Is the Mahindra Max really a SCUT

[DavesTractor]

Let's keep debating this. It sells a lot of Mahindra tractors...SCUT, CUT, SCUT+, SCUT-MAX, MID-CUT, MAX-SCUT....whatever we here on TBN like to call them. Clearly it is a tractor worth looking at if you have a couple of acres and want a quality Japanese built tractor that might be just a tad heavier, or an inch or two longer, or have a tire that is an inch or two taller, and that maybe lifts a little more, and perhaps is built out of cast iron and not stamped steel....basically that pushes the envelope a little of how a SCUT has been unofficially defined here on TBN. :thumbsup:

Unless there is an official definition of SCUT, we will go round and round over this as we have before. I think Mahindra has a similar turning radius to the smallest SCUT, and is within a fraction of an inch in length to the JD SCUT, and without the wide tire option (that most folks love) is narrower than some SCUTs, etc. So if you want to toss the Max25 for topping the chart in a few areas, you have to be willing to toss others out for other things. Like lets find the one with the largest turning radius...well clearly that can't be a SCUT!

I think if we wanted to make a definition, it would need to first define certain attributes of what a tractor must be, then it would probably be based on a maximum weight. You might say anything under 2000 lbs is a SCUT, or whatever number we pick.

Now just to stir up LD1, 94BULLITT, XSKIER and others, check out the 5035HST Mahindra CUT that is 5389 lbs bare. How can that be a CUT? That is 11 lbs. lighter than the Kubota M8540 4x4 85 HP full size farm tractor. (Kubota specs taken off tractordata.com, feel free to correct). So once you guys solve the SCUT issue, you have a lot of work to do to take care of the CUT issue as well, and we appreciate the sales. :dance1:

One final point is that while I am teasing you guys a little and using Kubota as an example, I have the upmost respect for Kubota. Great tractors, great company, much to be admired. But there are other companies to be considered as well.

 

[LD1]

Mahindra has definataly blurred the lines across the board. Dont bother me though. It is what it is, and 40 years ago, there were no such classifications. You bought what you needed to get the job done. I dont care if they call it a CUT, SCUT, tank, or hotwheels jeep. Dont matter. Just so long as they "compare" it appropriately and fairly on their website under competitive comparisions and I am a happy camper.

Its funny you mention the tires too. Thats one of their selling points for the max22 and max25, stating that it has "Larger tires for better traction, stability and performance", yet the max28 has the smallest tires in the "class" that mahindra is comparing it in:laughing:

Its all good though. When anyone buys a tractor, they shouldnt look at what mahindra says about kubota, deere, et al. and vice versa. You should look at ALL the specs on each MFG's website for their OWN tractor. And then decide what the important specs are to them.

 

[Sysop]

I realize this doesn't contribute much to the debate, but without clear definitions of the various sizes of tractors all we have are opinions. As for mine, I've always based whether I'd call something lawn tractor, garden tractor, subcompact tractor, compact tractor, or a full blown utility tractor is by the weight of the machine. Horsepower and dimensions can be anything (I've got a lawn tractor with 22HP and a 42" cut, but it is still just a lawnmower and NO comparison to a MAX or any other sub-compact). I'd call the MAX series a subcompact even though they are the heaviest of what is generally considered by most to be sub-compact.

 

[Grandad4]

Dave, my real problem is with what is done with the specs. apparently for marketing purposes. I'm not mentioning names, but anyone who wishes to can review the manufacturer websites for this information. Nobody is against improved performance, but I have to wonder about offering a FEL advertised to lift almost 3/4 ton on a little tractor weighing only 1,800 lbs, yet that's what one of these models promotes. Some overconfident newbie is going to figure out how to actually load 1,400 lbs in the bucket, drive over a pothole with it raised, and his next of kin is going to hire an ambulance chaser to discuss what happened in court. I was a marketing guy for more years than I care to recall... to me this kind of performance overkill isn't an especially responsible marketing tactic. Just my opinion.

 

[jenkinsph]

Dave, my real problem is with what is done with the specs. apparently for marketing purposes. I'm not mentioning names, but anyone who wishes to can review the manufacturer websites for this information. Nobody is against improved performance, but I have to wonder about offering a FEL advertised to lift almost 3/4 ton on a little tractor weighing only 1,800 lbs, yet that's what one of these models promotes. Some overconfident newbie is going to figure out how to actually load 1,400 lbs in the bucket, drive over a pothole with it raised, and his next of kin is going to hire an ambulance chaser to discuss what happened in court. I was a marketing guy for more years than I care to recall... to me this kind of performance overkill isn't an especially responsible marketing tactic. Just my opinion.

