A question about the PT1460

[Porkchop Express]

Hi Power Trac forum members. I've been reading many of the threads here recently and was hoping to get a few questions answered about the PT1460 model. We live on a 60 acre plot of land and we also have a small sawmill operation. We have an old Deere 482C rough terrain forklift that has an unknown thousands of hours on it. It's a workhorse that does all the heavy lifting around here, especially at our sawmill, but it's also getting old and we don't have anything else that can share the load in the event that it needs any big repairs, which it eventually will. I'm thinking in the next year or so that I will probably buy something like a 50-60 HP sized tractor to use as a backup for the forklift and also to do many of the chores that my Kubota BX2380 does for us. We use that one for grass cutting as well as every manner of daily odd tasks, much the same as most forum members use their PT425s. In fact, we have put about 200 hours a year on the BX for the past 4 years, and a lot of that is doing things that could definitely be done a lot faster with a bigger, more capable tractor or possibly a large Power Trac.

I've looked at the Power Trac website and I think most people would agree that the info there is a bit limited and inconsistent. Could anyone tell me exactly how tall the 1460 model is? From the pictures it looks like it would probably fit into my garage, much the same as my BX does now with the ROPS up. Also, when they say it will lift 2400 pounds, I'm assuming they mean to full lift height at the pivot pins? Do you 1460 owners find that the 2400 pound lift capacity is true? Obviously putting something way out on forks will severely limit the amount that can be lifted, but let's say if you have a 2000 pound log sitting right up against the back of the forks, does the 1460 likely have enough weight/muscle to lift it to full height on level ground without mayhem? Also, the size tractor I'd probably consider is something like a Kubota MX5400, which is listed about 9 inches wider, but definitely would have a higher center of gravity. I'm guessing the 1460 although being a bit more narrow would still probably be a more stable platform for doing heavy lifting? And what is everyone's opinion on the Deutz diesels? Just as good/reliable as a Kubota engine?

I really like the idea of articulated loaders. I'm sneaking up on 50 soon and I've officially hit that point in life where I really don't like dealing with PTOs much and I also don't like constantly looking back over my shoulder at whatever implement I have hooked up behind me. Having a machine where all the implements or attachments can be used out front and easily hooked up is really appealing. As far as I can tell the price of a new 1460 is roughly the same as a similar lift capacity on a tractor, so I'm just trying to get an idea of how something like the 1460 does in the real world. We don't really do any stuff here that would require the pulling power of a big tractor. Instead, we do a ton of loader work (bucket, forks, grapple stuff) along with a fair amount of brush cutting. So an articulated loader might be a good fit.

 

[MossRoad]

Welcome to TBN!

 

[SpringHollow]

From my experience, Power Trac if anything low balls their lift capacity and on a good day, it can actually do a little more than what they say. This is on well used machines. I would think a new one would be as good or better.

 

[m5040]

Articulated machines have variable lift specs. For straight and fully articulated. I believe the 2400 lbs spec is for the tractor in the straight position.
I have a M6040 kubota and a PT1460. I use the 1460 way more then the Kubota, for an arbitrary figure, like 50/1 favoring the PT. That is due to ease of use (getting on/off, visibility of attachment, ease of changing attachments, versatility/variety of front mounted attachments-especially when you make a Melrose adapter which opens all the standard flow skid steer attachments). The Deutz Diesel is as good as a Kubota or at least in the ballpark but they are noisy you will need hearing protection. The good is no radiator.
Speaking of radiator, one of the best parts of the Power Trac is a bullet prof underside. Look under your BX at all the stuff that can get bent or damaged!
I have a Ryan's rotating grapple and have used it elevated on side hills with a comfortable/stable feeling.
I know I already mentioned it, but to me at 62 and working alone, the ease of getting on/off is a big big deal. My M6040 is a 3 step endeavor.
The question is always in my mind, "If I could only have one". They both have their advantages, but ease of use is the main selling point for me, even if it can only do 80% of what the Kubota can do (and that goes both ways as the Kubota can't do what the PT can do).
My main driveway is 900' long and we have gotten 3' overnight snowfalls so a cab tractor is a must for me, otherwise I would only have the 1430.
One issue on the PT is no locking diffs like the big Kubotas which some have front and rear. If you have $$, you can install selectable flow dividers to accomplish this but I think it would be a plumbers nightmare which is what is stopping me.

