Is the Mahindra Max really a SCUT

[Sysop]

Here's an apt analogy. You go buy a set of workshop shelves 6' tall and able to support 1000# per shelf and 6000# in the whole unit. Do you start filling the top shelves with the heaviest items? ...or do you BALLAST the bottom first to prevent the weight up top from becoming a danger?

If you load the top shelves first and it falls over on you, who's fault is it? Was it bad marketing or a clue-free owner?

 

[rider0]

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.

But why should *I* give up loader capacity because *YOU* have a 300lb tinfoil boxblade out back for ballast?

The Mahindras have relatively (especially compared Kubota) long wheelbases, a bit of extra weight, and reducing the machine's capabilities to account for the least common denominator is annoying.

Kubota rates their loaders (at least on the BX and B series) to pretty much tap out the loader while keeping unballasted rear wheels on the ground. I don't like it a bit, but that's probably what their lawyers said needed to happen.

With a beefy box blade or backhoe on the tractor, I'd like to see hundreds of pounds of additional breakout and lift force, but the loader geometry, cylinder size, and relief pressure don't allow for it.

 

[94BULLITT]

Cause it is a SCUT :muttering:

Please elaborate.

The Mahindras have relatively (especially compared Kubota) long wheelbases, a bit of extra weight, and reducing the machine's capabilities to account for the least common denominator is annoying.

Kubota rates their loaders (at least on the BX and B series) to pretty much tap out the loader while keeping unballasted rear wheels on the ground. I don't like it a bit, but that's probably what their lawyers said needed to happen.

With a beefy box blade or backhoe on the tractor, I'd like to see hundreds of pounds of additional breakout and lift force, but the loader geometry, cylinder size, and relief pressure don't allow for it.

I think you are right. Each manufacturer rates their stuff differently. I doubt that on a smaller tractor that there is much difference in the lift capacities of any brand.

 

[madmax12]

The long and the short of it is Mahindra accurately designs its tractors to safely utilize their strength and size. If another brand can lift its rear wheels off the ground, that is a sign of a lesser design. That is not an indication that Mahindra strength is unsafe.

Also, only operators capable of professional tractoring qualifications should utilize Mahindra strength. I think there's a sticker to that effect in the operators station.

Now, where is that stir the pot icon?

 

[94BULLITT]

If a tractor is lifting its rear wheels off the ground when lifting with the FEL it needs more ballast.

 

[Sysop]

Agreed, and if a tractor can't lift it's unballasted behind off the ground with the FEL it's worthless, useless, and not worthy of being called a tractor.