New 424 owner

[LD1]

I raised the question in another 424 post but I'll get your experiance as well: Any issues with the tractor wanting to tip with a heavy load in the bucket? Experiance before/after adding any tire ballast? Was test driving a LS 30 horse (don't remember the exact model) but a fully loaded bucket of dirt made it want to tip forward. The tires weren't filled and overall it was a bigger tractor than the Yanmars. Thanks!

I cannot answer specifically to the 424, but just about any tractor 50HP and smaller, is gonna be real tippy with nothing on the rear and no loaded tires.

and while loaded tires alone may make it more stable and not tip with a full load, it is putting alot more weight on the front axle.

So you really need proper counterweight off the 3PH If you are gonna be lifting heavy loads of dirt or anything with the FEL.

So basically....

Counterweight off the 3PH......thats a must
Tire ballast......optional. And is in no way a replacement for proper weight on the 3PH.

 

[AxleHub]

I raised the question in another 424 post but I'll get your experiance as well: Any issues with the tractor wanting to tip with a heavy load in the bucket? Experiance before/after adding any tire ballast? Was test driving a LS 30 horse (don't remember the exact model) but a fully loaded bucket of dirt made it want to tip forward. The tires weren't filled and overall it was a bigger tractor than the Yanmars. Thanks!

The 424 is a very nice unit and tanmar dud alot to make a very pleasant product to fit above the scut luneup yet be manueverable.

As dar as full buckets and tippiness . . I'd defintelt thing loading yoyr rears would be a first step. The reason is the 424 has a nice sized bucket and really good sized rears. Loading the rears gives you direct weight-to-ground without frame/suspension related issues . . Its weight precisely where ut does the mist good for teaction and counterbalance of fel load (or snowblower ir forks etc.).

Andvthe higher you lift the bucket the more you want good footing and good counter weight.

 

[Tonyinohio]

Wi loaded my tires per spec with calcium and i stall the loader before the rear has ever lifted. This past weekend i dug out a large taxus shrub, no issues. Love the tractor.

 

[Tonyinohio]

My neighbor commented to me the other day that his Kubota was light in the tail with a loaded bucket he was floored with me running the capacity in the bucket. Not negative on the make just pointing out the filled tires is a game changer for traction and balance.

 

[LD1]

Filled tires certainly increases lift capacity and stability. But...you are significantly increasing the front axle load.

No fluid in the tires is actually easier on the front axle.

But still best to have counterweight BEHIND the rear axle

 

[colsonbrooke]

With the back hoe on, you HAVE to still put about 300 lbs of water in the tires to max the 1190 lb lift capacity. Working the tractor to its max with out properly loaded increase the chances of flipping.

 

[DieselMachine]

Thanks for the responses everyone. I understand the thought of adding ANY weight to the back of the tractor whether it be in the tires or in the form of a ballast box or other 3-point attachment, that it will increase load on the front axle but is this really a concern? I would hope they build the axle assembly stout enough to handle the additional weight of tire ballast as a ballast box is doing the same thing, adding weight to the rear end (which I thought was recommended if any heaving digging/lifting was going to be done?).

Hopefully heading to the dealership to start negotiating pricing next weekend and with some of the knowledge gained from a few posts on the forum, will be looking towards the 424 over the 324.

 

[LD1]

Adding a weight box is NOT the same thing as tire ballast.

Weight BEHIND the rear axle takes weight OFF the front axle.

Tire ballast does not. And insufficient ballast BEHIND the rear axle only serves to ADD weight to the front axle if lifting heavy....

Here is an example, I am gonna use nice round numbers...

Say your tractor loader combination weighs 3000#. And thats no weight added anywhere. Lets say this allows the loader to lift 400# then the rears lift into the air. Now you have your 3000# machine + 400# loader load ALL on the front axle.

Now lets add 400# ballast to the rear tires in the form of fluid. Your machine now weighs 3400#, but you have increased what the loader can lift before the rear tires leave the ground. So now you can lift 600# up front. Now you have all 4000# on the rear axle.

Lets add a 400# weight box. So machine now weighs 3800#, and you can now lift 900# up front, but you still dont have enough to max out the loader and the rears still lift. Now you have 4800# all on the front axle.

Lets max it out. Throw a 1000# weight box back there. Now you can max out your loader lift (lets call it 1000#), and the rear tires still stay planted. AND with that 1000# being BEHIND the rear axle, it shifts some of the load from the front to the much beefier rear axle. So you now 4400# machine with 1000# in the loader, may be able to keep 1200# on the rear tires. So you are only subjecting the front axle to 4200#. Alot less that with a weight box that is too small, AND you can lift more.

But yes, MFG's build things pretty stout. But it is impossible for them to predict and build to everyone and every circumstance of abuse. Run a weight box that is too small, but still allows near max lift, but almost no weight over the rears. This is the MOST that the front axle will ever see. But driving around is very dynamic. All that weight might not break the axle, but what about hitting a groundhog hole at 4mph? What about 6MPH?, What about full speed? ITs best to ballast properly and not take the risk. Things break no matter how well built or engineered. I would prefer to do whatever I can to lessen the stresses the machine sees. Proper ballast is one of the ways.

 

[DieselMachine]

^^^^^Now I'm following you! Thanks for clarifying, the whole ag tractor, 3 point hitch business is new to me. Keeping weight on the rear axel to help distribute is where its at (thumbs up).

