Grand L4760 will i regret not going to 5460 or 6060.

[PortTackFarm]

My L3560 LE is a great tractor and seems good on hills, or that is to say my "pucker factor" kicks in long before the tractor seems unstable. That said, I don't have any experience with the MX to compare. I would second @jyoutz regarding the remotes. There's so much more to having the correct setup for your property than just the tractor itself.

 

[DVR]

Thanks for this info. I am caught deciding between the MX and the L series so your feedback is helpful. I have hilly property and I will be a newbie tractor owner so I was wondering if you notice any difference in stability between the MX and the Grand Ls. From what I can see in the sales brochures the MX and the larger Grand Ls (54 & 60) have the same or very close dimensions. The MX is wider and longer than the smaller (35-47) Grand Ls. Any thoughts on stability differences? Besides the nicer transmission on the Grand Ls, the other differences in the cab models seem to be minor (again, I'm a newbie so LMK if I am missing something). Better fuel fill location, side windows that open, mid pto, stronger 3 point, are all nice features for the Grand L, but is is that much better than the MX? I am not planning to use the tractor for business (personal use only, mostly mowing a few fields but maintenance driveway and firewood work also) so I expect my hours in the seat will be on the lower side. As much as I like the Grand L features, I am having difficulty justifying the additional costs for my expected uses. This forum is extremely helpful and all of your input appreciated.

The transmission and fuel fill are worth the price difference alone imo.
The cabs are significantly different. Not sure the grand L cab is better but it has many minor differences. None of which are a negative.
I'm in the south on relatively flat ground. I'm not the best person to address stability differences. However, I find my 3560 to be very stable.
There is no reason to fuel HP you don't actually "need"

I think the grand L transmission would be a welcomed addition in hilly terrain. The grand's also have many small features that make them more enjoyable to operate.

 

[rc51stierhoff]

Thanks for this info. I am caught deciding between the MX and the L series so your feedback is helpful. I have hilly property and I will be a newbie tractor owner so I was wondering if you notice any difference in stability between the MX and the Grand Ls. From what I can see in the sales brochures the MX and the larger Grand Ls (54 & 60) have the same or very close dimensions. The MX is wider and longer than the smaller (35-47) Grand Ls. Any thoughts on stability differences? Besides the nicer transmission on the Grand Ls, the other differences in the cab models seem to be minor (again, I'm a newbie so LMK if I am missing something). Better fuel fill location, side windows that open, mid pto, stronger 3 point, are all nice features for the Grand L, but is is that much better than the MX? I am not planning to use the tractor for business (personal use only, mostly mowing a few fields but maintenance driveway and firewood work also) so I expect my hours in the seat will be on the lower side. As much as I like the Grand L features, I am having difficulty justifying the additional costs for my expected uses. This forum is extremely helpful and all of your input appreciated.

Good day.

Personally when distinguishing between the machines, I’d recommend a criteria for weight, lift capability and features you want or plan to use. I’d also offer to consider about the implements (chores/tasks) you plan to use and what size implements you want to run (for me that was hard to imagine on my first purchase and I have since purchased 2 more machines ). There is no question that a GL is an awesome machine. Depending on your use and expectation I think you have to consider what you want and why. Any of the large Ls and MXs are capable. As an example, if comparing transmissions, how would you judge? If the features are helpful I think that sort of starts tilting the scale. I’d also recommend that you and anyone else you plan to operate it, sit on for a while to see which feels better…check the reach to the controls and the seat and the steering wheel, visibility, etc. Which feels better? If you plan to spend that much get what you want and what fits. That is sort of my point of view. I am biased to the MX. (don’t forget ballast), but that is what fit my criteria. YMMV.

 

[Exlege]

The transmission and fuel fill are worth the price difference alone imo.
The cabs are significantly different. Not sure the grand L cab is better but it has many minor differences. None of which are a negative.
I'm in the south on relatively flat ground. I'm not the best person to address stability differences. However, I find my 3560 to be very stable.
There is no reason to fuel HP you don't actually "need"

I think the grand L transmission would be a welcomed addition in hilly terrain. The grand's also have many small features that make them more enjoyable to operate.

