Tractor Sizing Four (4) Considerations in Tractor Selection

[jeff9366]

MossRoad - June 2021:

There's a balance between bare weight, additional weight, weight distribution, traction, flotation, soil conditions, etc.

Too much emphasis on bare weight, in my opinion.

OK:

When considering a tractor purchase bare tractor weight first, tractor horsepower second, rear axle width third, rear wheel/tire ballast fourth.

 

[MechanicalGuy]

Brand name went heavily into my criteria due to the fact that I wanted a solid product with a solid reputation.

 

[IndyJay]

I created a spread sheet with the most critical specs and prices. I started out with more manufacturers and models but removed some as I whittled them down. Had pretty much settled on Massey until a neighbor suggested that I look at Kioti. After researching, much of it on this forum, I decided on the DK4510. Not shown are the John Deere offerings as well as other Kubotas and NH as they were eliminated.

 

[sea2summit]

When considering a tractor purchase bare tractor weight first, tractor horsepower second, rear axle width third, rear wheel/tire ballast fourth.

Depends on the use. For example PTO power is often under rated as a screening criteria, even by folks who think a primary use for the machine will be brush hogging. The spreadsheet above gives a great example with the heaviest tractor giving (potentially) the lowest PTO output compared even to smaller engine HP units. I wish people thought more about that when considering HST/gear options but it's rarely used as a consideration.

I think FEL capacity is also over and under rated as a screening criteria. Also a good example above with on tractor advertising a FEL with a capacity that is more than 3/4 of the bare tractor weight, hardly a good idea. On the other hand the 1,000# FEL capacity is kind of a threshold a lot of folks view as what you need to handle round bales, sure it might lift a 7-800# bale but do you really want to be carrying around 80% of your capacity for the majority of the time you use it? Probably not, I like to keep the loads below 50% if I can just to be easy on all the pins.

I like to think about ballast as a stability bonus not necessarily as a tractor weight bonus (as it applies to lifting things, for ground engaging use it's absolutely a great way to get more capabilities but so few folks seem to do real ground engaging work with the smaller tractors).

 

[jeff9366]

I created a spread sheet with the most critical specs and prices. I started out with more manufacturers and models but removed some as I whittled them down.

A clear exposition. Others would less often trade in 100 engine hour tractors for replacement tractors more in line with their needs if they went to the trouble of spreadsheeting.

"GOOD POST" accolade from moi.

 

[LouNY]

Everyone is going to have different specs which to them are "most" important.
Some of that will depend on their location and intended usage.
When I'm browsing around tractors I'm looking at several items,
one of my primary concerns is does it have room for tire chains,
also the tires sizes the taller the better as far as I'm concerned.
Then there is the quality of the 3 point arms and how study they and the attaching points seem to be.
Then it's how much room in the operators station and how easy to access it.

Heck I haven't even considered HP or weight, then hydraulic capacity comes in early also

 

[RickB]

Everyone is going to have different specs which to them are "most" important.
Some of that will depend on their location and intended usage.
When I'm browsing around tractors I'm looking at several items,
one of my primary concerns is does it have room for tire chains,
also the tires sizes the taller the better as far as I'm concerned.
Then there is the quality of the 3 point arms and how study they and the attaching points seem to be.
Then it's how much room in the operators station and how easy to access it.

Heck I haven't even considered HP or weight, then hydraulic capacity comes in early also

Absolutely. The OP has beaten this topic to a pulp in another thread that everyone has tired of and here we go again.
He is entitled to his opinions but expecting them to be universally adopted and followed is a ridiculous presumption.

 

[jeff9366]

The OP has beaten this topic to a pulp in another thread that everyone has tired of and here we go again.

Yes. The Buying/Pricing/Comparisons forum with 14,300 threads is only of interest to a few.

 

[the old grind]

Yes. The Buying/Pricing/Comparisons forum is only of interest to a few.

Not for everyone, but available to all and optional to anyone. But don't we post our opinions as food for thought at best?

 

[workinonit]

Wanna talk about over thinking something, well here it is. Just my opinion. I had a 55 HP JD tractor and wanted a bigger tractor with a cab so I bought a 100 HP JD tractor with a cab.

 

[IndyJay]

A clear exposition. Others would less often trade in 100 engine hour tractors for replacement tractors more in line with their needs if they went to the trouble of spreadsheeting.

"GOOD POST" accolade from moi.

Thanks, Jeff. Not mentioned in original post, cost was also a factor. I really wanted to keep total cost ~$32K including add-ons. I was amazed at what I was able to get for my money once I selected the Kioti. I was able to add third function, a grapple, dual rear remotes and many other upgrades like floor mat, arm rests, telescoping links, and still pay for a Land Pride RCD1884 dual spindle cutter for less that the "tractor only" prices of my original top 2 choices. The goal of the spread sheet was to weigh "must haves" with "nice to haves" and I was actually able to get both. This forum was an excellent resource to help form these decisions, thanks to all that contribute.

