Nope, not stopping the production of the L39, the 45 is in addition to. the l45 is the same machine as the l39 basically, same loader and backoe, size, etc, just a larger engine, larger pumps for more lift capacity and the big one---the l45 is hydrostatic trans instead of the l39 which has glide shift trans. Just sold our Kubota b7800 and will be purchasing an l45 soon, Ill be sure to post some pics of it when it arrives!
Nope, not stopping the production of the L39, the 45 is in addition to. the l45 is the same machine as the l39 basically, same loader and backoe, size, etc, just a larger engine, larger pumps for more lift capacity and the big one---the l45 is hydrostatic trans instead of the l39 which has glide shift trans. Just sold our Kubota b7800 and will be purchasing an l45 soon, Ill be sure to post some pics of it when it arrives!
You are correct the L39 lives on! the L45 is the model in between the L39 and L59. Hydro is the key difference here along with the bump in break-out force with the loader (the jump makes a difference between models in this case). The L39 is very good and respectable, the L45 makes it even better. Loader lift capacities are almost dead even. For those who arent familar with breakout force - the more you have the better the FEL is able to dig, and cut into hard pack surface. Either way both machines are superior to the JD110, in my opinion.
I got my L39 long before the mention of the L45 - I was shooting for the M59 but couldnt because of trailer weight and CDL limits in my parts. I love my GST, but if given the choice I would tip my hat to hydro - but Kubotas foot pedal is annoying IMHO (so you have to adjust to it), its just not as natural as Deeres or others.
There will be a pretty signifcant price jump between the L39 to L45 - that may be too much for many to make that jump. Right now the L39 has a key advantage between top performer and price. The M59 teaters on the edge ($$ wise) of going to a full size TLB unit from Case or Deere...something to think about but still a very nice machine.
I got stopped in my tracks from doing this (M59) because of weight (trailering) -something to consider or think about.
The L39 is rated for 2200 lbs in the bucket (2700 at the pins)- I havent seen anything to doubt that It wont load a full skid of pavers like a full size skid but certainly handles its own with the smaller size skids (lift wise)
Its the backhoe that is the great equalizer its a brute for its size -makes fast work on large stumps (within reason of course)
Here's mine. 198? John Deere 855. Very reliable 3 cylinder yanmar engine. Engine has never been apart. Attachments: front end loader, belly mower, 5 foot bush hog, 5 foot tiller, 5 foot box blade, and posthole digger. 33 inch Super Swamper tires on the rear. LOL
ramairfreak98ss, how do u like the skid steer style loader on your 4720? besides having the skid steer quick attach is there anything else that would set it apart from the 400x loader?
ramairfreak98ss, how do u like the skid steer style loader on your 4720? besides having the skid steer quick attach is there anything else that would set it apart from the 400x loader?
I'm not Ramair but the 400cx has much more lifting ability (as well as the quick park FEL setup) over the 400x FEL. The Quick attack on the FEL makes it much more universal (and basically offers the world of unlimited skid steer attachments) and stays away from the propriety setups of Deere. Depending on the attachment you just have to concern yourself with hydraulic flow.
This may sound controversal but I really think Deere should not offer any X loaders, only the CX. Here is why; the majority of buyers dont realize the limits on the X compared to the CX loaders. The dealers offer these amazing deals on tractors with X loaders. But what they dont tell you it limits the resale potential because "smart buyers" are looking for the CX performance along with the ease of removing the loader with the CX. To what benefit is it to the user when they get a loader for less? what they dont say clearly for the money saved you give up way too much both short term and long term, especially with resale. Folks wont buy a X loader because of this and will pass on your tractor for the next...
ramairfreak98ss, how do u like the skid steer style loader on your 4720? besides having the skid steer quick attach is there anything else that would set it apart from the 400x loader?
the skid steer style is actually the adapter plates... the quick attach pieces on the end similar to a skid steer.. i woudnt have gotten it any other way, its awesome, besides the fact that its hard to see down so low to attach the buckets :/ , i can detach them in about 20 seconds.
the only difference in the 400cx is that it has those auto leveler knuckles at the top of the boom, its supposed to lift more too, i know its nice though to lift mulch and not spill any out all the way up !
i still try to roll the bucket simultaneously while lifting like my other machines lol.
I'm not Ramair but the 400cx has much more lifting ability (as well as the quick park FEL setup) over the 400x FEL. The Quick attack on the FEL makes it much more universal (and basically offers the world of unlimited skid steer attachments) and stays away from the propriety setups of Deere. Depending on the attachment you just have to concern yourself with hydraulic flow.
yeah its supposed to do 12gpm.. not enough to run high power implements but enough to do most things. The front attachment plates, either Deere proprietary or worksite pro skid steer style has nothing to do with the cx or x of the loader model, as i have the original deere plates in the garage.
You can get the skid steer style for either, its like $300 for the option, if your gonna use it in our business, better get them.
I already have a 84" high volume, 3/4 yard bucket and 73" replaceable cutting edge bolt blade bucket for digging, and am looking at a grapple for it, but fell over when i found out it was almost 4k :/
I honestly use the little simplicity for most landscape stuff...
very easy to transport, can move around grass/turf much faster than the behemoth deere thats heavy, its much more narrow, 45" wide compared to 68" of the deere.
Any attachments on the deere would be 72" + so its only for bigger jobs, open areas... it sure would be an awesome machine with a 84-96" wide harley or landpride power rake !
doesnt this thread say "compact" ? what is compact about that? even the dual tires are wider than both of my tractors total width lol, nice though!
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Lawn Care Forum
7M posts
202.7K members
Since 1999
A forum community dedicated to lawn care and landscaping professionals and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!