Loader Tractor

limo_100

Hi guys

I am considering purchasing a new second hand loader tractor I have a 390T without a loader that I am going to keep but I want to get a heavier tractor (as in weight) with similar HP around the 100-110 range.

I was looking at two different models MF 5455 or a JD 6110 MC have any of you got opinions on which would be best to use or would they both be very similar in terms of fuel economy and power and etc.

I have no experience of JD so would be a big move for me to leave Massey as we have always kept Masseys with no complaints.

leoch

Stick with the massey both very capable but your a mf man so why change plus they hold there value well

Bangoverthebar

Is the massey heavy enough to feed bales without a weight.

I have a 95hp deutz and its dangerous without a weight block

_Brian

Do you need another tractor ??

The 390 with a loader and weight block would feed allot of stock.

limo_100

@Bangoverthebar I am fairly sure the jd doesn’t need a weight as the loader is build onto the main body of the tractor so jd say no weight block needed. The Massey would definitely need a block

limo_100

@_Brian your correct it would manage at feeding no issues. But one of the main reasons for the ungrade is slurry related and the 390 can manage the 1300 tanker but we have hilly ground and the tanker bosses the tractor so need a heavier tractor to hold the tanker. Need a contractor to some of the hills as they’re very steep. Also help is an issue now when doing bales and would be Able to handle 3 at a time with would be a huge help.

limo_100

@leoch do Massey hold there value better that John Deere ?? Would a mf 5610 be a good option with the fuel Ud save with it being a 3cylinder

cute geoge

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121153515#Comment_121153515

To me The mf5610 is only similar type tractor to a 390 ,i taught your main criteria was buying a heavier tractor for the hills

DBK1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121153515#Comment_121153515

A Massey 5610 is a 390 with a fancy cab. Very light on the back end. I don’t know what their fuel consumption is like but I do know putting diesel into a 54 series Massey is like putting it into a bucket with a hole. They’d definitely be one of the harder makes on diesel.

Around 10 or 12 years ago I hired one for a week to pull the baler, couldn’t wait to give it back, it was easily burning twice the diesel to a Fiat or New Holland.

Between neighbours and customers of mine there’s a few lads around here with them still and they would all say the same about the diesel.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121153757#Comment_121153757

Thirsty enough. But the rented one could also have been opened up and burning more

Are you comparing like with like otherwise - 6 cylinder vs 6 cylinder for example

Bass Reeves

@limo_100 What is your presence organic N stocking rate. Is it near it above 150kg N/HA. If it is you will need to spread using LESS equipment next year.

It might make more sense to get a contractor to do the whole lot and forget about upgrading the tractor

As well everybody will probably have to use LESS with another 3-5 years

Bass Reeves

Just came across this

https://www.teagasc.ie/news--events/daily/environment/low-emission-slurry-spreading-delivering-for-farmer-and-the-environment.php

DBK1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121153912#Comment_121153912

No it wouldn’t have been opened up, I rented it from an owner operator, a turf man. It was about 18 months old at the time. Yep comparing like with like after that.

White Clover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121153757#Comment_121153757

You are well wide of the mark with your first two sentences. A 5610 has nothing in common with a 390. About 5 years ago, Classic Tractor magazine did a comparison between a 399 and a 5610. The tasks included using a mounted conditioner mower, towing a loaded trailer on the road and a few other tasks that I can’t think of right now. The 5610 came out well on top and it was especially evident that it was much more stable when handling the mounted conditioner mower.

OP, it is well known and accepted that after the 5455 was launched it was well ahead of the competition when it came to loader work and general work over all. The Massey power control shuttle is streets ahead of anything else of the same era.

The back ends of any Masseys from the 5400 series up had nothing in common with either the 300 series, 42 or 4300 series and were much much heavier.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121154296#Comment_121154296

The clutch packs are very expensive to replace though. Partly because of how much has to be removed to get at them.

White Clover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121154320#Comment_121154320

Very rare for Dyna 4 to give bother. Usually a rough operator is the reason. The Dyna 4 can trace its ancestry back to the early 90’s when it started as Dynashift, Massey had it perfected on the 6200 series tractors (the forerunner to the 5400/6400) which were renowned for their reliability.

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121154360#Comment_121154360

And you would want to be a really rough operator if only doing 5-600 hours per year.