 

[AxleHub]

A Yanmar 424 is a considetably larger framed and wheeled tractor than is my MF GC1715. Loaded tires on the 424 would add considerably more weight than my ties on the gc1715. Your fel is rated for 1190 pounds while mine us rated for 870 pounds.

Loading rear tires makes for great weight benefits because the weight does not have to be frame supported . . thecweight is in the tires and the tires are on the ground. While having adfitional ballast behind the rear axle also aids in stability of a full bucket .
Lets not lose the perspective that loaded tires is incredibly valuable AND not frame dependent.

I'd wonder with the 424 just how much weight is in those big rears ?

 

[LD1]

The weight in the rear tires DO stress the frame and axles on both the front and rear axle if insufficient weight BEHIND the rear is not used and the rears are lifted into the air.

Weight In The tires is great.....as long as they stay on terra-firma

 

[AxleHub]

You posted: "Weight In The tires is great.....as long as they stay on terra-firma."

But when is it ever a good thing for a 4 wheeled tractor to have less than 4 wheels on the ground ? Its not about specific wheels not on the ground . . its any wheels not on the ground.

 

[LD1]

You posted: "Weight In The tires is great.....as long as they stay on terra-firma."

But when is it ever a good thing for a 4 wheeled tractor to have less than 4 wheels on the ground ? Its not about specific wheels not on the ground . . its any wheels not on the ground.

Its never good.

But I have yet to see a modern SCUT or CUT, or UT, that has a loader so weak that it cannot lift filled rear tires.

Fact is, it simply isnt enough. If you run tire ballast, dont get a false sense of security, you STILL need weight on the 3PH.

BUT, it is possible to ballast sufficiently with the 3PH alone. Not so with only fluid/wheel weights.

Tire ballast is great for stability, and great for added traction when running a mounted implement like a blade, disc, plow, etc. Because when those are engaged in the ground, their weight isnt helping with traction as tire ballast would.

But tire ballast is not a proper method of offsetting heavy FEL lifting.

 

[AxleHub]

Its never good.

But I have yet to see a modern SCUT or CUT, or UT, that has a loader so weak that it cannot lift filled rear tires.

Fact is, it simply isnt enough. If you run tire ballast, dont get a false sense of security, you STILL need weight on the 3PH.

BUT, it is possible to ballast sufficiently with the 3PH alone. Not so with only fluid/wheel weights.

Tire ballast is great for stability, and great for added traction when running a mounted implement like a blade, disc, plow, etc. Because when those are engaged in the ground, their weight isnt helping with traction as tire ballast would.

But tire ballast is not a proper method of offsetting heavy FEL lifting.

My point LD1 is you are posting in "absolutes" in saying tire balanxe isnt a proper ballast method. I think some will read that and believe it is true. Thats the priblem with "absolutes" . . all of life is about compromises and certainly tractors are included in that.

Virtually all tractors start or end up with loaded rear tires because its a good thing and does not add to the gross frame weight requirements. 3ph is also a fine thing when used properly but can be overdone or underdone.

If my scut had no loaded tires but I put 175 or 200 pounds on the 3ph . . Thats not a practical solution for fel counterbalance for max fel loading. But its a start. Same is true for loaded tires and no 3ph weight. But combine the two and you have an answer that doesn't strain the axle or frame but benefits fel loading. But even then there is the side to side issue if that loaded fel is going to be high in the air.

Tire loading is a big plus for another reason too . . there are often situations where 3ph weight is not desired or practical or you don't want it on all the time because you don't intend to do fel work or you don't even have the fel on.

And yes we understand about rear axle loading leverage to help front axle weight. But a yanmar 424 is sized like a small cut not a scut and its tires are substantially karger than a scut rear tire and we'd have to assume the front axle is substantial in that size of tractor.

The goal is all 4 wheels in ground contact all the time.

Thanks.

 

[LD1]

You are trying to make an argument where there is no need for one.

The only absolute I am saying is that any modern scut-cut-ut, with ONLY loader tires, will lift the back end of the tractor long before it runs out of loader power.

Fine if all you are doing is hauling around mulch, or other light loads. But using the loader digging in the dirt, stumps, heavy pallets, etc. Tire ballast is simply not enough.

 

[DieselMachine]

As an update with some time in the seat moving a considerable amount of dirt: feels very stable with a completely mounded full bucket of dirt. I have always had the rear box blade on and at times added a few sandbags to the BB for additional. I can tell if I didn't have the BB on it would definitely get tippy. I have decided against filling the rear tires because of weight concerns when I get some sod in place throughout the yard. Being able to stay as light as possible then will be nice. Overall stoked with the tractor, very happy I went with the 424! As far as accessories, anyone running a tooth bar or piranha bar on the 52" bucket? It looks like they're made for Kubotas but may still work for this brand?

 

[BXpanded]

As As far as accessories, anyone running a tooth bar or piranha bar on the 52" bucket? It looks like they're made for Kubotas but may still work for this brand?

We build the Piranha to fit almost any bucket up to 9 1/2 feet wide, any brand.
Thanks!
Harry
BXpanded

 

[blackhecilopters]

I've got the BXpanded tooth bar. Easy install and works great. I gave them the measurements and it fit perfect. Highly recommended!