Snow Is adding max weight to a Grand L a good idea.

[Fallon]

I recently bought a used L5740. On the way to New York to pick it up, I also stopped along the way to grab a used set of wheel weights. When I got home I realized the rear tires were already filled (washer fluid). At that point I already had the weights so I went ahead and installed them anyway. With the wheels set the to the "medium" track width configuration, all 3 weights fit within the wheel and do not extend but maybe a 1/2" out from the face of the rim. I'm not worried about soil compaction in what i'm doing, so I didn't see any reason not to have max weight.

I had a big Cedar fall down across my driveway this weekend. Even with all the tire weight / ballast, the tractor still tried to pick up the rear tires. A 3pt hitch ballast box would certainly be more effective for dedicated heavy loader work. I still like having max ballast, on the tractor allowing me to keep my 3pt hitch available for other use.

View attachment 542692

If you don't have proper ballast on your 3 pt, you are overloading your front axle if you lift much. The complex, expensive, fradgile, small front axle is rated for a lot less load than the rear axle. If you lift your rear off the ground, 100% of the tractor & loader weight plus a large part of that load weight ends up on the front axle. Not to mention the fact the front axle is on a pivot & will xa use you to roll.

Ballast on the 3pt tries to make the machine pop a wheely to some degree, taking weight off the font axle & putting it onto the rear. Wheel weights or filled tires help a bit, but ultimately don't have the leverage & make things worse if the back gets light at all. Think of a tractor like teter totter with 2 pivot points. You want a fat kid on one side to make sure only 1 of those pivot points is taking most of the weight.

Any reasonably heavy impliment will work as well as a basllast box. A long heavy rotary cutter or backhoe works best, but sacrifices manuverability. The further back & heavier within reason the better. Generally you want 3/4-1.5 times the weight you are lifting on the loader on the back.

 

[David_Kb7uns]

Running my L3130 with Rimguard and the backhoe mounted allow me to lift maximum weight with the LA723 loader without tipping. So adding wheel weights helps.




David

 

[Luke'sScreenName]

I have fluid in my tires as well as wheel weights, dealer installed my weights free and no problems so far. I usually have 1100 pounds on my 3PH, but have used it without.

X2 (very similar tractor). Do yourself a favor and make a QH compatible ballast box. :thumbsup:

 

[mikester]

My biggest complaint about loading tires with calcium is rim/wheel corrosion and eventual leakage at the valves and valve stems. If I was going to load my tires again I’d spend money on inner tubes first or try beet juice or foam. If I need ballast now I keep the backhoe on or put something heavy on the 3PH.

EVERY machine I’ve owned with loaded tires has had this problem and they eventually started leaking...even with inner tubes.

 

[SDT]

I posted this on the Orange Tractor Talk forum wanted to get a little more insight.
I would like to know if anyone has had any bad experiences with filled tires and backhoe work on a grand L? I am having my L6060 built now with filled R1-14.9-26 tires, 600 lbs of wheel weight, Backhoe, and a 4n1 loader. All I have heard is how Kubota tractors are light and need more weight, but can the axles in the front and rear handle the added weight? I will continue to search the sites for answers.When I opened this thread I hoped to get some advice from those with real world experience. My concerns about weight began with operating the tractor on and around hills. The area will be very difficult to maneuver around and thought more weight would give me more stability. The next thing was using 5.5ft disc mower and baler (still unsure of baler size or type). I plan on building a 1/2 mile or so of gravel road across a steep incline. Then there is the fence installation with an auger and a 6" post driver. Any advice is greatly appreciated!

I cannot imagine why one would need so much weight on a BH tractor. The BH is heavy enough.

Additional rear weight is helpful for FEL work, though rarely needed with a BH attached. Additional rear weight is rarely needed for non FEL work aside from rarely used ground engaging implements. Baler could be a consideration if operated on steep ground.

Additional, unneeded weight robs HP, costs fuel, sometimes affects maneuverability, adds wear and tear, and costs money.

SDT

 

[BHD]

one would be much better to use the wheel weights than the three point ballast box, IMO,

the tractor is not carrying the weight of the wheels or the fluid, on its axles or bearings the tires are,

if you use a ballast box then the tractor components are carrying the weight, as well,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you don't have proper ballast on your 3 pt, you are overloading your front axle if you lift much. The complex, expensive, fragile, small front axle is rated for a lot less load than the rear axle. If you lift your rear off the ground, 100% of the tractor & loader weight plus a large part of that load weight ends up on the front axle. Not to mention the fact the front axle is on a pivot & will xa use you to roll.

