Buying Advice First Tractor - Which way to go?

[vtsnowedin]

I don't know why you would compare small CUTs to a utility machine, but even if you stick with that theory, the Deere is available with 75hp in the same chassis, which would drop the power to weight to 67.6lbs/hp....putting it at the bottom of the list.

Obviously a 5075E would far outperform any of the other machines, so power to weight has limited value as a comparison figure....maybe if you're drag racing ;-)

To take the discussion or analysis a bit further each of the different Hp ratings of the JD 50XXE series comes with a different tire size to maximize the ability of the tractor to transmit the power available to the ground as tractive force. My 5045E came with 13.6 x 28 rears. If I had ordered a 5075E it would have come with 16.9x 28 R3s.
So power to weight has little value you say? If you are out pulling a big implement through the dirt it is the only thing that has value.

 

[Riding Tailboard]

I have a 40hp New Holland that I use for all the chores you are talking about. It is nimble, quick, and works logs very well. However, when i bought a hilly farm I soon realized the need for extra weight. I decided to step up to 50hp New Holland to gain hp, traction, and stability. I would recommend test driving both a utility tractor and a compact utility tractor at your dealer of choice. Many of the differences can be found with a simple test drive. I would feel comfortable buying a used tractor with less than 1000 hours.

 

[Creamer]

I farmed 700 acres for 29 years and had about the same results from new or used equipment. Our money lender did a study during a long span of those years using dependable farmers for input and came up with after 7 years the new or the used equaled out to the same cost per acre with the new being high at start and the used catching up due to repairs . my only reservation with used is making sure wherever you purchase make sure its a trustworthy party. buy as large as you can for your wallet and you will be happy - good luck !

i would be very interested in doing that same analysis with today's new equipment vs. used. With all the electronics I am betting 10 years down the road the repair costs are going to be much higher than older equipment without the electronics. My 1710 for instance - in the 22 years I have owned it I have put on new front tires and a muffler and had a hydraulic problem fixed. In that time I have only put about 900 hours on it so it isn't high usage but I would bet that repair bill would be a lot higher for any of today's tractors 30 years from now. To give a farming example my nephews have a JD4250 that has 22,500 hours on it. They put $27k into it at 22,000 hours via an engine overhaul, clutch, and cab kit among other things. But they looked at it as a lot cheaper than a new tractor for the usefulness they get from it. They are not beholden to old equipment as they purchase a new JD 4WD and have a couple of newer tractors for loader and general use type things. But if somebody would give them a decent price for their JD7810 it would be gone in a heartbeat - the 4250 is worth much more with twice as many hours on it.

 

[GManBart]

To take the discussion or analysis a bit further each of the different Hp ratings of the JD 50XXE series comes with a different tire size to maximize the ability of the tractor to transmit the power available to the ground as tractive force. My 5045E came with 13.6 x 28 rears. If I had ordered a 5075E it would have come with 16.9x 28 R3s.
So power to weight has little value you say? If you are out pulling a big implement through the dirt it is the only thing that has value.

I think matching tire size to the machine/power is a good idea, but you're using the power to weight ratio backwards, or at least describing it that way.

You were showing how the smaller machines listed have 6-70lbs per horsepower, while your Deere has over 110lbs per horsepower and suggesting that it's a good thing (not arguing that).

That means you have a lower power to weight ratio. 45hp to 5000lbs (ballpark) = .009hp per pound.
Something like the Kioti CK35 is 35hp to 3100lbs = 011hp per pound.

If power to weight is so important, how can it be that the smaller tractors can't do as much as your 5045 even though they have better power to weight ratios?

Weight is one thing, traction is another, power to weight ratio is another, and load pulling ability (like the old drawbar tests) is yet another.

It's pretty obvious that your 5045 would pull a much larger implement through the dirt than the CK35 even though it has a lower power to weight ratio, so there must be a lot more to the equation.

Power to weight matters most when you're talking about acceleration, which isn't what we really do with tractors. You want a lot of weight to get good traction, and then enough power to take advantage of that traction, but more often than not we run out of traction before power.

To keep it apples-to-apples, if we look at the same machine with different horsepower levels, power to weight starts to mean something....a 5075E can do more than your 5045E, but they have the same weight, and basic size to work with so it's a pretty direct relationship. Once you try comparing to a much smaller/larger machine, with significantly different weight, power to weight loses meaning since all the other variables get changed. That's why I said comparing CUTs to Utility machines doesn't mean much...we already know a larger Utility machine will be able to do a lot more work, regardless of power to weight ratios.

