Tractor Sizing TRACTOR WEIGHT as a SINGLE CRITERION IN TRACTOR SELECTION

[jeff9366]

This thread has evolved since February 2, 2018 under former title of GUIDE: Shopping/Sizing A Tractor
Numerous T-B-N members have contributed to this succinct thread. I thank them.

There were criticisms of the former title as overly broad, so I have condensed scope of title to essence.


My opinions developed while owning/operating a Deere 750 clutch and gear, a Kubota B3300SU/HST, a Kubota L3560/HST+, and operating two 50-horsepower, 2-WD John Deeres, one a Deere/Georgia shuttle shift, the second a Deere/India clutch and gear. A fairly diverse assortment of tractors, in weights often discussed on this site.


I have owned three tractors. The first a 1,900 pound subcompact "learner" without a Loader. The second a 2,200 pound tractor-loader package. The third, my 3,500 pound Kubota L3560, is tractor nirvana in my north Florida conditions.
Had I early read a thread philosophizing on tractor weight it would have stimulated tractor weight research and I would have omitted purchase of tractor #2, which proved too light for my applications. Instead, i purchased tractor #2 seduced by the allure of increased horsepower.

Tractor neophytes should find this blurb especially stimulative.

 

[jeff9366]

WORKING DRAFT (7.4)​

The fundamental importance of TRACTOR WEIGHT eludes many tractor shoppers. Heavier tractor weight is more important for most tractor operations than increased tractor horsepower. Bare tractor weight is a tractor specification easily found in sales brochures and web sites, readily comparable across tractor brands and tractor models, new and used. The most efficient way to shop for tractors is to define potential tractor applications first, then determine bare tractor weight needed to safely accomplish your tasks.

Within subcompact and compact tractor categories, bare tractor weight must increase 50% before you notice a significant tractor capability increase. It takes a 100% increase in bare tractor weight to elicit MY-OH-MY!

Shop your weight range within tractor brands. Budget will eliminate some choices. Collect a dealer brochure for each tractor model in your weight range. I spreadsheet tractor and implement specs, often a revealing exercise. I have a column for cost per pound.

Most tractors under 3,000 pounds bare weight operate in residential or hobby farm applications on one to ten flat acres.

Selling a used tractor is easy. Selling multiple light implements in order to buy heavier, wider implements for a heavier tractor requires a lot of time. Depreciation on implements is generally greater than depreciation on a tractor.

Tractors over 3,000 pounds bare weight are generally offered in a economy configuration and a deluxe configuration. Deluxe kit enhances productivity and operator comfort ~~~ but you must pay. Many tractors over 3,000 pounds bare weight are too tall to fit through an 84" height garage door, even with ROPS folded.

Heavier tractors are constructed on larger frames and are built using thicker steel which withstands high stress. Heavier tractors have larger wheels/tires. A heavier tractor has more tractive power pulling ground contact implements, pushing a loader bucket into dirt and pushing snow. Large wheels and tires enable a heavier tractor to bridge holes, ruts and tree debris with less bucking and less implement and operator disturbance.

Four wheel drive is essential on hillsides. Four wheel drive supplies increased traction. When descending slopes 4-WD augments rear brakes as tractor weight shifts forward, decreasing rear tire grip.

Compact tractors optimized for hill work have liquid installed in the rear tires rather than air. "Loaded" tires are filled 50%, which lowers the tractor's center-of-gravity, increasing rollover resistance. "Loading" two compact tractor rear tires will increase tractor weight 300 pounds to 800 pounds over weight of identical two tires inflated with air.



A quality dealer, reasonably close, available for coaching, is important for tractor neophytes. Almost every new tractor is delivered with a glitch or two requiring correction. My kubota dealer is six miles away. I feel my local dealer continues to add value to my equipment. Dealer proximity is less important to those experienced with tractors and qualified to perform their own maintenance.

