Tractor Sizing GUIDE: Shopping/Sizing A Tractor (Version 1.0)

[GirlWhoWantsTractor]

So having bought *my* first tractor within the last year-ish (worked around/with a few different ones tractors belonging to family members growing up), and working as engineer/acquisition professional I'd full agree with:

"The optimal way to shop for tractors is to list your tasks first." - as it's always good to know what the requirements are before making a purchase.

Welcome to TBN!

Nice analysis.

Every time someone comes here asking for recommendations I think "Here comes 10 people saying 'buy bigger' and 10 people saying 'small is actually ok'."

 

[airbiscuit]

So having bought *my* first tractor within the last year-ish (worked around/with a few different ones tractors belonging to family members growing up), and working as engineer/acquisition professional I'd full agree with:

"The optimal way to shop for tractors is to list your tasks first." - as it's always good to know what the requirements are before making a purchase.

After that I think it's worth further identifying and defining any constraints (e.g. maximum footprint, minimum absolute lifting capacity, spending limits), and any trade-offs that would be acceptable (for example: time to complete a task safely vs. money spent on larger equipment).

Until a person has an relatively good idea of what they are willing to accept it doesn't seem to make much sense to be deciding on what to buy (unless there's no/little issue with trading a new purchase in order to adjust either up or down in size). Note: that doesn't say anything about "window shopping" to see what is currently available in different size/price ranges.

For example some requirements/constraints I had on my own purchase:

- effectively use non-powered tillage equipment (moldboard plows, disc harrows, etc) -- which favors heavier (for size/HP) tractors
- a FEL capable of lifting a minimum of 500lb load (roughly what a 55 gallon drum full of water weighs) to full lift height --- (preference for lifting 2+ drums)
- size had to be as small as possible (and still meet other requirements) given it would be used as a primary mower for just under 3 acres of lawn & pasture
- PTO usage would be primarily for finish mowing -- based on tearing up and bogging down multiple riding/zero turn mowers, the general rule I've developed for mowing (at least in this part of the country) is no more than 2" of mowing width per gross HP when mowing at 3-5mph
- had to be able to handle mowers capable of covering tractor width at a minimum
- speed/direction control had to be quick and simple as mowing involves maneuvering around multiple trees, as well as fence lines, with added potential for quick stops due to dogs & vehicular traffic
- open platform was preferable due to potential for contact with low/over hanging tree limbs
- dealer/repair/part support had to be readily available for the expected life of the tractor (no matter how well something is made, things eventually break and need to be repaired or replaced)
- a 3rd function valve would be required to support grapples and other hydraulic loader attachments used for assisting with tree care & storm cleanup
- rear remotes were desirable for top & tilt cylinders, while being able to simultaneously supporting a third hydraulic function
- telescoping lower links became a must (having grown up around tractors that had them it seemed natural thing to have, and after seeing videos of hooking up implements without telescopic lower links it became a mandatory requirement based on expected implement changes)
-preference was to buy new so as not to spend time dealing with potentially inherited problems

It wasn't until I had most of that list compiled that I even started looking at tractors which could potentially meet my needs (even then there was some refining going on regarding some specifics: like the number of rear remotes, and telescoping lower links).

Ultimately this all resulted in the purchasing of a L3560 HST as the tractor met my requirements and constraints -- and just as importantly the dealership was on my daily commute (it is also staffed by people who are helpful and friendly). In fact working with them was the only time I've ever had a sales person try to talk me into buying something cheaper/smaller than I came in intending to buy.

However, if even some of my requirements had been a bit different (for example if I was planning to use a tiller instead of a plow/disc combination) I may very well have gone with a lighter higher horsepower tractor. Where if my FEL minimums weren't what they are a Kubota B or BX size tractor would likely have sufficed. That's not exactly idle speculation either as I looked at going down both routes while I was developing my list of requirements for purchasing a tractor.

As it is with ~110 hours during my first year of use I currently can't see selling my L3560, even though I can see uses for adding both larger and smaller tractors (along with a lot more property) to my collection.

Anyway, just figured I'd share few thoughts on the topic given I've spent the last few years casually going through the process of researching, refining and eventually purchasing a first tractor (and it was definitely a difference to be buying one instead of just working with what was available).

