The ideal tractor size?

[MiserableOldFart]

I have to disagree with some of the posts here. Requiring ballast is not a weakness, and ballast is definitely part of the equation from the start. Yes, you CAN use a loader with just filled rears and light loads, which can be handy for snow in tight places, but ballast is a normal fact of existence. I agree with the OP that stronger loaders and heavier duty components are desirable on lower hp tractors. Many tractors sold today, quite frankly have wimpy loaders, and it's a real problem. My TC26DA can lift about 750 pounds to full height at 500mm, which is very handy, but I'd surely like a stronger loader. Going to a 30-35 hp machine on a slightly bigger frame, with some models yields no improvement on that number at all, often only very slight improvement. To get a seriously stronger loader, I'd have to go to a Kubota Grand L or Boomer 35 or more. The Workmasters and Deere 3E series, and the Kubota L3901, which I had been seriously considering for my next tractor have disappointing loader specs. The L3901, for example, much larger than my machine, is 50% heavier and 50% more horsepower than my TC26DA, and yields only about 14% more payload at full height and 500mm. Breakout force is 50% stronger, but that's as far as it goes. Yes, I can get a stronger loader on similar hp tractors, but they are far more expensive, and much heavier still. The Tier 4 regulations have made things even stranger, with, for example, models like the Kubota L2501, which to me is a machine that exists only to be able to sell at a lower price point due to the pollution regulations. The Kubota B TLB series has stronger loaders, and would likely be my choice if I had zillions to play with, which I do not.

 

[4570Man]

I wouldn't call any kind of skidsteer "stable" unless pogo-stick is your idea of stability. Agile yes, stable no.

A machine designed to do a little bit of everything does nothing particularly well.

My tracked skid steer is much more stable than a tractor. Being solid over the front end vs a pivoting axel makes a huge difference.

 

[searcyfarms]

agreed on the wheeled version - not that its not stable, it just doesn't have great traction on slopes or soft ground but when I have my steel tracks on mine its pretty much a billy goat

 

[mikester]

interesting mikester..........I will say this I have had far fewer pucker moments in my SS over the years and way more on my tractor due to stability - a SS has a VERY low center of gravity and I have taken mine places I would NEVER even think of going on any of my tractors - not only that with 1000s of lbs of weight n my bucket or on forks at the time too - I can look at a hill/bank and say HECK NO for a tractor and say well better go get the SS.. Maybe your SS didn't have the right traction combination for the work ?

I would take that challenge any day of the week for stability in my SS vs a tractor on slopes/grades ive taken 1000s of lbs of logs right up a hill no tractor could even go up empty and backed up hills I couldn't get up with my tractor as well.

I could carry my 2210 that I sold on my forks up a hill with my SS if needed ;-)

SS have their place and you can do some amazing things. A lot depends on the machine size too. My experience has been with wheeled SS and if I had a choice between a SS and industrial TLB to load a tandem dump truck or use forks to off-load a trailer full of 2,000 lb pallets I壇 head for the TLB.

Loading loose fill from a pile and carrying it down low is easy for both machines. Less rock-n-roll and better overall visibility in a TLB.

AG tractors with loaders are general purpose machines that let you make do with what you got but aren’t the right tool for doing this kind of work all day long. Somebody expecting a BX sized machine that fits in their family sized garage to lift and carry 2,000 lbs is going to experience a lot of disappointment.

 

[searcyfarms]

totally agree mike - I love my SS for many things but tractors have the edge on general purpose, comfort, and were made of course for a variety of things, with the expansion of attachments for SS and ruggedness there are certain things that are so much quicker/easier on a SS - and bar none the taller you are when you are loading things and you can see better is a no brainer - for the original poster bigger tractor might be in order and an occasional SS rental to do the nasty work to save on the new tractor or just make a small task easier its hard to warrant a SS if you don't have a lot of stuff to do. I bought mine to clear property with because I didn't want to tear up my tractor and wanted something that was rugged and would take the abuse of what I knew would be a couple years of hard consistent heavy work - after what I did with it I just couldn't sell it - I have kept mine for helping friends and family with their properties so we don't have to go rent and go through all of that. It doesn't get as heavy of use as it once did but I know I would be renting one many times/yr for various projects to save on our tractor abuse. Not to mention I don't have flat tires anymore on it or my tractors with all of the thorns around here. I definitely agree for what the OP I thinking he needs to bump up in size and if he is already wanting/needing to bump up, and his smaller unit it might be a good idea to go one step bigger than he is thinking so he isn't kicking himself and maybe accomplish some of the tasks he would need a SS for by increasing the size enough to offset a few rentals that might be needed vs purchasing a SS