Hmmm Sounds very similar to what I said a couple of weeks ago and was chastized for. But I stand by it and agree with you. This is similar to buying a higher hp medium duty truck, the engine upgrade is fairly cheap but the rest of the running gear upgrade might cost an extra %10k or better. Long and short of it, it is easy and cheap to add more lifting force on a fel or 3ph to make the specs seem better but that doesn't mean the tractor can deal with it well.

 

[DavesTractor]

Dave, my real problem is with what is done with the specs. apparently for marketing purposes. I'm not mentioning names, but anyone who wishes to can review the manufacturer websites for this information. Nobody is against improved performance, but I have to wonder about offering a FEL advertised to lift almost 3/4 ton on a little tractor weighing only 1,800 lbs, yet that's what one of these models promotes. Some overconfident newbie is going to figure out how to actually load 1,400 lbs in the bucket, drive over a pothole with it raised, and his next of kin is going to hire an ambulance chaser to discuss what happened in court. I was a marketing guy for more years than I care to recall... to me this kind of performance overkill isn't an especially responsible marketing tactic. Just my opinion.

I appreciate the comments and your opinion on this. Years ago there was a Korean built brand (which will remain un-named....no brand wars to start here) that cranked up the loader lift capacity on a tractor, presumably to gain market share, and had a rash of front axle and steering failures. Obviously you can turn up hydraulics easily enough, but it can also be irresponsible for longevity and/or safety reasons. I am an agreement with you that such a tactic is wrong on a couple of levels.

On the Mitsu built Max28, keep in mind that it is not marketed as a SCUT and weighs 2490 lbs. as a tractor/loader. Ballast is recommended in the manual and warnings are in the manual and on decals on the tractor to carry a load low, plus warnings for rocks, holes, loose ground, etc. I think this is pretty much industry standard. A typical Max28HST with a loader and 320 lbs. of liquid rear tire ballast and a box scraper or something on the back is going to be around 3200 lbs. It handles 1400 lbs. safely, we have tested it. Just like any tractor, if you put a substantial load in the bucket and raise it high and go down a hill and make a sharp turn....you will be glad for the ROPS and seatbelt because you are going over. This is the case with a full size tractor as well. If you dumb down a loaders performance to the point that it is of no concern, then it will also be useless. The Max28 is designed to handle this load, although certainly a duty cycle factor was part of the engineering.

I'm going to mix categories here as we do not call the Max28 a SCUT, but if you take most SCUTs (un-ballasted) and raise the bucket 6" off the ground and shut the tractor off, then get a 200 lb. guy and jump up and down in the bucket at one corner, the opposing rear wheel will come right up off the ground. Not so with a Mahindra, even a Max22/25. So if we are speaking of safety and if just a couple hundred lbs. can tip most lightweight SCUTs, I'll argue that the Max28 is safer than those machines. Yes it lifts a bunch more, but is also heavier and longer and designed for that capacity. Frankly, some of these little SCUTs can be a bit scary, even at their "less than Mahindra" lift specs. I think they often push the envelope compared to what they weigh and the wheelbase, track width, etc.

You do bring up a valid point also in that unless you are carrying lead or gold you really can't get nearly 1400 lbs in the bucket, so the typical bucket of gravel/manure/dirt will use about half capacity. So is the 1400 lbs. lift wasted? Not really, it is used in breaking out a bucket of dirt from a pile, and can be used with forks to lift the occasional heavy pallet of stuff. If a customer approaches me and feels he will be lifting 1400 lbs on a regular basis, I'd move him up to a much larger tractor. Maximum is just that, and to run a SCUT or CUT at max all day long is not the duty cycle for which they were designed.

Just my thoughts and I appreciate yours.

 

[LD1]

A typical Max28HST with a loader and 320 lbs. of liquid rear tire ballast and a box scraper or something on the back is going to be around 3200 lbs. It handles 1400 lbs. safely, we have tested it.

A typical BB sized for that tractor is in the ~500# range. I find it hard to believe it can "handle" 1400# safely.

My L3400, with loader and loaded AG's and my 700# rear blade weigh in around 4900#. And rest assured, 1400# I wouldnt call safe. You have to know what you are doing.