Yep, you had the good sense to consider and evaluate all the relevant factors before you chose. A lot of newbys don't have a clue about such things. They get a brochure and see a John Deere:

1025R SCUT
2025R Small Frame CUT
3025E Medium Frame CUT

And say Heyyyy, they all have about the same power so I can get the cheapest one and save thousands. So they buy the SCUT. That might serve their needs well. On the other hand it is lighter weight than a CUT and has the same size tires as a lawn and garden tractor. They may well end up spinning their wheels.

That's why I am a proponent of identifying your implements, tasks and work to be done first, choosing appropriate frame size second, and horsepower third. I've talked with tractor sales people who say often enough customers buy a SCUT, and come back later to trade it in for a CUT for the added traction (for their tasks). YMMMV

 

[jeff9366]

JJP8182

An excellent *FIRST* post. Clear information, clear history and clear presentation.

I hope you contribute regularly.

I wish you fortitude.

 

[kenmac]

They should be and are, on flat level ground. Likely the lift specs are with the tractor sitting on a concrete floor. Carrying that same load *safely* up or down a hill or on rough ground may require ballast. Hilly/steep property is different. Why is this so hard to understand?

Nope ! Not the case with my MX. Sitting on flat ground, The rear will come off the ground with a bucket full of material.
Why is this so hard to understand ?

 

[GirlWhoWantsTractor]

Presumably there is *some* condition under which a stock tractor can lift its spec weight, or else those numbers are lies.

 

[majorwager]

A neighbor had driven 1/2 " grounding rods around the perimeter of his above ground pool to attach the winter cover. The pool is now removed so so wanted the rods gone as well.

I volunteered assistance using my MX. There is a small compression clamp attached to each rod to which I wrapped a small chain underneath.
When attempting to pull the rods w/ the forks at the most rearward position close to the QA, the rear end of the tractor came right off the ground.

I believe the kubota loader might lift the rated capacity w/ a huge counter-balance hung upon the rear linkage. Absent that scenario, I believe the loader lifting 900 lbs would be at max to keep the rear wheels planted, this presumes level ground. I have no desire to test this theory.

My 550 lb snow pusher can bounce the rear wheels.

 

[majorwager]

As Girl W/ Tractor states, there are situations where BOTH larger and smaller tractors suffice. Certain members are ecstatic when a smaller model is disparaged in favor of the heavy CUT.

The point remains that many tasks may be equally accomplished W/ a smaller tractor albeit more input time may be required. The author of post #23 is often quoted by the OP. And yet this professional participant disagrees, and actually opposes the position that excessive weight accomplishes most tasks. Read # 23.

The new poster above stipulate that a smaller model would also satisfy most of his needs

The cost factor should not be ignored. It is senseless to spend additional resources unless there is a need.
However, if the tasks do not warrant such, but it is what you desire, then by all means, go for it.

Somewhere, I suppose there is a forty foot cruiser on a mile square lake.

BUY as MUCH TRACTOR as YOU WANT, but if COST is a FACTOR, BUY as MUCH TRACTOR as YOU NEED.

 

[ThirdMan]

Presumably there is *some* condition under which a stock tractor can lift its spec weight, or else those numbers are lies.

Why would it be the case that the stock tractor with no counter weight should be able to lift the amount stated? My manual has a section on maximum possible mass, towing load, axle load, and tire loads. It states as part of this, "When working with front loader or rear heavy loaded attachments installed to the 3-point linkage, install ballast weights on the counter-part axle to maintain the front and rear weight balance of the tractor. If not, front or rear axle can be strained by the overloaded weight."

 

[majorwager]

ThirdMan,

Now you have actually gone ahead and ruined everything by reading the owner's manual. :shocked:


EDIT:

Believe any load lift rating incorporates the mobility of that load, and not simply at a static position.

Some ratings quantify the height position of the load but still included a mobility aspect for same.

EDIT:

DieselBound,


To qualify your position, weight and ballast is very much dependent upon intended use of the tractor, TASKS, In MY case, weight is a determent.