I disagree with this, if you load the rear of the tractor down more it puts more stress on the front axle with loader work as the tractor now can put more weight in the bucket of the loader before you stop, loading the loader, the pivot point is still the front axle.

take a scale, and a board, put the scale in about the one third of the board, load the short end of the board, (loader, read the scale load until the board lifts, read the scale, now weight the long end of the board at the very end of the board, (three point ballast), now re read the scale and (as any good loader operator will do, is load more in the bucket as the tail end does not lift as soon, re read the scale, (just because the tail end of the tractor does not lift does not take weight off the front axles).

(this is why on a loader tractor 4 wheel drive is nice, as once the loader is loaded, the rear tire do ont many times have enough weight to get traction, with 4 wheel the front wheels will pull the tractor around or back it out, and then again if you try to dig one lifts the weight off the front wheels and then the rear wheels will do the pushing,

the first skid loaders were two wheel drive units (only three wheels with a caster in the rear), no dig power, as the weight would be lifted off the front drive wheels, and many old industrial loaders were not much more than a loader set on a tractor in reverse, but some problems, with the differential flipped over,

 

[Fallon]

one would be much better to use the wheel weights than the three point ballast box, IMO,

the tractor is not carrying the weight of the wheels or the fluid, on its axles or bearings the tires are,

if you use a ballast box then the tractor components are carrying the weight, as well,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



I disagree with this, if you load the rear of the tractor down more it puts more stress on the front axle with loader work as the tractor now can put more weight in the bucket of the loader before you stop, loading the loader, the pivot point is still the front axle.

take a scale, and a board, put the scale in about the one third of the board, load the short end of the board, (loader, read the scale load until the board lifts, read the scale, now weight the long end of the board at the very end of the board, (three point ballast), now re read the scale and (as any good loader operator will do, is load more in the bucket as the tail end does not lift as soon, re read the scale, (just because the tail end of the tractor does not lift does not take weight off the front axles).

(this is why on a loader tractor 4 wheel drive is nice, as once the loader is loaded, the rear tire do ont many times have enough weight to get traction, with 4 wheel the front wheels will pull the tractor around or back it out, and then again if you try to dig one lifts the weight off the front wheels and then the rear wheels will do the pushing,

the first skid loaders were two wheel drive units (only three wheels with a caster in the rear), no dig power, as the weight would be lifted off the front drive wheels, and many old industrial loaders were not much more than a loader set on a tractor in reverse, but some problems, with the differential flipped over,

There is at least 1 thread on here where somebody actually took a scale model & some scales to prove us 3pt ballast champions wrong about unloading the front axle with 3pt ballast. He's now a proud 3pt ballast champion. 3pt ballast will unload the front axle.

The Kubota manual for my L3200 for sure stated you needed 3pt ballast for loader work. Pretty sure my L4060 manual does as well.

 

[Oldoak]

..............................................The Kubota manual for my L3200 for sure stated you needed 3pt ballast for loader work. Pretty sure my L4060 manual does as well.

As does my L4200 manual.

As for me my Kubota manual takes precedence over 4 pages of comments. Although some of them are correct according to the Kubota manuals. :thumbsup:

 

[mike69440]

Look

I only broke the front axle of my L39 twice in 2,200 hours of operation.

Fist time I hit it with my PC75 UU2 excavator.

2n'd time I dropped a big rock into the bucket with my excavator, and I did not have the L39's bucket firmly on the ground.

So neither of that stuff counts.

L39 is nothing more than a grand L with an integral frame, a bigger loader, and stronger hoe. L39 has same 'fragile' font axle.

Considering how hard I use my tractor, you would have to rather abusive to hurt the front end of a grand L.

 

[HorsPower]

Look

I only broke the front axle of my L39 twice in 2,200 hours of operation.

Fist time I hit it with my PC75 UU2 excavator.

2n'd time I dropped a big rock into the bucket with my excavator, and I did not have the L39's bucket firmly on the ground.

So neither of that stuff counts.

L39 is nothing more than a grand L with an integral frame, a bigger loader, and stronger hoe. L39 has same 'fragile' font axle.

Considering how hard I use my tractor, you would have to rather abusive to hurt the front end of a grand L.

I agree... While not having adequate counterweight (ballast) far enough behind the rear tires to prevent "tetering" on the front axle might make the tractor unstable during loader work, I highly doubt its going to result in catastrophic failure of the front axle. I'm not going to lose any sleep over using my wheel weight / loaded tire combo instead of a ballast box that gets in the way and is an overall annoyance to mount and dismount each time I want to do heavy loader work. But to each their own