BUY ENOUGH TRACTOR.​

 

[MessickFarmEqu]

I'd continue to point out that it's not raw weight that's important, it's ballasting your machine properly for the applications you have. The industry has gotten over buying raw tonage, we're rarely talking about weight any more even with large field tractors. Comparing weight across brands is also impossible, as you don't know what the brand included in their calculation. Some use 'operating weights' including fluids, the operator,etc. Others use a shipping weight that does not even include the weight of the tires.

Using your logic above we should all buy a Russian Belarus.

Many tractors over 3,000 pounds bare weight are too tall to fit through an 84" height garage door, even with ROPS folded.

This would be better stated as 'Few', certainly not many.

 

[Egon]

For some jobs PTO HP. Takes preference over weight.

Stability of equipment depends on center of gravity not weight.

A lot of hilly farms have been worked with two wheel drive.

 

[jeff9366]

I'd continue to point out that it's not raw weight that's important, it's ballasting your machine properly for the applications you have. The industry has gotten over buying raw tonage, we're rarely talking about weight any more even with large field tractors. Comparing weight across brands is also impossible, as you don't know what the brand included in their calculation. Some use 'operating weights' including fluids, the operator,etc. Others use a shipping weight that does not even include the weight of the tires.

Using your logic above we should all buy a Russian Belarus.

To keep this thread short, the equivalent of Messick's Three Minute Thursdays, I am not directly delving into ballasting.

I am not in the tractor industry. I am a mere satisfied Kubota customer with a high quality dealer, Suwannee River Kubota, six miles distant, where I loiter.

I have addressed tractor ballast/counterbalance in "REPLY".

I was surprised by this: "It will not pull a box blade or work the FEL without weighted tires." Is that on the flat? Maybe I am expecting way too much from this [Max 25 TLB]?

On flat ground a Backhoe is perfect counterbalance to Front End Loader lifts. On slopes, however, a (tall) Backhoe raises the center of gravity of the tractor decreasing tractor stability.


Bare tractor weight distribution is 40% front, 60% rear.

Add a Loader and weight distributions becomes 50% front, 50% rear. (+/-)

Pick up a bucket of DRY material and weight distribution becomes 60% front, 40% rear. Rear wheels should stay on the ground but rear will probably feel light.

Pick up a bucket of WET material or a green log and weight distribution becomes 70% front, 30% rear and there is a good possibility rear wheels will lift off the ground, putting all the stress on the thin front axle which is pierced so it can pivot to steer the tractor. Front wheels/axle may not be aligned perpendicular to tractor, consequently three wheels can be in the air in an instant, rolling the tractor.

"Loading" rear tires 50% to 75% full with liquid acts as ballast on compact tractors, however on subcompact tractors the rear tires are so small "loading" with liquid does not add much weight.

On flat ground a Backhoe is perfect counterbalance to Front End Loader lifts and should return weight distribution with bucket loaded with wet material to around 40% front, 60% rear.

Box Blades are often carried as FEL counterbalance. Box Blade should balance weight distribution with FEL bucket loaded with wet material to around 55% front, 45% rear. (Box Blades vary considerably in weight.) Caution advised transporting heavy FEL loads: KEEP THE BUCKET LOW.

The greater distance counterbalance weight protrudes to the rear the more effective counterbalance is due to leverage. Therefore 130 pounds of loaded rear tire weight on a subcompact tractor is LESS effective as counterbalance than 130 pounds carried on the Three Point Hitch. Regardless, Max25 rear tires should be "loaded" to lower tractor center of gravity working your sloped land.


Relative to (fairly small) variations in tractor specs: I won't let PERFECT deny GOOD.

Within subcompact and compact tractor categories, bare tractor weight must increase 50% before you notice a significant tractor capability increase. It takes a 100% increase in bare tractor weight to elicit MY-OH-MY!

VIDEO: So you want to TRADE UP for a new Tractor? - TMT - YouTube


Many tractors over 3,000 pounds bare weight are too tall to fit through an 84" height garage door, even with ROPS folded.

I will eliminate imprecise sentence.