Agree on not fueling unnecessary horsepower. Agree also that the transmission is excellent to drive. The H-L feature is clearly very helpful. I have sat in both models and did not notice a big difference but that is probably because I am inexperienced. I am relatively large at 6’4” and 250 lbs (working on this) and I fit into both but I wouldn’t describe them as luxurious-ly large. To be expected. I only spent a half hour in each and they both felt comfortable.

 

[Exlege]

Good day.

Personally when distinguishing between the machines, I’d recommend a criteria for weight, lift capability and features you want or plan to use. I’d also offer to consider about the implements (chores/tasks) you plan to use and what size implements you want to run (for me that was hard to imagine on my first purchase and I have since purchased 2 more machines ). There is no question that a GL is an awesome machine. Depending on your use and expectation I think you have to consider what you want and why. Any of the large Ls and MXs are capable. As an example, if comparing transmissions, how would you judge? If the features are helpful I think that sort of starts tilting the scale. I’d also recommend that you and anyone else you plan to operate it, sit on for a while to see which feels better…check the reach to the controls and the seat and the steering wheel, visibility, etc. Which feels better? If you plan to spend that much get what you want and what fits. That is sort of my point of view. I am biased to the MX. (don’t forget ballast), but that is what fit my criteria. YMMV.

Regarding size, I am trying to anticipate future options like planting some of the acres with food plots, small fields of sunflowers, and maybe even subsistence farming if push came to shove. I am anticipating that mowing will be the biggest use hours wise but I am still thinking about options for a mower. My pie in the sky idea is to use an articulating flail mower as my sole mower to get ditches, pond banks, and flipped up for some shrubby walking paths. One tool to do it “all” - probably not but maybe close? I’m not a perfect grass guy so I don’t think I need a finish mower and while the flail does appear to cost more up front, it does appear to have many useful functions which may help me not roll my tractor into a ditch or pond.

For FEL uses I expect the regular stuff, moving soil for gardening, gravel and road fines for a driveway, pushing snow, transporting firewood and mushroom bolts, among other things. I am thinking firewood in IBC totes or downed trees may be the heaviest thing i will lift. I think both units will be able to handle this.

The extra options for mid pto may be desirable in the future but I don’t have immediate plans for it.

I believe either machine is capable of handling what I will ask of it.

 

[DVR]

FWIW- my 3560 easily lifts full tote cages of firewood.
you'll likely want a regular bush hog with or w/o a flail mower.
You'll also need rear remotes for an articulating flail. But you probably know that.
My lane shark has been useful but only my MX is plumbed (case drain) for it.

 

[Exlege]

Would love to hear thoughts on ballast.
Despite the near unanimous support for filled tires I see everywhere I was wondering if people thought wheel weights were as good. I have heard liquid ballast can impact the ride of the tires, making the less “cushiony” and so a more jarring ride. My fields are fairly bumpy and with decent slopes. Is 2 or 3 wheel weights the same as liquid ballast? I realize the cost will not be the same. The benefits of weights seem to be less risk of corrosion and less problematic in the event of a puncture or bead break.

I also plan to get a rear blade of some sort which will function as ballast and I am not against building a rear quick hitch type formed cement ballast type thing for very heavy loads.

I drove a forklift for a few years so I have some understanding of managing the load and the importance or rear weight. Probably more so with a tractor than a forklift but I understand the concept.

I welcome guidance and personal experience on this subject.

 

[PaulL]

I can provide commentary on a couple of areas. Experience is usually one sided (as is mine), not a lot of people try both sides.

For mowing, a flail that will reach down banks I think is a great buy. I don't have one, but I want one, therefore it totally makes sense for you to have one. It does depend how steep you want to mow - with my B2601 I mow up to about 25 degree side slopes. If you need steeper than that, and doing it often, a side shift flail would be really good.

