Green Tractor Talk banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Looking at a 75 to 100 HP tractor to do mostly hay work, Will need a loader and MFWD. I have heard that the 'E' series is not a true farm tractor like the 'M' series is. Anyone have experience with both and can point me in the right direction, I want to buy once and only cry once :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
430 Posts
Looking at a 75 to 100 HP tractor to do mostly hay work, Will need a loader and MFWD. I have heard that the 'E' series is not a true farm tractor like the 'M' series is. Anyone have experience with both and can point me in the right direction, I want to buy once and only cry once :)
I have a 5065E that I used for haying. I mostly use it for moving hay. There have been times when my Masseys were not running for some reason and I used the Deere. Wasn't sure the 5065 had enough ass to run the GMD700 (9ft) hay mower but it did. IMHO if I had it to do over I would have went with the M series. More weight and just built better. I figured with the other tractors I have the 5065 would be a good utility tractor and it has been. Good to have backups. lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,053 Posts
Op's question is very similar to "what woman/man should I marry"

Depends on your wallet and desire... is the answer to both questions. :p Although a mistake in the spouse case is infinitely more expensive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
150 Posts
It really comes down to how much money you want to spend. The E series will get the job done, but the M and R series will have more creature comforts. Little things like being able to operate the three point from the fender on the M and R series. Sure, it would be nice for some things, not always needed. I put 2-300 hours on per year in my 5100e and I’m glad I saved the $10K or so to step up to an M version. I can’t justify it. Doesn’t mean I would shy away if I had the cash, or especially if my livelihood depended on it.
 

·
Registered
J.D 2038r
Joined
·
598 Posts
Welcome to GTT from NW Ct.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
461 Posts
Looking at a 75 to 100 HP tractor to do mostly hay work, Will need a loader and MFWD. I have heard that the 'E' series is not a true farm tractor like the 'M' series is. Anyone have experience with both and can point me in the right direction, I want to buy once and only cry once :)
The 5Es are the direct successors to the original 5000 series that have been made since the early 1990s, the 3 cylinders trace back to the 5200/5300/5400 from the early 1990s and the 4 cylinders trace back to the 5410/5510 from the later 1990s. The current units have the same wheelbase, the same basic engines, and some of the same transmissions that have been used for the last 25-30 years. The 5M was a new design that started with the five-cylinder 5x25 series in the mid-2000s. I have a 5075E and I've run an early 4 cylinder 5E and a four-cylinder 5x10 as well, and they are solid machines with few issues. I hay with my 5075E, I run a 10 1/2' trailed disc mower, rake, and a small square baler with a thrower and a throw wagon and it does well. I've run a Haybine, an old round baler, and a small square baler with the older four-cylinder units that had within a couple PTO HP of my 5075E and they did well. I also move round bales with my 5075E and have with the older four-cylinder units and they do/did well with that. I have never run a 5M but based on what machines I have seen both new and used here in this region, very few others have either. I've seen only a few 5Ms but I have seen hundreds of 5Es new and used.

I would personally be looking at a 6E if I were looking for something new and more robust than a 5E for haying, as a 6E of the same power as a 5M is about as expensive as the 5M but is a larger, stouter machine. I've run a blue machine whose closest competitor would be a 6130M for haying, and to be honest, it really doesn't even know there is a dry hay round baler or disc mower-conditioner behind it except for the fuel consumption rate. That machine has all of the bells and whistles, including the little buttons on the fender for the electronically-controlled 3 point, a programmable electronic powershift transmission, and so forth. (To be honest, I don't really care a whole lot for the bells and whistles, some are modestly useful like the little 3 point buttons, but others are a nuisance, like the programmable electronic-powershift transmission that takes more mucking with to do something simple compared to a simple mechanical shift lever.) Remember, even the most "basic" tractors of today are very well-optioned compared to what our parents and grandparents made hay with- even the most basic 5E still has a synchronized transmission, power steering, independent PTO, live hydraulics that are much stronger than hydraulics were "back in the day," and a loader that is heads and shoulders above the trip bucket loaders of that day.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,008 Posts
I would look for an older 6000 series tractor. 6X10, 6X20, 6X30. JD offered a 6X15 series which was an economy version of the 6X20 series. Missing a few "bells & whistles" such as, not as many lights, right side step, less transmission choices, only sway control on one of the lower 3pt arms (I added the other one). Probably other things I forgot.
I bought a used 6415 (bigger than I wanted) for less $$$ than the 5X25 series were selling for, at the time 5425 with MFWD, Reverser and loader were about $10K more.
It came with Power Reverser/Power Quad transmission, 2 rear SCVs (I added a third), MFWD, radial tires, and mid loader valve with joystick. Also, a JD 640 MSL loader.
Since I do not use it at night, I never added more lights.
I should add its open station and EVERYBODY wanted a cab in that size tractor, so I got it for a lot less. The dealer was having a hard time selling it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hosspuller

·
Registered
Joined
·
461 Posts
Mo1
Technically the 3 or 4 cylinder engine design used in todays JD utility tractors trace much farther back in history than the early 1990's back in fact to 1965 when JD 20 series utility tractors were introduced.
.
The current 3 cylinder 5Es have the same basic engine and chassis as the 5200/5300/5400. The 4 cylinder 5Es use the same basic engine and chassis that the 5410 and 5510 did. The 5500 had the same chassis as the current 4 cylinder 5Es but used the 4039 engine instead of the 4045, the 4039 being the 3029 with a fourth cylinder, which is why I did not say the 4 cylinder 5E line started with the 5500. The same engines were used in older tractors, but the chassis were noticeably different. For example, a 2240 uses the same basic engine as a 3 cylinder 5E but the chassis on a 5E/5000 series unit is a lot different than a 20-55 series chassis with a longer wheelbase, no swept front axle, and the front axle is a whole lot more robust.

The 4045 can trace its lineage back to the 2630 as that was the first tractor that used that specific engine, and it was the first engine with the 5" stroke. The 3029/179 three can trace its lineage back to the 152 three in 1965's 1020 as it was the first 4.33" stroke engine, and it got bored out a couple times from the original 3.86" to 4.02" to the current 4.19" in the 2240 in the mid-1970s as well. Deere made four and six-cylinder engines based on the 4.33" stroke in the various bore sizes as well but today only the 3029 uses that stroke. The 6068 is a 4045 with two more cylinders so it too spawned a much smaller branch of the Deere engine family tree.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,373 Posts
I stated "engine design" IE model 300 engine family not exact engine part #s. Your mentioning chassis with a longer wheelbase, no swept front axle, and the front axle is a whole lot more robust just MUDDY's the water when I was pointing out '''SIMILAR ENGINE DESIGNS"". Oh well I guess will agree to disagree.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
461 Posts
I had originally mentioned that the 5E is the same basic tractor (engines + chassis) that Deere has been making since the 1990s, it is a proven design. The engines used certainly were originally developed much earlier as I had noted. I think we are saying many of the same things but saying it differently.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top