Tractor dilemma

[armadillophil]

Bought a Kubota B7800 4wd with fel and hydrostatic trans. a couple weeks ago. It is 30hp. While I was looking for brushhog for it found a local man selling 10 acres and getting rid of Kubota M5400 2wd with fel but synchro trans. It had 800 hours and awesome deal with implements. I couldn't pass it up. I have a 100 acre farm but only 10 acres pasture with 5 acres food plots and 5 acres that I will be converting to warm season grasses from bermuda. My friend is telling me to keep the B7800 because it is 4wd and HST trans. I have been reading more hp is always better but is 58hp M5400 necessary? Thanks

 

[Buckly]

If your land is dry and mostly flat you would be better off with more horsepower in my opinion. I had a 2 wheel drive JD and the extra power was a great advantage. Did everything I ever needed to do with it and never stuck. 2 wheel was good enough for a hundred years before the push to 4 wheel drive. If you have wetter low ground or steep terrain then maybe the 4 wheel drive will benefit you more.

 

[armadillophil]

My pastures is flat and well drained. He is saying the HST trans is a game changer compared to the synchro.

 

[rocksnstumps]

Thoughts:

Flat and dry, 2 WD is just fine especially with R1 Ag tires. Make sure they are loaded with fluid or wheel weights as well.

Hydro is great if you are going to back up a lot or need to slow down when close to things and speed right back up when moving away. I have hydro on my lawn tractor and will never go back to a gear model.

However for working plot/fields with typical implements, like discs, planters, cultipackers I do a lot of circles but hardly ever back up. This would be even more true for bigger areas like 5 acre fields. My bigger rig for field and woods work is syncro with power reverser. It was considerable cheaper to buy and saves me some horsepower. No regrets on that choice vs. hydro.

Now if I was going to do a lot of loader work with tractor hydro would be better...... but if main use is loader work, just get a skid steer!

My $0.02 is keep the 58 hp rig especially if dealing with 100 acres.

 

[yoderjac]

My pastures is flat and well drained. He is saying the HST trans is a game changer compared to the synchro.

If you do a lot of FEL work, the HST is sweet. There is noting you can do with the HST that you can't do with the synchro, it just takes longer. We have a Kioti DK45 4x4 with FEL and synchro. At home I have a B2400 4x4 with FEL. For FEL work I have the same dilemma. The b2400 is much faster for something like moving stone, but it takes twice as many trips because the bucket is smaller and it can't carry as much. Depending on what you are doing, weight and HP can be more important than speed. If you have flat dry ground and can resist staying off wet soil, I'd keep the larger tractor for sure. If you can afford to keep both, that is the best of all worlds. I love 4x4 but I've got rolling terrain. The larger tractor can handle larger implements and get things done faster. My DK45 (45 hp) is and in-between tractor. I can go cat 1 or cat 2. You have to be careful what cat 1 implements you use as it has enough power to do some damage to them. Some cat 2 implements are too large.

We have about 20 acres of plantable ground, but in any give year we only plant about half. My next tractor will be about 70 hp 4x4 with FEL. That is probably about 5 years or so off.

One final thought. Those used Kubota tractors won't lose much, if any, value in the next few years. Unless you are strapped for cash, I would keep them both for a couple years and see how they fit your situation. If you find one of them is not being used much after several years, sell that one.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[ruskbucks]

Have you thought of trading them both in on new 40- 50 up hst? I would think it would be hard to go from a hst to a shuttle. I agree with Jack a tractor with a loader in the mid 40 up range seems like almost the perfect size. I think you would love the bigger size and power.

 

[FarmerDan]

Nobody ever took their tractor out to do field work and said, "Gee, I wish I had less horsepower...."

 

[yoderjac]

Nobody ever took their tractor out to do field work and said, "Gee, I wish I had less horsepower...."

