How much ballast for an MX6000?

[Code54]

LD1 is correct. The cab and filled tires is NOT enough. I have the MX5100 (same machine, less HP) and run a rear weight box that is around 1900-2000 lbs and I have loaded tires spread to max width. With max loader lift I can still feel a little light in the rear moving bins of Oak firewood. Even with this much weight on the rear, I do avoid my steep hills. That loader with 4' forks is way out in front of the wheels and add a heavy load you get a lot of leverage trying to lift the rear of the tractor.

 

[Lucky_Ducky]

LD1 is correct. The cab and filled tires is NOT enough. I have the MX5100 (same machine, less HP) and run a rear weight box that is around 1900-2000 lbs and I have loaded tires spread to max width. With max loader lift I can still feel a little light in the rear moving bins of Oak firewood. Even with this much weight on the rear, I do avoid my steep hills. That loader with 4' forks is way out in front of the wheels and add a heavy load you get a lot of leverage trying to lift the rear of the tractor.

I have been moving IBC totes of water (200 gallons) and sometimes it is…..uncomfortable with how the tractor is responding.

 

[JWR]

The cab on your MX6000 weighs about 700 pounds. Most of the cab weight is carried on the rear wheels.

The weight of your MX6000 cab is akin to ballasted/liquid filled rear tires.


The rear tires are filled with Rimguard.

Enough weight already.


If you more stability, spread the width of the rear wheels. Adjustable rear wheel widths has been standard on new MX series tractors since MX cabs were introduced.

I see it differently than Jeff. Whatever the cab weight is , yes it is more on the rear wheels , BUT mostly in front of the rear wheels, not behind the rear wheels and thus does not help reduce front wheel/axle loading at all, in fact it hurts slightly. Loading the rear tires is neutral as far as changing/not changing the weight on the front tires. From Lucky's comments it looks like he has things pretty well figured out/under control.

 

[LD1]

I see it differently than Jeff. Whatever the cab weight is , yes it is more on the rear wheels , BUT mostly in front of the rear wheels, not behind the rear wheels and thus does not help reduce front wheel/axle loading at all, in fact it hurts slightly. Loading the rear tires is neutral as far as changing/not changing the weight on the front tires. From Lucky's comments it looks like he has things pretty well figured out/under control.

Actually loading the rear tires can increase the load the front axle sees

 

[JWR]

Actually loading the rear tires can increase the load the front axle sees

Nope. If any added (or reduced) load is directly over the rear axle it cannot exert (or lessen) any load on the front axle or tires. The load on the front axle is unchanged with no tires, empty tires or loaded tires on the rear so long as the rear axle is a free pivot in the longitudinal axis. As I said neutral.

 

[LD1]

Nope. If any added (or reduced) load is directly over the rear axle it cannot exert (or lessen) any load on the front axle or tires. The load on the front axle is unchanged with no tires, empty tires or loaded tires on the rear so long as the rear axle is a free pivot in the longitudinal axis. As I said neutral.

Its NOT neutral when you factor the use of the front end loader.

Ill give some examples with some round numbers and easy to follow

Tractor.....MX6000....With loader and cab......lets call it a 6000# machine
The matching loader is "capable" of lifting 2000#.

However.....in its bare configuration (unloaded tires), it can only muster to lift 800# in the bucket before the rear wheels lift into the air.

The WHOLE 6000# tractor AND the 800# load is now ALL on the front axle.

Now lets load the tires with 700# of fluid. Bringing our tractor weight to 6700#. This added ballast now allows the loader to lift 1500# before the rears hike into the air. 6700+1500 you now have 8200# of weight all on the front axle. Thats 1400# MORE than if you didnt even load the tires.

So using that example....say you wanted to move stuff thats 1000#. The tractor simply CANNOT lift it. But in the process of trying....your front axle is seeing 6800#.

Load the tires and now you CAN lift and move 1000#. BUT, your front axle is now seeing MORE than 6800# due to the transfer of weight.

The MAXIMUM weight the front axle will see, is when you have the bare minimum amount of ballast to max out the front loader. That puts the entire tractor weight, entire ballast weight, and entire lift capacity of the loader ALL on the front axle.

Any less ballast....means the loader will lift a lesser amount, and less weight on the front axle.

