MX5100 vs. JD 5055D

[Ken45101]

I'm looking for an additional tractor for bush hogging the pastures. I want 40-50 PTO HP. I currently have a 6' brush mower, I might consider upgrading to something a bit larger but will probably stick to the same size.

I've been seriously considering the Kubota MX5100. I've had good luck over the years with Kubota equipment. Actually I wish I had kept my M4700 instead of trading it in on the M5040

I looked at Deere yesterday and their 5055D seems to be a comparable tractor. Price is about the same. The Deere weighs 800# more, the MX seems a bit on the light side at 3300#. Also, the rear end looks bigger on the Deere. I understand that the MX drivetrain is more like the L series, not the M series. IIRC, the M4700 weighed in close to the Deere.

Bush hogging isn't like to stress the drive train like plowing or loader work, but I still wonder if the Deere would be a better buy. Besdies, 800# more tractor sounds attractive.

Any thoughts or comparisons between the two would be appreciated. Thanks.

Ken

 

[Bob_Young]

Only negative I can see to the MX5100 for your application is that the 540 PTO rpm comes at 2700 engine RPM, same as my MX5000. I rarely run it that fast, but when I do the engine seems wound up rather tight. Would hate to have to listen to it run all day at 2700RPM. I'd expect the Deere would turn out the 540 at a more sedate engine RPM.

Oh, one more thing. Do you plan to bush hog without an FEL on the tractor? I've found I need front weights to keep the front down when mowing with a 6' Med. duty Woods (BB720, about 1200 lbs.) without the FEL. That 800lbs. heavier Deere might let you go to a bigger bushhog if that's your plan.

BTW, my MX burns almost exactly 1.25 gallons of fuel per tachometer hour when being worked hard on the bushhog. That seems good to me. Might want to ask the Deere guy what the 5055 will burn
Bob

 

[Ken45101]

Good point on the engine RPM for 540. The M5040 turns 540 at considerably lower engine RPM.

Yeah, I planned on front weights if I get an MX5100. Or I'm considering a new tow behind mower which may not require the front weights.

I'd almost guess the JD would require front weights too. Although it's heavier, I doubt that the front/back ratio is significantly different. IIRC, my old M4700 was around the weight of the JD, but it still was light in the front with the mower on the back.

I am amazed at the wide spread I've found in MX5100 prices. $14000 to $19000+ at five different dealerships.

 

[big bubba]

Ken: can't really offer info on the JD, probably a close match. Is the 6' hog a lightweight, mid, or heavy weight. PTO HP rating? My 296 Bush Hog (6') weighs in at 1200 lbs w/45 PTO hp. Used it on an MX5000 w/FELS, worked fine, but on hills w/o a FEL you'd be asking for weights. Curious: why do you prefer the 4700 over the 5040, and why the 2nd tractor so close in size and HP to your existing? One strictly dedicated for hogging? good luck bb

 

[Ken45101]

Ken: can't really offer info on the JD, probably a close match. Is the 6' hog a lightweight, mid, or heavy weight. PTO HP rating? My 296 Bush Hog (6') weighs in at 1200 lbs w/45 PTO hp. Used it on an MX5000 w/FELS, worked fine, but on hills w/o a FEL you'd be asking for weights. Curious: why do you prefer the 4700 over the 5040, and why the 2nd tractor so close in size and HP to your existing? One strictly dedicated for hogging? good luck bb

BB,

Oh it's not that I prefer the M4700 over the M5040, it's just that for what little I got in trade in, I now wish I had kept it as a second tractor.

The mower is a medium duty Woods, 860#.

Why a second tractor close in size and HP to the existing one? Well, I don't want to go smaller in a bush hog and I don't see going to something bigger and more expensive. I guess I could get a little smaller with the existing bush hog but I don't think I would want to go down much although the manual says 20-60 hp.

Yes, I know what you mean about either needing weights or a FEL. That was a hassle with the old M4700, if I took the loader off, putting the weight bumper back on was a major chore. It was rear heavy without the loader, and front heavy with it.

Ken