I suspect you'd want another mower as well. Either a bush hog for higher volume mowing of denser bush. Or a finish mower that you can occasionally treat mean to clear a field. But no harm in getting a flail, then one day someone will be selling a finish mower cheap, get it when you see it.

For ballast, I'm a believer in not filling tires. Reasons are:
- ride quality
- less good for loader than rear ballast (rear ballast relieves load on the front axle, filled tires don't)
- tires are hard to un-fill. So when you want less weight, you can't have it. This can include when trailering, on the lawn around the house, over a septic field, when you need to take a wheel in to get a puncture repair, etc
- in most cases, I think people don't actually need ballast (loader work being the exception). Spacers are often better, and for many tasks your tractor is actually stable enough without ballast

My usual recommendation is to get it without ballast and try it out. You can very easily add ballast later if it turns out you do need it. If you put it in from the shop, you'll never know whether you needed it, because you always have it.

 

[mcmxi]

Regarding size, I am trying to anticipate future options like planting some of the acres with food plots, small fields of sunflowers, and maybe even subsistence farming if push came to shove. I am anticipating that mowing will be the biggest use hours wise but I am still thinking about options for a mower. My pie in the sky idea is to use an articulating flail mower as my sole mower to get ditches, pond banks, and flipped up for some shrubby walking paths. One tool to do it “all” - probably not but maybe close? I’m not a perfect grass guy so I don’t think I need a finish mower and while the flail does appear to cost more up front, it does appear to have many useful functions which may help me not roll my tractor into a ditch or pond.

For FEL uses I expect the regular stuff, moving soil for gardening, gravel and road fines for a driveway, pushing snow, transporting firewood and mushroom bolts, among other things. I am thinking firewood in IBC totes or downed trees may be the heaviest thing i will lift. I think both units will be able to handle this.

The extra options for mid pto may be desirable in the future but I don’t have immediate plans for it.

I believe either machine is capable of handling what I will ask of it.

I have a Del Morino Centurion 158 flail mower (6ft) and a Land Pride rotary cutter (7ft). Could I also use some form of flex or bat wing mower? Heck yes, but they're very expensive and I can make do with what I have. But to your question, I would keep the flail over the rotary cutter all day long and twice on Sunday because it's more than a one-trick pony. I have the hydraulic offset and hydraulic head rotation and my only regret is that it's not a bigger mower. In short, I would have a better time with just the flail than with just the rotary.

 

[rc51stierhoff]

Would love to hear thoughts on ballast.
Despite the near unanimous support for filled tires I see everywhere I was wondering if people thought wheel weights were as good. I have heard liquid ballast can impact the ride of the tires, making the less “cushiony” and so a more jarring ride. My fields are fairly bumpy and with decent slopes. Is 2 or 3 wheel weights the same as liquid ballast? I realize the cost will not be the same. The benefits of weights seem to be less risk of corrosion and less problematic in the event of a puncture or bead break.

I also plan to get a rear blade of some sort which will function as ballast and I am not against building a rear quick hitch type formed cement ballast type thing for very heavy loads.

I drove a forklift for a few years so I have some understanding of managing the load and the importance or rear weight. Probably more so with a tractor than a forklift but I understand the concept.

I welcome guidance and personal experience on this subject.

Good day.

If not familiar with the front axle (center pivot) on a tractor, id look into that. The Large Ls and MX are front end heavy without ballast, and the loader doesn’t improve that situation.

A lot of people may have different experiences with use and need for ballast, pending how they use their machine and their terrain. Ballast is important enough there is section in Kubota operators manual for it…there is a reason for that.

I have a hilly property and use liquid in tires and wheel weights at all times. If I am going to be lifting something heavy I also add ballast onto the 3pt hitch or swap 3 pt out and put the BH92 on. The best ballast I have is when the BH is installed. For front ballast, so far having the loader bucket on has been enough.

I’d also mention maybe check out older threads dedicated to ballast as well as maybe online search and you will find a variety of videos (if you haven’t already) from Tractor Mike and also Messicks. Both have some informational videos on a lot of relevant topics. (Messicks has some really helpful machine comparison videos too).

