Tractor Sizing How Much Can A Sub Compact Tractor lift?

[paulfun9]

[QUOTE




I think somebody may be new tractor shopping soon... or just selling the unused one?[/QUOTE]


Thought about selling it a few times and getting an other tractor similar in size to my DK but so far haven't decided if I might need to downsize latter on or not so it just sits there waiting for its turn to do some work. With the internationals the Kioti and the dresser crawler we just don't have a constant use for the little JD but someday might. If someone happened along and made a decent offer I might sell it depending on my mood but I have no intention to advertise. It really doesn't hurt anything to sit there and if I ever have the need to use it just drop a battery in and go to work.

Very good reminder. Maybe in some situations a purchase of a B series (staying with Kubota for the sake of the discussion) is more appropriate than a BX series. Either way, in my opinion, a small tractor is valuable to any land owner. I for years did without a small tractor until I bought my little used B21. That mighty mouse may be my most often employed tractor out of my fleet of 11 come year end.

I like many others will not say a small machine is a toy or useless as I personally have done some serious work with them. I do however use caution when people say I just want a tractor for this kind of stuff. Problem is once a machine is used a few times the jobs always seem to start to become bigger, people trade in their small truck for a slightly bigger one then find the tractor wont load it anymore, they also find that jobs once never dreamed about being tackled now can be and then get into the limitations of the small machine. This is almost as much about the type person getting the tractor as it is the current job list, as some lists will grow and mutate into major projects and others will always be happy go lucky with no change in those tasks they have right now.

 

[gladehound]

From reading this thread and others, it seems the idea of a SCUT being a toy is only brought by those defending SCUTs as not being toys.

I owned a 19 hp CUT for many years and did tons of work with it. It was very useful. However, for my uses, it was limited. I was constantly maxing it out to get things done and figuring out alternate ways to do things to get around it's limitations (time).

I think there is some misunderstanding that when owners of larger CUTs / UTs point our the limitations of smaller CUTs / SCUTs, they are expressing that these smaller tractors are not useful machines or are "Toys". That is not the case at all. I believe posters like myself are really just trying to share the limitations that they have experienced in the hopes of helping others to consider these limitations when deciding what tractor size is best for them. People don't talk as much about the limitations of larger tractors (big and heavy) I guess because they are obvious. Namely - If you need to fit a tractor under, between or on something without damage, don't get one that is too big to do so.

 

[Egon]

Folks; if your SCUT has Lift Height or Reach Length difficulties when dumping what is required is a forklift and pallet to drive the SCUT on. Then you can use the forklift to position the scut for dumping!

 

[check]

Yup. I reach the limits of my BX 25 all the time, but that is only because I push it to it's limits. And I did start with only three quarters of an acre, but now have a second property that's 25 acres, so something like a B2650 would indeed be nice. But I am not going to get one, because they cost over $30,000 with front end loader and BH. And that kind of money is just not worth it to me.

 

[AxleHub]

Yup. I reach the limits of my BX 25 all the time, but that is only because I push it to it's limits. And I did start with only three quarters of an acre, but now have a second property that's 25 acres, so something like a B2650 would indeed be nice. But I am not going to get one, because they cost over $30,000 with front end loader and BH. And that kind of money is just not worth it to me.

Greetings Check,

Spot on. Investing in a scut is investing into a growth pattern for many that have outgrown expensive lawn tractors and wheelbarrows and renting equipment frequently. I can use it on multiple properties also, both in city and urban. And trailering is realistic.

 

[jenkinsph]

From reading this thread and others, it seems the idea of a SCUT being a toy is only brought by those defending SCUTs as not being toys.

I owned a 19 hp CUT for many years and did tons of work with it. It was very useful. However, for my uses, it was limited. I was constantly maxing it out to get things done and figuring out alternate ways to do things to get around it's limitations (time).

I think there is some misunderstanding that when owners of larger CUTs / UTs point our the limitations of smaller CUTs / SCUTs, they are expressing that these smaller tractors are not useful machines or are "Toys". That is not the case at all. I believe posters like myself are really just trying to share the limitations that they have experienced in the hopes of helping others to consider these limitations when deciding what tractor size is best for them. People don't talk as much about the limitations of larger tractors (big and heavy) I guess because they are obvious. Namely - If you need to fit a tractor under, between or on something without damage, don't get one that is too big to do so.

I agree with Gladehound above ^^^^^^
The purpose of these discussions should be to aid the new buyer in selecting the right tractor to fit their needs. That can range from a small lawnmower to a utility tractor. Without a doubt if I suggest a garden tractor the subcut guys think it is too small and worthless. I try to fit the needs (as I can perceive them) of the poster as best I can. All of these various size tractors have their sweet spot where they are a best fit scenario. I will say I find it difficult to recommend a tractor of any size that is fully ballasted for fel work to mow a manicured lawn. I know most of my issues with a subcut are where a buyer wants to mow the lawn and lift a max load with the fel. Hard to set up the machine to do the best job in both cases without ballast removal. A subcut can be a good fit when you need a small foot print machine to aid in building a landscape, there have been times I have needed them.