Any more ballast (in the form of counter weight on the 3PH) and now you begin unloading the front axle.

So basically, having just enough weight to keep the @$$ on the ground is the worst possible combination as it allows for the maximum amount of front axle load. You have to go significantly BEYOND just keeping the rear planted to make any meaningful difference unloading the front axle.

A tractor that lives its life with no ballast and nothing on the 3ph cant make much use of the loaders capacity, and is dangerous and unstable, but unlikely to ever damage or overload the front axle.

People who ballast, but just enough not to be "tippy" and still max out front loader....thats the worst. It literally blows my mind the number of people who constantly recommend ballast numbers that are no where enough. 1000# of counterweight is what you want on a 3-series deere or a 35hp L-series kubota. The larger GrandL's, MX's, or equivalent 4-series deeres.....1000# is not enough period unless all you are doing is moving mulch

 

[Midniteoyl]

Whatever weight you decide try to also incorporate the ability to carry tools, chains, and other things you might need when 2000' from the barn.

 

[Code54]

All heavy steel and concrete - set it up for carrying saws and towing the log splitter at the same time. (MX5100 in photo)

 

[JWR]

Its NOT neutral when you factor the use of the front end loader.

Ill give some examples with some round numbers and easy to follow

Tractor.....MX6000....With loader and cab......lets call it a 6000# machine
The matching loader is "capable" of lifting 2000#.

However.....in its bare configuration (unloaded tires), it can only muster to lift 800# in the bucket before the rear wheels lift into the air.

The WHOLE 6000# tractor AND the 800# load is now ALL on the front axle.

Now lets load the tires with 700# of fluid. Bringing our tractor weight to 6700#. This added ballast now allows the loader to lift 1500# before the rears hike into the air. 6700+1500 you now have 8200# of weight all on the front axle. Thats 1400# MORE than if you didnt even load the tires.

So using that example....say you wanted to move stuff thats 1000#. The tractor simply CANNOT lift it. But in the process of trying....your front axle is seeing 6800#.

Load the tires and now you CAN lift and move 1000#. BUT, your front axle is now seeing MORE than 6800# due to the transfer of weight.

The MAXIMUM weight the front axle will see, is when you have the bare minimum amount of ballast to max out the front loader. That puts the entire tractor weight, entire ballast weight, and entire lift capacity of the loader ALL on the front axle.

Any less ballast....means the loader will lift a lesser amount, and less weight on the front axle.

Any more ballast (in the form of counter weight on the 3PH) and now you begin unloading the front axle.

So basically, having just enough weight to keep the @$$ on the ground is the worst possible combination as it allows for the maximum amount of front axle load. You have to go significantly BEYOND just keeping the rear planted to make any meaningful difference unloading the front axle.

A tractor that lives its life with no ballast and nothing on the 3ph cant make much use of the loaders capacity, and is dangerous and unstable, but unlikely to ever damage or overload the front axle.

People who ballast, but just enough not to be "tippy" and still max out front loader....thats the worst. It literally blows my mind the number of people who constantly recommend ballast numbers that are no where enough. 1000# of counterweight is what you want on a 3-series deere or a 35hp L-series kubota. The larger GrandL's, MX's, or equivalent 4-series deeres.....1000# is not enough period unless all you are doing is moving mulch

No sir. Incorrect. Any weight centered on the rear axle regardless of source has zero effect on the load on the front axle/tires. Vertical weight added on the tractor chassis forward of the rear axle increases weight on the front tires. Vertical weight added on the chassis aft of the rear axle (like at the 3pt hitch) reduces the weight on the front axle/tires. That is the context of us discussing Ballast in the first place. Strength of Materials, Statics 101 problem -- levers and weights. Do the diagram.

LD1 , you said "it can only muster to lift 800# in the bucket before the rear wheels lift into the air." I cannot imagine where you got the idea it would (or could or might) lift the rear wheels off the ground (!!) Get serious.

 

[jyoutz]

On my MX6000, my rear tires are filled with bio-ballast liquid, and I will either use my 1025# 8’ rear blade or my 6’ rotary cutter for ballast on the 3ph. So far this has worked well for lifting a one ton pallet with my QA forks.