 

[IndyJay]

Wanna talk about over thinking something, well here it is. Just my opinion. I had a 55 HP JD tractor and wanted a bigger tractor with a cab so I bought a 100 HP JD tractor with a cab.

That's one way of doing it. I had a 34 HP MF tractor that I had for 27 years and wanted a newer one. In the 27 years of operating that smaller tractor it became obvious that I should have bought a bigger tractor. While deciding what to get, I was bouncing back and forth between brochures and web pages comparing. The spread sheet was to make it easier to compare side by side. I don't know about you, but $32K is a lot of money and this is probably my last tractor purchase. I wanted to put a little thought into it. Over thinking? Maybe, but this forum provided many things to "overthink" about before committing to a large purchase. I am grateful to those that contribute valuable knowledge.

 

[Rdrcr]

Cost is definitely a factor. In addition, height of the tractor.

Heck, I’d have either a L3560 or MX5400 if I didn’t mind spending another $10K and if the ROP height would allow the tractor to fit in my garage.

Mike

 

[rScotty]

I think they all cost too much, but when buying a tool I've found over my life that for tools the initial cost is less important than how it works. And when that cost is spread over the 20 years I expect to keep the tractor they all seem to cost about the same anyway. So cost is interesting to compare, but ultimately didn't drive my tractor buying decisions very much.

The biggest difference I found in tractors was in how they worked and felt when driving them around the lot, moving some dirt, and seeing how I liked the way the engine and transmission worked, did I like how the gear ratios were spaced? Then how the controls were laid out, how stable it felt, how easy to get on and off, how the seating and 3pt controls worked together when looking over my shoulder back at the implement (blade).

I'm real particular about how the machine works as a unit. Some seem to be well balanced designs and others are just a collection of parts.

So for me it all comes down to how the machine feels. Spreadsheets seem far less important.
rScotty

 

[workinonit]

+1 on this Scotty.

 

[jjp8182]

Everyone is going to have different specs which to them are "most" important.
Some of that will depend on their location and intended usage.
When I'm browsing around tractors I'm looking at several items,
one of my primary concerns is does it have room for tire chains,
also the tires sizes the taller the better as far as I'm concerned.
Then there is the quality of the 3 point arms and how study they and the attaching points seem to be.
Then it's how much room in the operators station and how easy to access it.

Heck I haven't even considered HP or weight, then hydraulic capacity comes in early also

yep, everyone will because everyone has different uses for them and different criteria for what is "good enough" when performing identical tasks.

Guides, opinions, and additional information can be handy (very handy in some cases), but ultimately the buyer/owner needs to figure out what they want to do with the tractor and how much time they want to spend doing it, and if there are any considerations unique to their situation.

Otherwise it's rather like asking which hammer is best without identifying if the need is to drive furniture tacks into pine or 1" diameter stakes into hardened clay.

 

[crashz]

I'll echo Scotty's take on focusing on cost. I think it should be an important criteria, but my biggest regret is not adding the features I wanted to my tractor when new, because I was optimizing my payment. I should have added all of the features and attachments I wanted then. Now the machine is nearly paid off and there is a boat load of stuff I want for it.

 

[workinonit]

The worse thing I bought with my tractor was the quick hitch. It caused me to fab and modify all of my attachments.

 

[CH4Ohio]

Right or wrong, "bare weight" isn't something that I ever think about when looking at or buying a tractor.

I always have an idea of how much horsepower I'm going to need. Within the HP range I'm looking at, I'd decide on frame options (Kubota L vs M, for example) and cost. When I do look at weight, the "bare weight" is meaningless to me. I'm only interested in the actual operating weight or "weight as equipped". That will include total weight as configured for any given chore. (Tractor, specific tires, ballast, loader, bucket, etc.).

 

[IndyJay]

I think they all cost too much, but when buying a tool I've found over my life that for tools the initial cost is less important than how it works. And when that cost is spread over the 20 years I expect to keep the tractor they all seem to cost about the same anyway. So cost is interesting to compare, but ultimately didn't drive my tractor buying decisions very much.

The biggest difference I found in tractors was in how they worked and felt when driving them around the lot, moving some dirt, and seeing how I liked the way the engine and transmission worked, did I like how the gear ratios were spaced? Then how the controls were laid out, how stable it felt, how easy to get on and off, how the seating and 3pt controls worked together when looking over my shoulder back at the implement (blade).

I'm real particular about how the machine works as a unit. Some seem to be well balanced designs and others are just a collection of parts.

So for me it all comes down to how the machine feels. Spreadsheets seem far less important.
rScotty

Yep, for some it comes down to how it feels, others may only need a color chart...