Here is my 2013 Mahindra Max 28XL Shuttle with ML205 Loader review.

[mike69440]

For whaterver its worth, here is my 2013 Mahindra Max 28XL Shuttle with ML205 Loader review.
ITEM INFORMATION
Model year: 2013,
Date Purchased: 12/11/2014.
Number of Hours as 0f 5/4/15 :18
Tractor has 15 hrs of actual work on our farm. Like any good tractor it is now dirty. The bucket paint is all not shiny smooth anymore.
Note the hours are based on a mechanical meter, so running at 1/2 rated RPM ,1 hour on the machine is actually 2 hours.

My background is I have been a mechanical engineer for 40 years, so excuse me if I'm a little harsh with my comments, for I have little tolerance for lack of design excellence.

I'm rather frugal, and the Max28 was thousands less than my tractor of choice, a large B Series Kubota. The Max28 Tractor specs extremely well against even larger tractors, I was looking for small. The Max28 is a largish small compact. Size wise should fit sin real well taking its place as the new 'Small" tractor on the farm.

Strong points, what I think Mitsubishi/Mahindra got right.

The 54 width fits thru a trimmed out nominal 5' shed door.

The turning radius is tight.

I like the 8x8 transmission. While not as nice as the GST of a big Kubota, the 8x8 forward and reverse with constant mesh gears, a separate reverser, and Hi-Low ranges is really nice to work.
The Loader has decent lift capacity. The loader curl strength is good for its size, but seems not a strong as the spec would indicate in the tougher going.
On the plus side, the loader will go into a soft sand pile and take a heaped full load out of the pile.

The relatively light weight 2500 Lb. tractor with loader does not damage the front yard. We sort of have a lawn my wife insists be protected.
The PTO is strong, lifting over a ton at he ball ends and 1,600 Lbs 24 back.

Power wise it seems about just right. 3rd gear low range is a good speed for the loader, as you can quickly shift to 3 rd high range for travel and dump. The tractor does a fair grade in 4th gear high range on gravel roads.

Tractor build quality is decent, not as good as the best, but good. Most painted surfaces do not have a prime coat and is brittle, and as I understand, prone to fade. The exception is the brush guard that was a shame to grind off the nice paint to weld on a grill guard grate I fabricated.


For the "Needs Improvement" part, I'll break down my design critique into two areas.
#1.) Design improvement where a little thought, more than cost would make a big difference.
#2.) Adds to cost, but IMHO, worth the benefit.


Under #1,
A.) The clutch engagement is abrupt however, making inching forward in tight areas difficult. Ever think how much an easy to modulate clutch, with a wide friction zone, al little marcel, would make detail work safer and more productive?

B.) The Loader control in jerky and not very progressive. More like an economy Deere than the nice Kubota that I've been exposed to. Thee loader control s not the best integrated unit I've e seen. Structurally the ML205 Loader frame is quite flexi, and would be a lot more confidence inspiring if it were stiffer with more section modulus in the arms. Relatively speaking steel is cheap, and a little more wall thickness in the loader frame would go long way. I would not want to see what happens hitting an immoveable object hard. I don稚 know if the new curved beam style loader is better than the old ML205. I reinforced the top and sides of the bucket and added a scraper to the bottom back for grading, as the bucket is typical of small tractors.

C.) The engine could be a lot quieter if some NHV effort was made. In itself the motor is fairly quiet, but there is a lot of sympathetic vibration and resonance in all the brackets, mounts and accessories.

D.) Make all common service components really easy to locate and access.

E.) Tether the fuel cap.

F.) Cup holders, By not planning in Cup Holders in the molded plastic parts on the fenders tells a lot.

Under #2
Even though doing so would increase the cost of the this tractor maybe 10 %, these suggestions below for added features would make the Max the one of the best overall tractors regardless of size or price.
I think these features would really sell the tractor. Below are some features I would have paid more to have:

A.) A real suspension seat on the base model. I have raised the front of the seat with 1-1/16 Spacers, and have added a spring suspension to the rear. Seat shape is not as comfortable or well built as a B Series Kubota. (Comfort sells, it makes that first impression)

B.) Accessory outlets, and labeled wiring harness with extra tie in points in harness and fuse box.

C.) The Loader seriously begs for a 4 Link linkage for articulation and more constant force through the range of bucket motion, such as the Kioti C2510. Option for a QA system at the bucket. Larger 40 mm vs. the current 35 mm curl cylinders would help for better break out force.

