Tractor Sizing How Much Can A Sub Compact Tractor lift?

[drajj5]

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.

Axlehub

You are pretty close with your numbers. I will give a (real-life) scenario with my Brothers SC2400 Scut.

We were loading a Landscape trailer with his tractor. It was full of material and as an afterthought we decided to load a Polaris 250 four wheeler as well. The only room to place the 4wheeler was in the front of the trailer and it needed to be lifted on the trailer- flat tires all around. Well..... It would pick it up, but wouldn't lift it quite high enough to clear the side of the trailer. I "helped by placing a hand underneath the bucket" to aid in the lifting; it went right to its max height and held there long enough to load it.

I am unsure how much a 4wheeler weighs but that tractor did lift it- just not all the way. I do know one thing; I could lift one end or the other (4wheeler) but not the unit as a whole.

The tractor was fitted with a backhoe so plenty of ballast was used for the lift.

Granddad makes a good point..... So long as it is used to load something that will fit in the bucket - it will do everything that is asked of it. At least that is what I have seen them do! This is with the throttle running at recommended RPM, different story at 'idle' for those that didn't know.

 

[gladehound]

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....

Axle - There is no conflict between my posts. I can be impressed that a GC1700 series tractor did as well as it did in the test you performed and at the same time make the observation that those with bigger tractors are not calling SCUTs toys. You did not materially change my viewpoint of SCUTs. You see, 500 pounds vs. 1000 pounds makes little difference to me. The smallest loader I ever used had 1600+ pound breakout force and I found it quite limited.

For example, if I tell my 8 year old daughter that I am impress she could carry a "heavy" box that I didn't previously think she could lift, does that change the fact that she is an 8 year old child? No it does not. I still would not ask her to lift what a healthy adult can lift even though I am truly impressed she lifted the "heavy" box. Nor do I actually think the box is heavy by adult standards.

My views on the exact amount that some SCUTs can lift were indeed dated. My viewpoint of the loader lift being very limited is not dated and has not changed - your test proves my point. It is something people should be aware of before they buy. This is not to say SCUTs are a good fit for some, I'm sure they are. But for others they may not be.

Today I was looking at a new 12,000 pound wheel loader. It can lift almost it's weight off the ground, ~12,000 pounds. In many ways, my 45 hp tractor is limited compared to the wheel loader. And since it's my own tractor I hope I can say without others taking offense, that my 45hp tractor is kind of a toy, compared to the 12,000 pound wheel loader. If I show the person who needs the capacity of that wheel loader that my tractor can lift 4000 pounds and they thought it could only lift 3000 pounds am I going to say "Ah hah!" No. And while they may be impressed on some level, they probably don't care much. 3000 vs 4000 doesn't matter to them, they are both insufficient for their needs.

In the same way, a garden tractor may do something that impresses you Axle - Yet still may be insufficient for your needs. The same garden tractor may be the perfect solution for someone else.

I'm sorry if my previous posts seemed disjointed and I hope this post helps to clarify.

 

[gladehound]

Axlehub

Granddad makes a good point..... So long as it is used to load something that will fit in the bucket - it will do everything that is asked of it. At least that is what I have seen them do! This is with the throttle running at recommended RPM, different story at 'idle' for those that didn't know.

When you say it is a different story at idle, is that only for SCUTs and are all SCUTs that way? My 19hp tractor needed about 1600 rpm to max on lift. My current 45hp tractor can max lift at idle which is 1000 RPM.

What happens if you try to lift to much at too low an RPM? Does the engine bog or is there too much leakage in the system for it to reach relief pressure at low RPM? (for my 19 hp tractor it was the latter)

This is an interesting component of operation. I typically set throttle at 1000 RPM and use the foot throttle when I want more RPM which I use to either travel faster or make the hydraulics faster (but not stronger).

 

[AxleHub]

Axle - There is no conflict between my posts. I can be impressed that a GC1700 series tractor did as well as it did in the test you performed and at the same time make the observation that those with bigger tractors are not calling SCUTs toys. You did not materially change my viewpoint of SCUTs. You see, 500 pounds vs. 1000 pounds makes little difference to me. . . .



My views on the exact amount that some SCUTs can lift were indeed dated. My viewpoint of the loader lift being very limited is not dated and has not changed - your test proves my point. It is something people should be aware of before they buy. This is not to say SCUTs are a good fit for some, I'm sure they are. But for others they may not be.

Greetings Glade,

Your post is elegant. However, surely you would agree that if someone asked for your opinion . . . you wouldn't blindly give it without consideration of their needs.

So if your prior opinion was a scut was only capable of a maximum of 500 pounds and now you know its capable of nearly 900 pounds . . it would alter your opinion given if the prospects needs are for 600 pounds.

See my point of bigger tractor owner's opinions is not what "they need" . . but rather what the prospect needs. And because your needs dictate an opinion for your uses doesn't mean they sjould be the basis for someone elses stated needs in asking your opinion.

As an example, my needs are not for a unit the size of a Yanmar 324 or 424, yet I've posted and recommended those units to several who have a need larger than a scut.

It is irrelevant that your need is much larger than their need . . what is relevant is what their stated need is compared to the information you know. So when your awareness of scut capabilities changes (like in my test) . . it effects the input for your opinion for certain prospects. Is that not as it should be?

You would call me a fool if I recommended only a massey gc1715 to everyone who asked . . because it would taint the quality of my knowledge or vision or fairness to the prospect . . don't you agree?

