Buying Advice CT335 drawbar ratings or towing capacity?

[milkman636]

LD1.. great tag line. I'd be happy to hold your beer.

 

[LD1]

LD1.. great tag line. I'd be happy to hold your beer.

Just as long as you dont drink if before I get done:laughing:

 

[Steve_Miller]

If it's any help or consolation here is something I did with my CK30 Kioti awhile back.

http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/kioti-owning-operating/144635-nova-scotia-tractor-tests.html


Steve

 

[milkman636]

That's what I'm talkin' about. Very imprerssive. Its great to see someone who wants to know exactly what his tractor can do. Its also sad that "tractor" manufacturers aren't publishing any "tractive" performance numbers of any kind.
.
Thank you for responding to my post Steve.

Now I'm wondering where I can "borrow" one of those from???

 

[milkman636]

I should clarify: Its sad that the compact utility "tractor" manufacturers aren't publishing any kind of "tractive" performance numbers. These numbers are published for the big tractors, but not for tractors that fit into an average homeowner budget.

 

[LD1]

I should clarify: Its sad that the compact utility "tractor" manufacturers aren't publishing any kind of "tractive" performance numbers. These numbers are published for the big tractors, but not for tractors that fit into an average homeowner budget.

Even if they were to publish a spec for drawbar pull, it would probabally NOT be to your liking.

Drawbar pull isnt something that is easily measured, cannot be calculated, and most homeowners don't really care.

The other specs, like loader lift, and breakout, 3PH lift, can all easily be measured and even calculated. It doesnt matter the terrain, wet or dry, pavement or mud, etc. If the loader can lift xxx lbs, it can lift that all the time.

If a mfg lists a max lift of 1000lbs @ the pins, you can expect it to be able to do that whenever you want.

BUT...if they listed you a max drawbar pull of say 5000lbs, that number is just about useless. Because that would be a reading they got just like Steve_miller did. On concrete, ballasted, 4wd, etc. But that 5000lbs spec isnt going to do you a lick of good when your tractor doesn't have enough traction in the woods/mud/snow to pull anywhere close to that. Not to mention a lot owners opt for R4's, which further reduces the pulling power.

About all a drawbar spec is going to do is give you bragging rights over other makes, or vice versa. But pulling power is a product of traction. Better tires and more weight is going to win every time.

 

[milkman636]

With geared tractors it is engine displacement, gear ratios, and weight. For a guy who has only used geared tractors, its hard to guess how the HST stacks up. The CT335 I'm considering is very close in size, weight, and horsepower to a Ford 2000 that I parted with ten years ago. The only thing it has less of cubic inches. It would be interesting to see how it perfoms in some of the same third party testing that my old tractor went through. If UN said its tested pull was close or better, I would have been confident walking into the dealer that it met my needs. The one thing that old Ford did well for its size was pulling. The new tractors just plain annihilate it in hydraulics, front axle capacity, convenience, and ease of operation.

Maybe I am alone in seeing the value of it, but it would still be nice to have the smaller tractors tested with some uniformity. There might be alot fewer discussions about transmission opinions if some objective testing existed. Hopefully nobody will respond to this with a debate about transmissions. I am set on a Hydrostatic. I have a 2x14 plow that needs shining up. I'll test with that to see how it performs against my memory of that old blue one. I am optimistic about the results

 

[LD1]

With geared tractors it is engine displacement, gear ratios, and weight. For a guy who has only used geared tractors, its hard to guess how the HST stacks up. The CT335 I'm considering is very close in size, weight, and horsepower to a Ford 2000 that I parted with ten years ago. The only thing it has less of cubic inches. It would be interesting to see how it perfoms in some of the same third party testing that my old tractor went through. If UN said its tested pull was close or better, I would have been confident walking into the dealer that it met my needs. The one thing that old Ford did well for its size was pulling. The new tractors just plain annihilate it in hydraulics, front axle capacity, convenience, and ease of operation.

Maybe I am alone in seeing the value of it, but it would still be nice to have the smaller tractors tested with some uniformity. There might be alot fewer discussions about transmission opinions if some objective testing existed. Hopefully nobody will respond to this with a debate about transmissions. I am set on a Hydrostatic. I have a 2x14 plow that needs shining up. I'll test with that to see how it performs against my memory of that old blue one. I am optimistic about the results

The ability of a tractor to pull something is how much traction you can get it period. Engine displacement has little to do with it. Most all tractors are geared low enough to provide enough torque to spin the tires. All the extra HP will get you is the ability to pull in a higher gear IE: faster. And assuming the tractor has gear(s) low enough to spin, they have little to do with a MAX pull ability. And weight directly relates to traction. And the older tractors were usually heavier and had taller tires, which gave them more traction.

