Pricing for 2019 Kubota B2650 w/LA534 Loader

PS103

New member

Equipment
B2650 w/LA534 Loader
Jul 20, 2022
5
4
1
Wisconsin
Hello, I am new to this forum and was hoping to get some pricing advice. I have the opportunity to purchase a 2019 Kubota B2650 w/LA534 Loader. It has 120 light duty hours (unloading items from trucks). A few minor scratches on hood, and some scuff wear on edge of foot platform. Tractor runs great from what I can tell. It has fluid filled turf tires with rear having 90% tread left and front having 75%. Has ROPS, tilt steering, and bucket level rod indicator. No other attachments. The dealer is selling on consignment for a repeat customer who has already purchased 4 kubota tractors from them. The only reason the owner traded this 2650 in is because his company had to get larger tractor due to product shipments being doubled per pallet, so the 2650 could not lift pallets safely off trucks. They are asking $18,900 so I was wondering what is a fair offer I should make on this tractor?
 

BetterThanAShovel

Member

Equipment
B2650, BH77, SG0660 grapple, pallet forks, Bobcat 60" box blade
Oct 5, 2021
63
44
18
16877
I'll help you with a datapoint for comparison, although (unless things have changed) the real challenge was FINDING a tractor that could be bought, not finding one that was affordable.

I bought my tractor last year from a private seller via Facebook marketplace for $23k. 2017 B2650, 300 hours, industrial tires (not fluid filled), with B77 backhoe. Definitely had some scrapes on it and the usual grapple damage on the front. But has worked fine and I've had no major issues with it. Happy to answer any more questions you might have.

He also had pallet forks and grapple and I can't remember now if the grapple was included in the price or if I got him to sell me the grapple and pallet forks for just the added cost of the grapple. i can't remember.
 

PaulL

Well-known member

Equipment
B2601
Jul 17, 2017
1,304
517
113
NZ
The machine you describe is near new with little use. Probably has some factory warranty remaining, and it's from a dealer not strictly a private sale - so some level of dealer support. It's probably worth 85% of new price I'd guess, maybe a bit more in this market. Flipside, it's no longer current model (LX is), so maybe as low as 80% of new. Much beyond that, you'd probably be better with a new machine on finance. Check price on a new one with the same options to give you a good reference point.

One thing to watch out for is that it has fluid filled wheels for ballast, and no mention of a ballast box. it's really hard on the front axle of a tractor to do a lot of FEL work with only fluid filled wheels. It stops the rear wheels coming off the ground, so it's safe, but it doesn't transfer any load at all to the rear axle - in fact, a lot of the weight of those fluid filled rears are transferred to the front.

To understand this, consider your tractor as a simple sea-saw / teeter totter. The front axle is the pivot. They're lifting a lot of weight way out in front on the FEL. The rear of the tractor is counter balancing the front. The weight from out the front is on the front axle, and a bunch of the weight from the rear of the tractor is also getting lifted by the front axle, as it counter balances.

In short, if that was the ballast method they chose, and they used it primarily as a fork lift, then they will have worked the front end of the machine pretty heavily. 75% wear on the front tires also tells you that. (Of course, they may have used rear ballast as well, and just chosen not to sell that with the machine). Have a good look at the seals and bushings on the front axle and steering to make sure there's nothing worn. Kubotas are robust, it's not all that likely to be a problem, but something to have your eyes open about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

JimmyJazz

Well-known member

Equipment
B2601
Aug 8, 2020
892
501
93
Pittsburgh, Pa
Look on tractorhouse.com if you haven't already. I would assume most of the asking prices include room for "negotiation". Maybe take 10% off of the asking prices and let that be your guide. Good luck.
 

PS103

New member

Equipment
B2650 w/LA534 Loader
Jul 20, 2022
5
4
1
Wisconsin
I'll help you with a datapoint for comparison, although (unless things have changed) the real challenge was FINDING a tractor that could be bought, not finding one that was affordable.

I bought my tractor last year from a private seller via Facebook marketplace for $23k. 2017 B2650, 300 hours, industrial tires (not fluid filled), with B77 backhoe. Definitely had some scrapes on it and the usual grapple damage on the front. But has worked fine and I've had no major issues with it. Happy to answer any more questions you might have.