Agree, but there are good cases for having a smaller tractor. My partner had an old 16hp Ford. It was perfect for some applications like mowing small fields or bushhogging along logging roads for us. It was very maneuverable compared to my DK45, and it was very fuel efficient. It was great for running a broadcast spreader as well. When our larger tiller died and I had to fall back to the 5' jd tiller, it was great for min-till where I would hold the tiller high enough with the 3-pt hitch so the tines were only hitting the top inch. Not enough HP for traditional tillage, but great for min-till.

I doubt any of this specifically applies to the OP's situation given his description. But, for others, the combination of a larger and smaller tractor can be great if your budget can allow. My partner replaced the Ford with a JD 790 when it died. It is 4x4 with a FEL and shuttle. One of the things I've found is that food plotters are sucking hind tit on the hog (as they should) compared to commercial farmers when it comes to equipment service. It make sense that dealerships give farmers priority as their livelihoods depend on it and they get much more business from them. But that means that if a tractor breaks down at planting time, I could be waiting weeks or months for the repair. That is plenty long enough for a planting window to close. Having access to a second smaller tractor has often been the difference between a successful food plot and nothing. (Yes, my Kioti DK45 seems to be in the shop more than the other tractors I've had).

Thanks,

Jack

 

[rocksnstumps]

No offense Jack, but your "big" tractor and mine (jd 43 hp) are podunk tractors and claiming having a smaller one is more fuel efficient and other stuff is pretty much a stretch. I will agree having two tractors would be nice compared to one. Kinda like I have two chainsaws and oh yeah 3 boats.

My tractor runs on very little fuel all day. Way less than gal/hr

 

[SwampCat]

I have a 28 hp 790 jd and a 65 hp jd 5065e. Both 4wd. I am on the little 28 hp many more days out of the year - but I put more hours on the 65 hp. There really is very little I can do with the 65 hp that I cant do with the 28 hp - it just takes longer with the smaller tractor. There are things I can do with the smaller tractor that I cant do with the larger tractor. I agree - if you cant swing both - get rid of both and get a mid sized tractor

 

[rocksnstumps]

^^^maybe you can do similar things with the smaller implements behind tractor and take more time but when talking loader use, no comparison gimme the bigger rig. For moving large rocks, logs, haybales whatever bigger IS better.

Disclosure, my #1 priority when looking at tractors was loader capability when figuring all my potential uses.

 

[yoderjac]

No offense Jack, but your "big" tractor and mine (jd 43 hp) are podunk tractors and claiming having a smaller one is more fuel efficient and other stuff is pretty much a stretch. I will agree having two tractors would be nice compared to one. Kinda like I have two chainsaws and oh yeah 3 boats.

My tractor runs on very little fuel all day. Way less than gal/hr

yep, "big" was a relative term. I'm not sure I'd compare fuel efficiency on gal/hr. It seems to me to be gal/ equivalent work. I can run my big tractor with a bigger tractor with a larger mower and get a lot more cut in an hour than I can with the little tractor and a smaller mower. I have not run the JD 790 enough to get a feel for that, but the old 16hp Ford was definitely more efficient than my DK45. You are probably right that unless you're on the tractor for lots of hours per year, the difference in fuel efficiency does not add up to much money. But there are other factors like turning radius in small kill plots and getting into areas that are a bit tighter. The old ford did not have a FEL. It was much lighter and without loaded tires.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[yoderjac]

^^^maybe you can do similar things with the smaller implements behind tractor and take more time but when talking loader use, no comparison gimme the bigger rig. For moving large rocks, logs, haybales whatever bigger IS better.

Disclosure, my #1 priority when looking at tractors was loader capability when figuring all my potential uses.

