Actual lift capacity mx 5400

[k0ua]

Anyone that thinks pallet forks do the same work as a grapple are in the same group as those that think a slip scoop will replace a FEL.
In either case there is a bit of functional overlap, but not much.

Agreed. I have both. And while I moved logs, limbs and rocks with the forks before I got the grapple, they are not even in the same league. Both are useful, yes there is some overlap on jobs they can perform. For picking up irregularly shaped objects off of the ground and moving them, the grapple is by far the best and quickest and allows you to remain in the seat instead of hopping off to carefully place things on a set of forks. For getting a pallet carefully out of the bed of your pickup truck, well the implement designed for that very things is by far the best. You need both.

 

[sea2summit]

I have Rim Guard in my rear tires - 1775#. I have a Rhino 950/8 foot rear blade on the 3-point - 1050#. I can lift very heavy chunks of Ponderosa pine and still have the rear tires lift off the ground. I've tried lifting a ten foot chunk of my ancient Ponderosa pine and had rear tire lift off. For the REALLY heavy stuff - logs or rocks - I use the "grip and drag" technique.

I can stack big rocks - up to 2750# - into a double high row - safely. I must be at a complete stop and on flat, level, hard ground. Lift and move forward the necessary distance.

View attachment 721221

That is not comparable to a MX5400 in my opinion, fuel tank is larger, 50% more hydraulic flow, at least 1,000 pounds heavier base weight, and more importantly in this application ~10% longer wheelbase. Add all that up it's just not apples to apples. My MX and M4 have similarly rated FELs but there is just not even close to a comparison with what they can do side by side.

 

[sea2summit]

When it comes to weight BEHIND the axle, TWO things to increase effectiveness. Weigh, and length. Bushhogs are good, they stick way back. Box blades or tillers are less effective. A 800 pound bushhog is WAY better for ballast than a 800 pound box blade. Now whether they are practical for your uses or whether the length will be a hinderance if you are in tight areas, only YOU can answer.

Good post, I would add height as a factor, the lower you can keep that weight (like a brush hog vs a Backhoe) the more stable the tractor will be.

 

[LD1]

1000lb counterweight centered 36" behind the lift pins isn't a small counterweight. The center of load dimension is significant.

All relative. I didnt say it was small. I DID say it was on the smaller side for that tractor.

Considering I have a MX....and like either my 1250# blade or my 1600# rotary cutter on the back.....both at about 3' behind the pins....for a 7040 I'd want 2000#. Or double what thay hay bale is....so I stand by my statement that 1000# on the back of a M7040 is on the smaller side

 

[k0ua]

By the way for the benefit of newcomers, let it be known while LD1 and I have been ragging on each other for a long long time about our choices of tractors and choices of shootable deer, we harbor no actual animosity towards each other. It is all just part of the fun.

 

[Tx Jim]

LD1
I think 2X the weight for counterbalance on 3 pt hitch than the load on front end loader is excessive counterbalance weight. Do you have any facts to backup your statement?

 

[LD1]

By the way for the benefit of newcomers, let it be known while LD1 and I have been ragging on each other for a long long time about our choices of tractors and choices of shootable deer, we harbor no actual animosity towards each other. It is all just part of the fun.

I was gonna let them ponder

 

[LD1]

LD1
I think 2X the weight for counterbalance on 3 pt hitch than the load on front end loader is excessive counterbalance weight. Do you have any facts to backup your statement?

Just real world experience.

More accurate representation would have to also weighed the rear axle weight. Dont remember if you did.

But simply look at how massive the rear is compared to the front.

In your example, your 7040 with 1000# bale up front and a 1000# bale on the back you STILL had 5300# on the front axle. And I'd venture a guess you were sitting about 50/50 weight distribution at that point so you also ONLY had ~5300# on the rear.

Another 1000# out back would have made you another 600# lighter up front. That 600# + the added 1000# out back would have brought your rears to ~7000# and brought your front axle weights down to ~4700#. Thats a much closer representation of weights given the axle size differences dont you think?

Also....while I am NOT saying that I think you should have 2x the weight out back as you have out front.....you are moving 1000# bales. You loader Is MUCH stronger than that. And if you were playing in the dirt, moving logs, digging stumps, etc.....you are putting ALOT more weight up front and unloading the rear ALOT more than a mere 1000# bale. That would warrant something closer to 2000 pounds out back.

I use 1000# ballast on a L3400 and ~1500+/- on the MX. So yea....IF you were using your loader to its limits (which you arent), I'd say 2k would be a good match.

 

[oosik]

The best answer - go out and try it. If it works - fine. If you get "light in the loafers" - add more weight. Just be very careful.

Sea2summit - I agree. Probably not comparable. But what I was attempting to demonstrate - it takes a LOT of ballast to lift heavy loads.

My M6040 with grapple, rear blade and Rim Guard - - 10,100#. And - that's not including me on the tractor.

 

[Tx Jim]

No in my weighing experiment I didn't weigh just the rear tires because I was concentrating on how much weight rear counterbalance would relieve from frt axle when unloading rd bales from a trailer