My M9000HDCC3

[jazzdaddy]

I also considered the M125 but for the extra 20 hp they use an engine that has 50% greater displacement than the 105 and I was worried about fuel usage. The 125 uses three gallons/hour at full implement speed. Yikes. I'm hoping the M105 is a little better on fuel.

For remotes, I'm going with the standard two rear remotes. I don't envision using a setup that requires continuous manipulation on the rear. If I do, I'll add it as an aftermarket item.

On the loader, the solenoid valve arrangement uses the loader hydraulics. It is a Kubota supplied system and installed at the dealer.

The Landpride RBT-4096 rear blade has three cylinders but they are connected to a single control provided by Landpride. I don't expect that I'll need to be manipulating the rear blade in three dimensions continuously. I also haven't seen the Landpride controls so I'm just going to go with it and see how it works.

For land clearing, I'm hoping I can use the rear blade to dig up small roots and rocks and use the grapple to pile them. Larger stumps will either be excavated with a hired excavator or left to rot in the ground.

 

[5030]

Jazzdaddy:

I hate to burst your bubble but the 105 is right around 3 gallons per hour too. My partner has one. My M9 is better at 2.2. Fuel usage is at rated rpm and rated load. You should do better, but then again, maybe not.

My partner looked at the X but couldn't justify the extra cost and got an S instead. The M9 interior wise is the same as the S and X with the exception of the armrest mounted controls which I don't care for anyway. I can get in his tractor and then go to mine and everything is the same and that's important for us as we switch off depending on what implement is out behind.

 

[jazzdaddy]

5030,

I've been following your posts as I know that you have experience with both models. I really need the PTO hp at >90 and hydraulic gpm at >18 or else I would have considered the M9.

Also, on the M105, the LA-1301 loader has considerably more breakout force (4980lbs) vs. 3750 lbs. on the LA1251 on the M9. The M9 loader looks like it's faster than the M105 but I need to stack 1 ton pallets and break rocks out of the ground and I feel better with the extra power.

If the M105 really uses 3 gallons/hr, I'll be annoyed for not going with the M125. Kubota says the M125 uses 3 gal/hr, maybe it's more in practice.

 

[5030]

Jazzdaddy:

I have no problem at all moving one ton pallets with the 1251/M9, matter of fact, just got in from setting a ton pallet of wood pellets next to the deck for my wife. Cycle time wise, the 1251 seems a bit faster than the loader that I had on the 5030. The 105/125 have the self leveling loader which the M9 don't have but I run the 105 and either loader works fine for me. Spec wise, I'm not concerned with breakout force, thats a relative term anyway. Leverage on the bucket lip against an immovable object can be multiplied many times just by a slight movement of the tractor itself. Again, I'd like to have had the corner post mounted exhaust, but all the tractors I have run had a centered pipe so it's no problem, I just ignore it.

I might add that the ton pallet was moved and placed next to the deck in 2WD. I have only used FWA 2 times, once for the Chevy and once dragging a 40 yard roll-off container to the road (I do fabrication work on roll-off's on the side).

If I can pick up a 3/4 ton Chevy and lift it off a rock, that's pretty impressive to me.

Be sure whatever model you get to specify cast wheel centers on the back that way, the loader won't lift the back of the tractor as Kubota's loaders in general will float the tractor that they are on if that unit has stamped centers on the rear.

The 125X as far as my opinion is, way too much glitz without the glitter. That is, it's set up as a row crop tractor but it lacks the electronic controls that JD has on their tractors in that class like headland monitors. I don't row crop anyway so the X is too frivilous anyway.

The M9 has been around for quite a few years. It's proven itself and it's reliable. Kubota's foray into the middleweight market is spearheaded by the 105-125 and that's a hard market to get into.

 

[jazzdaddy]

I ordered it with the cast wheel centers and filled rear tires for a weight that will over 10000 lb. not including rear attachments.

I don't row crop either, though I hope to make hay in a year or two. We have some serious hills and I wanted the power to pull a silage baler over these hills. I also need to pull a 3 ton lime spreader. I'm thinking that the Intellishift will help with this terrain as well.

 

[5030]

Jazzdaddy:

I have been through this discussion before. My partner and I are commercial forage growers and I don't advocate filled tires for the simple reason that the heavier the tractor is, the more weight is imparted to the ground and the more weight on the footprint of the tire, the more damage you do to the hay crop. We pull everything from a NH 700 series auto tie round bailer, a tandem axle New Idea manure spreader, Kuhn side slinger, lime spreaders, MoCo, crimpers and tandem axle hay wagons with the square bailer attached and the only time we use FWA is on one field that has a hill in it. Between the two of us we have 7 tractors and none have loaded tires. The other problem with loaded tires especially CaCl is that if you rupture a tire in the field, wherever the CaCl or the antifreeze leaks on the hay, it will never grow again and we plant and grow hybrid alfalfa which is expensive in itself.

With cast centers, the filled tires are frivilous.

 

[jazzdaddy]

I am concerned about the weight, especially going through some of the wetter areas of my fields. The filled tires are something that the dealer recommends. I think they do this because they do a lot of compact tractors that really need this.

I think they are also a little sensitive to the market perception that Kubotas are lighter than other utility tractors from Massey and Deere. That may have been true in the past, but that's not the case with the latest models.

I think I'll consider ordering the unit without the tires filled and see how it works. If I need the weight, I can always add fluid later.

My dealer hasn't used CaCl2 in years due to concerns such as yours. They use some environmentally neutral formula that I'm not familiar with.

 

[5030]

I believe the filled tires are superfluous. Spend the money on something else like another set of high mounted cab lights.

If you are too heavy in a wet area, you may become a monument and an expensive removal job. Everything can get stuck, dozer's, tractors, tanks, whatever. Just depends on how bottomless your mud is and your willingness to test it.

 

[40Kchicks]

Jazzdaddy

I haven’t had any trouble pulling anything yet with my M9000 with the exception of a 30 ton feed truck that got stuck on my hill. Of course I don’t use it to plow yet but I figured that extra weight just uses extra fuel. I use the tractor in all sorts of mud at times and do take advantage of the FWD often. I would also recommend not filling the tires until there comes a day that your uses require it.

Eric

 

[jazzdaddy]

I've been all over my place in my L3830 and did manage to get stuck up the axles once. That was due primarily to inexperience and thanks to that I'm a lot more careful. It took a wrecker and $500 to pull my tractor and truck out of the mud at the far end of the field.

For wet season work, I'll probably use the L3830 in the wet areas now that I know where they are. That way if I get stuck, I can use the M105 to pull it out.

With the rain we have had this winter, spring is likely to be treacherous here. I've got 22 acres that need fertilzer and lime before the cattle go out grazing. If it doesn't dry out, it's going to be interesting.