I know we have all had to find that happy medium and figure out our situations for best compromise no matter what we are using - I think we need a transformer tractor LOL - small to big, big to small etc......then of course all the cool transformer stuff that happens when you push various buttons cause lord knows we all like to push buttons ;-)

 

[MossRoad]

As I find myself looking at tractor options, I find myself wishing a tractor existed with the following (rough) specs:

Frame size - That of a Kubota B series. That is, small(ish) and relatively agile.
Loader capacity - At least twice that of a B-series. Ideally about 2,000 lb at maximum height.
Weight - To safely handle this loader capacity, and other tasks, a bare tractor weight of ~4,000 lbs.
Width - Extra wide for stability. Wide tires for flotation would be nice as well.
HP - ~40-45

Am I the only one that feels this way? Probably, which likely explains why no tractors like this seem to exist

List your tasks you want to accomplish. It's easier to find a machine to fit the tasks if they're known....

But don't bother to list your budget, we don't care about that! :laughing:

 

[4570Man]

SS have their place and you can do some amazing things. A lot depends on the machine size too. My experience has been with wheeled SS and if I had a choice between a SS and industrial TLB to load a tandem dump truck or use forks to off-load a trailer full of 2,000 lb pallets I壇 head for the TLB.

Loading loose fill from a pile and carrying it down low is easy for both machines. Less rock-n-roll and better overall visibility in a TLB.

AG tractors with loaders are general purpose machines that let you make do with what you got but aren’t the right tool for doing this kind of work all day long. Somebody expecting a BX sized machine that fits in their family sized garage to lift and carry 2,000 lbs is going to experience a lot of disappointment.

Loading a truck would be a close race between my Kubota 95-2 CTL and JD-310. I’ve never actually timed doing it. Unloading pallets it’s CTL for the win since I don’t have quick attach forks on the backhoe. The CTL isn’t very smooth especially turning so if I did have forks I’d rather use the TLB. Unloading 2k pallets is child’s play for either machine.

 

[GirlWhoWantsTractor]

I would list my tasks, but I'm holding off until I'm closer to purchasing. Probably 3-6 months. Don't worry, I will be back for advice.

As I'm still just in the browsing mode, I don't want to waste peoples time soliciting specifics. I just thought I'd make the comment as I've found it interesting that manufacturers dont seem to offer a small, but very heavy powerful tractor.

In some ways, a skid steer probably fits the bill, but that adds other complications.

The L3560 is one that I find quite appealing.

You have a point. Tractors are STILL designed for farming on reasonably flat, open land and they are great for those tasks. Far from ideal, for woods work, hilly land, or even the many little gardening and maintenance tasks of the average landowner. Not very agile. Too tall and narrow to be stable on hills without modifications. Little protection for vulnerable lines and underparts, leading to punctures from even small sticks. The thing that shocked me the most was the lack of visibility. You literally can't see what you're doing in front or back. Some people install mirrors.

So get used to it, and some models may be better than others. I got the widest, heaviest, smallest tractor I could find, but really think we need a completely redesigned and re-thought-out tractor specifically for the non-farmer landowner.

My ideas, just for fun:

The FEL. Could it be possible to have the back panel open, and then maybe it can swing down for when you're carrying material? Or some kind of open mesh maybe? How great would it be to be able to see the FEL edge, esp for backdragging, but also to be able to place the edge exactly where you want.

Rear Visibility. Include a large rear view mirror on a tall bracket, for folks without cabs.

Box Blade. How hard would it be to move that large support bar so you can see where the rear blades touch the ground?

3PH. A 150-year-old design. Awful. Also needs the ability to either float free or be fixed; without lots of float, you can't really use rear implements on uneven, rolling ground because your implements will simply replicate and even increase the existing contours (without constant, neck-twisting adjustments).