He also had pallet forks and grapple and I can't remember now if the grapple was included in the price or if I got him to sell me the grapple and pallet forks for just the added cost of the grapple. i can't remember.
Thank you for the information. That helped.
 

PS103

New member

Equipment
B2650 w/LA534 Loader
Jul 20, 2022
5
4
1
Wisconsin
The machine you describe is near new with little use. Probably has some factory warranty remaining, and it's from a dealer not strictly a private sale - so some level of dealer support. It's probably worth 85% of new price I'd guess, maybe a bit more in this market. Flipside, it's no longer current model (LX is), so maybe as low as 80% of new. Much beyond that, you'd probably be better with a new machine on finance. Check price on a new one with the same options to give you a good reference point.

One thing to watch out for is that it has fluid filled wheels for ballast, and no mention of a ballast box. it's really hard on the front axle of a tractor to do a lot of FEL work with only fluid filled wheels. It stops the rear wheels coming off the ground, so it's safe, but it doesn't transfer any load at all to the rear axle - in fact, a lot of the weight of those fluid filled rears are transferred to the front.

To understand this, consider your tractor as a simple sea-saw / teeter totter. The front axle is the pivot. They're lifting a lot of weight way out in front on the FEL. The rear of the tractor is counter balancing the front. The weight from out the front is on the front axle, and a bunch of the weight from the rear of the tractor is also getting lifted by the front axle, as it counter balances.

In short, if that was the ballast method they chose, and they used it primarily as a fork lift, then they will have worked the front end of the machine pretty heavily. 75% wear on the front tires also tells you that. (Of course, they may have used rear ballast as well, and just chosen not to sell that with the machine). Have a good look at the seals and bushings on the front axle and steering to make sure there's nothing worn. Kubotas are robust, it's not all that likely to be a problem, but something to have your eyes open about.
Thank you for the information PaulL. That helped; especially the ballast information.
 

PS103

New member

Equipment
B2650 w/LA534 Loader
Jul 20, 2022
5
4
1
Wisconsin
Look on tractorhouse.com if you haven't already. I would assume most of the asking prices include room for "negotiation". Maybe take 10% off of the asking prices and let that be your guide. Good luck.
Thank you for the information, JimmyJazz. The 10% off offer is a good starting point.
 

PS103

New member

Equipment
B2650 w/LA534 Loader
Jul 20, 2022
5
4
1
Wisconsin
Thank you all for your help. Each one of you provided good points to consider. I purchased the tractor for $17,500 with the seller agreeing to have our local Kubota dealer go over the tractor and do a full service on it (inspection, fluid/filter changes, lube, etc: about $250 service) prior to payment and delivery (free delivery). Like most things, I don't consider it a good purchase until I have had it for three years with minimal issues. Thanks again everyone for your help.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

PA452

Member

Equipment
B2650
Nov 8, 2015
291
20
18
Western PA
The machine you describe is near new with little use. Probably has some factory warranty remaining, and it's from a dealer not strictly a private sale - so some level of dealer support. It's probably worth 85% of new price I'd guess, maybe a bit more in this market. Flipside, it's no longer current model (LX is), so maybe as low as 80% of new. Much beyond that, you'd probably be better with a new machine on finance. Check price on a new one with the same options to give you a good reference point.

One thing to watch out for is that it has fluid filled wheels for ballast, and no mention of a ballast box. it's really hard on the front axle of a tractor to do a lot of FEL work with only fluid filled wheels. It stops the rear wheels coming off the ground, so it's safe, but it doesn't transfer any load at all to the rear axle - in fact, a lot of the weight of those fluid filled rears are transferred to the front.

To understand this, consider your tractor as a simple sea-saw / teeter totter. The front axle is the pivot. They're lifting a lot of weight way out in front on the FEL. The rear of the tractor is counter balancing the front. The weight from out the front is on the front axle, and a bunch of the weight from the rear of the tractor is also getting lifted by the front axle, as it counter balances.

In short, if that was the ballast method they chose, and they used it primarily as a fork lift, then they will have worked the front end of the machine pretty heavily. 75% wear on the front tires also tells you that. (Of course, they may have used rear ballast as well, and just chosen not to sell that with the machine). Have a good look at the seals and bushings on the front axle and steering to make sure there's nothing worn. Kubotas are robust, it's not all that likely to be a problem, but something to have your eyes open about.
Good post and something that doesn't get said enough. People are always so focused on filling rear tires with little consideration to ballast behind the rear axle.
 

