Beyound marketing engine hp #s mean nothing. Its not even on the Nebraska test. The 2 numbers that have always been used are pto and drawbar. I realize most compacts and utilities didn't get the test but the whole reason for the Nebraska test was so mfgs couldn't make bogus claims. For sh*ts and giggles I looked up my 5400 vs the m5040. The specs on the M5040 says PTO 45 (claimed) and on the JD 5400 it says 60 (claimed) 62.56 (tested). I'm not comparing tractors I'm only pointing out a tractor that has been tested and referred to as such is the real deal. Throwing out what may be a paper number on engine hp doesn't inform the buyer as to what the tractor is really capable of when called upon to do work.IMO there is nothing wrong with advertising engine hp so long as PTO HP is also listed. Hell, way back when, tractors were advertised with three ratings! Gross, Belt and Drawbar!
FWIW: Kubota has been caught “rounding up†their HP numbers before. Not egregiously but still…. Comparison was made with two machines on two separate, calibrated PTO dynos. Kubota was at about 42.7 HP (45 advertised) and the Deere it was running against was making 47+ (also advertised 45HP) . There is/was video of the test somewhere on the internet at some point but I haven’t seen it around for awhile. I was lucky enough to witness the test in person! (Test was aprox. 5 years ago IIRC)