Ballast Correct Ballast for JD 990

sros990 · Dec 20, 2004

What is the recommended ballast for a 300CX loader, JD 990, 4WD, with R4 tires ?

When I e-mailed JD they gave me the following answer for R1 and R3 tires, but did not mention the R4 tires:

990, 970, 1070 2-WD R1 Tires Rear tires with liquid ballast, and 350 kg. (770 lb.) 3-point hitch ballast.

990, 970, 1070 4-WD R1 Tires Rear tires with liquid ballast, and 400 kg. (880 lb.) 3-point hitch ballast.

990, 970, 1070 2-WD R3 Tires Rear tires with liquid ballast, and 240 kg. (530 lb.) 3-point hitch ballast

990, 970, 1070 4-WD R3 Tires Rear tires with liquid ballast, and 235 kg. (520 lb.) 3-point hitch ballast

Thanks,

Steve

BGL990 · Dec 20, 2004

I don't know what you *should* use, but I just have loaded tires and haven't had too much trouble. It does get a bit light in the back with something as heavy as the loader will lift hanging out front, so something hanging off the back in addition to the loaded tires would be better.

What I'm REALLY interested in, however, is a picture (or two or three) of a 990 with the 300CX loader on it. How does it look with the curved arms on a square-nosed hood? I've been thinking of upgrading my 430 loader to the 300CX for the additional lift capacity and what seems to be a slightly improved attachment scheme, but I'm not sure if it is worth it or if it would look goofy.

dmp437 · Dec 21, 2004

Another vote for "load the tires and go". I had RimGuard put in mine and the loader (430 FEL @ 2850 PSI) stalls before the back end comes up. If I recall correctly R4's have a larger volume than R1's so they'll be heavier when filled.

790guy · Dec 21, 2004

I filled my 790's r1 tires with Rim Guard, Heavier than calcium and no rotting the rim. It's basically Beet juice. the filled tires enabled me to load the bucket fully with gravel!

tlbmech · Dec 21, 2004

Too much ballast is better than not enough.....Ballast allows the center of gravity of the tractor to stay over the rear axles, if this is not correct and the center of gravity shifts over, or towards the front axle, then this is doing all the work and MFWDs aren't meant for this extra load. It comes out to be cheaper adding a little extra weight, than the expense of replacing MFWD parts.......

jrdellaratta · Dec 21, 2004

I just swapped out my cutter for the ballast box for winter-time ops this weekend. I put several cinder blocks in it, as well as all my chain (for towing work, if needed). Not alot of weight, really, but I feel better having it there, if only to give me a place to store stuff, and to hold the 3ph arms in place better than the spring the rig came with.

sros990 · Dec 21, 2004

Brad,

I haven’t purchased the tractor yet but will be glad to post a picture if I get it (sometime in late February/March). Here is a picture of the 300CX loader and specs:
http://www.stonehams.com/pdf/300X.pdf

Brad and Raphael,

I’m almost certain that I’ll get the 990 but sometimes I wonder if I should get a 4320. Are you guys pleased with the 990? Any serious limitations?

Thanks,

Steve

jrdellaratta · Dec 22, 2004

I should preface this by saying I didn't do a lot of homework on the 990 before I got it----I had been focused on the Kubota MX5000, until I saw a classified ad for the 990 that was too good to turn down.

But the 990 has ultimately proven ideal for my needs on my 25 acres, and may actaully be a better fit than the larger Kubota I had been eyeing. I do wonder if the 990 could adeqautely handle an MX5 or 6, as now I'm still got the 513 (replaced by the LX5) cutter that can get a little bogged down on occassion, and do want to upgrade in the next year or so.

I think the great thing about the 990 is that it is a well-equipped, but still rather basic, set-up. And the variety of safety features I think are a great asset as well.

BGL990 · Dec 22, 2004

I too really like my 990. For me the overriding factor was cost - I just could not afford the fancy hydro models. Having said that, however, the hydro and electronic goodies that go with it would not have been a huge factor for me. I personally think that a good old fashioned gear tranny is just as useable as a hydro, even for loader work. I have a hydro garden tractor for mowing and there is no doubt that it is nice for going around obstacles and in tight spaces when mowing, but for "real tractor" work, the gear transmission is not an issue.

On the 990, 1st and reverse are in line with each other and I'd wager that after a couple hours of using the machine, anyone could have the machine going back and forth very nearly as smooth and quick as a hydro. Most of my work so far has been loader work and I barely even notice that I have a gear tranny - shifting just becomes automatic (if you'll pardon the pun) after a little while. If you drive a standard car, think of whether you have to put any conscious thought into shifting when you are driving - I bet not, and it is the same with the tractor.

The biggest problem I've had with the 990 is the fact that it isn't heavy enough to get the amount of traction necessary to make full use of it's power. In low gear it will spin all 4 wheels (loaded AG tires in dirt/clay) at idle without even noticing. I think that will be the case with all the compacts, however.

I guess my advice would be not to get too hung up on the hydro and evaluate whether the extra money would be better spent on more implements.

Good luck, and don't forget to post pictures whatever you end up getting!
/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif