MX5100HST almost 6 hrs in experience.

[DSM123]

So far I have logged roughly 5 hrs seat time. Mainly mowing with a six foot rotary cutter and clearing dead cedar trees with the FEL. After spending years operating older machines I can say it is a luxury to drive. Even my wife, who has never been on a tractor before, was able to operate the MX5100 and use the FEL. It seems too easy and I keep thinking I am forgetting something, constantly grabbing in the air for the gear lever when anticipating backing up, mashing the HST pedal to try to rev the engine... It will take time.
One thing I have noticed when comparing this machine to older comparable HP tractors is: One, the MX5100 is nowhere near the weight and brute force the older 42hp MF203 was. However, being more agile I think one can get more work done plus, with the older tractor I usually had to repair something before I got on it.
Two, The MX5100HST sucks fuel like mad. I went through a 12 gallon tank in less than six hours if the fuel gauge is correct. It's not like I was pushing it as I seldom had it above 2K rpm, mostly around 1800rpm as I am taking it easy during the first 50 hr break in period. My old MF203 and the IH2400 would run all day on that amount of fuel.
I can see where tire ballast might help. This tractor has plenty of hp for its size/weight. Also, there are plenty of little fragile areas that will get damaged during clearing brush. What do the engineers think these machines will get used for??? At one point I noticed while mowing it seemed to be running warm and kept creeping up. I checked the radiator screen and sure enough it looked like a lint filter after drying a load of clothes. But what puzzles me is why did they mount an oil cooler in front of the screen? I had a heck of a time blowing it out after only 3 hrs of mowing.
At one point I had a half inch stick come up and lodge itself into the HST linkage holding the pedal down. Quickly throttled down and put it in neutral to see what the heck was happening. It could have been ugly if an inexperienced operator was at the helm.
Overall I am pleased with the MX5100HST. But just like automobiles and everything else don't expect to apples to apples when it comes to advertised numbers nowadays. I guess I'm just what they call 'Old School'. Maybe thats why I like the MX5100's cushiony seat so much.:laughing:

 

[murphy1244]

Glad your having fun. Seems my MF 135 ran about .5 gallons a hour cutting.

 

[bigbull338]

glad your enjoying your tractor.it really dont drink fuel that bad when you consider your in a new compact tractor.thats built tobe more agile an lighter than older heavier tractors.your tractor holds 12.7 gal of diesel enough todo a days work.

 

[DSM123]

I'm thinking one reason is due to the HST. With the older machines I usually left the throttle close to idle and throttled up using the foot when doing FEL work. With the HST its running at 2K rpm all the time.

I do recall the old Perkins '152' diesel sipping fuel to the point where I'd forget to refill it was so infrequent. This thing guzzles fuel like a gas engine.

 

[corl]

I too have noticed the difference in fuel consumption with the MX5100HST (1.8 gallon/hr). My work load is about the same from year to year but the Kubota is using fuel at almost twice the level of my old IH574RC tractor. It is true that this tractor does more so maybe I use it more but I am always filling it up. It won't last a full day of work on a full tank. The engine RPMs are higher with the MX5100 than they were with the 6 cylinder IH.
Putting weight in the tires and always carrying weight (74 inch rototiller)on the back when seriously using the FEL makes it feel much more stable. Every tractor is a compromise but I like this one.

 

[TexasBoy]

Horsepower is a measurement that is RPM dependent. These tractors have to truly rev to meet the posted HP figures and many older diesels were made to create their rated HP numbers at lower RPM and for that reason used less fuel. If you go back far enough, the Nebraska Tractor tests used to rate engines at the drawbar only and now that the PTO measurement is thrown in there you just cant compare the old iron with these new ones. My old Ferguson 35 was only about 32 drawbar HP but they got every drop of that to the ground and it would pull like a pissed off mule all day long and never complain. I know it sounds cliche but they dont make 'em like they used to.

 

[DSM123]

I too have noticed the difference in fuel consumption with the MX5100HST (1.8 gallon/hr). My work load is about the same from year to year but the Kubota is using fuel at almost twice the level of my old IH574RC tractor. It is true that this tractor does more so maybe I use it more but I am always filling it up. It won't last a full day of work on a full tank. The engine RPMs are higher with the MX5100 than they were with the 6 cylinder IH.
Putting weight in the tires and always carrying weight (74 inch rototiller)on the back when seriously using the FEL makes it feel much more stable. Every tractor is a compromise but I like this one.

Corl, What did you fill your tires with?

 

[Gary Fowler]

I don't ever run my B26 at WOT. I don't like the noise and I don't need the extra 500 RPM for power. I find that 1800 rpm is the sweet spot for working it and has much less engine noise at that speed. I don't use it to mow which would require WOT (2550-2600) to get the 540 rpm but for FEL and backhoe use 3/4 throttle is plenty and it saves fuel running lower rpm. Most work done with FEL can have throttle set at 1500 and then when needing more power or speed, use the foot throttle (if you have one) to speed up or get more power.
It is true that todays tractors including the small CUTs rev much higher than old iron. Most of the old iron had a top RPM of about 1800 rpm and then the manufacturers started using smaller C.U. engine and reving more to get the HP but that didn't seem to help in the fuel usage.

 

[bucktaker]

Horsepower is a measurement that is RPM dependent. These tractors have to truly rev to meet the posted HP figures and many older diesels were made to create their rated HP numbers at lower RPM and for that reason used less fuel. If you go back far enough, the Nebraska Tractor tests used to rate engines at the drawbar only and now that the PTO measurement is thrown in there you just cant compare the old iron with these new ones. My old Ferguson 35 was only about 32 drawbar HP but they got every drop of that to the ground and it would pull like a pissed off mule all day long and never complain. I know it sounds cliche but they dont make 'em like they used to.

x2 or x3 they are not like the old iron
My L5740 is very similar to the mx5100 and coming from 1963 MF35 delux it does not have the brute power that my old mf35 with Davis loader had. It also sucks the fuel down. Just yesterday I was thinking this as I couldnt push through a snow drift Im sure the old massey would have plowed through. Neverthe less I like my kubota and as far as reliability its been great.

 

[KYDan]

I use a lot more fuel with my MX5100 than I did my old Ford 2000 and 3000 tractors, but I can do a lot more with it. I knew when I moved up to the MX from my old L2900 I was going to use more fuel due to the higher engine RPMs. It was a trade off for the HST which is worth it. I do a lot of loader chores and it is so much better than a geared or hydro shuttle for those chores. It is also really great for mowing on rough, hilly terrain with its agility and reversing capabilities. The HST is not particularly effective for ground engagement work, but I do very little of that. The LA844 loader is a good match for the MX it will lift pretty much anything you have in the bucket. It does get tippy with a full bucket (I have the HD round back bucket) at full extension. It is by far the most versatile tractor I have ever used. The only gripes I have about it are the noise generated by the turbo and the HST, and the lack of an idiot light to advise me the parking brake is set. It is easy to forget with the HST if you are used to geared equipment. After 300 hours it is still going strong with no mechanical issues with the tractor to-date.