L4600 vs MX4700

[Pappy]

Hello. First post here. I'm in the process of buying 30 acres of land, and I'm looking for a tractor. Right now, I'm focusing on Kubota in general, and the L4600 and MX4700 specifically.

What I can't figure out is that there is less than $1,000 between two when identically equipped (4wd, HST, FEL, 3 rear remotes, work lights, etc.). That's based on Kubota's "Build Your Kubota" website.

The MX4700 is a bigger tractor, weighs more, has a wider stance, and the FEL has more lift capacity than the FEL on the L4600.

What am I missing. Why is the MX4700 not a no-brainer over the L4600?

I'm only internet shopping at this point, and have not sat on either tractor. The answer might be obvious if I did.

I've sat on the 3240 and 3940 and the M5140, but I'm thinking the 3240 and 3940 might not have enough PTO HP for me, and the M5140 may be out of my budget.

 

[Eric McCarthy]

When in doubt go bigger. Get the right tractor the first time, you can never have too much of a good thing. Alot of us just get by and make due with what we have and all of us wish we had something bigger.

What are some of your needs for a tractor on 30 acres??

 

[skeets]

Welcome to the orange I hope you come back and remember we love pictures,,,, And I have to agree with Eric on this,, figure what you think you need and go next bigger one,,, cause in the world of tractors your going to find that,,, man if I had just (<----- this ------> ) much more I could do that,,lol

 

[Pappy]

. . . What are some of your needs for a tractor on 30 acres??

If this land purchase works out (which is not a sure thing at this point), I'll have a lot of small/medium cedar trees to remove, dirt to be moved, building pad to build and mowing to do.

I suppose the L4600 must have some features the MX4700 doesn't. Otherwise, they wouldn't be so close in price.

 

[TripleR]

Agree with the others and would probably bump it up a bit more to the MX5100 for the extendable lower links and just a bit more HP.

I do know at some point though that "a bit more money" becomes "too much money" so for some "it's only about a $100 more" becomes "its almost a $1000 more".

Once you drive both, it will become more clear to you, but the real test happens once you get it on site and my experience has been tractors shrink once you get them and what seemed like a lot of power on the lot may not after working it a while.

 

[Bluegill]

Difference;

The L4600 is the top of the basic L series.

The MX4700 is the bottom of the MX series.

Go larger if the size isn't a problem. I love our L3800DT for logging and it's maneuverability because of it's smaller size. I rarely use our larger rig anymore.

 

[Bulldog]

Just my opinion but I think the L series is priced the way they are because of the popularity.

 

[Eric McCarthy]

Like Bluegill was saying, the L4600 is a basic plane jane tractor, then for a few bucks more you step up to the MX4700 with the pimp daddy delux model with all the bells and whistles.

 

[gpreuss]

If you dig deeper in the Kubota website you'll find there is shocking little price difference between the B series and L series as well, yet you are looking at 800 lbs more tractor! With 30 acres and the perceived need, I'd go for the MX in a second!
I felt that way when I compared the B3300SU to the L3200, and smile a lot every time I work it!

 

[Pappy]

I think you guys have confirmed that I wasn't just missing something obvious. I thought there might be some obvious missing features on the MX series that made the bigger MX similar in price to the L.

I have enough tractor experience (many years ago) to know that bigger is always better on tractors (except when maneuvering or hauling them).

One of the benefits of the MX is that the 3 point hitch can accept Cat 1 or 2 implements. I suspect it doesn't have the power to handle serious ground engaging implements in a Cat 2 size, but it would be handy to have the option for Cat 2 on certain things. For example, if a guy found a smoking deal on a Cat 2 post hole digger or ballast box.

Now I think the decision may be MX4700 vs. MX5100.

 

[Bluegill]

Now I think the decision may be MX4700 vs. MX5100.

Same tractor, except MX5100 is turbo charged. Might be some other small differences, but basically the same.

 

[TripleR]

Now I think the decision may be MX4700 vs. MX5100.

Yes, turbo and different 3PH which is very handy: http://www.kubota.com/product/MX4700/pdf/mx4700_5100_features.pdf

You can add the 3PH to the MX4700, but I believe it is pretty expensive.

 

[Pappy]

Those extendable lower 3PH arms are enough to choose the 5100. I've wrestled with enough three point hitches to understand the benefit, especially since I'll mainly be working alone on this farm.

 

[tmessenger]

A friend of mine just went from a 3200 to the 4700 I've driven both on rough ground and the 4700 is so much smoother riding and more stable it's not even a contest. My friend has 40 acres and does quite a bit of mowing in rough areas so the new MX is a real boon.

Tim

 

[helomech]

I love my mx5100. I have not run into a situation where I needed more power. Now more traction would be helpful. I do wonder if the one with less hp would run out of power before it looses traction.

 

[TripleR]

Well in many if not most cases you want more power than traction or you are likely to break something and put undue stress and strain on a tractor. Ideally you want a good balance of power and traction, traction can be increased with more weight and/or different tires.

http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/eng5240

 

[Pappy]

TripleR, that link in your post was interesting. Admittedly, it's been a LONG time since I've been on the farm or around tractors, so I'm starting over to a large extent.

We always thought that if SOME ballast was good, MORE ballast must be better. The study in your link shows that is NOT the case, and that too much ballast can cause premature drivetrain wear, sluggish performance and poor fuel economy.

That's something good to know. Thanks for that link.

 

[TripleR]

TripleR, that link in your post was interesting. Admittedly, it's been a LONG time since I've been on the farm or around tractors, so I'm starting over to a large extent.

We always thought that if SOME ballast was good, MORE ballast must be better. The study in your link shows that is NOT the case, and that too much ballast can cause premature drivetrain wear, sluggish performance and poor fuel economy.

That's something good to know. Thanks for that link.

Same here, I grew up on a farm was in FFA many years ago and much of what I "knew" is no longer relevant.