I agree. If you are only talking food plots and are smart enough to let the 2-bottom plow rust, there is not much a small tractor can't do given time. When it comes to other tasks with a loader, my DK45 was much too small for the things I used it for. I did some clearing of small plots with it and bent loader brackets and such. It all comes down to your use.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[rocksnstumps]

Ok Jack get it. Your Ford was dedicated brushog rig. Without a loader for me is nonstarter for only one tractor ownership tho. But I have one old boat I run shallow rivers and bounce off logs to get to fishing spots. That rig is not worth even 500 bucks but useful.

 

[yoderjac]

Ok Jack get it. Your Ford was dedicated brushog rig. Without a loader for me is nonstarter for only one tractor ownership tho. But I have one old boat I run shallow rivers and bounce off logs to get to fishing spots. That rig is not worth even 500 bucks but useful.

I agree. I've use the loader as much or more than anything else on the tractor. If I can only have one, it will have a FEL. The old ford (now dead), was not a dedicated bushhog rig. I would use a bushhog for logging road banks, a finish mower for clover, a broadcast spreader for planting, and even a tiller for min-till. I think I would describe the old Ford the same way, useful but not worth $500. My old 1997 Ford F150 is the same way. I don't think I could get $500 for it but it is useful to me.

 

[SwampCat]

I have a fel on both my tractors - but dont really use them that much - and yes, the big tractor is much better with a loader, but if I am going to do a decent size clearing job, I still pay someone with a dozer or mulcher. Bigger tractors cost more to buy, more to run, more to maintain, more to repair, and more to move. The implements used behind bigger tractors are also subject to increased expenses. Bigger tractors get stuck easier and cant be used on as wet of ground. I bet my 65 horse tractor with fel and bush hog is pushing 25’. My little tractor is about 18’ with bush hog. The little tractor is shorter and you dont have as many limbs slapping your face. Working trails and around trees is a challenge with the big tractor.

When I bought my bigger tractor, most guys I know told me “get the biggest one you can afford”. The tractor salesman asked me what sized implements I was going to use and we went from there. I was going to get an 85 hp and he talked me into a 65 hp and could have got away with a 55 hp. I plant 40 to 50 acres a year. I use an 8 ft disk, an 84” woods seeder, and a seven ft bush hog. If I went larger than 8 ft, I would have to do some serious trail widening. If I had to have one tractor - it would be something in the 45/50 hp range in the next frame size down from my 65 hp tractor. But, make no mistake - having two tractors is nice.

 

[Tree Spud]

Kubota MX5800 with 60 hp, 4 WD, HST, and bunch of implements for past 4 years.

Would not buy anything smaller unless I was getting my wife something for her garden.

 

[swat1018]

My pastures is flat and well drained. He is saying the HST trans is a game changer compared to the synchro.

Wrong. 58 hp over 30 hp is the game changer. 4x4 is a game changer, as is a FEL, but not hydrostat, unless you do lots of loader work.

 

[Chainsaw]

My two tractors are a 39 horse and a 45 horse, both have FEL and 4WD. I would be stuck often without 4WD. I plant around ten acres of food plots but have done up to twenty-ish. Tractor size is fine. However it is a lot easier and quicker to just have my field-renter farmer spray and plant my larger food plots. His dual wheeled monster tractor with a great plains no-till behind it gets tens acres planted in hours versus days. And his sprayer though small for a commercial sprayer does a path more than ten times what mine does, uses less spray and produces a more complete kill far better than my ten ft. sprayer does. I ride with him for both tasks and we have a good time shooting the breeze. It is a job he does for me as part of his lend rent. So if you have that option absolutely go for the smaller tractor and have those with really large equipment plant your longer fields.

And definitely my small tractors don't bulldoze so well; Honestly though it may be cheaper to just hire a guy with a bulldozer for that kind of work rather than beat up the tractor doing it. I do both.

 

[armadillophil]

Keeping both tractors is not option. My friend was basing his recommendation mostly on benefits of using fel with hydrostat trans. I can see were that would be nice but my main use will be mowing and planting 5-7 acres and a 6ft disc really is to much for the smaller tractor. I appreciate everyone's feedback.