I didn't write the following, but it is also food for thought:

Having some experience under my belt, I am even more convinced now than I was when I began looking at tractors a year ago that the design of compact tractors, for us weekend diggers as opposed to real farmers, is all wrong. It is a design that has devolved, in an anti-Darwinian fashion, from a series of historical compromises and from blind mimicry of grandpa's agricultural tractor.

Here is a list of the design flaws and the obvious remedies:

1. The 3ph is an abomination. It is an historical industry compromise that, like all compromises, is a mediocrity at best. It is the interface that has launched a thousand hernias (and a googolplex cursewords). It needs to be replaced by the kind of simple, 30-second attachment interface that skidsteers have.

2. Mowers should be on the front of a tractor. This is so for both finish mowers and brush mowers. It is also so for snow blades and snowblowers. Having any of these in the middle or back of the tractor is inefficient, clumsy, and puts you in the hospital for with neck problems in addition to your hernia. The solution is having fully independent attachment interfaces on both ends of the tractor. Thus, for example, you could have the mower on the front and the FEL on the back as your "regular" set-up. This would also have the virtue of eliminating the need for clunky, useless counterweights for the rear of the tractor such as weight boxes, concrete-filled cans or trendy boxblades.

3. This naturally means you should be able to swivel the driver's seat around and drive in either direction. Thereby, your FEL or hoe would then be in front of you for proper operation, with the mower (or other useful implement) then becoming the "rear" counterweight.

4. The power connection to the attachment interfaces should be hydraulic, not mechanical. Just one-second quick-connect couplers. No more dangerous, twirling pto shafts to to catch your lovebead neckaces and choke you to death. No more clumsy, heavy implement shafts. No more lining up splines, or fiddling with collars and buttons.

5. All wheels should be the same size. Small front wheels are (for us weekend diggers) a largely useless artifact of agricultural crop row navigation. Might as well put sundials on tractors. Having equal wheel sizes would have many benefits. There would be a larger tractor footrprint and hence greater overall floatation. There would be less scuffing of lawns and imprinting in soils, and less sinking into wet soils and mud, because it is the small front tires that are the primary culprits in these matters. You could change tire sizes without worrying about differing 4wd circumference ratios between the front and rear wheels. You could fill all four tires for more traction and stability, and be driving an overall more weight-balanced vehicle. You would have better traction in 4wd, which should be significant in mud and snow applications.

6. Because mowing is a primary activity of compact users, these tractors should all articulate. This means they pivot in the middle to promote ease of turning and driving.

7. They should be significantly cheaper than they are. Why should a small compact tractor cost more than a compact car? Tractors are 1930 technology, for goodness sakes, and have relatively few parts. Something is wrong. They are way overpriced.

Having been on sabbatical from this forum for several months, I am pleased to observe that there is now an American-made product that cures most of these problems and meets most of these objectives: the Power-Trac, courageously purchased by Willingtonpizza. Having reviewed the Power-Trac on their website, it is obvious that there is no sane reason anymore to purchase the historically-flawed compact tractor.

You all may disgree with this, of course.

 

[MossRoad]

From here:

Compact Tractors are Designed All Wrong

Having some experience under my belt, I am even more convinced now than I was when I began looking at tractors a year ago that the design of compact tractors, for us weekend diggers as opposed to real farmers, is all wrong. It is a design that has devolved, in an anti-Darwinian fashion, from a...

www.tractorbynet.com

 

[PowerTracManiac]

Its your lucky day porkchop!
I have the day off and I am starting my deck build project.

