefits". Could be wrong, but he doesn't even stock anything but the 1705 and 1710.

Interesting note, by farting around on Agco, I found a toolbox kit for my GC1705, so I ordered one.

 

[drifter2518]

Interesting note, by farting around on Agco, I found a toolbox kit for my GC1705, so I ordered one.[/QUOTE]

Please show link where you found this toolbox. Thanks

 

[MJB62676]

http://www.agcoparts.com/Library/upload/MF_CUEPartsCatalog_09.2014.pdf



I'm hoping it's real.

 

[drifter2518]

Thanks for the link. Post a pic when you get it please.

 

[madhatter]

Thanks for the link. Post a pic when you get it please.

I agree. Would love to have toolbox, but not sure where it would be mounted and not look strange or get ripped from a branch or such. And I agree with a lot of this post. The Massey site and the 2015 subcompacts are kind of confusing right now. Different seats on the GC1710 and GC1720, different loaders, different backhoes and some are mixed with the old ones and the new ones. I just bought a new GC1710 and had the option of a 2015 with Dl100 loader and CB65 hoe, or DL95 loader and CB05 hoe.... OR.... I went with the new loader and hoe. Really like the new design, but will see how it holds up.

 

[AxleHub]

I agree. Would love to have toolbox, but not sure where it would be mounted and not look strange or get ripped from a branch or such. And I agree with a lot of this post. The Massey site and the 2015 subcompacts are kind of confusing right now. Different seats on the GC1710 and GC1720, different loaders, different backhoes and some are mixed with the old ones and the new ones. I just bought a new GC1710 and had the option of a 2015 with Dl100 loader and CB65 hoe, or DL95 loader and CB05 hoe.... OR.... I went with the new loader and hoe. Really like the new design, but will see how it holds up.

What are your impressions of the front end loader (dl95) ? Did you get a chance to see and test the dl100 and decide on the 95 instead?

Also as I understand it the tlb (10 + 20) have a reversible seat because of the loader. However I've noticed the gc1705 seat is also different from the gc1715.

 

[madhatter]

What are your impressions of the front end loader (dl95) ? Did you get a chance to see and test the dl100 and decide on the 95 instead?

Also as I understand it the tlb (10 + 20) have a reversible seat because of the loader. However I've noticed the gc1705 seat is also different from the gc1715.

Yes the gc1715 and 1720 have a much nicer seat, I looked into buying the seat but it is 1200 bucks from Massey! I actually have not tried the new dl95 loader yet. However I have used the outgoing dl100 lot's and it performed well. The stats say the new loader has a greater lift capacity, not sure if it is because the new rams are a little bigger or due to the design. Not sure how I will like the new loader joystick but I will report back when I use it, winter just won't leave this year ! Still have some snow in the yard.

 

[MJB62676]

I will post pics of the toolbox once it comes in and I have it on.

As for the DL 95, I've had minimal use of it, but it seems ok. I'm still trying to figure out if it has the "dump bucket" function on joystick. I did have to show the guy who delivered it how to put it in float position. All I've used it for is to haul some old carpet I "found" with the Bush Hog over the weekend that probably weighed 100lbs total. No problem. I did try to do some digging in the field and wasn't surprised to find that it struggles without a tooth bar in my soil....so, will be shopping. I hope to attack some rock piles, piles of trashed shingles, and move a bunch of stones with it when things dry out and will report back.

I'm still trying to figure out the nuances of taking it off, etc...but think it will be pretty easy once I've done it a few times.


Overall impressions of the machine:

I'm learning the Quick Hitch would probably be a nice feature for 3 pt attachments. I have the 48" Bush Hog Razorback and a 60" landscape rake on the way...taking the bush hog on and off hasn't been terribly easy.

Comfort of operation is amazing and getting on/off tractor is amazing as well. I LOVE the open operator platform when compared to other models. Operator controls are pretty intuitive. 4WD is AMAZING. Fuel efficiency is very, very good.

The MMM (I have the drive over 60" deck) is a bad mamma jamma. I'm not even certain I NEEDED the bush hog.

 

[jocola]

I believe the new and developing market for scut and compacts . . . is a big wave of prospects who have never owned a tractor before . . they aren't farm oriented or interested . . and they have more challenging terrains to deal with than the previous majority.