 

[DieselBound]

BUT, that could be for safety more so than outright capability. If one just dead-lifts then perhaps not an issue (for many). But go to move about it then becomes problematic. To use the case of trucks and towing, the manufacturers account for the more extreme conditions that one might encounter, such as steep hills and such (safe/effective braking is also a big part); on flat ground (optimal conditions) the truck can tow a LOT more.

I've got ballasted rears on both my tractors. Preference is to also use additional ballast, 3pt attachment, when I can, but sometimes it's not possible. I did a LOT of materials hauling with my NX5510 and a dump trailer. I was hefting some pretty intense amount of weight w/o any additional ballast; but, I wasn't moving very far with a loader full of material either (nor would I have wanted to). I'll never know whether I could have lifted that amount of weight/material w/o ballasted rears as I got the tractor with them ballasted. My B7800, on the other hand, ran for a couple years before I managed to get its rears ballasted: had I truly known what a difference it makes I'd have done it from the start (which is why I didn't hesitate to have it done on the NX5510 at time of purchase).

In general it's just a wiser move to have ballast.

 

[jjp8182]

I think this thread is doing a great job to illustrate that tractors (like just about every other tool) vary widely in their usage, and intent of design (even when the tractors might be very similar in power, weight or size) --- and what may work for one person may not work for another even when it comes to doing the exact same task.

Sort of like hammers really -- just about any type of hammer can be used for giving something a good whack, but sometimes there's just no substitute for having the right type of hammer (using a non-sparking hammer in a flammable environment comes to mind as great example, as does trying to build furniture with a sledgehammer - or drive fence posts with a tack hammer). So while it can be nice (really nice actually) to have exactly what's needed to do a task the way you want to do it; sometimes just having what will do the job in an acceptable manner is good enough. Of course the real trick is identifying when acceptable is good enough, and when there really is no substitute for the *right* tool for the job.

I think being able to identify the difference between the two comes from gaining an understanding the fundamentals of how tractors work (to potentially include some of the the basic physics of traction, hydraulics, and so many other tractor related topics), the tasks that will be performed (which will vary from person to person), and what is "acceptable" to the purchaser. All of which come into play when selecting a tractor to buy. Of course even then there's going to be some learning going on since even if/when the "perfect" or "best" tractor was purchased, any given operator will need to learn the limits of the tractor they are operating.

..... which is to say that even having done a lot of learning I've already crossed a point where I'm not sure I can recall all the times I've had the rear wheels start coming off the ground when doing loader work -- and that's despite working on flat ground, with a full set of wheel weights, a 660lb box blade on the back ...and being rather far removed from being light myself.

Being able to successfully get through that learning period (thus far since I doubt the learning ever stops) really (again) goes back to understanding the fundamentals, and taking the time to learn how to safely operate a tractor (especially when doing something that even starts to get close to published limits) - or as I like to say: If you're going to do something stupid, at least try to be smart in how you go about doing it.

Personally I figure if a person can do all of that, then which tractor to buy become far less significant as - from what I've seen throughout life; with enough skill many tools (to include tractors) can be used to successfully complete tasks that few think are even possible with that tool.

Which of course is where things like TBN can be of great assistance, in helping teach the basics of how tractors can do what they do, and how they can be operated in a safe manner, as well as illustrate the differing opinions, capabilities, and widely varying uses of tractors -- and even some of the constraints that arise from where a person is located (especially if at a high elevation).

Forgot to mention earlier, but I've been reading things here long before I ever created an account, or even bought a tractor -- so thanks to all who contribute here regularly.

 

[DieselBound]

^^^ Awesome post!:thumbsup:

 

[GirlWhoWantsTractor]

.....which tractor to buy become far less significant as - from what I've seen throughout life; with enough skill many tools (to include tractors) can be used to successfully complete tasks that few think are even possible with that tool.

To paraphrase a well-known saying, "I've done so much with so little for so long, that now I can do anything with nothing."

Having a nice 26 HP tractor is a huge luxury for me. I appreciate that for some folks, being able to do a job in one day instead of two is critical, but that's not my world. I'm never in that much of a hurry. Different perspectives; both are okay.

EDIT: Agree, awesome post!