 

[DavesTractor]

LD1, are you saying your 4900 lb. Kubota does not feel safe with 1400 lb., or am I misunderstanding you? And if so, that may be just because you are a very careful operator, and that is good. I will agree that any load in the bucket requires some competence on the part of an operator. Keep in mind that this 1400 lb. capacity (limited by hydraulic pressure relief) is measured at the pins. As soon as you put on some pallet forks, especially clamp on types and move the load out a couple of feet, you will lift much less than rated capacity. I recommend to folks to cut it by a third or so. A tractor that pressure relieves itself at the pins at 3000 lbs. with skc forks (bucket removed) will probably just have enough strength for an evenly loaded 42" square pallet of perhaps 2000 lbs. Clamp on forks make it even less as the load gets way out there.

On a Max, we typically see people using clamp on forks for hauling fence posts, pipe, a couple small bales of hay, etc. Generally not real heavy stuff, but items that will not fit in the bucket. Well within the safe zone with a little caution. I think with the smallish bucket (to keep the tractor narrow) the max lift capacity seldom gets touched, except in breaking a load out of a pile. In that respect, probably a 1000 lb. max would be satisfactory in most all uses. But we never have folks asking us to turn down their loader lift capacity....and we do have them asking for more and buying a larger tractor and trading in a smaller one.

If this thread does no more than to help remind folks to be very cautious when using a loader, especially at max capacity with any brand, then it is a worthwhile thread.

 

[LD1]

LD1, are you saying your 4900 lb. Kubota does not feel safe with 1400 lb., or am I misunderstanding you?

That is exactally what I am saying.

You mentioned that you took a Max28, weighing in at ~3200# (which I think is a tad low of a guess), and tested it with a 1400# load and if was safe. I guess I would want to see more details of the test. Did you just sit in 1 spot, and raise 1400 pounds without tipping, or did you actually simulate real world IE: drive with the load, stop with the load, raise to full height and dump the load??

Allthough my tractor is only "rated" for 1100 @ the pins, 1000 @ bucket center, and ~850 at bucket edge, I can tell you first hand that it is grossly underrated. I have no issues pulling into a pile and lifting darn near 1/2 yard of wet dirt and driving around with it. Which is ~1400-1500lbs. BUT, like I said, I wouldnt call it "safe". Just depends on whos operating. A hard stop, or un-even terrain and I can feel the rear "floating" a bit. Keeping the load low is a must. And I wouldnt feel safe with this kind of a load lifting to max height and loading a truck. That is why I questioned you on the max 28 being "safe" with the same kind of load but lighter weight and smaller ballast. The only way I feel safe with anything over 1000lbs to max height is with my 1100lb bushhog. And it hangs WAY back there.

No if you are saying 1400lbs at the pins, which loosely translates to 900lbs in the bucket, then that isnt is bad as the way I was first reading it. But I still dont think I would even want to try that, loading a truck at max height, with only a 400-500# BB for ballast.

And as far as that "extra" lift force being able to help break out of a pile....with your current description of weights and ballasts, are you saying you are taking full advantage of that "max power"??? Cause I would be willing to bet that you arent, and with only a BB on the back, the rears are lifting. Cause my heavier tractor, with more ballast, and lesser rated loader can still lift the tires. So give me a loader rated at 5000lbs lift and it wont do me any good at all.

 

[DavesTractor]

LD1,

I think 1400 at the pins is quite a bit more than 900 at bucket center, but it doesn't matter much with this size of a bucket unless you have some sort of special material. You just can't get that much in that 54" bucket. I am comfortable with a full bucket of sand or dirt or gravel raising it to full height to dump. But no matter what I am operating, even my personal track loader that lifts a bunch and weighs 8000 lbs., I proceed with utmost caution with a full bucket that is raised. I never carry a bucket higher than the hood unless I must, and then it is only raised high on flat ground and in low range, etc. A heavy load way up high is always asking for trouble. I am not saying you ought to load this thing up to max and drive it around the farm with the bucket all the way up. That would be foolish, and I do not think that is your thought either.

I suspect your loader is under-rated. It better be. A 5000 lb. (ballasted) tractor that could truly only lift 1000 lbs. would be quite a disappointment.

A properly ballasted Max28 will lift 1400 lbs. without lifting the rear. Keep in mind that the buckets are real close to the front of the tractor, they do not stick way out like some. Also, the front axles are forward. So it is not all apples to apples. Push the fulcrum point (front axle) forward, pull the loader arms back a little, and you have a very strong loader capable of fantastic breakout force. What is given up is some lift height by bringing the arms in close, but these aren't designed to load 10-wheelers anyway.