As a result . . implement choices and engineering of them are far more significant than prior because "big or heavy" is not the big desire of this new prospect grouping and a reputation in farm equipment is not a qualifier like it once was for this new peospect grouping in my opinion.

This is what I'm starting to think as I look at the SCUT marketplace: the needs of the new SCUT customers are different than the needs of the rural/agricultural community, but the tractor makers have traditionally thought in terms of power and "strength" and weight.

When it comes to SCUTs, it's not just a matter of scaling down a big tractor.

I recently tested out a 1025r and came away a little disappointed. The overall quality was there and the machine felt solid, so I'm not knocking JD quality. But I had the sense that it was the little brother of a bigger tractor - not a machine designed from the ground up for smaller, nimble tasks. I am going to go back and check out the BX line again, because I am wondering if they didn't start from a different place years ago when they identified the SCUT clientele before anyone else. (As a side note, the marketing and sales pitches from Mahindra really turn me off because their main objective seems to be to brag about how big and strong their machines are and how puny and wimpy everyone else is, like pro wrestlers talking trash before a match.)

These tractor companies have tough decisions to make. Do they design their SCUTs so people feel like they're sitting on something with "power," or do they go for something more finely tuned to the needs of these customers, who aren't going to be doing ag work with their machines. Is a loader lift strength of 800lbs vs 1000lbs really going to be a game-changer for them? Do lower engine RPMs matter for any reason other than meeting our desire for big engines with low-end torque? Do they fail to deliver either by trying to be all things?

I am going to test out the MF GC1710 before I make my final decision, but I'm leaning towards BX. I hear a lot more raving and excitement from those owners than any other community, which says something to me.

 

[WilliamBos]

They do have a front blower, the same blower that JD, Kubota, and CNH use. They are built by Radtech in Quebec and painted red for MF.

I guess what I'm surprised to find is that Massey doesn't seem to have any implements. Dealer was looking up on his listing . . Didn't find a front snowblower or broom . . Just a front blade. So no mid pto mount option ???

And the loader bucket does not appear quick mount oriented either.

Certainly in other parts of the country people are buying the GC1700 series . . but both dealers in this area seem like they just started having them . . but both dealers are large.

Thanks for any input posters have to offer.

 

[s219]

This is what I'm starting to think as I look at the SCUT marketplace: the needs of the new SCUT customers are different than the needs of the rural/agricultural community, but the tractor makers have traditionally thought in terms of power and "strength" and weight.

When it comes to SCUTs, it's not just a matter of scaling down a big tractor.

I recently tested out a 1025r and came away a little disappointed. The overall quality was there and the machine felt solid, so I'm not knocking JD quality. But I had the sense that it was the little brother of a bigger tractor - not a machine designed from the ground up for smaller, nimble tasks. I am going to go back and check out the BX line again, because I am wondering if they didn't start from a different place years ago when they identified the SCUT clientele before anyone else. (As a side note, the marketing and sales pitches from Mahindra really turn me off because their main objective seems to be to brag about how big and strong their machines are and how puny and wimpy everyone else is, like pro wrestlers talking trash before a match.)

These tractor companies have tough decisions to make. Do they design their SCUTs so people feel like they're sitting on something with "power," or do they go for something more finely tuned to the needs of these customers, who aren't going to be doing ag work with their machines. Is a loader lift strength of 800lbs vs 1000lbs really going to be a game-changer for them? Do lower engine RPMs matter for any reason other than meeting our desire for big engines with low-end torque? Do they fail to deliver either by trying to be all things?

I am going to test out the MF GC1710 before I make my final decision, but I'm leaning towards BX. I hear a lot more raving and excitement from those owners than any other community, which says something to me.

That is an interesting observation, and I think you are on to something. I never really shopped for SCUTs, but have seen and looked at a few on dealer lots and on neighbor's properties.

The BX has always looked like a garden tractor sitting on a beefy frame to me. The body style/size and wheel size are very much inline with a garden tractor. Deere's biggest garden tractors (X700 series) have similar dimensions to the BX, in some cases actually being larger than a BX.

The Deere 1-series and their predecessor (2305 I think) are more like scaled down CUTs to me, though they do have small SCUT size tires and Deere did a lot of nice design work on the 1-series to make them more appealing to the SCUT market than their predecessor.