D.) The PTO with an option of a telescoping link would be nice. The design of the lower links are such that they are not easily removed, as they are integrated into the Loader frame. An easy way to remove the lower hitch draw links should have been worked out.

E.) The plastics trim parts are average. I wonder how they will hold up to UV?

F.) 25x8.5-14 front tires in place of 23x8.5-12, for better flotation & traction.

G.) A bit more hydraulic pump capacity, along with stronger power steering.

H.) A 3 Speed HST or variable transmission non gear model.

I.) A really good paint system with well bonded prime coat/ extra tough durable finish.

Even considering the critique above this is a great value in a small tractor. (At $16K or less)
However If Mitsubishi/Mahindra wants the best tractor out there, well I'd consider a consulting job.

The current weight of my Max28 is approx. 2,650 Lbs. I have at least 40 Lbs of extra steel welded on the bucket, 90 Lbs of front ballast iron, and the 70 lb Quick Hitch on the rear. The tractor needs an extra 500-550 lb. of removable rear weight for most of the work I planed for it. I have a the material for a removable ballast weight designed to fit inboard of the Quick Hitch, and am just awaiting a chance to weld it together. On hills, rear ballast is needed for traction during ground engagement and for stability with a loaded bucket on uneven ground.
Once I finish outfitting the Max, I plan to post again.

 

[oldpilgrim]

I considered the max28 for a while, but went with the 3016 for a few reasons.

1. the 3016 is wider, I don't have a door issue and wanted the stability.
2. the 3 speed HST
3. the SSQA
4. the cup holders
5. the bigger tires
6. I think the ROPS is higher on the Max making it tough to get in the barn without folding it. The shorter the tractor, the higher the ROPS, usually.
7. the extra weight
8. the extra lift, front and rear.
9. extra leg room

the 3016 addresses most of your issues. It's a max28 on steroids.

The 3016 has the same engine as yours, so the max is a smaller machine with a pretty big engine for it's size.

The max is a great machine, and if it's the size that is needed, it will perform very capably...better than most of it's size.

If I were writing a review of the max, it would be much the same as yours, based on my comparisons when I was buying.

I agree the hydro pump(s) should be bigger to make the attachments move faster.

Thanks for writing...and enjoy your machine.

 

[drajj5]

I hope you don't mind my posting my experience within your thread as well....


I also own a Max 28 shuttle bought in October 2013
Same loader as the one stated above...
Factory installed backhoe
59hrs so far.

Mike69440 - has made good points regarding thing(s) he would improve. I would agree that there is room for improvement, but it is a solidly built machine- out of the gate.

I chose this series/model because

It has the same engine as the much larger "3016 series"
I wanted a low profile unit versus the more traditional large tire tractor.
The 'Bang for the Buck'.... had the most traditional "old school attributes" looks just like the old 80's proven design like the older Yanmars/Kubota b7800/John Deere 650 - I would say those old timers were worked hard
Simple design without a bunch of bells and whistles. No 'digital screen' or 'check engine light' on these units.

I have not logged hundreds or thousands of hours on mine yet, but have given it a workout and a few battle scars. I am not afraid to say I "work" it hard, and it seems to be unafraid any task.

Improvement's? Why yes, I choose the following pulled from the previous post in the following order

#1- B Loader.....
#2- C Loader regarding curl cylinder diameter.
#2- G Pump capacity/stronger steering
#2- F Larger front tires
#1- D Ease of servicing

I have not driven/used every new tractor out there. I am sure that other tractors could outshine the Max in certain area(s). But, If I had the chance to make the choice after having logged the hours that I have.... It would still be this Max 28- no regrets here for me.

I have high centered (drove through some uneven terrain), overloaded the FEL (power steering got wimpy), and used harder than some have- and it still performs. I am certain that one day something will give, but feel that this machine will be here for years to come competing right along side those, "much older" well built machines.

I am technologically challenged and tend to lean towards the older- more simplistic design. I feel that there are perks to both, but for me the older 'style' that this tractor presents itself as, "makes me feel more confident that it will survive (me) for years to come":thumbsup:

 

[mike69440]

I hope you don't mind my posting my experience within your thread as well....


I also own a Max 28 shuttle bought in October 2013
Same loader as the one stated above...
Factory installed backhoe
59hrs so far.

Mike69440 - has made good points regarding thing(s) he would improve. I would agree that there is room for improvement, but it is a solidly built machine- out of the gate.

