Tractor Sizing TRACTOR WEIGHT as a SINGLE CRITERION IN TRACTOR SELECTION

[MossRoad]

It doesn't matter how heavy the tractor is if it doesn't have enough HP to move itself and an implement efficiently. Doesn't matter if it's a PTO powered implement, or a ground engaging implement like a dirt plow. As evidenced, just keep adding bottoms to a plow and eventually the tractor can't pull it. Weight, engine HP, tire selection, implement selection are all equally important.

 

[chim]

...........................When considering a tractor purchase, bare tractor weight first, tractor horsepower second and (narrowly) rear wheel ballast third. Ample tractor horsepower is needed for PTO-powered implements such as Bush Hogs and snow blowers, but remains subsidiary to tractor weight in defining tractor capability.

Similar thought process brought me to the current and "perfect enough" L4240HSTC. Weight wasn't the first consideration, but the desired power and physical size of the tractor automatically brought sufficient weight by default. Having more than enough capability in a few key areas makes it very user friendly. Until now there were many times that I wanted a bit more than previous tractors could deliver.

My first consideration was having the horsepower to run a wide RFM and A/C and have enough left to mow uphill. I've seen different info that indicated anywhere between 4 and 6 horsepower is needed to run A/C. Rough calcs are 35 horses for the RFM and another 5 for A/C.

Next was a bit more FEL capability than with the L3200. I frequently pick up equipment to move it about, load and unload odd heavy pieces on trailers, and wanted to make a QA snow plow.

I don't do ground-engaging equipment work, so the weight of the tractor with filled rears is plenty for my work. It has never felt too light and yet is kind to the lawn. The tractor always has something on the 3PH and the weight behind the rear wheels adds to the stability when picking something heavy with the FEL.

 

[RickB]

Horsepower is my 1# sort. They have enough or they do not. Not enough is a deal breaker. Features are next. Hydraulic capability and transmission type. This is all stuff you have to live with. Tractor weight can be added and routinely is. You can make tractors of similar hp ratings weigh equally, or nearly so. Weight is the easiest specification to alter so the initial importance of weight is minimal. A tractor too heavy for the hp it develops is essentially unheard of.

 

[Shaneard]

Horsepower is my 1# sort. They have enough or they do not. Not enough is a deal breaker. Features are next. Hydraulic capability and transmission type. This is all stuff you have to live with. Tractor weight can be added and routinely is. You can make tractors of similar hp ratings weigh equally, or nearly so. Weight is the easiest specification to alter so the initial importance of weight is minimal. A tractor too heavy for the hp it develops is essentially unheard of.

BINGO! I'd rather have too much HP than weight, you can always add weight.

 

[4570Man]

BINGO! I'd rather have too much HP than weight, you can always add weight.

Heavier tractors usually come with stronger loaders. Adding a stronger one isn’t exactly quick and easy.

 

[airbiscuit]

I agree that it is important to consider what implements you are going to use and what work you are going to do when considering the size, weight and hp of your new tractor. Lots of seasoned vets here willing to weigh in on Jeff's thread. Often though, newby tractor shoppers don't look past hp and price and choose a smaller (cheaper) model than would have been optimal. Do people sometimes wish they had purchased a smaller tractor? Of course, but rarely. Most often what I've read on TBN, is that if they wish they had purchased a different size tractor, it is that they wish they had purchased a larger tractor. That said, sometimes budget determines how much tractor you can buy. I don't judge. If you own a CUT you're ahead on points and you wear a perpetual smile.

Personally, when I am considering a CUT purchase, my first consideration is FRAME SIZE (e.g.John Deere 1xxx, 2xxx, 3xxx, 4xxx) and go from there. Hopefully the manufacturer has designed in the "Goldilocks" of HP, Weight and Wheel Diameter for each frame design

 

[jeff9366]

Tractor weight largely defines tractor capability in pulling applications.
Heavier tractors are built with thicker steel and thicker axles to withstand the stress of heavier loads.

Heavier tractors have larger diameter, greater breadth wheels/tires, creating larger tire tread "patch" in contact with the soil. Rear tires are often ballasted internally with liquid, placing weight directly over the tire tread. Larger wheels and tires and a longer wheelbase permit heavier tractors to bridge holes, burrows, ruts and tree debris, increasing tractor traction and reducing operator perturbation. Therefore, heavier tractors with large diameter wheels/tires have more tractive power pulling ground contact implements and tree trunks, pushing a loader bucket into dirt and pushing snow. Larger wheels and tires increase ground clearance, lengthening the period which row crops may be implement cultivated.

Heavier tractors have FEL lift and Three Point Hitch lift in proportion to weight.

When considering a tractor purchase, bare tractor weight first, tractor horsepower second and (narrowly) rear wheel ballast third. Ample tractor horsepower is needed for PTO-powered implements such as Bush Hogs and snow blowers, but remains subsidiary to tractor weight in defining tractor capability.

 

[Shaneard]

When considering a tractor purchase, bare tractor weight first, tractor horsepower second and (narrowly) rear wheel ballast third. Ample tractor horsepower is needed for PTO-powered implements such as Bush Hogs and snow blowers, but remains subsidiary to tractor weight in defining tractor capability.

I disagree with "bare tractor weight first". I say HP/size of tractor you need first, if you find you don't have enough weight, weight can be added, hard to add HP after the purchase. Tractors have been around for more than 100 years and I am pretty sure they have the weight/HP ratio figured out already for us.

Personally, I think if you buy a tractor based on weight you THINK you need, it will be under horse powered in the long run.

Do a survey on here, I bet 95% of people who bought a tractor then sold it to buy a bigger tractor it was because of lack of HP, not weight.

 

[jeff9366]

I disagree with "bare tractor weight first". I say HP/size of tractor you need first, if you find you don't have enough weight, weight can be added, hard to add HP after the purchase.

The diversity of opinions offered by T-B-N contributors are its strength.


Since its introduction the relatively heavy, <25-1/2 horsepower/100 cubic inch Kubota L2501 has maintained first or second in USA sales volume for Kubota.

It required two or three years for other tractor manufacturers to gear up for this new weight/power category created by anomalies in emission regulations but now all the top tractor brands have at least one, often two clones of the Kubota L2501 selling in volume.

 

[4570Man]

I disagree with "bare tractor weight first". I say HP/size of tractor you need first, if you find you don't have enough weight, weight can be added, hard to add HP after the purchase. Tractors have been around for more than 100 years and I am pretty sure they have the weight/HP ratio figured out already for us.

Personally, I think if you buy a tractor based on weight you THINK you need, it will be under horse powered in the long run.

Do a survey on here, I bet 95% of people who bought a tractor then sold it to buy a bigger tractor it was because of lack of HP, not weight.

I bet 95 percent of them bought a bigger tractor because the FEL wouldn’t lift enough, or the tractor wouldn’t pull/push hard enough or was otherwise too small. Not because it didn’t have enough hp. If you need more hp you can go a little slower and get the job done. If you have a load that can’t be pulled or lifted by your tractor no matter how slow you go it’s not going to do it.