Same goes for the Mahindra offerings. Interestingly, the largest Mahindra SCUT, the Max 28, is really more along the lines of a Kubota B than a BX from what I have seen (my next door neighbor owns a Max 28). It has some parts that are clearly proportioned larger (loader arms and lift ratings) and others that are small (tires, loader bucket) and almost looks like a parts-bin project in some senses. The Max 28 is very capable for its size, but perhaps over-capable for its size in some ways. For instance, the loader ratings almost border on unrealistic to me, when you consider how much ballast would be needed to achieve them, and how challenging that would be on such a small tractor.

 

[TSO]

This is what I'm starting to think as I look at the SCUT marketplace: the needs of the new SCUT customers are different than the needs of the rural/agricultural community, but the tractor makers have traditionally thought in terms of power and "strength" and weight.

When it comes to SCUTs, it's not just a matter of scaling down a big tractor.

I recently tested out a 1025r and came away a little disappointed. The overall quality was there and the machine felt solid, so I'm not knocking JD quality. But I had the sense that it was the little brother of a bigger tractor - not a machine designed from the ground up for smaller, nimble tasks. I am going to go back and check out the BX line again, because I am wondering if they didn't start from a different place years ago when they identified the SCUT clientele before anyone else. (As a side note, the marketing and sales pitches from Mahindra really turn me off because their main objective seems to be to brag about how big and strong their machines are and how puny and wimpy everyone else is, like pro wrestlers talking trash before a match.)

These tractor companies have tough decisions to make. Do they design their SCUTs so people feel like they're sitting on something with "power," or do they go for something more finely tuned to the needs of these customers, who aren't going to be doing ag work with their machines. Is a loader lift strength of 800lbs vs 1000lbs really going to be a game-changer for them? Do lower engine RPMs matter for any reason other than meeting our desire for big engines with low-end torque? Do they fail to deliver either by trying to be all things?

I am going to test out the MF GC1710 before I make my final decision, but I'm leaning towards BX. I hear a lot more raving and excitement from those owners than any other community, which says something to me.

Torque is important for everyone... HP after all, is a byproduct of torque. The BX is a fine machine, however the MF has better hydraulic flow, which results in more efficient loader and backhoe performance. For sound alone, I'd prefer the engine that runs at lower RPM... Especially for loader work.

In regards to loader performance, consider this thought. Let's say you need to constantly lift 800 pounds. Which machine would offer better longevity? the machine that's only designed to handle 800 pounds max, or the machine that is designed to handle 1000 pounds? Would you want to constantly max out a loader, or, in regards to long term strength, would it be better to use the loader and tractor, that is designed and rated to handle more than 800 pounds?

think of it in terms of a human weight lifter. which person would be more productive lifting 200 pounds, the weightlifter with a max lift capacity of 200 pounds, or a weight lifter with a max lift capacity of 300 pounds? Which subject would be better equipped to lift the weight frequently? Which one would be more susceptible to injury or damages?

 

[atsah]

Torque is important for everyone... HP after all, is a byproduct of torque. The BX is a fine machine, however the MF has better hydraulic flow, which results in more efficient loader and backhoe performance. For sound alone, I'd prefer the engine that runs at lower RPM... Especially for loader work.

Agreed.. I looked at them all and spent months researching what was what and in the end the DL95 was for me. Most of what I am going to use the 1705 for is loader work and I believe the Massey is at the top of the food chain for a 22.5hp tractor..

 

[irvingj]

Interesting discussion.

Even though all the various manufacturers have "improved" their SCUT offerings since I bought mine in early 2008, I still go back to my main reason for selecting the MF 2310: "I believe the Massey is at the top of the food chain for a 22.5hp tractor.."

Seems that feeling is still around; still agree with atsah!