I found that garden tractors work well for my uses in lawn care which is 90% mowing with 10% of other tasks raking, seeding, fertilizing and some spot repair. Zero turns work well and overlap with their own benefits I don't have one. I did consider buying a ztr this year but in looking at the needs I realized that a second garden tractor was the better choice mowing the mountain sides in my locale. Once you have the garden tractors to handle the lawn duties I find the larger compacts seem to handle the other tasks I have well enough to get by without a subcut or small compact tractor. I see the need for a much larger field tractor 150 to 200 hp first.

 

[AxleHub]

1. I agree with Gladehound above ^^^^^^
The purpose of these discussions should be to aid the new buyer in selecting the right tractor to fit their needs.

2. All of these various size tractors have their sweet spot where they are a best fit scenario.

3. I will say I find it difficult to recommend a tractor of any size that is fully ballasted for fel work to mow a manicured lawn. I know most of my issues with a subcut are where a buyer wants to mow the lawn and lift a max load with the fel. Hard to set up the machine to do the best job in both cases without ballast removal.

Greetings Jenkin,

1. Glade's recent post lacked some logic in it.

If you've read thru this thread to date, you'll find several larger tractor owners admit they were quite surprised at what my test on my scut showed for lifting weight. Glade mentioned in 3 posts alone on this thread the number was quite impressive and unexpected. Yet in his recent post he talks about how only scut owners defend the size and that larger tractor owners are just giving an opinion viewpoint for new potential user inquiries. The point on this is: if they are surprised and impressed at actual numbers . . doesn't that mean their viewpoint is quite dated or inaccurate? Isn't that exactly why scut owners are defending their tractor category, because opinions are expressed that don't agree with reality? Nobody arm twisted anyone to admit they were impressed . . they just were. And the new prospect guys don't have the experience to defend considering a scut.

2. Your point about all tractors have a sweet spot is exactly correct. Yet too many times I read posters on many tjreads who seem unable to define where a scut fits in. They claim its too small for tractor work and too big for lawn work . . And their conclusion is always the same . . get a lawn mower and a bigger tractor. Your point and mine is . . Scuts are the largest selling category right now for a reason . . Its a good sized sweet spot. A friend of mine who has owned tractors for decades told me that too often early buyers of scuts or eatly small cuts were disappointed because their needs didn't fit as they hadn't originally planned their desires very well. So then they got larger and became happy. As a result my friend tells me their opinions NOW reflect that long ago experience and not the realities of equipment approval in the last 6 or 8 years. Things have changed (their needs) but not their memories compared to today.

3. Unless of course if you're inventing a new ballast method.

 

[paulfun9]

Yup. I reach the limits of my BX 25 all the time, but that is only because I push it to it's limits. And I did start with only three quarters of an acre, but now have a second property that's 25 acres, so something like a B2650 would indeed be nice. But I am not going to get one, because they cost over $30,000 with front end loader and BH. And that kind of money is just not worth it to me.

Have you considered getting a second older used machine to do some of the tasks your BX isn't the best fit for? My friend started small and then couldn't get himself to buy a New bigger tractor due to cost so he went the used 2 wheel drive route for under 4000. and is very happy indeed.

 

[Grandad4]

Have been following this thread with interest - good discussion - but all this concentrated attention given to the lifting capacities of SCUT's doesn't really reflect how my machine gets used most of the time. 95% of the time the FEL or 3pt lifting limits are not even a consideration for the work at hand.

There's a good case to be made that if you're constantly taxing the limits of your equipment, moving up to larger equipment will be better in the long run vs continuing to overwork an undersized machine.

Always figured a SCUT was meant to lift a bucketful of material (soil, rock, gravel, etc.), with the FEL; heavier loads were inherently an invitation to a tip-over with such a narrow tractor.

Considering this thread will likely be read by many first-time SCUT buyers, just wanted to add that perspective. My opinion only.

 

[AxleHub]

Have been following this thread with interest - good discussion - but all this concentrated attention given to the lifting capacities of SCUT's doesn't really reflect how my machine gets used most of the time. 95% of the time the FEL or 3pt lifting limits are not even a consideration for the work at hand.

There's a good case to be made that if you're constantly taxing the limits of your equipment, moving up to larger equipment will be better in the long run vs continuing to overwork an undersized machine.

Always figured a SCUT was meant to lift a bucketful of material (soil, rock, gravel, etc.), with the FEL; heavier loads were inherently an invitation to a tip-over with such a narrow tractor.

Considering this thread will likely be read by many first-time SCUT buyers, just wanted to add that perspective. My opinion only.

Its a fine point you made Grandad. However . . knowing real numbers for maximums ends up showing what average numbers might be and applies to your post.

If new potential users think 500 pounds is a maximum, then your theory would be to think in 300 pound levels. But if 850 pounds is a maximum then with your theory 500 or 600 pounds would be normal consideration.

That makes for big differences in both perception and actual daily uses.

I'm hoping more scut sizes and brands add in their real life weight lifting abilities . . Because brochure numbers aren't tell a real life story imo.

P.s. just to remind . . All numbers I've mentioned in the above post are above and beyond the weight of quick attach unit and in addtion to weight of forks and pallet or bucket. The numbers are payload pounds.