 

[CGMKCM]

I have property with lots of hills. When I 1st purchased the tractor the rear tires were set so they were flush with rear fenders and loaded. I did not have any problems but I did not feel comfortable with the set up. I also had 20 years of experience running a sub - compact tractor going for me.

Now what works for my stability wise is loaded rear tires, 200lbs of cast wheel weights per tire, and I run 15 psi air for better ride and traction (Air Ride seat) also helps but trails with large roots and rocks still bounce me around. My rear tires are configured to the widest position 1/2 of the tires are extending past the fenders. I can also add a ballast box with 1k lbs that I carry close to the ground. My tractor is very stable unloaded or loaded. Pushing dirt/gravel it is very strong.

I cant speak about the other tractors mentioned. I don't think you can go wrong with any of them. I am working in heavily wooded areas and wanted a smaller platform with lots of capability.

 

[Exlege]

Good day.

If not familiar with the front axle (center pivot) on a tractor, id look into that. The Large Ls and MX are front end heavy without ballast, and the loader doesn’t improve that situation.

A lot of people may have different experiences with use and need for ballast, pending how they use their machine and their terrain. Ballast is important enough there is section in Kubota operators manual for it…there is a reason for that.

I have a hilly property and use liquid in tires and wheel weights at all times. If I am going to be lifting something heavy I also add ballast onto the 3pt hitch or swap 3 pt out and put the BH92 on. The best ballast I have is when the BH is installed. For front ballast, so far having the loader bucket on has been enough.

I’d also mention maybe check out older threads dedicated to ballast as well as maybe online search and you will find a variety of videos (if you haven’t already) from Tractor Mike and also Messicks. Both have some informational videos on a lot of relevant topics. (Messicks has some really helpful machine comparison videos too).

Thank you. The videos from Messicks, Tractor Mike, and others have been very informative. I’m sold on the need for ballast, generally and especially when using the FEL. I will look more carefully at threads here and the owner’s manual when I get one. The BH seems like an excellent ballast when you are not concerned with hitting it against something but I don’t think it is in the initial budget. I may look for a use one when. I have a bit more time for projects. For now I have a local excavator who is happy to take on any job I send his way.

 

[Exlege]

I have property with lots of hills. When I 1st purchased the tractor the rear tires were set so they were flush with rear fenders and loaded. I did not have any problems but I did not feel comfortable with the set up. I also had 20 years of experience running a sub - compact tractor going for me.

Now what works for my stability wise is loaded rear tires, 200lbs of cast wheel weights per tire, and I run 15 psi air for better ride and traction (Air Ride seat) also helps but trails with large roots and rocks still bounce me around. My rear tires are configured to the widest position 1/2 of the tires are extending past the fenders. I can also add a ballast box with 1k lbs that I carry close to the ground. My tractor is very stable unloaded or loaded. Pushing dirt/gravel it is very strong
I cant speak about the other tractors mentioned. I don't think you can go wrong with any of them. I am working in heavily wooded areas and wanted a smaller platform with lots of capability.

Thanks for your response. I like the idea of getting the wheels/tires out as far as practicable. I have received some conflicting information from dealers about whether the MX or Grand L wheels can be flipped to a wider stance. I also inquired with my local dealer about approved wheel spacers and they gave me a “we will follow up” response. I expect, like changing wheel or tire sizes, it is something they (or maybe Kubota) generally don’t want to do.

 

[Exlege]

I have a Del Morino Centurion 158 flail mower (6ft) and a Land Pride rotary cutter (7ft). Could I also use some form of flex or bat wing mower? Heck yes, but they're very expensive and I can make do with what I have. But to your question, I would keep the flail over the rotary cutter all day long and twice on Sunday because it's more than a one-trick pony. I have the hydraulic offset and hydraulic head rotation and my only regret is that it's not a bigger mower. In short, I would have a better time with just the flail than with just the rotary.