 

[Blitzn]

I know there has been a lot of good commentary on the machines you're considering. All have some great insights, from the Kubota DNA to Massey capabilities.
I went through a similar comparison just a few years ago, and I'll share these insights....
The BX series is lightweight - as someone else said - a glorified (and capable) garden tractor. My local Kubota dealer actually recommended I avoid the 2620, and look at the 2920 since with the hydrostatic, your available hp for implements is limited with the hydrostatics. From there, engine balance became an issue. I listened to reviews on the 3200 and the 3300 (BX with backhoe wasn't in my list)....
I test-drove them - the reviews were right. The 3200 and 3300 shake like the dickens at higher rpms. Different ideas have been floated for this - from engine mounts to inherent engine balancing. Who knows - all I can say is they were right.
I tested the greenies, but found the paint color awfully expensive for limited capability, Case and New Holland - were in the process of shifting production from Japan to Korea, and a two year old Japanese made model sold for more than a current year Korean - and the dealership felt the quality had definitely suffered. Massey dealer was the furthest away, but after comparing features, and test drive - I was sold (or actually it was...)
I'd suggest you've done your research, now go test drive and get some seat time.
Happy researching!

 

[AxleHub]

Nice post.

 

[gtinet]

First time poster and I'm glad I came across this forum. I have been doing the same research for the last three weeks. I am very fortunate to have all these brands within 10 miles; Mahindra eMax, Kubota BX, JD 1 Series, New Holland Boomer, LS, and Massey. After looking at them all I have narrowed down my choices to two tractors: LS XJ2025H or Massey GC1715 and the Massey will probably be the winner. Here are some of the factors that help me make my decision...

JD 1025R - Out of my budget and the auto-attach feature of the belly mower scares me.
New Holland Boomer 24 - Almost as expensive as the JD and it does not have a drive over deck.
Kubota BX2370 - Next highest in cost. I really do not like the "heal-toe" hydostat control. Its more cumbersome than side by side pedals.
Mahindra eMax25- Good price but deck elevation brackets extend under the rear axle to the three point arms limiting ground clearance.
LS XJ2025H - Good price and good features. LS makes the Boomer 24 for New Holland but its $3000 less and has a drive over deck. Unfortunately the "Dealer" is a guy selling out of his barn.
Massey GC1725 - Overall best choice for me. The only thing I wish I could change would be taller tires like the LS.

I hope to have mine delivered next week.

Questions about price. GC1710 with FEL and MMM - $14,500 or GC1715 with FEL and MMM - $15900. Are these good prices and is it worth $1400 more for extra 2.5 HP (22.5 vs. 25)?

Best of luck,
Kevin

 

[MJB62676]

I assume you are comparing 1705 and 1715.

I didn't look at 1715 because the dealer didn't have any in stock and he said basically you are paying 1500 for almost no difference in performance. Just what they said. I've been quite happy with my 1705. I can't say if 2 hp would make much difference.

 

[AxleHub]

Massey GC1725 - Overall best choice for me.

Questions about price. GC1710 with FEL and MMM - $14,500 or GC1715 with FEL and MMM - $15900. Are these good prices and is it worth $1400 more for extra 2.5 HP (22.5 vs. 25)?

Gtinet, I'm a little confused by your post:
1. What is a Massey GC1725 ?

2. A GC1710 with fel and mmm also has a backhoe. A GC1710 would be $3,500 to $5,000 more than a GC1715.

 

[jc21]

I guess what I'm surprised to find is that Massey doesn't seem to have any implements.

There's lots of implements for the GC series. Massey and Woods entered into an agreement last September selling Woods implements through Massey dealers- it sounds similar to what Kubota and Land Pride have set up. Massey Ferguson® and Woods Equipment Enter Into Agreement You'll be able to finance Woods implements through AGCO along with the tractor and now they'll be color matched to boot.

Massey's current U.S. website is somewhat improved from the mess they had before ... might be worth a look again. On the GC series a mid PTO is standard equipment- there's a front mounted rotary broom, front mounted snowblower, four mid mount finish mowers (54", 54" mulching, 60", and a new 60" drive over) available and other than the new drive over deck, have been available for some time, including the previous GC series. Implements shouldn't be a problem ... your dealer might be. Some are oriented towards big ag and or construction equipment in the case of JD or NH and small tractors get neglected. Kubota has long been focused on smaller tractors and that's a competitive advantage. Don't know where you're at but there are MF dealers around who are pretty knowledgeable about the GC series.

I've looked at the Kubota BX, JD 1025R, and MF 1705; they're all good tractors imho but when the time comes to sign on the dotted line I think it will be a MF. I understand your frustration ... I've learned more here than anywhere else.