 

[jeff9366]

During 1998 nonroad engine regulations reducing emissions were structured as a 3-tiered progression. Nonroad regulations use metric units, with regulatory limits expressed in grams of pollutant per kWh. Examples of regulated applications include farm tractors, excavators, bulldozers, wheel loaders, backhoe loaders, road graders, diesel lawn tractors, logging equipment, portable generators, skid steer loaders and forklifts.

Each tier involved a phase-in (by engine power) over several years. Tier 1 standards phased-in from 1996 to 2000. Tier 2 standards phased-in from 2001 to 2006. Tier 3 standards phased-in from 2006 to 2008 (Tier 3 standards applied only for engines from 37-560 kW).

Very stringent Tier 4 emission standards, phased-in from 2008 through 2015, require substantial reductions of Particulate Matter above 19 kW power output.

Every tractor brand includes a model in the 2,600 pound to 2,900 pound (bare tractor) range with 100 cubic inch/24 horsepower engine. Tractors under 19 kW ( 19 KW = 25.4794-horsepower) are presently exempt from stringent Tier IV emission controls which rapidly increase a tractor's cost above the 19 kW power demarcation.



ARTICLE ON NON-ROAD DIESEL ENGINE EMISSION CONTROLS PROVIDED BY OOSIK.
Thank you, OOSIK.
Emission Standards: USA: Nonroad Diesel Engines

 

[majorwager]

Jeffy
Parroting an article w/o performing your own research or extracting data on the internet by implying said information is accurate can easily misinform fellow members. Oversimplification of the facts may also be misleading.

There was much consternation as engine manufacturers evolved through the tier llla, to lllb, interim tier 4 and tier4 final. There was the complexity of extensive testing and achieving certification in the US and the EU, since the same engine was marketed in both jurisdictions simultaneously. The significant expense associated w/ complience played a role in the achievable emissions goals.

Your rendition, posted under your heading, paints a simple picture of connecting the dots. The actual circumstances were far removed.

 

[shooterdon]

To paraphrase a well-known saying, "I've done so much with so little for so long, that now I can do anything with nothing."

Having a nice 26 HP tractor is a huge luxury for me. I appreciate that for some folks, being able to do a job in one day instead of two is critical, but that's not my world. I'm never in that much of a hurry. Different perspectives; both are okay.

EDIT: Agree, awesome post!

I am in the same boat....currently. Being retired, I have more time than money. I am starting my tractor ownership and learning on a JD 855. Down the road I may upgrade but time will tell. So far, it sure beats not having anything and my investment has been modest. Many here would consider my Deere just a little fawn. And alas it will never grow to be any faster or stronger. Yet already my neighbor sees where it will come in handy working in some of the tighter places on his property where his much bigger Kubota is a tad awkward.

I like the hammer analogy. If you are driving tacks, the 24 oz framing hammer is a poor choice.

 

[majorwager]

There is another consideration that the fastidious OP has neglected. Bare weight vs Operating Weight.
A tractor designer balances the build weight based upon the tractor's ability to perform a myriad of tasks across the platform.

The manufacturer can NOT know how each tractor will be utilized, so they incorporate "ALLOWANCES" for attachments and implements capacity.

Bare weight delivers a specific tractive and stability chacacteristic. In discussion w/ a member, it was suggested that operating weight always enhances the former.

I contend this to be untrue. The FEL actually upsets the stability factor, yet adds to task ability. MY MX was operated w/ no FEL until 2017. This tractor is NOW less stable W/ the FEL, raising the COG. Requires operation in lowest position on slopes.

The FEL and or monster grapples, do not "uniformly" add weight. Alas the presumption that operating weight automatically supplements bare weight is a fallacy.

We add weight to the front, we attempt offset weight to the rear, but there is no scientific application to either. It is either a situation of available options, such as wheel weights or loaded tires or different FEL attachments. BUT when changing FEL attachments, the added rear weight remains constant. Loaded tires remain loaded.

Again it is just a guess by the operator as to optimal balance. The presumption that operating weight is an automatic enhancement of the proportions established by bare weight are simply false.

I add a FEL to my tractor. I Add a 550 lb snow pusher to the FEL. According to the OP my operating wt increased 1200 ls for loader and 550 for pusher. I place the Loader in float position, to capture the driveway contours.