I appreciate your thoughts. I was also looking at the Centurion. My local Kubota dealer flat out said they can’t sell me an articulating flail. None of the Land Pride models is small enough for either the MX or the Grand L. I would prefer a product made in the USA but the Italian flails seem to be well made (based on YouTube reviews) and sized for the machines I am considering.

 

[CGMKCM]

Thanks for your response. I like the idea of getting the wheels/tires out as far as practicable. I have received some conflicting information from dealers about whether the MX or Grand L wheels can be flipped to a wider stance. I also inquired with my local dealer about approved wheel spacers and they gave me a “we will follow up” response. I expect, like changing wheel or tire sizes, it is something they (or maybe Kubota) generally don’t want to do.

I would be surprised if your dealer responds to wheel spacer question. I enclosed page from my owners manual on how to set rear tire width. In my case it was swap Tires side to side and spin 180* to get the directional tires set.

 

[Exlege]

S

I can provide commentary on a couple of areas. Experience is usually one sided (as is mine), not a lot of people try both sides.

For mowing, a flail that will reach down banks I think is a great buy. I don't have one, but I want one, therefore it totally makes sense for you to have one. It does depend how steep you want to mow - with my B2601 I mow up to about 25 degree side slopes. If you need steeper than that, and doing it often, a side shift flail would be really good.

I suspect you'd want another mower as well. Either a bush hog for higher volume mowing of denser bush. Or a finish mower that you can occasionally treat mean to clear a field. But no harm in getting a flail, then one day someone will be selling a finish mower cheap, get it when you see it.

For ballast, I'm a believer in not filling tires. Reasons are:
- ride quality
- less good for loader than rear ballast (rear ballast relieves load on the front axle, filled tires don't)
- tires are hard to un-fill. So when you want less weight, you can't have it. This can include when trailering, on the lawn around the house, over a septic field, when you need to take a wheel in to get a puncture repair, etc
- in most cases, I think people don't actually need ballast (loader work being the exception). Spacers are often better, and for many tasks your tractor is actually stable enough without ballast

My usual recommendation is to get it without ballast and try it out. You can very easily add ballast later if it turns out you do need it. If you put it in from the shop, you'll never know whether you needed it, because you always have it.

Good ideas and well said. I like the idea of carefully starting off with the bare tractor and using ballast on the 3 point. I’m leaning towards wheel weights but it seems adding liquid is easy enough if I want to go that way. I don’t plan on a lot of heavy FEL work initially. Any flail I get will probably weigh 800 ish pounds.

 

[Exlege]

I would be surprised if your dealer responds to wheel spacer question. I enclosed page from my owners manual on how to set rear tire width. In my case it was swap Tires side to side and spin 180* to get the directional tires set.

Very informative, thank you.

 

[PaulL]

S

Good ideas and well said. I like the idea of carefully starting off with the bare tractor and using ballast on the 3 point. I’m leaning towards wheel weights but it seems adding liquid is easy enough if I want to go that way. I don’t plan on a lot of heavy FEL work initially. Any flail I get will probably weigh 800 ish pounds.

Any FEL work at all needs ballasting to be safe. Of course, I use my FEL all the time without ballasting. But it takes very little weight to make the rear wheels light.

Remember that the front wheels on your tractor give very little stability. The front axle is on a pivot, they give pretty much the same stability as the old tricycle tractors of the past. The rear wheels are what stops you tipping over, and if they're not solidly planted it's very easy to roll your tractor over even on dead flat ground. As I say, I do it all the time, but I'm very conscious of any corners at all, and moving at any speed. If I'm doing more than 5 minutes of loader work I put my ballast box on.

Wheel weights, and loaded tires, both put weight on the ground but not on the chassis. Ballasting on the 3 point (with a heavy implement or a ballast box) puts weight behind the rear axle, and therefore lifts the front wheels a bit. Depending on whether you're doing loader work, looking for stability on hills, or something else, they have a very different centre of gravity and impact on the tractor balance.