Want experienced comment on whether I should upgrade from MX5200 to M6040

[Marlon]

I have an MX5200 Hydrostatic, only 18 months old with 163 hours on the clock. Have subsequently had to get into regular slashing of 70-90 acres, and it is not coping with this type and amount of work, so I am looking at changing it over to an M6040 Hydro Shuttle

I have written down why I am looking at this and would like any helpful comments on whether I am thinking correctly about the choice because I'm not really mechanical or have extensive experience with tractors under a workload. The following outlines why I find the MX5200 wanting and why I am choosing the M6040, would appreciate comments that support the anticipated use of 540E and expected fuel savings with the M6040

So, why am I looking at this? – MX5200HST overheats and uses too much fuel while slashing broad acres using a 6 foot rotary cutter (slasher). When it gets hot, the hydraulic oil gets hot and the drive efficiency decreases exacerbating the situation, so RE the M6040DH am thinking...

• Has 540E PTO at 1825 (775 rpm under engine rpm of 2600) rather than at max engine revs of 2700 as with the MX5200, therefore less fuel and runs cooler and quieter
• Is Hydro Shuttle Geared instead of Hydrostatic, expect this to run cooler and be more fuel-efficient ex considerations of the engine design
• In addition, the M6040 has a more fuel-efficient engine design (Kubota V3300DI, Version 7 and Direct Injection)
• Bonus of extra 12 HP (Engine & PTO) to help with 540E and possibly a future RhinoAg TS12 Flex Wing 12’

If you've got some relevant knowledge or experience, I'd love to have you give me some of it, so thank you for reading this

 

[Dieseldonato]

Shuttle shift will put more power to the ground and out the pto as its a direct coupling method. So that's a plus.
I personally wouldn't expect to see a big fuel savings one over over the other. The 540e option is a nice feature. The t4.75 I ran had it, although it rarely got used. It put the tractor out of its power band when mowing or using the flail when in tall grass or heavy brush. Normal mowing it was fine but I never saw a substantial fuel savings by using it.
I can't say I fault you for wanting the bigger tractor in this instance, it will handle bigger equipment. Physically weighs more and has much better 3 point lift capacity from what I understand as well.

 

[hedgerow]

I had a JD 100 HP tractor with the 540E PTO in it. This tractor got the bulk of its hours running a bat wing mower. JD blew a bunch of smoke about the fuel savings with the 540E. I never saw it Back then I was mowing a lot of CRP with it and the 540E just seemed to keep the engine out of its good power band and would like to run warm running it in 540E. I ended up not using the 540E in it. I probably mowed 100 hours last summer with my MX-6000 using a seven foot mower. It handled it well but you did have to watch the rad and keep it blown out. They do need a bigger fuel tank on the MX series.

 

[B737]

paging @mcmxi

 

[mcmxi]

paging @mcmxi

I would definitely make the upgrade given your situation. The M is a lot more tractor than the MX and your point about the HST and heat is well taken. Also, the bigger fuel tank is a real deal. The M has more than twice the fuel capacity and the fill is nicely located. The view is better too being that much higher in the seat.

I have a fair amount of experience (~160 hours) with the open station (HST) and cabbed versions of the MX6000 running a 7ft rotary cutter but very, very little experience with the new M6060. However, one thing I already noticed about the M6060 over the MX6000 despite similar hp is that the M is a tank when it comes to removing turf and top soil for a new driveway. The extra weight and grunt work in its favor. I haven't done enough work with it yet to get a sense of whether or not it runs cooler than the MX with HST but it should given what we know about friction, parasitic loss etc.

I'm getting the 540E added in a week or two once all of the parts for a number of upgrades are at the dealer. I would take any talk of 540E not offering advantages with a big pinch of salt. I don't think many here have done extensive testing and none have any actual comparative data to share that's meaningful. It's not easy or quick to get meaningful data but some studies have shown a significant reduction in fuel consumption on specific models of tractors. What is meaningful is a significant drop in rpm and noise, and logically less fuel consumption.

