Saw your post perhaps way too late .... 

We have quite a few orchard tractors here - Mid 2000s to late model Case, NH, JD and Kubota.  We put 400-800 hours a year on most units, they all suck in their own way, they all have down time.  A good portion of our units have front mount 3pt and pto for mowing and heavy mulching work.  The latter being the job that seperates the men from the boys.

The pre emissions CNH tractors (90/105n's) largely have been the most reliable for us, we have quite a few units relegated to sprayer dragging / bin carrying that are 8,000-13,000 hours.  Wiring harness issues are common as they get up there, but overall they keep going without "nonsense" as you describe.  These tractors are tough, not over powered, but the torque is in the right place.  The IT4 versions that followed do not share the same reliability in our experience.  There is an alignment pin on the casting that is the weak point of the bolster.  We no longer use the front 3pt for anything heavier than a herbicide boom.

The Kubota M5-111n have been a good tractor, since they got the def pump design issues figured out.  I think a couple of our tractors have received 3+ "updates" so it was quite the painful oddessey to get there.  The hood and the latch system is garbage, keeping the hood sealed down so that trash cant gets sucked into the rad is next to impossible.  The flat floor cab is nice and roomy compared to the CNH, but the air conditioning systems in them are fickle - hood issues makes this worse, and the cab interiors degrade quickly.  They are the roughest riding tractors of the group and the hardest on fuel.  The front frame design gives some confidence with front 3pt and pto work but it has its weaknesses.    

For us, the JD 5090GN and 5100GN have been much better than their CNH / Fiat cousins.  The front bolster is heavier and there are some other minor variations.  The cab is the best vs the CNH and Kubota.  Less nonsense emissions issues but other dumb electronic stuff like the foot throttle pedal stops working.  Having to open the hood to fuel is a stupid design, so are the fiberglass cover panels along site the engine that need to be .  I like the power boost option on the 5100 for PTO work.  Front 3pt / pto performance and reliability is far better than the Kubota with the same or similar Zuidberg or Folgers setup.  Heaviest tractor of the three.  

We have 4-600 hours on a couple JD 5130ML narrow units.  They are a totally different animal compared to everything above.  We jokingly call them the "unicorn" because it's the tractor spec we were longing for while we were killing the above tractors with heavy front pto work.  We have experienced the typical new production model issues, nothing that hasn't been looked after.  They have all the advantages of a larger tractor in that small package, a more conventional (like row crop) type transmission configuration, heavy components front to back etc.  Late season when the rows close in from fruit weight these tractors cant get thru the same spaces the ones above can but we can manage that.  Nothing to complain about on them so far.

A Fendt 211P just left here after a 20 ish hour demo.  We put it onto the same tasks as the ML above and found it to be very, very comparable - in features, performance, and price.  Had that tractor been orderable at the same time that the JD 5130ML came out, it would be a hard choice.  We have quite a few jobs where the ML set a new bar, I can see where the Fendt has that place as well.  I can see a place for the F versions of these tractors against the smaller frame orchard tractors I listed above, on tasks where the programmable EH controls and other features come into use.

We have good dealer support for all the brands above, anything else gets more challenging than we want to deal with.  We set out to put the largest possible implement on these small frame tractors and this exposes every weakness and my comments reflect it.  In the end I could recommend any of the above tractors depending on intended final use.