Is the Mahindra Max really a SCUT

[LD1]

That Max25 BH and bucket at operating weight is probably pushing 900lbs. If someone did not buy one with a BH, I dont know of any SCUT attachemt to hang on the 3PH that even comes close to that for weight. Si I think it would be fair to say with an appropriatly sized rear implement, one could easily lift the rear tires. And thus the extra lift force would be a waste.

And also, as impressive as it was, I recall the rear of the forklift coming into the air. If it had not done that, do you think if you hooked to something heavy enough, that the rear would have lifted??

I am not trying to bash mahindra or anything, I think they make a wonderful tractor. But I guess "my" point to all of this is quite simply the following.....

IF the loader is strong enough to lift the rears into the air with the heaviest form of ballast or rear implement you have, everything else above and beyond that is useless and dont mean squat other than marketing/bragging rights.

 

[Sysop]

IF the loader is strong enough to lift the rears into the air with the heaviest form of ballast or rear implement you have, everything else above and beyond that is useless and dont mean squat other than marketing/bragging rights.

IF the loader is strong enough to lift the rears into the air with the heaviest form of ballast or rear implement you have, you need to acquire something heavier to use for the rear ballast...

Your only true limitations are your wallet, creativity, and the hydraulics. You can buy or make as much ballast as is needed to get full and safe use of a FEL. Everything is overbuilt enough to handle anything the hydraulics can. If the hydraulics can muster the power (aren't bypassing), the tractor can be ballasted to handle it. No matter the circumstance, if you tip it over, that is a combination of errors by the operator. First of those errors is operating with improper ballast.

 

[LD1]

IF the loader is strong enough to lift the rears into the air with the heaviest form of ballast or rear implement you have, you need to acquire something heavier to use for the rear ballast...

Your only true limitations are your wallet, creativity, and the hydraulics. You can buy or make as much ballast as is needed to get full and safe use of a FEL. Everything is overbuilt enough to handle anything the hydraulics can. If the hydraulics can muster the power (aren't bypassing), the tractor can be ballasted to handle it. No matter the circumstance, if you tip it over, that is a combination of errors by the operator. First of those errors is operating with improper ballast.

I disagree. Even though kubota rates my rear lifting capacity @ 2000lbs and 1500 @ 24" back, they do specify in the manual max reccomended weights for various implements. And I think rotary cutter was somewhere around 200lb LESS than what Mine weighs. I certainly dont think adding another 500# back there, bouncing around on a tractor this size is good for things long term.

If someone has a tractor like mine, and they are constantly finding themselves wishing for more than 1000# hanging off the back, then they bought the wrong tractor. But moving bucket loads of anything short of lead or gold is NOT going to cause that to happen. If someone wants to move 2000# pallets, getting a L3400 or max 28 or any other similar size machine, and ballasting the rear to the max, is NOT the way to go about it.

 

[Sysop]

If someone wants to move 2000# pallets, getting a L3400 or max 28 or any other similar size machine, and ballasting the rear to the max, is NOT the way to go about it.

I would likely agree in most cases. There are those that do need a machine of that size to maneuver properly in their environment, and don't need to do things to these extremes often. For those people I would say it's an ideal choice.

When I have lots of weight hanging anywhere on my tractor I generally go to low gear and creep around slow enough even dropping into a hole doesn't result in a "bounce". Even creeping slow as it will go gets gobs more work done than a shovel and wheelbarrow, so slow as it can go is good for me.

 

[Grandad4]

Per Tractordata and the Mahindra site, the Max 28 is rated for 2200# on the 3 point, so 1000# on the 3 point should be well within its capacity.

Aaron Z

It's an additional 1,000# - my guess - on top of the 500# Dave used in his example. I think the 2,200# rating is at the lift point, not 24" back, where it's probably 1,500 or so, right at the limit I suggested. So to use the FEL to its rated capacity, you have to put the equivalent of a 96" Gannon HD box blade on the back of a Kubota B sized tractor to keep it on the ground. Sounds like a great plan to me...