SDT

Well-known member

Equipment
multiple and various
Apr 15, 2018
2,482
525
113
SE, IN
Hello, I am new to this forum and was hoping to get some pricing advice. I have the opportunity to purchase a 2019 Kubota B2650 w/LA534 Loader. It has 120 light duty hours (unloading items from trucks). A few minor scratches on hood, and some scuff wear on edge of foot platform. Tractor runs great from what I can tell. It has fluid filled turf tires with rear having 90% tread left and front having 75%. Has ROPS, tilt steering, and bucket level rod indicator. No other attachments. The dealer is selling on consignment for a repeat customer who has already purchased 4 kubota tractors from them. The only reason the owner traded this 2650 in is because his company had to get larger tractor due to product shipments being doubled per pallet, so the 2650 could not lift pallets safely off trucks. They are asking $18,900 so I was wondering what is a fair offer I should make on this tractor?
Unloading trucks?

Commercial use?

75% front tires with 120 hours indicates operation on hard surfaces while in FWD. Not good for drive train.

I would factor such usage into offering price.
 

bird dogger

Well-known member
Lifetime Member

Equipment
Kubota B2650 and lots of other equipment
Feb 24, 2019
1,277
960
113
North Dakota
The machine you describe is near new with little use. Probably has some factory warranty remaining, and it's from a dealer not strictly a private sale - so some level of dealer support. It's probably worth 85% of new price I'd guess, maybe a bit more in this market. Flipside, it's no longer current model (LX is), so maybe as low as 80% of new. Much beyond that, you'd probably be better with a new machine on finance. Check price on a new one with the same options to give you a good reference point.

One thing to watch out for is that it has fluid filled wheels for ballast, and no mention of a ballast box. it's really hard on the front axle of a tractor to do a lot of FEL work with only fluid filled wheels. It stops the rear wheels coming off the ground, so it's safe, but it doesn't transfer any load at all to the rear axle - in fact, a lot of the weight of those fluid filled rears are transferred to the front.

To understand this, consider your tractor as a simple sea-saw / teeter totter. The front axle is the pivot. They're lifting a lot of weight way out in front on the FEL. The rear of the tractor is counter balancing the front. The weight from out the front is on the front axle, and a bunch of the weight from the rear of the tractor is also getting lifted by the front axle, as it counter balances.

In short, if that was the ballast method they chose, and they used it primarily as a fork lift, then they will have worked the front end of the machine pretty heavily. 75% wear on the front tires also tells you that. (Of course, they may have used rear ballast as well, and just chosen not to sell that with the machine). Have a good look at the seals and bushings on the front axle and steering to make sure there's nothing worn. Kubotas are robust, it's not all that likely to be a problem, but something to have your eyes open about.
I fully agree with you that the liquid ballast only adds stability to the tractor and does nothing to shift the weight off the front axle. Only weight added behind the rear axle will shift (counter balance....as you say) some of the weight off of the front axle.

However, I respectfully disagree with the "in fact, a lot of the weight of those fluid filled rears are transferred to the front." The liquid ballast weight is carried by the ground through the footprint of the tire. I believe physics says that the only time the liquid ballast weight is transferred to its axle or partially to the front axle is when the ballasted tire becomes airborne for whatever the reason. Otherwise, it's still being carried by the ground. Only at the maximum upward stretch of the tire just before it leaves the ground you might argue that some portion of the liquid ballast weight is being transferred. But for the most part, its (liquid ballast) only duty/benefit is to lower the tractor's CG. It would be the very last weight to leave the ground and be transferred to the axles when the loader exceeds it's capacity with no rear ballast behind the axle to offset it. The same would apply if the loader was used to pry upwards on an immoveable object.
 

