NX4510 and NX5010 pricing and review

[GManBart]

As for how much weight I can carry around, let me remind you that the 3PT lift for the DK40se is just about the same as for theNX4510 which is identical to the NX6010.

I'm wondering now if those of you who drank the Kioti HP kool aid did your homework before purchase. I know that sounds a bit snarky but really, how did you determine that you needed 60hp? Did your dealer just upsell or was there a calculation involved?

Talk about somebody who didn't do their homework! All of the NX series have a 3pt hitch with 27% more lift than your DK does....sheesh, come on man, try facts for a change.

 

[IslandTractor]

I'm confused. How is deck-over lift capacity different for NX4510 and 6010?

Regarding snowblowers, I always forget the exact measurement but I thought the DK40 width was just under 6ft. Is the NX6010 wider? Is the NX4510?

 

[GManBart]

For anybody interested in actual facts about fuel consumption for tractors of varying horsepower, but the same displacement, we can thank the Nebraska Tractor Test protocol for absolutely refuting the kinds of nonsense some folks claim.

The Deere 4x20 series all had the same engine setup....4 cylinder, 2.4L, turbo-charged engines. Three of the four were tested, with the following results:

4720 - 51.77hp PTO, and 3.3gal/hr.
4520 - 46.58hp PTO, and 3.0gal/hr.
4320 - 41.58hp PTO, and 2.9gal/hr.

For those really quick folks, you'll notice that the bigger engines made more horsepower for each gallon of fuel used per hour.

4720 was 15.68hp per gallon, per hour.
4520 was 15.52hp per gallon, per hour.
4320 was 14.33hp per gallon, per hour.

Yep, the 4720 was more efficient than the smaller engines. Dial it back to make the same power as the smaller engines, and the fuel consumption would be either identical, or so close as to be a non-factor. Even if you ran them at PTO speeds and "wasted" power because you sized your implements wrong, and it's still not going to add up to a massive difference for folks who use their CUT the typical 100-200 hours per year.

Go from the 4320 to the 4520, and you're going to "waste" 20 gallons per year if you ran at PTO speed all the time (200 hours which is on the high side), and didn't need to because your implements were the wrong size. In reality, you're not going to be at PTO speed all the time, so it's going to be less than that....holy, moly, it might be $30 a year or some other catastrophic figure!

 

[kapper]

I think that for a lot of people, having one "do it all" tractor is the option they choose. No tractor is perfect for everything, but having a 60 HP HST CUT is about the best choice to cover all if your potential needs, if you have small acreage like 30 or less.

this one has almost hit it on the nose when we are looking at the extra hp in a CUT compared to a farm tractor. The bigger hp CUT's can do virtually everything that a similar farm/utility tractor can do. However, the larger, wider and taller farm tractors Cannot do all that the smaller CUT's can..... They cannot keep mowed narrow atv/utv trails, they cannot maneuver in small horse stalls, garages, smaller sheds, they cannot conduct tight spaced operations as in thick woods, cover, brush, between fencelines, etc. So, if I wanted to do some land clearing with a 12' batwing, or pull an 8 or 10' disc, I could do them (equal to the farm tractor), yet also be able to do much more, which is precisely why they invented the 4wd CUT in the first place. It truly is a 'catch all' unit.

 

[IslandTractor]

For anybody interested in actual facts about fuel consumption for tractors of varying horsepower, but the same displacement, we can thank the Nebraska Tractor Test protocol for absolutely refuting the kinds of nonsense some folks claim.

The Deere 4x20 series all had the same engine setup....4 cylinder, 2.4L, turbo-charged engines. Three of the four were tested, with the following results:

4720 - 51.77hp PTO, and 3.3gal/hr.
4520 - 46.58hp PTO, and 3.0gal/hr.
4320 - 41.58hp PTO, and 2.9gal/hr.

For those really quick folks, you'll notice that the bigger engines made more horsepower for each gallon of fuel used per hour.

4720 was 15.68hp per gallon, per hour.
4520 was 15.52hp per gallon, per hour.
4320 was 14.33hp per gallon, per hour.

Yep, the 4720 was more efficient than the smaller engines. Dial it back to make the same power as the smaller engines, and the fuel consumption would be either identical, or so close as to be a non-factor. Even if you ran them at PTO speeds and "wasted" power because you sized your implements wrong, and it's still not going to add up to a massive difference for folks who use their CUT the typical 100-200 hours per year.

Go from the 4320 to the 4520, and you're going to "waste" 20 gallons per year if you ran at PTO speed all the time (200 hours which is on the high side), and didn't need to because your implements were the wrong size. In reality, you're not going to be at PTO speed all the time, so it's going to be less than that....holy, moly, it might be $30 a year or some other catastrophic figure!