Your reality is obviously unique to you and if you're having over heating issues then something needs to change. I've had no issues with the MX pulling a 7ft rotary cutter as long as I keep on top of debris building up on the front grill and radiator mesh under the hood. My place is hilly but the MX has had no issue with heat until I neglected to clean off debris. Funnily enough, even when the grill was like this below the MX didn't overheat when cutting a friend's fields. His are very flat though.

 

[SDT]

I have an MX5200 Hydrostatic, only 18 months old with 163 hours on the clock. Have subsequently had to get into regular slashing of 70-90 acres, and it is not coping with this type and amount of work, so I am looking at changing it over to an M6040 Hydro Shuttle

I have written down why I am looking at this and would like any helpful comments on whether I am thinking correctly about the choice because I'm not really mechanical or have extensive experience with tractors under a workload. The following outlines why I find the MX5200 wanting and why I am choosing the M6040, would appreciate comments that support the anticipated use of 540E and expected fuel savings with the M6040

So, why am I looking at this? – MX5200HST overheats and uses too much fuel while slashing broad acres using a 6 foot rotary cutter (slasher). When it gets hot, the hydraulic oil gets hot and the drive efficiency decreases exacerbating the situation, so RE the M6040DH am thinking...

• Has 540E PTO at 1825 (775 rpm under engine rpm of 2600) rather than at max engine revs of 2700 as with the MX5200, therefore less fuel and runs cooler and quieter
• Is Hydro Shuttle Geared instead of Hydrostatic, expect this to run cooler and be more fuel-efficient ex considerations of the engine design
• In addition, the M6040 has a more fuel-efficient engine design (Kubota V3300DI, Version 7 and Direct Injection)
• Bonus of extra 12 HP (Engine & PTO) to help with 540E and possibly a future RhinoAg TS12 Flex Wing 12’

If you've got some relevant knowledge or experience, I'd love to have you give me some of it, so thank you for reading this

The hydro shuttle transmission of the M is more efficient than the HST of the MX so will operate cooler, quieter, and put more HP to the ground.

EPTO is useful in limited circumstances. Clearly, it reduces revolutions (hours) but available torque is significantly reduced due to gearing and lower engine RPM. Accordingly, effectivity is heavily dependent on conditions. Unless you mow heavy grass closely as I do, you should have little trouble pulling your 6' cutter in EPTO but not so sure about the anticipated 12' BW.

I have EPTO on my M9960 and used it with my 7' mounted cutter. I haven't used it since I replaced the 7' cutter with a 15' BW and likely will not use it again.

Starting a heavy inertial load in EPTO with engine at idle to minimize drive line shock is a concern. My M9960 sometimes stalls when starting my BW at idle in 540 PTO. There is no way that it would start it in EPTO absent significant abuse because there is no way to feather the electric over hydraulic PTO clutch.

SDT

 

[Marlon]

The hydro shuttle transmission of the M is more efficient than the HST of the MX so will operate cooler, quieter, and put more HP to the ground.

EPTO is useful in limited circumstances. Clearly, it reduces revolutions (hours) but available torque is significantly reduced due to gearing and lower engine RPM. Accordingly, effectivity is heavily dependent on conditions. Unless you mow heavy grass closely as I do, you should have little trouble pulling your 6' cutter in EPTO but not so sure about the anticipated 12' BW.

I have EPTO on my M9960 and used it with my 7' mounted cutter. I haven't used it since I replaced the 7' cutter with a 15' BW and likely will not use it again.

Starting a heavy inertial load in EPTO with engine at idle to minimize drive line shock is a concern. My M9960 sometimes stalls when starting my BW at idle in 540 PTO. There is no way that it would start it in EPTO absent significant abuse because there is no way to feather the electric over hydraulic PTO clutch.

SDT

Thanks... I'm getting the impression that 540E is dependent on not doing work that may cause 'lugging'. In my case I will be using this as a topper (therefore higher cut) rather than a slasher (low cut of thick grass) on gradual slopes, i.e. not quite flat with a gradual rise at the back of the property, nothing that'd tip a tractor over.