My ideal tractor would much shorter and wider, with more built-in weight. Small and powerful. Engine compartment much shorter for better visibility. Better noise reduction! Redesign the FEL so it's less bulky and in the way. Protected underparts. And of course my imaginary see-through FEL. I can dream, can't I?

 

[MossRoad]

You have a point. Tractors are STILL designed for farming on reasonably flat, open land and they are great for those tasks. Far from ideal, for woods work, hilly land, or even the many little gardening and maintenance tasks of the average landowner. Not very agile. Too tall and narrow to be stable on hills without modifications. Little protection for vulnerable lines and underparts, leading to punctures from even small sticks. The thing that shocked me the most was the lack of visibility. You literally can't see what you're doing in front or back. Some people install mirrors.

So get used to it, and some models may be better than others. I got the widest, heaviest, smallest tractor I could find, but really think we need a completely redesigned and re-thought-out tractor specifically for the non-farmer landowner.

My ideas, just for fun:

The FEL. Could it be possible to have the back panel open, and then maybe it can swing down for when you're carrying material? Or some kind of open mesh maybe? How great would it be to be able to see the FEL edge, esp for backdragging, but also to be able to place the edge exactly where you want.

Rear Visibility. Include a large rear view mirror on a tall bracket, for folks without cabs.

Box Blade. How hard would it be to move that large support bar so you can see where the rear blades touch the ground?

3PH. A 150-year-old design. Awful. Also needs the ability to either float free or be fixed; without lots of float, you can't really use rear implements on uneven, rolling ground because your implements will simply replicate and even increase the existing contours (without constant, neck-twisting adjustments).

My ideal tractor would much shorter and wider, with more built-in weight. Small and powerful. Engine compartment much shorter for better visibility. Better noise reduction! Redesign the FEL so it's less bulky and in the way. Protected underparts. And of course my imaginary see-through FEL. I can dream, can't I?

Read the following thread, front to back....

https://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/related-topics/5108-compact-tractors-designed-all-wrong.html

 

[MossRoad]

It's one of the main reasons I bought a Power Trac articulated machine. Since I don't have to plow dirt or pull stumps, the design is about perfect for our needs.

It's short in height, low to the ground, all wheel drive, solid steel plate under the entire machine, nothing to hang up. It's short in length, relatively narrow, has really strong hydraulics for each size model. Even though it's low to the ground, it doesn't get stuck very easily. In fact, I've only gotten it stuck once when I dropped both front tires off a large hidden log going down a slope and high centered it.

All implements are out front where you can see them. No turning around looking over your shoulder.

There's other, better, options out there than a conventional tractor for most people's needs.

Steiner, Ventrac, compact telehandlers, tracked skid steers, etc....

Have to identify the tasks that need to be done, first, before settling on your dad's tractor.

 

[jjp8182]

As I find myself looking at tractor options, I find myself wishing a tractor existed with the following (rough) specs:

Frame size - That of a Kubota B series. That is, small(ish) and relatively agile.
Loader capacity - At least twice that of a B-series. Ideally about 2,000 lb at maximum height.
Weight - To safely handle this loader capacity, and other tasks, a bare tractor weight of ~4,000 lbs.
Width - Extra wide for stability. Wide tires for flotation would be nice as well.
HP - ~40-45

Am I the only one that feels this way? Probably, which likely explains why no tractors like this seem to exist

Not in the least I actually was looking for something very, very similar (I was lighter on the loader as I good with lifting 1000lb load w/ pallet forks), and the closest tractors I could find (that had dealers in my area) ended up being the Kubota Grand L series, and the John Deere 3/4 family tractors. There does seem to be a trend toward lighter tractors with higher horsepower that are more suited for PTO (or in some cases hydraulically) driven implements.

I went with the L3560 since it did cover most of what I wanted/needed -- and more importantly the dealer was good to work with (in fact it's the only time I've ever had a sales person try to talk me into buying something smaller/cheaper), and is on my daily drive so stopping by to get parts/new equipment isn't a special trip. On the flip side, while there's a John Deere dealership (which is part of a local/regional chain) just down the street from Kubota/New Holland dealership (where I bought my tractor) the times I've been in there for Stihl equipment/accessories have pretty much turned me off of making purchases there -- or going there at all really since I found a Stihl dealership that isn't affiliated with that chain).