Your data isn't to the point. Yes, the bigger engines were more efficient at full horsepower. But we have been discussing the very common phenomenon of using engines at less than full power. When you run a backhoe you don't use full power. When you do loader work you don't use full power. The Nebraska standards are geared towards ground engaging tasks where full power is used. The data doesn't tell you anything about the gal/hr when running at more typical RPM for loader work. I posted graphs from Yanmar earlier today that show pretty clearly that when running at lower than full PTO speed, ALL diesel engines are less fuel efficient. That is the key point, not whether a 51hp engine is more efficient at 51hp than a 41 hp engine is at 41. All those Nebraska data you quote appear to be measured at full PTO. Let's see some real world data that applied to typical CUT use. You have ZERO data for your pure speculation that "dial it back to make the same power as the smaller engines, and the fuel consumption would be either identical ....". Baloney. Show us data to back up your assertion (which contradicts the diesel manufacturers).

I do agree that for someone running the engines 200 hrs a year the difference in fuel consumption for 45hp vs 60hp doing the identical task is not a lot of gallons or money but it is less efficient.

And, don't forget the hazards of too much horsepower. Read Eric's other thread to see how he has torn up implements etc.

 

[kapper]

http://youtu.be/KTCzt1svQbA

C'mon man, check this vid out of my John Deere 4720 CUT. If it don't get a little blood pumping, then somethin' is wrong with you guys! . You might be able to do this with the 45 hp, but for sure you're gonna take some more time off the clock!! Can't wait to see what the NX6010 will do!!!! Lets face it boys...... all this banter is a good problem to have for us! Rock on!

 

[MinnesotaEric]

I'm confused. How is deck-over lift capacity different for NX4510 and 6010?

Regarding snowblowers, I always forget the exact measurement but I thought the DK40 width was just under 6ft. Is the NX6010 wider? Is the NX4510?

An NX6010 is 78" wide, an NX450 is what, 68" wide? The NX4510 is Cat 1, the NX610 is Cat 1 and 2 set up from the factory for Cat 2.

As I said, the HST transmission limited me to 60 hp and so I only looked at 60ish hp tractors. The skid loaders and telehandler I considered had more power but less flexibility.

If I had less than 60 hp, I'd need to downshift driving into town to gas up. The first 1/2 mile is part of what I must plow or blow out (not to mention the other drives I have yet to make).

 

[94BULLITT]

http://youtu.be/KTCzt1svQbA

C'mon man, check this vid out of my John Deere 4720 CUT. If it don't get a little blood pumping, then somethin' is wrong with you guys! . You might be able to do this with the 45 hp, but for sure you're gonna take some more time off the clock!! Can't wait to see what the NX6010 will do!!!! Lets face it boys...... all this banter is a good problem to have for us! Rock on!

I don't think It would have taken any longer with less power

 

[94BULLITT]

An NX6010 is 78" wide, an NX450 is what, 68" wide? The NX4510 is Cat 1, the NX610 is Cat 1 and 2 set up from the factory for Cat 2.

As I said, the HST transmission limited me to 60 hp and so I only looked at 60ish hp tractors. The skid loaders and telehandler I considered had more power but less flexibility.

If I had less than 60 hp, I'd need to downshift driving into town to gas up. The first 1/2 mile is part of what I must plow or blow out (not to mention the other drives I have yet to make).

Here are the RX6010 specs

Length w/ 3-point hitch 145.7 in. (3,700 mm)
Width 68.1 in. (1,730 mm)
Height from Top of ROPS Cab 102.8 in. (2,610 mm)
From Top of the Highest Point 102.8 in. (2,610 mm)
Wheelbase 82.7 in. (2,100 mm)
Ground Clearance 15.7 in. (400 mm)
Front Tread Ag Tires - Min 54.1 in. (1.375 mm)
Rear Tread Ag Tires - Min 54.1 in. (1,375 mm)
Turning Radius w/ Brake 10.5 ft. (3.2 m)

NX6010
Length w/ 3-point hitch 139.6 in (3,547 mm)
Width 65.7 in (1,669 mm)
Height from Top of Cab 94.1 in (2,390 mm)
Wheelbase 75.6 in (1,920 mm)
Ground Clearance 15.7 in (400 mm)
Front Tread Ag Tires - Min 53.3 in (1,355 mm)
Rear Tread Ag Tires - Min 52.5 in (1,324 mm)
Turning Radius w/ Brake 9.8 ft. (3.0 m)

The RX is just a hair larger.

The L4240 moves down the road pretty good. The HST plus helps. I know with more power it would go up the hills faster.

 

[MinnesotaEric]

Roger, I've found out those specs are the 4510 and 5010, not the larger 5510 and 6010. For example: both the NX4510 and and NX6010 share the same cab height, yet the NX6010 has 2" more ground clearance. Wait, then the cab cannot be the same height if the entire chassis is sitting 2" higher off of the ground.

My as measured width is 78" without wheel spacers.

I've never knocked over a tree taller than 25' with a tractor. Chain saw 70 degree aiming cut, a matching undercut, a plunge cut setting up the hinge and trigger, and a back cut to send it down.