 

[Sysop]

Whether you need to hang an implement that is too large for the tractor to use to achieve the needed weight for proper ballast or not isn't the point. It is simple leverage. You need as much weight on the back as you intend on moving with the front to maintain the proper load ratio on the axles. The 3 point and loader arms are made to more than handle the rated capacities of the hydraulics, if they weren't the hydraulics would tear them apart as would the impacts of use. Agreed a consumer level machine isn't made to do this type of work for hours a day, every day; but that in no way means the machines are not capable of handling their rated capacities as needed by the typical consumer.

A carryall frame dunked into a large block of concrete and allowed to set up makes a great ballast. You can get to desired weight with something much smaller than a ridiculously sized empty steel box...

Hydraulics are what sets the limits of lift, any other limitations experienced are due to the lack of proper setup of the machine by the operator... Or in a case the hydraulics tear the loader apart from too much weight, that is a design flaw of the manufacturer for using too large of hydraulics on too weak of a loader design. Not heard of such a thing on any of the loaders being produced on any of the machines, small or large. Generally when a loader is tore up it's from using it to dig settled soil, not heard of any tore up from too much load/too much hydraulic pressure. The hydraulics go into bypass before that sort of thing happens...

 

[Grandad4]

Whether you need to hang an implement that is too large for the tractor to use to achieve the needed weight for proper ballast or not isn't the point. /QUOTE]

Actually, it is the point. Some people think a well designed machine is a good balance of all the elements - horsepower, hydraulics, size and weight - needed for an effective work tractor. Here you have a little tractor with light weight and a small footprint but huge hydraulics and we're discussing the ridiculous amount of ballast needed before it's safe. The need for extreme ballasting in order to achieve safe real world operation at it's rated specs ought to be a clue the design is not a good balance. I can't say if it has been amped for marketing reasons, but the concern is whether it puts inexperienced operators at risk. Just my opinion.

 

[GManBart]

I don't care what you call it, or if the FEL has a capacity that would make it unsafe for inexperienced operators, I'd still like to have one for some of the small tasks I do regularly

 

[Sysop]

All machines, not just the MAX, must have proper ballast to reach their full rated capacities. An inexperienced operator can cause be a risk on any machine. A machine that is made light and small, but is also made to be able to support large loads with a properly large ballast weight doesn't seem to me like it is a marketing ploy or excessively dangerous, it seems to me the machine is just more versatile.

 

[DavesTractor]

Most all tractors are designed to give maximum performance, and that is certainly the case with the Mahindra Max models. As such, if you use them to the max you will need to be very careful and that includes ballast. We have mentioned that a Max28 with loader and box and liquid rear tire ballast is 3200-3400 lbs. with an implement on the back. That is a pretty hefty small tractor. A B2920 Kubota is about 10% lighter (using rough numbers...I don't have actual numbers). I think it is rated at about almost 1000 lbs. in the front bucket and is 300'ish lbs. lighter total gross weight. Had Kubota made that tractor heavier, they would likely have turned up the loader a little as well. We aren't talking much difference here really. The Max has a little higher capacities, that must be used carefully, that due to the loader bucket size won't be used often. But really, isn't it nice to know it is available if needed for that occasional really tough job?

The well employed average Joe can buy a Camaro or Mustang that will easily exceed 150 mph, and both Ford and Chevy make a semi-affordable car that will hit 200 or real close to that. Is this a dangerous marketing ploy? It appeals to new drivers that are not experienced. It appeals to mid-life-crisis guys that think they can drive but have no idea how to handle a car like that. My take - I love it! Let's offer high performance, give proper warnings and safety instructions and let the buyer choose his product. Let's not dumb everything down to idiot proof levels.

Grandad4, I disagree with your thoughts that this is reckless marketing, but I do appreciate your comments. And your point to me that a rollover can happen easily, it does not take a downhill reckless adventure to roll a tractor, is a point well taken and thank you. You are right. A big load up high and an unexpected pothole can be a big problem. Keeping the load low is a huge help.

The first tractor I almost rolled was a big farm tractor with a loader. I had forks on it and was unloading a heavy pallet from a truck. It lifted it ok as I backed away from the truck, but when I turned the front wheels sharp with the load it started going over. Just pulling one front tire rearward a little (when turning this happens) was enough to start the roll. I slammed the loader down in time to stop the roll and sat there and thought about it for a little while. It was that simple and quick, so you are making a good point. Obviously I needed ballast.