Have I increased operating weight? Yes. But in float, I completely defeat the front wheel assist factor of the tractor. As the pusher encounters snow, the resistance actually lifts the front wheels. Now the tractive ability is reduced by the front wheel contribution. The operating weight defeats its' own purpose. This is just one example of how operating weight can be contrary to the design balance of bare weight.

When you see an avatar that toutes operating weight, the member misunderstands how the physics is applied. And when the bucket is working, as noted, it is part of the resistance, Can't be considered operating weight, and load simultaneously.

Operating weight is a value .most useful when calculating the load capability of your trailer or septic tank cover.

 

[majorwager]

_QUOTE_ Forgot to mention earlier, but I've been reading things here long before I ever created an account, or even bought a tractor -- so thanks to all who contribute here regularly.[/QUOTE]

Believe this ABOVE QUOTED PASSAGE is among the most applicable points offered by JJP8182.


In post ten, it was noted that these folks seeking advice are much more aware and savvy than they are afforded credit.


I contend that JJP is more typical than unique. Many new posters seeking advice may portray a degree of unfamiliarity, BUT in actuality have been non-members since they acquired a desire to own a tractor. Many have a list of tasks identified, and the tractor terminology very accurate.

Again, my belief is that forum following and monitoring had been underway before that first post. Perhaps way before first post. Suspect a few trips to a dealer or dealers as well but not necessarily publicly disclosed. Better to portray the novice than actually be the novice. Not alleging deception here, but rather the caution associated w/ a low profile as the experts fall all over themselves to save the poor new buyer from horrendous purchasing error.

The degree of research applied to this tractor purchase may very well be much more comprehensive than realized.

I harmlessly use Girl with Tractor as an example. She STUDIED these forums and other published data including manufacturers specifications. Prior to her actual purchase, I contend she knew MUCH more about tractors and their operation than many longstanding members and tractor owners. The adjustment to practical experience was a seamless transition do to the eye for detail.

How many tractors are sold to first time buyers across the US, a staggering # ? How many visit TBN in the process as new members. A handful? Believe those that do have the confidence and research to answer the questions they will field from the resident experts. Rest my case!!

 

[jeff9366]

During 1998 nonroad engine regulations reducing emissions were structured as a 3-tiered progression. Nonroad regulations use metric units, with regulatory limits expressed in grams of pollutant per kW. Examples of regulated applications include farm tractors, excavators, bulldozers, wheel loaders, backhoe loaders, road graders, diesel lawn tractors, logging equipment, portable generators, skid steer loaders and forklifts.

Each tier involved a phase-in (by engine power) over several years. Tier 1 standards phased-in from 1996 to 2000. Tier 2 standards phased-in from 2001 to 2006. Tier 3 standards phased-in from 2006 to 2008 (Tier 3 standards applied only for engines from 37-560 kW).

Very stringent Tier 4 emission standards, phased-in from 2008 through 2015, require substantial reductions of Particulate Matter above 19 kW power output.

1) A few light tractors slightly exceeding 19 kW power output, with (small) engine displacements from 68 - 77 cubic inches, meet Tier IV emission standards without costly Diesel Particulate filters.

2) Some tractors with engine displacement around 100 cubic inches are governed by the manufacturers to limit power output to less than the 19 kW demarcation. Tractors under 19 kW ( 19 kW = 25.4794-horsepower) are presently exempt from stringent Tier IV emission controls. Sub-19 kW powered tractors are required to meet only Tier II emission standards.

Since full adoption in 2011, very low sulphur diesel fuel has contributed to decreased diesel emissions.

 

[majorwager]

What jeff fails to note is that low sulfur content deprives all diesel engines, w/o regard for tier rating, the Lubricity necessary to reduce unnecessary engine friction.

As engines mature beyond 2011, increased cylinder sleeve wear is recognized directly attributable to the sulfur reduction, Lubricity additives to fuel can effectively reduce this wear.

As for the cheater comment, it is highly inappropriate. If a manufacturer has been accused or indicted by the EPA to be in violation of Federal Emissions laws, then the conditions change.

Untill that scenario occurs, it is disingenuous to make disparaging remarks w/o substantial proof that any illegality or cheating is ongoing or has taken place. If Jeffy has legal proof, he should produce it or remain mute.