I have been using a 6' slasher without a rear wheel, as mostly sold here in Australia, which is useless trying to hang it at the correct height off the 3PL, and I thought if I get a BW12, the job will take half as long and save fuel / time and get a more controlled cut against the basic slasher without the bouncing and related irregular height.

Additionally, I note your comments re your experience with a BW15, but my reading of specs leads me to believe the BW12 is a much lighter machine, and they are actually marketing it for use on compact tractors with a HP (presume PTO) range of 35-60 (sorry, in this part of the world we don't think in kw, it's all hp)

I'm actually thinking of the RhinoAg TS12, having read some disturbing remarks about the Woods BW12

Anyone with experience of the Woods BW12 / RhinoAg TS12 that might reflect on what I said above as my expectations, love to hear about it. Absolutely difficult getting experienced based info in Australia, small sales of these Bat Wings / Flex wings implements and can't find anyone who has one and even the local dealers who are now agents don't seem to have really seen one.

 

[Marlon]

Starting a heavy inertial load in EPTO with engine at idle to minimize drive line shock is a concern. My M9960 sometimes stalls when starting my BW at idle in 540 PTO. There is no way that it would start it in EPTO absent significant abuse because there is no way to feather the electric over hydraulic PTO clutch.

SDT

Also, appreciate the lesson here, so much to learn from people with experience, with the hydrostatic tractors, I have always raised the slasher off the ground at high revs to start it, obviously have to change my ways with a geared tractor having read the paragraph above..

Thanks again

 

[SDT]

Thanks... I'm getting the impression that 540E is dependent on not doing work that may cause 'lugging'. In my case I will be using this as a topper (therefore higher cut) rather than a slasher (low cut of thick grass) on gradual slopes, i.e. not quite flat with a gradual rise at the back of the property, nothing that'd tip a tractor over.

I have been using a 6' slasher without a rear wheel, as mostly sold here in Australia, which is useless trying to hang it at the correct height off the 3PL, and I thought if I get a BW12, the job will take half as long and save fuel / time and get a more controlled cut against the basic slasher without the bouncing and related irregular height.

Additionally, I note your comments re your experience with a BW15, but my reading of specs leads me to believe the BW12 is a much lighter machine, and they are actually marketing it for use on compact tractors with a HP (presume PTO) range of 35-60 (sorry, in this part of the world we don't think in kw, it's all hp)

I'm actually thinking of the RhinoAg TS12, having read some disturbing remarks about the Woods BW12

Anyone with experience of the Woods BW12 / RhinoAg TS12 that might reflect on what I said above as my expectations, love to hear about it. Absolutely difficult getting experienced based info in Australia, small sales of these Bat Wings / Flex wings implements and can't find anyone who has one and even the local dealers who are now agents don't seem to have really seen one.

Not familiar with the Rhino 12' BW, but Woods and Bush Hog both make light duty 12' BWs. Either should be adequate for the "topper" work that you describe.

Land Pride makes a HD 12' BW that is available with an optional built in ORC that will save your PTO brake. This is the BW that I wanted when I bought my BW but it is expensive and would have cost over $3,000 more than the 15' BW 15.50. Simply could not justify that. I know of no other manufacturer offering a HD 12' BW, ORC or otherwise.

Another thing to consider when buying a BW for use with a small tractor is distance between the drawbar and the PTO shaft. Should not be an issue with the M but might well be with the MX, especially if you specify the drawbar saving self leveling hitch. Yes, Kubota now offers a dropped drawbar for some models to address this issue but you will likely find it in the ground frequently.

SDT

 

[Grassandstuff]

The hydro shuttle transmission of the M is more efficient than the HST of the MX so will operate cooler, quieter, and put more HP to the ground.

EPTO is useful in limited circumstances. Clearly, it reduces revolutions (hours) but available torque is significantly reduced due to gearing and lower engine RPM. Accordingly, effectivity is heavily dependent on conditions. Unless you mow heavy grass closely as I do, you should have little trouble pulling your 6' cutter in EPTO but not so sure about the anticipated 12' BW.