I chose this series/model because

It has the same engine as the much larger "3016 series"
I wanted a low profile unit versus the more traditional large tire tractor.
The 'Bang for the Buck'.... had the most traditional "old school attributes" looks just like the old 80's proven design like the older Yanmars/Kubota b7800/John Deere 650 - I would say those old timers were worked hard
Simple design without a bunch of bells and whistles. No 'digital screen' or 'check engine light' on these units.

I have not logged hundreds or thousands of hours on mine yet, but have given it a workout and a few battle scars. I am not afraid to say I "work" it hard, and it seems to be unafraid any task.

Improvement's? Why yes, I choose the following pulled from the previous post in the following order

#1- B Loader.....
#2- C Loader regarding curl cylinder diameter.
#2- G Pump capacity/stronger steering
#2- F Larger front tires
#1- D Ease of servicing

I have not driven/used every new tractor out there. I am sure that other tractors could outshine the Max in certain area(s). But, If I had the chance to make the choice after having logged the hours that I have.... It would still be this Max 28- no regrets here for me.

I have high centered (drove through some uneven terrain), overloaded the FEL (power steering got wimpy), and used harder than some have- and it still performs. I am certain that one day something will give, but feel that this machine will be here for years to come competing right along side those, "much older" well built machines.

I am technologically challenged and tend to lean towards the older- more simplistic design. I feel that there are perks to both, but for me the older 'style' that this tractor presents itself as, "makes me feel more confident that it will survive (me) for years to come":thumbsup:

The 2 Items that are starting to wear on me are:

1.) The jerky lack of fine loader control.

Tonight I was loading rock into a quite new pickup truck, not mine, from the rear, not the sides as it had fancy extruded Aluminum racks, and I was ever cautious and slow.

Big rocks went on last, smaller rocks, sheet of plywood, & bed liner protected the bed.
I could not use the L39 due to bucket size.

Less so but still a pain,

2.) The grabby clutch.

Tractort needs ballast as it struggles with a 78" york rake. Lacking traction, not power.

 

[drajj5]

The 2 Items that are starting to wear on me are:

1.) The jerky lack of fine loader control.

Tonight I was loading rock into a quite new pickup truck, not mine, from the rear, not the sides as it had fancy extruded Aluminum racks, and I was ever cautious and slow.

Big rocks went on last, smaller rocks, sheet of plywood, & bed liner protected the bed.
I could not use the L39 due to bucket size.

Less so but still a pain,

2.) The grabby clutch.

Tractort needs ballast as it struggles with a 78" york rake. Lacking traction, not power.

If you find a viable solution for the loader control.... I am all ears!! I, like you would like a less sensitive loader. Get a load in it- and feathering the valve is tough. I do wish for more loader valve finesse

The clutch has not presented a problem for me at all. I have loaded 'no' boulders into a truck yet though

I have loaded some rather heavy items (72' tiller was pretty scary). Lots of big blocks (460 engines) into the bed of a pickup's with and without toppers attached. No 440's though!!

To gain the most control I have to take it into LOW gear at idle and ease it over the tailgate/bedside. Loaded tires do help with a backhoe attached when moving anything other than mulch or light weight things. It is slow going during lift/placement but I could do it all day (if) I wasn't terrified of mashing the loader lever too abruptly...

I am sure that rake could turn into an anchor for your tractor when using it, I have done it getting frisky with the box blade while using the rippers.

Perhaps you have a solution for fixing/adjusting loader sensitivity?

 

[mike69440]

If you find a viable solution for the loader control.... I am all ears!! I, like you would like a less sensitive loader. Get a load in it- and feathering the valve is tough. I do wish for more loader valve finesse

The clutch has not presented a problem for me at all. I have loaded 'no' boulders into a truck yet though

I have loaded some rather heavy items (72' tiller was pretty scary). Lots of big blocks (460 engines) into the bed of a pickup's with and without toppers attached. No 440's though!!

To gain the most control I have to take it into LOW gear at idle and ease it over the tailgate/bedside. Loaded tires do help with a backhoe attached when moving anything other than mulch or light weight things. It is slow going during lift/placement but I could do it all day (if) I wasn't terrified of mashing the loader lever too abruptly...

I am sure that rake could turn into an anchor for your tractor when using it, I have done it getting frisky with the box blade while using the rippers.

Perhaps you have a solution for fixing/adjusting loader sensitivity?

Regarding Loader Senseitivity, Its called characterizing the spool. I would be real afraid of ruining it by cutting a little notch here and there just to see what happens. I did fix this in my excavator. Very carefully!