PaulL

Well-known member

Equipment
B2601
Jul 17, 2017
1,304
517
113
NZ
However, I respectfully disagree with the "in fact, a lot of the weight of those fluid filled rears are transferred to the front." The liquid ballast weight is carried by the ground through the footprint of the tire. I believe physics says that the only time the liquid ballast weight is transferred to its axle or partially to the front axle is when the ballasted tire becomes airborne for whatever the reason. Otherwise, it's still being carried by the ground. Only at the maximum upward stretch of the tire just before it leaves the ground you might argue that some portion of the liquid ballast weight is being transferred. But for the most part, its (liquid ballast) only duty/benefit is to lower the tractor's CG. It would be the very last weight to leave the ground and be transferred to the axles when the loader exceeds it's capacity with no rear ballast behind the axle to offset it. The same would apply if the loader was used to pry upwards on an immoveable object.
I disagree, but I agree it's complicated.

The way I see it, there's not 100% of the weight on the ground, then suddenly when the rear wheels lift all that 100% transfers to the front axle. Basically as the FEL loads up (out in front of the front axle), the arm behind the front axle (i.e. the tractor frame) will also load up as it tries to lift. The tires hold it down, but those tires are getting steadily lighter on the ground as the FEL counter balances them.

Neil from Messicks did a video on this, presumably because there's so much difference of opinion on it. He put scales under all four wheels, and then loaded up the FEL. The video wasn't as well done as I'd like, but it did appear to show the rear wheels getting lighter as the load went onto the FEL.

Irrespective of whether the liquid ballast is being lifted or not, I think it's inarguable that the weight on the front axle is greater than just the weight in the FEL - it's the weight in the FEL, plus the weight that is counter balancing that - in other words probably double what you put in the loader. And when your rear wheels are just at the point of coming off the ground, you have the entire weight of the tractor, ballast and load in the FEL all on the front axle. Which is a hell of a lot of weight when you think about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

RBsingl

Active member

Equipment
Kubota F 2690 72" rear discharge deck, Deere 955
Jul 1, 2022
199
167
43
Central IL
Think of the front wheels as the fulcrum on a teeter totter. As the loader lifts material acting as a lever and the rear of the tractor is unloaded, then more of the total tractor weight is shifted forward to the fulcrum point which in this case is the front wheel/axle assembly. Any weight load transferred from the rear wheels has to go somewhere.

Rodger
 

DustyRusty

Well-known member

Equipment
BX23S
Nov 8, 2015
1,969
1,188
113
North East
Thank you all for your help. Each one of you provided good points to consider. I purchased the tractor for $17,500 with the seller agreeing to have our local Kubota dealer go over the tractor and do a full service on it (inspection, fluid/filter changes, lube, etc: about $250 service) prior to payment and delivery (free delivery). Like most things, I don't consider it a good purchase until I have had it for three years with minimal issues. Thanks again everyone for your help.
I like your way of thinking. Does this statement apply to marriage also? :cautious:
 

bird dogger

Well-known member
Lifetime Member

Equipment
Kubota B2650 and lots of other equipment
Feb 24, 2019
1,277
960
113
North Dakota
I disagree, but I agree it's complicated.

The way I see it, there's not 100% of the weight on the ground, then suddenly when the rear wheels lift all that 100% transfers to the front axle. Basically as the FEL loads up (out in front of the front axle), the arm behind the front axle (i.e. the tractor frame) will also load up as it tries to lift. The tires hold it down, but those tires are getting steadily lighter on the ground as the FEL counter balances them.

Neil from Messicks did a video on this, presumably because there's so much difference of opinion on it. He put scales under all four wheels, and then loaded up the FEL. The video wasn't as well done as I'd like, but it did appear to show the rear wheels getting lighter as the load went onto the FEL.

Irrespective of whether the liquid ballast is being lifted or not, I think it's inarguable that the weight on the front axle is greater than just the weight in the FEL - it's the weight in the FEL, plus the weight that is counter balancing that - in other words probably double what you put in the loader. And when your rear wheels are just at the point of coming off the ground, you have the entire weight of the tractor, ballast and load in the FEL all on the front axle. Which is a hell of a lot of weight when you think about it.
Paul, I completely agree with you and we're both saying the same thing in different ways. Maybe I misinterpreted or thought the part highlighted in red in the first post left room to believe that you were implying that a partial amount of the liquid ballast weight in the rear tires was always being transfered to the front axle.
Both our subsequent explanations say that's not quite true until there's no more weight from the tractor itself to be counterbalanced. Then the weight of the ballast comes into play. And, yup, that takes place quickly as the tires start to be lifted. Things can go from bad to really bad.... very fast..... at that point.