That being said, if you want to compair the ct335 to a ford 2000, I think the CT335 will out pull the 2000 hands down and then some (assuming the CT335 has ag tires). The ford 2000 is basically the same tractor as a 601 series ford, which is ~3300lbs. The CT335 is about 350lbs heavier AND has 4wd that the 2000 does not. Add a loader to it and you now have just added ~1000 lbs of ballast to that CT335.

Another very similar comparison to that is My L3400 vs Dads 8n Ford. The 8n is very similar to the 2000, but only 2800lbs. My tractor is only 2600lbs but also has a loader that adds to the total weight. I have 4WD and ags. We cut a lot of firewood and drag quite frequently. It is no comparison, the L3400 will out pull the 8n by a good bit.

And if you are interested, here is a link to the Test for a 601 series ford (again, same as a 2000)

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2119&context=tractormuseumlit

Notice that the max drawbar pull UNBALLASTED and an operating weight of 3300lbs was only 2200LBS.

With 396lbs in each tire and 708lbs of weights hanging on each tire (total weight of 5500lbs, it could drawbar pull 4000lbs. So that will give you some Idea. Did your old 2000 have filled tires or weights???

If you ballast a CT335 to 5500lbs, I am sure it will pull just as much, if not more due to 4wd. And 5500lbs wouldn't be hard since you are already @ 3600lbs, Add ~1000-1200 for the loader, 300lbs fliud in each rear, and that alond puts you close.

 

[milkman636]

It was an early 70's 3 cylinder model of Ford 2000, loaded 12.4x28 with occasional duals depending on what I was doing. With front weight it could hunker down and pull pretty good in the lower gears. I think it was a 158 ci engine. Weighed in around 5000# ballasted I would guess.

My current larger tractor has a 180 ci diesel engine, geared trans, loaded r1s, a cat2 three point. and a 2500 lb capacity loader. Weighs in about 7000#.

The new one would also have loaded rears (approximately 400# each), and a 110 ci engine. With the loader on front and the rear tires filled it will weigh about 5700#. As you pointed out, it will also have the advantage of 4 wheel drive over the 2000.

I do not doubt what you are saying about outpulling the Ford, I am only wishing that there was some sort of published document that could back you up with numbers. With all the noise out there saying that the HSTs wont be equal. It is hard to know where the truth lies before taking the financial plunge.

 

[LD1]

It was an early 70's 3 cylinder model of Ford 2000, loaded 12.4x28 with occasional duals depending on what I was doing. With front weight it could hunker down and pull pretty good in the lower gears. I think it was a 158 ci engine. Weighed in around 5000# ballasted I would guess.

My current larger tractor has a 180 ci diesel engine, geared trans, loaded r1s, a cat2 three point. and a 2500 lb capacity loader. Weighs in about 7000#.

The new one would also have loaded rears (approximately 400# each), and a 110 ci engine. With the loader on front and the rear tires filled it will weigh about 5700#. As you pointed out, it will also have the advantage of 4 wheel drive over the 2000.

I do not doubt what you are saying about outpulling the Ford, I am only wishing that there was some sort of published document that could back you up with numbers. With all the noise out there saying that the HSTs wont be equal. It is hard to know where the truth lies before taking the financial plunge.

An HST will pull just as much as a gear tractor will. A HST in low range should have no problems spinning the tires, and you CANNOT get any more pulling force than that.

The "noise" that I believe you are refering to is pulling something ALL day long, at the same speed like a plow or disk. It is NOT that the HST cant do it, it just isn't what they were made for. They were made for more stop and go type stuff like FEL work, mowing, etc. If someone is looking to buy a tractor to plow fields with, the HST would probabally not last as long as a gear tractor would.

If you have any doubts at all, why dont you ask the dealer if he could bring a tractor out for you to test drive. Have something already loaded up and see if it will pull it. If not, a few hundred bucks to just rent that model (if they offer that), might just give you peice of mind before your purchase.