Kubota M5091Picture 1 of 4 |
|
||||
Kubota M5091 | Picture made by Jalvingh
Kubota M5091 review - 1.5 months of use In December of 2020, our 2009 Deutz Agrofarm 410 2WD(5500 hours) equipped with Mallieux U8 was replaced by a demo 2017 Kubota M5091 (600 hours) with a kubota la1854 loader. What were we looking for. Tractor between 85 and 105 hp, front loader that loads above 3 meters (with tilted bucket), max height 2.68 (height limit barn), 34 inch tires, hydraulic clutch and maneuverable. Primary operations: Silage cutting, feed truck loading and in summer the lighter work like standing in front of the tedder. Why a Kubota: The AgroFarm 410 was a particularly pleasant and reliable tractor, which is why we first also looked at a Deutz-Fahr 5100G 2WD with a similar MX loader as on the current tractor. Other realistic candidates were the New Holland T5.95 2WD, Same Explorer 100 4wd (really just a 5100G). During our search, we also came across the Kubota M5 series and it met the specifications quite nicely. In addition, the cab was very suitable for front loader due to the high windshield and the construction of the front axle allows very large steering angle, larger than other 4WD models. Evenhuis in Giethoorn had a 2017 M5091 on display used for Demos and it was also on Demo with us. First impression was that the Japanese was rather cheap inside but the cab did offer very good views, not bad for a lot of front loader work. The cab is quite full though and the stairs steep which is not really suitable for getting off frequently for adding by-products while loading the feed wagon. We were not very impressed with the lift direction. The lift capacity was ok but the lift rods felt a bit thin which we saw as a negative, in fact our Deutz had thicker rods which had already snapped one from all the silage cutting. Also on price the Kubota seemed unattractive compared to a new 5100G 2WD with 0 hours on the clock. However, after some tough negotiating, the Kubota became financially very attractive and so it became the Kubota instead of the Deutz. Experiences The tractor: As was already noticed during the demo, the interior is made of little special plastic and everything is not particularly well put together. When working, everything rattles around which is quite irritating. The door which has only been used 600 hours already has a healthy amount of play on the lock (so even more noise). We also have a Landini Vision in the yard and this one feels really super luxurious in terms of the interior only because everything doesn't make a huge noise and the interior doesn't flex if you look at it at all. The interior of the Kubota is quite full which makes you have little room for your legs. By default, the tractor is equipped with a tremendously loud beeper that should alert you to not having engaged the handbrake when you have left the seat. In addition, the PTO stops rotating when you leave the seat, but after tying 2 wires together, the computer now thinks there is someone permanently sitting in the seat. The maneuverability of the tractor is great, it steers easier almost as wide as the old Deutz and the more compact front loader makes it easy to get around the yard. The hydraulics have no pressure free return which is rather frustrating in combination with the elevator of the silage cutter and the yield is ok although with a heavy load in the front loader the pump is not at its happiest. An absolute irritating feature of the tractor is the fill neck/hose running to the tank. This makes it impossible to use an automatic fill gun because the hose cannot discharge it fast enough causing the gun to shut off. Thus, you are constantly regulating the gun to get some diesel into the tank. The good visibility around the trigger is partly achieved by housing the emission technology under the hood, disadvantage is that this makes the hood rather high. Result is that we cannot see at all what we are scooping up with the front loader. The tractor has to regenerate about every 8 days which takes about 10/15 minutes, very acceptable. The consumption of the tractor averaged about 3.5 liters per hour, again not bad. The power from the engine is okay but it feels like there is a little less torque underneath than the Deutz had. One problem that often came up was an error in the brake sensor that caused the tractor to think front brakes were broken and therefore engage 4WD. After replacing a sensor it seems to be better but sporadically it still occurs. According to Evenhuis this is a known ailment which can be fixed by restarting the tractor, quite irritating again. The front loader: First, taking a la1854 loader was a big mistake. The loader is simply too small for loading the feed wagon. When buying the tractor we simply assumed that the front loader would meet our specifications but it does not. The construction of the loader is very solid and the center of gravity sits low which provides stability. The loader's control lever is huge and has a large travel which is not really pleasing coming from an MX which can be controlled with a small lever. The hitch for buckets and such of the bucket is rather overengineered. In fact, it uses lubricated bushings where the pins sit. The pins then run through 2 more bushings which makes it sturdy but overly complex and low maintenance. The integrated legs for disconnecting the loader from the tractor are a welcome upgrade over the separate legs on the MXU8. Conclusion: With today's experience, we probably would have bought the Deutz. In conclusion I am sure there are more positive things to mention about this tractor but the amount of negatives made me a little sour, it is just not very pleasant to work with. Obviously the tractor is more luxurious than the Deutz but basically during daily operations somewhat frustrating to work with
Tractor Battle
Which tractor do you like the best? Choose now, left or right!