While many will probably have a lot to say on the actual brand of tractor or which model, I'd say it's also very much worth considering the logistics and dealership aspects since sooner or later parts will be needed (either for repairs or routine maintenance) and having to unnecessarily travel long distances or deal with unpleasant/stressed-out or sub-par service can make a big difference.

 

[MossRoad]

.....There does seem to be a trend toward lighter tractors with higher horsepower that are more suited for PTO (or in some cases hydraulically) driven implements.
....

You need higher HP to spin mower blades and keep them spinning in tall grass, while lighter tractors are easier on the ground and lessen soil compaction. That one of the reasons these smaller 4wd machines have taken over chores that used to go to bigger 2wd tractors of the past.

I've always been a fan of getting the highest HP offered in a particular platform.

 

[majorwager]

Moss,
The post link critical of the compact tractor design is interesting. However the poster authored the piece in 2001, then purchased a conventional compact in 2003, or later. ?? Did he ever own a power trac?

Also power tracs existed since at least 1998 when a friend owned a 422, why in all these years, are folks continuing to patronize the conventional design when the alternate design is available, and ventrac has since entered the market ??

I don't suscribe to a premise that the historical is without flaws. Your link reference and tractor girl adequately make their respective arguments.

However, if a traditional conceopt continues to outsell any serious attempt to uproot the status quo, little is expected to change.

Manufacturers are creatures of habit yet vulnerable to the whims of the buying public. If the power trac task model, were to suddenly capture the noticeable percentage of market share, the immediate competition would be enormous.

New Holland and several others offered a reversible platform in the TV-145, later in the TV 6070?. It was articulating, hydrostatic, capable of driving implements from both ends w/ a rotating operators station. I believed that was close to perfection. It was a big Ag tractor, 18,000 pounds, 145 hp, genuine 4wd, 4 equal tires, not mechanical front wheel assist which is mislabeled as 4 wd. By almost EVERYONE.

If that concept were miniaturized to compact proportions, it could be the real deal. But then the cost factor rears its' head and too few folks will spend the extra $$$. The power trac machines are not inexpensive. They are, I believe, compatible w/ comact $$.

So the question is again posed? Why does the public continue down the traditional path?

 

[sd455dan]

Moss,
The post link critical of the compact tractor design is interesting. However the poster authored the piece in 2001, then purchased a conventional compact in 2003, or later. ?? Did he ever own a power trac?

Also power tracs existed since at least 1998 when a friend owned a 422, why in all these years, are folks continuing to patronize the conventional design when the alternate design is available, and ventrac has since entered the market ??

I don't suscribe to a premise that the historical is without flaws. Your link reference and tractor girl adequately make their respective arguments.

However, if a traditional conceopt continues to outsell any serious attempt to uproot the status quo, little is expected to change.

Manufacturers are creatures of habit yet vulnerable to the whims of the buying public. If the power trac task model, were to suddenly capture the noticeable percentage of market share, the immediate competition would be enormous.

New Holland and several others offered a reversible platform in the TV-145, later in the TV 6070?. It was articulating, hydrostatic, capable of driving implements from both ends w/ a rotating operators station. I believed that was close to perfection. It was a big Ag tractor, 18,000 pounds, 145 hp, genuine 4wd, 4 equal tires, not mechanical front wheel assist which is mislabeled as 4 wd. By almost EVERYONE.

If that concept were miniaturized to compact proportions, it could be the real deal. But then the cost factor rears its' head and too few folks will spend the extra $$$. The power trac machines are not inexpensive. They are, I believe, compatible w/ comact $$.

So the question is again posed? Why does the public continue down the traditional path?

it is what customers have become accustomed to?

Ford- New Holland bought Versatile who were the original designers. Steiner also built large articulating 4 wheel drive tractors.