 

[AxleHub]

When you say it is a different story at idle, is that only for SCUTs and are all SCUTs that way? My 19hp tractor needed about 1600 rpm to max on lift. My current 45hp tractor can max lift at idle which is 1000 RPM.

What happens if you try to lift to much at too low an RPM? Does the engine bog or is there too much leakage in the system for it to reach relief pressure at low RPM? (for my 19 hp tractor it was the latter)

This is an interesting component of operation. I typically set throttle at 1000 RPM and use the foot throttle when I want more RPM which I use to either travel faster or make the hydraulics faster (but not stronger).

Glade, I'm not aware of any machine that makes maximum power at low idle/rpm. Certainly any mulch effort on lawn mowers wants high throttle . . not for movement but faster/stronger blade speed to mulch. Same for snowblowers, outboard motors, skidsteers I've used, motorcycles/cars/trucks . . and tractors.

I don't refer to travel speed . . I refer to torque range. If you raise a motor's rpm . . You raise its hp output ability. You can over rev any engine but you can under rev them too.

On a bx because it has a single pump . . the fel will move very slowly at low rpm. At high rpm the pump allows the fel to move normally but also with more force.

On my Massey I have 2 pumps so my fel speed isn't effected much at low rpm but under higher rpm I have more force/power.

As an example in my lifting test . . . At 2000 rpm I can lift 1 weight and at 2600 rpm its more and at recommended rpm level even further. When I posted my test results I used recommended rpm to not skew results above standards.

If your engine is designed for 2000 rpm as an example and you run it at 1000 rpm . . Its hard on equipment.

 

[gladehound]

Greetings Glade,

Your post is elegant. However, surely you would agree that if someone asked for your opinion . . . you wouldn't blindly give it without consideration of their needs.

So if your prior opinion was a scut was only capable of a maximum of 500 pounds and now you know its capable of nearly 900 pounds . . it would alter your opinion given if the prospects needs are for 600 pounds.

See my point of bigger tractor owner's opinions is not what "they need" . . but rather what the prospect needs. And because your needs dictate an opinion for your uses doesn't mean they sjould be the basis for someone elses stated needs in asking your opinion.

As an example, my needs are not for a unit the size of a Yanmar 324 or 424, yet I've posted and recommended those units to several who have a need larger than a scut.

It is irrelevant that your need is much larger than their need . . what is relevant is what their stated need is compared to the information you know. So when your awareness of scut capabilities changes (like in my test) . . it effects the input for your opinion for certain prospects. Is that not as it should be?

You would call me a fool if I recommended only a massey gc1715 to everyone who asked . . because it would taint the quality of my knowledge or vision or fairness to the prospect . . don't you agree?

I agree. And if anyone were to be so specific in their criteria that I thought a specific SCUT was the best choice I would have no problem making that recommendation. Unfortunately, the criteria given by most perspective buyers typically lacks specificity.

 

[Grandad4]

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.

Please be careful with those loads. That's a lot of weight for such a small tractor. I'm fortunate to have a larger tractor for the really heavy stuff.

 

[LD1]

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.

The brochures are pretty spot on as to what they can lift to max height and where.

Some MFG do decide to give a lift rating at a lower height, which is a higher capacity.

the problem becomes if MFG start giving what "you" consider a real world number, lots of people would be disappointed when they buy a tractor that the MFG "claims" to lift 800# and wont. Because they overlooked the fact that it can only lift 800# to 1' height and only 500# to max.

You want a "real world" number, look at the break out.

The problem becomes at what height do you consider "real world". 1'? 2'? 3'?

Then you may have one mfg rate to 2', then another boast a higher capacity because they are rating to 1'.

Max height evens the playing field for comparison reasons. Just understand that the loader WILL lift more if not very high. How much more depends on where the load is centered, and how high you want to lift. Hard for a MFG to anticipate all the variables to assign a capacity just to appease a few. The capacity is a very dynamic figure. Cant speak for others, but kubota gives the curve as I illustrated. That curve removes all doubt. Perhaps others do as well in the manual? Have you looked?

 

[DK35vince]

Glade, I'm not aware of any machine that makes maximum power at low idle/rpm. Certainly any mulch effort on lawn mowers wants high throttle . . not for movement but faster/stronger blade speed to mulch. Same for snowblowers, outboard motors, skidsteers I've used, motorcycles/cars/trucks . . and tractors.

He said his loader will lift at max capacity at idle not that the tractor makes max power at idle.
My loader is the same way. I can lift at max loader capacity at just over idle. Speeding up the engine makes the loader much faster, but makes little to no difference as far as lifting power.

 

[k0ua]

He said his loader will lift at max capacity at idle not that the tractor makes max power at idle.
My loader is the same way. I can lift at max loader capacity at just over idle. Speeding up the engine makes the loader much faster, but makes little to no difference as far as lifting power.

Vince, I think it depends on how much internal leakage the pump has. The only reason I can see for the pressure at Idle to not be the same at high speed is leakage in the pump. Sure the flow rate is going to be vastly more at High speed than ide. but max pressure is a function of when the relief valve will open if the restriction of the load is sufficient to develope max relief pressure. If your pump has very low leakage, you may very well be able to develop max pressure with a sufficient load at idle or nearly so. The more a pump leaked the more flow rate you would need to overcome the internal leakage so that maximum pressure could be developed if the load was sufficient to develop that pressure. On my Kioti I agree, I cannot tell any difference in say 1400 or 2400 rpm as far as lifting ability. I suspect our pumps leak little. People need to keep in mind, that the pump makes flow it does not make pressure.