Loader Tractor

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

Do you need another tractor ??

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

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

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

Just came across this

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ,

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

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.

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

CX 95 is a much heavier tractor than a CX90

Has the CX 95 got an electric shuttle

Will your one lift two bales at the back.

It's a Krone baler wrapper that do mine not a hope it would left them...even if it was virtually haylage

CX95 I know the 390 has a poor lift compared the CX90

There is a double lift pump on a 390t and some also have asistor rams ,the only problem with a 390 is they lack comfort ,electric shuttle and are too fuking slow

It would,

I prefer a trailer anyway except the very short hauls. ;)

It's 150 from January 2024, 130, from January 2025 and 100 from January 2026

So it will be virtually all LESS at that stage

When op mentioned slurry and hills would prefer the bigger machine.

Do not know a 2k tank with a dribble bar is a fair lump of a weight. But the question you have to ask is it worth investing 30+k between a tractor and machinery to carry on doing slurry

Keep the 390, how many hrs a year are you doing OP. No point spending big on a yoke that’s not doing the hours unless you’re half thinking of going contracting. Let your contractor spread the slurry for ya. Might be cheaper in the long run.