2 vs 4wd

[tpstall]

I searched and know this has been discussed somewhat before, but not to a great extent. I'm looking at buying soon and can't decide 2wd or 4. In Central Texas so no real big mountians to worry about. Hilly...yes, but not bad. Have 60 acres. Running some longhorns. In the military now and going to retire there in a few years. Just a weekend rancher, so I'm not there to work/play on a tractor all the time. Need to be able to move round bales, some hogging, always road work, and will probably never take the loader off. Cut and push cedar all the time. I would like to get a good amount of hydraulic capability to use a tree shear in the futute. Mahindra goes out of their way to push the weight of their tractors in relation to traction. When I talked to Bill's they felt that the 2wd 4500 is what I wanted, and would not be overbuying with a 5500. They specifically said that with the weight of these two tractors, I would be fine for traction with a loader. I know they know I was looking hard at the 2wd's and comparing what you get compared to the same price of a 4wd. Got to keep it in the 14-17K range. Am I being unrealistic?

tpstall
1100 shaft hp pratt & whitney turbo

 

[Keith_B]

Without many hills and unless their is slick mud to contend with when moving round bales in the winter time the advantage of a 4wd for you would be in making it easier to handle the loader.

You would probably be better off with the 5500 over the 4500, given your uses. The extra HP will be very beneficial.

 

[tpstall]

Will the nearly 5000 lbs of the 2wd tractor(s) provide me with enough traction to do reasonably well with the loader? I don't anticipate using it in the "slop" that often just 'cause we don't have those kind of conditions. Also, I would rather wait for the slop to dry some before working 'cause I dont want to chew up the ground, especially the calache road, with the ag tires. Would probably only be able to get into the 3510 4wd for the same money...and that would be just barley getting by for the round bales.

 

[HRS]

With 60 acres, I wouldn't even consider a CUT. Go for your bigger machine. The extra weight will take care of 45's lack of fwd. I have an old Ford 2000 and my brother has a new New Holland CUT. Though the HP is nearly the same on both tractors and the New Holland has fwd, it can't match the 2000 in the field. This despite the fact that my 2000 is 36 years old and falling apart. The difference here is in the weight. The old 2000 weighs in at 3600 lbs, dry weight, and the CUT that took it on only weighed in at about 2000 lbs. The fwd on the CUT just couldn't make up the difference.

The 45 you are looking at out weighs the 3510 by a little more that 1000 lbs. Plus, look at your 3pt hydraulics. You are working a large piece of land with cattle. You'll never regret that bigger machine.

Happy tractoring

 

[tpstall]

HRS,
Thanks for your opinions. I've only used ag tires on a small 16hp cut. If I got the 5500 2wd, do you think I could get away with R4 tires? Never used them. Only know they leave a much smaller footprint than the Ag tires. The dealer told me he's never put R4's on that big of a 2wd tractor.

 

[Bird]

Well, I'll throw in my two cents worth, too, with the understanding that all the answers you're going to get from any of us to your question is purely personal opinion and preferences.
1) I agree with your dealer; woudn't have anything but R1 tires on a tractor that size,
2) Somewhere between 90 and 96% of the time, you'll be satisfied with 2WD, while that other 4 to 10% of the time, you'll want to kick yourself for not getting the 4WD, and
3) Figure the 4WD as approximately equivalent to 20 to 25% more horsepower.
Now whether the 4WD is worth the difference in cost is up to you; it would be to me, but not to some others.

 

[HRS]

tpstall
By footprint, I think they are measured in overall width. That would make the R4's larger. This is important on a CUT for stability reasons. Their frame is a good bit narrower than that of a utility tractor. Also, the argument is that they don't compact or tear up the soil as much since they are wider and without sharp cleats.

However, consider what you are going to be using a tractor this big for. I don't see why you wouldn't want Ag tires. This is definitely an Ag tractor to be used out in the field. You'll want all the traction you can get. The only place that I've ever notice damaged by the Ag tires on my 2000 is where it constantly runs back and forth, like in front of the barn. These tires don't hurt the pasture. When I consider this, I'd think that the 60 head of cattle we use to run on our place would pack the soil more so than the occasional visit by the tractor.

All the tractors I've ever seen as large as the one you are considering have all had Ag tires. Personally, that is the way I'd go.

Anyway, let us know how you set it up. Your thoughts sound interesting.

 

[db2]

My two cents......I would go for the Ag tires without a second thought.
The traction is much better in all conditions.

Dave

 

[tpstall]

HRS,
After I hit continue, I realized that I actually used the word "footprint" in a way that I really didn't mean to. Its a given they are wider. I see, however, that you kinda fugured out what I meant to say. They don't tear the earth up as much. In the pasture I'm not concerned. An 1800 lb longhorn play'in around with her friends will definately turn the earth over. It's on my calache roads that the ags are really going to dig in. I have 1/2 to 3/4 of a mile of road, some being fire roads to other large ranches that I would like to keep in good shape. I've already had to use them twice this year. Like I said, I've never used R4's so I really don't have a good idea of how much traction you give up versus the ags. When it comes down to it, especially after what most people here along with what the dealer said, I'll stick with the ags and not go on the roads when its soft. I am, however, relieved to hear that most think the 2wd will suit me fine. What's the worst that could happen....I have to do road work with....my new tractor! Thanks for your insight.

tp

 

[Keith_B]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( HRS,
After I hit continue, I realized that I actually used the word "footprint" in a way that I really didn't mean to. Its a given they are wider. I see, however, that you kinda fugured out what I meant to say. They don't tear the earth up as much. In the pasture I'm not concerned. An 1800 lb longhorn play'in around with her friends will definately turn the earth over. It's on my calache roads that the ags are really going to dig in. I have 1/2 to 3/4 of a mile of road, some being fire roads to other large ranches that I would like to keep in good shape. I've already had to use them twice this year. Like I said, I've never used R4's so I really don't have a good idea of how much traction you give up versus the ags. When it comes down to it, especially after what most people here along with what the dealer said, I'll stick with the ags and not go on the roads when its soft. I am, however, relieved to hear that most think the 2wd will suit me fine. What's the worst that could happen....I have to do road work with....my new tractor! Thanks for your insight.

tp )</font>

The ag tires aren't going to do enough additional damage to the roads to worry about. If the road is muddy enough to damage your road then the R4s aren't going to be able to get much traction in it anyway.

If your roads are dirt you may want to consider a box blade. The box blade can be used to keep those roads in great shape.

BTW, before FWD tractors became popular all tractors with loaders had 2wd, and people got along just fine. The big wish for a tractor w/loader used to be power steering, now it is FWD. The 5500 with a loader should work very well for your uses.