I have EPTO on my M9960 and used it with my 7' mounted cutter. I haven't used it since I replaced the 7' cutter with a 15' BW and likely will not use it again.

Starting a heavy inertial load in EPTO with engine at idle to minimize drive line shock is a concern. My M9960 sometimes stalls when starting my BW at idle in 540 PTO. There is no way that it would start it in EPTO absent significant abuse because there is no way to feather the electric over hydraulic PTO clutch.

SDT

Hey y'all, new member here, coastal Georgia. Ran across your thread here on tractor size/bat wing size. Was looking for info on secondary hyd coolers, figured y'all could help. I got a MX5100 got a steal with 400 hours, and a 15 ft woods bat wing got a steal also, cutting 120 acres of an old golf course. Question is, looking to add a secondary cooler in line after the factory to help control my fluid temps in the summer. It's def large for the hp, but grass is mostly thinnish, I only go about 3-5 mph and 6 inches at cutting, except for 2 huge fairways that are also leach fields. That's where I have most temp issue, IR on port side hyd filter(hottest point) is about 175-180ish , return block about 150ish, ambient 90-95. If I don't stop for 10 minutes or so every hour, it slowly keeps climbing.Other fairways usually settle about 168-175 and by the time I'm finished they're, the brief lull between them it gets back down to maybe 155-160. I hate to upgrade tractor or down grade the 15 (, it's a beast). Questions:

What's the normal return line psi after factory cooler?

Should be negligible restriction if I use the same size fittings/hose for secondary inlet/outlet?

Would one of the fan/rad combos with bypass valves be suitable, and where would you pipe the relief, pastor rad and back to return line prior tank?

I've cut for over a year and I love this combo, and it's all paid off, I think my fluid would be real happy if I did this, and prempt any issues of 180+ temps for the hardest 3 months. Thanks for any replies.

 

[Marlon]

The hydro shuttle transmission of the M is more efficient than the HST of the MX so will operate cooler, quieter, and put more HP to the ground.

SDT

So to clear up my apprehensions first, what does Hydro Shuttle (which I understood to mean I could change from forward to reverse and back without using the clutch) actually mean in terms of the transmission, drive and PTO drive of my Hydrostatic MX5200 compared to my proposed M6040 hydro shuttle, because I thought I was considering the M series to get away from Hydrostatic to get direct gearing to overcome the heating associated with the hydrostatic oil getting hot issues associated with the workload of cutting all day in summer of thick vegetation with the MX hydrostatic tractor and thus also get better fuel consumption because of that direct drive rather than 'oil' drive???

 

[Grassandstuff]

From

So to clear up my apprehensions first, what does Hydro Shuttle (which I understood to mean I could change from forward to reverse and back without using the clutch) actually mean in terms of the transmission, drive and PTO drive of my Hydrostatic MX5200 compared to my proposed M6040 hydro shuttle, because I thought I was considering the M series to get away from Hydrostatic to get direct gearing to overcome the heating associated with the hydrostatic oil getting hot issues associated with the workload of cutting all day in summer of thick vegetation with the MX hydrostatic tractor and thus also get better fuel consumption because of that direct drive rather than 'oil' drive???

From what I understand the hydro shuttle uses internal hydraulics to switch wet clutches internally for f/r, no clutch pedal, fine by moving a small lever f/n/r. A lot of industrial forklifts use this.

 

[mcmxi]

Maybe this schematic and photo from the M6060/M7060 WSM will help.

 

[PaulL]

All of which means it's a gear drive transmission with hydraulics to shift from forward to reverse and automatically do the clutch for you. Completely different from a hydrostatic drive - the hydraulics are never driving the tractor, they're just changing gears.

 

[mikester]

In general bigger HP means bigger fuel consumption. Gear drive will be more fuel efficient. Maybe you want a gear/shuttle machine with 80+ PTO HP and big front wheels?