Here is the link to the NEW Mahindra MAX Series, only a few days away to the release. Mahindra Max
I checked out the website yesterday and again today. I noticed in both videos posted on the site they keep using the sub-compact phrase. Even the description next to the video uses sub-compact phrase. I figure these guys work for mahindra so they must know a lot more than me about tractors. However, I understand that a sub compact is a category 0 PTO and some say "smaller than 26" rear tires". We all know these as the BX's, GC's, 2305 JD ect. Well none of the tractors listed in the Max lineup fit that description based on the previous models they are based on. Maybe they converted them into Category 0 PTO, but I cant imagine it. Arent these CUTs not Sub CUTs or am I mistaken? Hopefully I am mistaken because If I am not that is a very sloppy marketing campaign if they guys at Mahindra dont even know what they are building. :confused2:
Please help me find where you located the information stating that the sub compact tractor had category 0.
It is and alway has been my understanding that Category 0 has lift arm sockets of 5/8" inch and a top link of 5/8" dia sockets.
If that is true than non of the brands you have listed above will fall into a sub compact tractor category.
As to my understanding all of the machines you have listed above have 7/8" lower links and a 3/4 top link.
If this is true and all the other guys are calling their tractors subcompacts, why can't Mahindra do the same?
Category Tractor HP Top Link Pin Diameter Lift Arm Pin Diameter
0 Up to 20 5/8 in 5/8 in
1 20 to 45 3/4 in 7/8 in
2 40 to 100 1 in 1⅛ in
3 80 to 225 1ｼ in 1 7/16 in
4 180 to 400 and up 1 3/4 in 2 in
Thanks for the link. As an owner of CK20HST TLB, this new tractor from Mahindra looks very appealing to replace my grass cutter - a 25 year old Cub Cadet. The Max is lighter than the CK20 and looks like it might have a highly functional deck mower and a loader that can lift 1,400 lbs - about 300 more lbs than the CK20. But the $64,000 question is about how much in dollars do these cost - each of the three Max tractors with a loader??
I think the Max series raised the bar a bit. I'd certainly give it serious consideration if I were in the market for this size tractor. Very good specs for its size. Max website not so good though.
I dont have a source. This was something that stuck in my mind from some tidbit on TBN over the years. Doesnt mean it was correct. Just my understanding, I fully accept that I could be 100% mistaken and sounds like I might be. So the figures above designate what is a category 0 which I had an idea of what that was. I honestly was under the impression that the tractors i listed above fit that category. It makes logical sense that would be the cutoff between sub compact and compact. So if that isnt the cutoff, what is the definition? Is there a solid definition that the tractor industry goes by? I would think there is an ASTM standard that describes is.
Dave stated in another thread that the three max series tractors are all based on previous 15/16 series tractors. I have never heard of those tractors described as sub-compact so something must have changed- I would think. What has changed to make these sub-compact and what is the definition of sub-compact. Or is sub-compact just a term that is thrown around whenever someone feels like it. Honestly Im just curious.:D
After looking at the 1816 in person yesterday, and the max site today, the revolutionary new max looks like the 1816 with new headlights and an engine output that is competitive with other SCUTS.
I did notice many conveniences absent with the Mahindra and Massey that others do have. After looking at the GC 2400 and 1816, I kept thinking that I'd be interested if I've never seen a Deere.
I didn't get any pricing, but I hope they're cheap, because that's what they look, feel, and seem like.
Apparently Mahindra has decided to redefine what they feel a scut should be. Basically the Max series is very close in size to the JD, Kubota BX and Massey. Just an inch or two larger here or there, yet the Max series tractors are conventionally built. They do not use a ladder type stamped steel frame like a heavy garden tractor. They don't have a little plastic fan under the rear end or an engine mounted with the radiator ip by the dash. They are built like a 50hp tractor, just smaller. Also, they are true Cat 1. In my book, that means a cut not a scut. But Mahindra says let's not be boxed in by convention. We think our Max series is what people really want when buying a small tractor. It's a small tractor, not a large garden tractor. Keep in mind that there are uses for both.
Xskier. Go look at a Max and compare specs and quality without your JD tinted glasses on and drive them both and work them both. You may still stay true to your brand as our loyalties run deep, but you would be hard pressed to honestly say the Mahindra is a "cheap" tractor. I'm biased, but I think a "blind" test, if that could be done somehow, we see a lot of new Mahindra buyers. Just my opinion. I've seen them side by side. I've taken quite a few JD scuts in trade for larger tractors. Nice tractors, but certainly less capacity to work compared to the new Max series.
My glasses, for sun protection, are grey tinted just like everyone else's. In fact, the last SCUT I considered was the Deere. Mainly due to the fact that they were order only at that time, so it was kind of a sight unseen, buyer beware scenario. The deeres also have the stigma of being too much money, turned out that in my area every brand is the same price. Also, there are many other SCUTs that spec better on paper than the Deere as well. It was just the more and more I looked at the rest, I kept going back to how nice my old Deere lawn tractor was compared to all of them I could test drive. All of this is subjective though, as there really isn't one tractor that is better than the rest.
I thought that I read on the site the max has a "full frame" now, similar to the competition. For a FEL application, I just can not see the old school, cast iron, "torque tube" type chassis any advantage for long term durability. Seems to me that with "quick park" FELs on all of the tractors these days, all of the load is placed in a small area of the tractor just forward of the floor board. I feel more comfortable with the load placed on one continuous frame front to rear. Only time will tell.