[ GONE ]

 

[plowhog]

I don't understand why anyone would limit themselves to evaluating a single factor when multiple factors exist.

If I apply this same standard to purchasing a commuter vehicle that will get a high MPG, I could probably argue that the least weight is the sole, determining factor on what to buy. Less weight requires less power to push and ... usually ... more MPG.

But I would be leaving out gas vs diesel, or hybrid, or battery/all-electric, or styling, or AWD if operating on slippery surfaces, etc. The OP knows more about tractors than I will ever come to learn, so I respect the insight presented. But even so, I don't see the value in excluding all factors down to focus on just one.

 

[mred2]

I grew up around large tractors. Drove a lot. It was interesting at one point that there were 3 jd 4020's and 1 jd 4010. Flat fields, rice and beans, in east Arkansas. Due to ground engagement, wet conditions, all of the 4020's had all weighted tires, weights on front and on rear tires. The 4010 had no weights and no water in the tires, it did have dual rear tires. (no 4 wheel drive in those days) The 4010 could not do somethings due to the tires slippage, but when it came to going across really wet spots it was better. I think it floated over the mud. Weight? sometimes yes, sometimes no. If you have to have one tractor, weight is one of several factors. I think the biggest factor on compact tractors today is the price.

 

[MossRoad]

Thread pruned. No PMs sent. Enough with the childish name calling. Discuss it like adults. Please continue the discussion in a civil manner.

 

[jeff9366]

I don't understand why anyone would limit themselves to evaluating a single factor when multiple factors exist.

This is called a CONUNDRUM.


My Mother thought me a strange child. I grew into a strange adult. Now I am a strange Senior.
One day I will be undifferentiated dust.

 

[jeff9366]

Posted by (esteemed) Egon:

For some jobs PTO HP. Takes preference over weight.

The title of this thread is: TRACTOR WEIGHT as a SINGLE CRITERION IN TRACTOR SELECTION.

I believe a wonderful thread could be developed with this title: PTO HORSEPOWER as a SINGLE CRITERION IN TRACTOR SELECTION. You are well qualified for the task.
Be prepared for plenty of heat in replies, little light.


Stability of equipment depends on center of gravity not weight.

I prioritize wheel spread over center of gravity but your point is arguable.

Safe hillside operation demands more tractor weight than level land operation. Heavier tractors have adjustable rear wheel spreads; wide rear wheel spreads hugely improve tractor stability. Four wheel drive is essential on hillsides. Four wheel drive supplies increased traction. When descending slopes 4-WD augments rear brakes as tractor weight shifts forward, decreasing rear tire grip.

Compact tractors optimized for hill work have liquid installed in the rear tires rather than air. "Loaded" tires are filled 50% to 75% with liquid, which lowers the tractor's center-of-gravity, increasing rollover resistance. "Loading" two compact tractor rear tires will increase tractor weight 300 pounds to 800 pounds over weight of identical two tires inflated with air.

A lot of hilly farms have been worked with two wheel drive.

I have been through the Palouse wheat lands in Washington state during every season of the year.

You are describing history. I am writing for those researching tractor purchases today.

I have some experience on 50-horsepower, 2-WD tractors. Here is my opinion: A lot of hilly farms have been worked AT HAZARD with two wheel drive.

You get three smiles because of your huge/epic contribution to T-B-N.

 

[Tractor Dell]

The title of this thread is: TRACTOR WEIGHT as a SINGLE CRITERION IN TRACTOR SELECTION.

If I understand what you are saying, it is that weight should be one factor you are looking at, not the only factor? If this is true, then I think several people are looking at this the wrong way. You still need to look at HP, lift capacity, ground clearance, the design, etc.

In your posts, you are saying you need a tractor to weight X pounds to do Y job. While that may, or may not be true, it is one thing you need to look at. Along with that, you need to look at the ground you are working. What you can do with one tractor in Florida, may not even touch what you need in Colorado. Besides, time is also important. I can probably do a lot of the jobs with my BX, that people can do with their L series.... it just takes me longer, as I need to move smaller loads, or use smaller implements. General statements, in most cases, don't relay the entire picture.