Real world results from a 15 year old machine (PT1460).
First photo is a log I cut to make room for my orchard area (14 feet long and 25 inch in diameter)



Second photo is an actual weighted test. I needed 40-60 pound bags of concrete for my deck posts. (2,400 pounds plus the pallet). Back end is feeling light with this pallet and I could not lift it any higher.

I am very happy with this machine as a loader and a lifter!
It is 6ft 8inches to the top of the ROPS.

 

[MossRoad]

Its your lucky day porkchop!
I have the day off and I am starting my deck build project.

Real world results from a 15 year old machine (PT1460).
First photo is a log I cut to make room for my orchard area (14 feet long and 25 inch in diameter)

View attachment 817167

Second photo is an actual weighted test. I needed 40-60 pound bags of concrete for my deck posts. (2,400 pounds plus the pallet). Back end is feeling light with this pallet and I could not lift it any higher.
View attachment 817171
I am very happy with this machine as a loader and a lifter!
It is 6ft 8inches to the top of the ROPS.

Plus the weight of the grapple forks!

 

[Porkchop Express]

Thanks for the responses. Yes, it's hard to argue with any of the points made above regarding tractors. The person who wrote that was spot on with those observations. I love our little Kubota BX, but it's still basically just a tiny tractor, with most of the standard tractor flaws that I find myself having less patience for as I get older. I've had my BX a little over 4 years and if I had known about the PT425 at the time I was ready to purchase, there's a pretty good chance that I would have gotten one of them instead. Working from the front of the machine and not dreading having to hook up any given attachment/implement is a huge bonus.

And thanks for the pics PowerTracManiac. That's exactly the kind of stuff I was hoping to see. That pallet demo is pretty impressive, especially factoring in the weight of the forks and grapple too like MossRoad pointed out. I got a chuckle out of the fact that the 1460 is actually 3 inches shorter than my BX with the ROPS up. Being able to roll a brute like that through a regular size garage door is nice. It's kind of a shame that Power Trac hasn't done more to promote their product over the years. I think they could have sold a ton more of them.

 

[2manyrocks]

I've never owned a PT so any PT owner please feel free to correct me.

It looks to me like most PT owners either do their own service or sometimes may rely on the factory versus having a Kubota dealer to do repairs if that makes any difference.

i would think that a PT is less complicated than a MX5400 because the PT is basically a hydraulic system.

The PT attachments also seem to be specific to PT and even then, may be for specific PT models and not necessarily fit all PT models. So you'd want to be happy with the attachments that fit your PT model.

Haven't compared the turning radius, but suspect PT can turn in a more confined environment.

 

[ponytug]

We are PT fans! Welcome to TBN.

You might have a look at the PT owners list to see if there are any owners near you. Over the years, I have had a couple of folks come by and test drive mine. When I bought mine, there weren't any owners nearby, so managed to finagle a side trip to Tazewell when I was in the general neighborhood. I had a great time seeing the factory and their attachments, and having called ahead, they had a 1445, and an 1845 for me to try out, with some attachments. It closed the sale for me.
(PowerTrac Owners by State 11-1-15, updated 10/25/2021)

At the time I bought it, everything that I knew about hydraulics would have fit on a post-it note. They are very, very simple machines.

Attached below is a 1445 lifting a stack of pressure treated, carefully. Those are pressure treated 12' and 8' 6x6s, and a few 4x6-8' tossed on top, fresh from the mill, and pretty wet. (Because the center of mass on a Power-Trac moves forward as the tractor turns/articulates, what the tractor can lift bent 45 degrees is less than it can lift going straight in, and vice versa, often leading a rear wheel lift or two, if one turns sharply with a heavy load out front. I move very slowly and carefully with heavy loads to make sure that any "oopsies" will be the bucket or forks dropping a couple of inches at low speed. You will get the hang of it quickly.)

I find my 1445 invaluable and have accomplished many projects easily and very short amounts of time thanks to it.

All the best,

Peter