Thinking making a model around 40-60 HP based on a compacted/lightened model 150 which was about 70 hp ~ 50 PTO hp and was right around 8 k lb would be close to what would cover the bases. Not sure it had the rotating platform though or attachment capability at each end. Hard to get all that in even a 150 sized machine.
looking at the standard tires on the 150 (11.2 x 24) and its~ hp would be great just needs to be a bit more compact. Actually the 150 with FEL sounds pretty darn good!
edit: but having to remove the FEL to do 3 point work would not cover all the bases, but size wise it is getting close.
http://www.tractordata.com/photos/F001/1332/1332-td3b.jpg

 

[jjp8182]

You need higher HP to spin mower blades and keep them spinning in tall grass, while lighter tractors are easier on the ground and lessen soil compaction. That one of the reasons these smaller 4wd machines have taken over chores that used to go to bigger 2wd tractors of the past.

I've always been a fan of getting the highest HP offered in a particular platform.

Yup, the real question is going to become at what point does the vehicle become too light/small to effectively use all the HP being provided?

When it comes to ground engagement tools (plows, box blades, etc) I think that point may already have been crossed, and it's probably just a matter of time before it happens with mowers as well given there are multiple industries that have conditioned society into believing more HP is *always* better.

Even it was possible to stuff a 100HP power engine into a subcompact-sized tractor (like BX or 1025R) I'm not sure I'd want to be pulling (or pushing) a 10'+ mowing implement with such a machine.

 

[majorwager]

SD455,
If cost were no object, guess this swiss tractor would top my list. High HP, front + rear PTO, linkage, FEL, slope stable, cab, HVAC, HST, 4 wheel steer, locking differential F+R, a real chassis FRAME,

 

[searcyfarms]

First 4570 im jealous.........a 95-2 - drooling........I will say this with all of the new electronics/aws extra parts/seals/sensors/wiring and most people leaving things outdoors - these new tractors might be very problematic at 60yrs unlike what are still VERY usable and SOLID tractors today

 

[RSR]

SD455,
If cost were no object, guess this swiss tractor would top my list. High HP, front + rear PTO, linkage, FEL, slope stable, cab, HVAC, HST, 4 wheel steer, locking differential F+R, a real chassis FRAME,

That's perfect! Now, about the price ...

I guess we (I) want it all, except the price tag that goes along with it.

 

[MossRoad]

The reason they continue down the old path is because it's tried and true. Pretty simple. If it works for Bob, it'll work for me. And, it'll work pretty darn well,too. So why try something different, right?

Lots of folks don't want to take risks, or, they may not know about alternative ways to do things.

Listen, I'm a Beta VCR guy. I'd take a straight 6 over a V8. I have a Landcruiser, not a Jeep. I was a Unix god in my past life. And I'm left handed.

That should explain it well enough. :laughing:

 

[RSR]

You have a point. Tractors are STILL designed for farming on reasonably flat, open land and they are great for those tasks. Far from ideal, for woods work, hilly land, or even the many little gardening and maintenance tasks of the average landowner. Not very agile. Too tall and narrow to be stable on hills without modifications. Little protection for vulnerable lines and underparts, leading to punctures from even small sticks. The thing that shocked me the most was the lack of visibility. You literally can't see what you're doing in front or back. Some people install mirrors.

So get used to it, and some models may be better than others. I got the widest, heaviest, smallest tractor I could find, but really think we need a completely redesigned and re-thought-out tractor specifically for the non-farmer landowner.

My ideas, just for fun:

The FEL. Could it be possible to have the back panel open, and then maybe it can swing down for when you're carrying material? Or some kind of open mesh maybe? How great would it be to be able to see the FEL edge, esp for backdragging, but also to be able to place the edge exactly where you want.

Rear Visibility. Include a large rear view mirror on a tall bracket, for folks without cabs.

Box Blade. How hard would it be to move that large support bar so you can see where the rear blades touch the ground?

3PH. A 150-year-old design. Awful. Also needs the ability to either float free or be fixed; without lots of float, you can't really use rear implements on uneven, rolling ground because your implements will simply replicate and even increase the existing contours (without constant, neck-twisting adjustments).

My ideal tractor would much shorter and wider, with more built-in weight. Small and powerful. Engine compartment much shorter for better visibility. Better noise reduction! Redesign the FEL so it's less bulky and in the way. Protected underparts. And of course my imaginary see-through FEL. I can dream, can't I?

Having read through your buying experiences, they appear very similar to my interests, and I've considered that size of Mahindra for the exact reasons you stated. However, I'm also concerned about having sufficient PTO HP, as snow clearing with a blower will be my number one use.