 

[jeff9366]

GirlWhoWantsTractor, another subcompact tractor owner/operator, agrees with your thesis so you are not alone.

The strength of Tractor-By-Net lies in the diversity of opinions offered.

T-B-N is a marketplace in a way. Readers will retain information they find relevant and pass over the remainder.

 

[/pine]

...The strength of Tractor-By-Net lies in the diversity of opinions offered.

Only if you're able to discern the wheat from the chaff...!

 

[Egon]

Only if you're able to discern the wheat from the chaff...!

Did you say Chaff?? Mild comment!

 

[/pine]

Did you say Chaff?? Mild comment!

See post #8

 

[searcyfarms]

weight is king regardless - unless you are trying to minimize damage, compaction, or keep from getting stuck ;-)

if weight wasn't king caterpillars wouldn't be required to do the work they do and be heavy to do it

if weight wasn't king they would let feather weights fight heavy weights

 

[GirlWhoWantsTractor]

weight is king regardless - unless you are trying to minimize damage, compaction, or keep from getting stuck ;-)

....or have tight spaces, or a tight budget, or you just don't need a big, heavy tractor for your tasks.

If only we could magically transport one of y'all's big tractors to my land, and then try to work it. You would understand instantly. Your big tractor couldn't make it around the hairpin turn on my road down the ravine (mine can, just barely), plus the road is grass so that would get torn up. You couldn't cross the yard to the garden without making an ugly road through the lawn, couldn't turn around in my one flat turnaround space, couldn't mow my slope because it requires a very sharp turn at the bottom to avoid pitching over the ravine. You couldn't fit between the barn and the bank next to it, and on the other side is basically a cliff, so to get to the other side of the barn you'd have to turn around in a very small area and take a long detour through the LAWN. And you couldn't fit through any of my trails. A large tractor saves you no time if you need to do a bunch of 3- or 6-point turns. So in my case, you'd literally have to rework the land to fit the tractor. I sized the tractor to fit the land.

I get it: for YOUR land, which I suppose is not so steep and/or has a lot more wide-open spaces, bigger is unquestionably better.

 

[atsah]

we're rarely talking about weight any more even with large field tractors.

That is where dealers are mistaken.. We hay 200 acres of hilly sometimes wet terrain and if we didn't have a very heavy tractor pulling a baler with a 300 bale wagon behind it we wouldn't get it done safely.. For a lot of people on this forum and in general these days, the weight of a SCUT or CUT has little effect for the home owner, hobby farm projects but for people that use large field tractors weight is as important as HP..

You can add ballast to SCUT'S and CUT'S and get away with doing things but big tractors, No..

 

[atsah]

weight is king regardless - unless you are trying to minimize damage, compaction, or keep from getting stuck ;-)

if weight wasn't king caterpillars wouldn't be required to do the work they do and be heavy to do it

if weight wasn't king they would let feather weights fight heavy weights

Exactly right..

 

[GirlWhoWantsTractor]

JMO but I believe equally important factors include:

1. The scale of the use: farming, logging, and other large-scale commercial use vs homeowner, hobby farmer, and small landowner use.
3. The TYPE of land: mountain vs farmland, open vs tight, rocky soil vs sandy loam, just to mention a few.
5. The "need for speed": For some folks, time is money, or their working time is limited, so bigger means faster, and faster is better. Other folks may be retired or just not in any particular hurry, preferring to relax and take their time.
7. Personal preferences: Not everyone enjoys working large equipment. Not everyone wants/needs to tame every inch of their property. Not everyone desires to tackle every job themselves rather than hiring out. Not everyone can afford a large tractor.

This IMO is the flaw in Jeff's otherwise useful writings. His guidelines may be quite useful for some, not for others. According to his guidelines I need a tractor with a bare weight north of 3,000 lbs and I have to laugh picturing anyone trying to work my land with that thing. Nor would I want to operate one. Nor could I afford one.