Even though I think with changes to nitrates and having to use LESS he should rethink his strategy

Grueller

Jaysus lads I dont know what sort of bales ye are feeding. I feed 4-600 bales in any given year, along with the pit using a 4' shear grab. It is all done with a New Holland TL90 with a quicke q920 loader on board. I have never had a weight on her, the tractor is 22 years old and has never had a steering or front axle part put in it. The bales are all made using a fusion or a kuhn combi baler. The kuhn makes the bigger bale by the way.

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121154675#Comment_121154675

I feed 230-40 with a McCormick CX90 I use a bale spike on the loader. I never have a weight on it. It also bring them in and stack them with it as well. Had really wet bales a few year ago and it was a matter of getting the bale near the ground when it came off the stack and go handy

DBK1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121154296#Comment_121154296

I didn’t mean that it has the exact same back end or gearbox, I meant from a ballast point of view for loader work.

Two customers of mine have 5610’s so I see them in action loading bales, they won’t do much without weight behind. One man came from a 5455 to a 5610 and says the 5610 is nowhere near as good or steady as the 5455 for loader work or pulling the bale trailer. He’d be bringing 11-12 bales at a time on the trailer.

The 5610 are too short and too light for too much heavy work. I think they are only rated to around 75hp at the pto. The 5612 would be a far superior tractor as it has a longer wheel base and is 6-700 kgs heavier. They would normally have wider tyres which is a help for stability too.

Agreed about the Massey shuttle, it was way ahead of its time.

Mooooo

Dunno about loader tractors but if you have the space I would go for the biggest machine you think you can get that would work for ye. Everything is getting bigger be it bales or equipment may as well try for something that won't need changing again. Budget for good tyres given the nature of your ground

dohc turbo2

Have a 800 kg weight on back of case, makes it fierce stable around the yard, balanced the tractor, and it would work fine without it but it's away nicer with it on ,

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121155572#Comment_121155572

On the other side of that - there is no need buying something that is too big and will always be too big for what you want it for.

Like the post someone made about spotting a haybob on a FastTrac

Mooooo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121155746#Comment_121155746

Yeah it's a balance but once something can manage the yard/ shed there is a bit of comfort in something that can handle all jobs without being under pressure, along with the safety aspect.

7840 here with a half ton weights out front and she would be very light with the double handler. Wont be changing it as other than that it's fert and agitating really bar a few other odd jobs and manages away but when the time comes will be going bigger.

On the other hand changed the loader recently was looking for a 412 and best value I found was in a 414 on 500 wheels. Wheels made it manageable around the yard and will go places a standard tractor loader wouldn't go but could do with bigger wheels in the field then for the weight of it. Manages every job at its ease tho particularly the shear grab and has allowed us to start away at silage while contractors loader is finishing up at previous farm and carries two bales at a time from the stack with no swaying

farmertipp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121156082#Comment_121156082

jcb 411ht 412s 413 great machines and can go places tractor and loader can't go.

emaherx

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121155572#Comment_121155572

No way, bigger machine is just going to be a bigger fuel bill, fine if there is work for it but wasted if it's just a loader. I know one140hp loader tractor that runs a 5 foot topper, small fert spreader and a 5cu muck spreader. A tractor half the size would be far more appropriate.

emaherx

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121154831#Comment_121154831

I think the backend of your CX90 is a good bit heavier than a 390's although I handled enough bales with one of them too and never had rear weights, like you said keep the bale as low as possible until it needs to be lifter over something.

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121156654#Comment_121156654

Ya it would be a better tractor than a 390, BIL.has a 390 and young lad went over to draw bales with him this year. It was about a 500 metre draw. Young lads was bringing 4 for every two he got in both were drawing singles back and front

emaherx

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121156699#Comment_121156699

I loved my old 390T it served me well for over 20 years, but my CX95 is in a different league, to be fair it's a decade ahead in technology. The extra weight in the back is very noticeable for loader work and handling the 8ft Malone mower.

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121156779#Comment_121156779

CX 95 is a much heavier tractor than a CX90

Has the CX 95 got an electric shuttle

emaherx

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121156781#Comment_121156781

I thought it was just a turbo in the difference.

Yes I've a power shuttle and 3 power shift gears.