 

[vtsnowedin]

I think matching tire size to the machine/power is a good idea, but you're using the power to weight ratio backwards, or at least describing it that way.

You were showing how the smaller machines listed have 6-70lbs per horsepower, while your Deere has over 110lbs per horsepower and suggesting that it's a good thing (not arguing that).

That means you have a lower power to weight ratio. 45hp to 5000lbs (ballpark) = .009hp per pound.
Something like the Kioti CK35 is 35hp to 3100lbs = 011hp per pound.

If power to weight is so important, how can it be that the smaller tractors can't do as much as your 5045 even though they have better power to weight ratios?

Weight is one thing, traction is another, power to weight ratio is another, and load pulling ability (like the old drawbar tests) is yet another.

It's pretty obvious that your 5045 would pull a much larger implement through the dirt than the CK35 even though it has a lower power to weight ratio, so there must be a lot more to the equation.

Power to weight matters most when you're talking about acceleration, which isn't what we really do with tractors. You want a lot of weight to get good traction, and then enough power to take advantage of that traction, but more often than not we run out of traction before power.

To keep it apples-to-apples, if we look at the same machine with different horsepower levels, power to weight starts to mean something....a 5075E can do more than your 5045E, but they have the same weight, and basic size to work with so it's a pretty direct relationship. Once you try comparing to a much smaller/larger machine, with significantly different weight, power to weight loses meaning since all the other variables get changed. That's why I said comparing CUTs to Utility machines doesn't mean much...we already know a larger Utility machine will be able to do a lot more work, regardless of power to weight ratios.

I think you are the one that has it backwards. At least on this end of the scale. You need enough weight per horse power to keep the tires engaged and transmit the power to the ground without excessive tire slip. I Included my 5045E because it is well designed and has a good power to weight ratio. Your smaller cuts have more power in relation to their weight so can't apply that power to the ground without spinning. On the other end of the scale would be a tractor that weighed so much that it couldn't turn it's tires with it's low powered engine.
A Z28 Camaro has a lot of horse power but it can't pull diddily.

 

[GManBart]

I think you are the one that has it backwards. At least on this end of the scale. You need enough weight per horse power to keep the tires engaged and transmit the power to the ground without excessive tire slip. I Included my 5045E because it is well designed and has a good power to weight ratio. Your smaller cuts have more power in relation to their weight so can't apply that power to the ground without spinning. On the other end of the scale would be a tractor that weighed so much that it couldn't turn it's tires with it's low powered engine.
A Z28 Camaro has a lot of horse power but it can't pull diddily.

Actually you have it backwards. You're talking about power loading (pounds per horsepower) not power-to-weight (horsepower per pound).

Your 5045E has a higher power loading rating than the smaller CUTs we were talking about. On the flip side, it has a lower power-to-weight ratio.

Regardless, the discussion is about CUTs, and smaller CUTs at that, not Utility tractors so I don't see how it even applies. I don't think anybody will argue that a Utility tractor should be able to do more work than a CUT, much less a smaller CUT.

 

[jeff9366]

I'm of GMB's view.

 

[vtsnowedin]

Actually you have it backwards. You're talking about power loading (pounds per horsepower) not power-to-weight (horsepower per pound).

Your 5045E has a higher power loading rating than the smaller CUTs we were talking about. On the flip side, it has a lower power-to-weight ratio.

Regardless, the discussion is about CUTs, and smaller CUTs at that, not Utility tractors so I don't see how it even applies. I don't think anybody will argue that a Utility tractor should be able to do more work than a CUT, much less a smaller CUT.

No the OP Mason asked what tractor to buy for his 100 acres and wanting to do some heavy lifting etc. A utility tractor is more suited to his needs and can be had new or used for the same money as a CUT and better serve his needs.

 

[mjcountrybumpkin]

Right here's your bang for your buck. Super reliable ,efficient , and simple to run and maintain

 

[GManBart]

No the OP Mason asked what tractor to buy for his 100 acres and wanting to do some heavy lifting etc. A utility tractor is more suited to his needs and can be had new or used for the same money as a CUT and better serve his needs.

He also said he'd like to spend around $15K. I'm not seeing much chance of finding a solid FWA Utility machine with FEL for $15K, but I guess that depends on how old, and how many hours the OP is willing to risk.

Nobody is debating that Utility machines can do more than CUTs, but the part you jumped in the middle of was the comparison of the weight/power of a number of smaller CUTs...different topic.