First Tractor Purchase - Looking for advice

[daltonhawk]

Dalton, I do many of the same tasks you have listed, with an LS MT225e. The only place I feel my tractor comes up short is on big logs, where I run out of lift capacity. For those, I have a log arch, and constructed my sawmill setup in such a way that I can back logs onto the sawmill with the arch.

Looking around, I saw your barn project and that you had the LS so thanks for adding your thoughts. Even though the LS website states that the MT225-235 come with the LL3301 loader, the machines I've seen for sale locally have the LL3302 loader which adds about 500Lbs capacity, not sure if that's something the local dealers are choosing or something LS is doing to keep up with Branson and just haven't gotten around to updating the website. It seems like if you're happy with the size and capability and just wish for a little more loader capacity, this might be a good option for me. It's hard to spot a difference between the loaders so I'm not sure what they're doing to increase the capacity, maybe the cylinders are just slightly larger.

Buying/building a log arch is on my wish list but I built a shed over my mill and it's stationary so I probably won't be able to use it for loading.

 

[jeff9366]

It's hard to spot a difference between the loaders so I'm not sure what they're doing to increase the capacity, maybe the cylinders are just slightly larger.

Or, maybe, steel has been eliminated from the FEL. Lower FEL weight = greater payload, perhaps at the cost of longevity. Loaders with "spec" lift capacity of close to one ton on compact tractors vary in weight from 900 pounds to 1,300 pounds.

Alternatively, the lift height may be reduced by shortening the boom, which increases lift capacity at the expense of lift height AND lightens the FEL.

Or, maybe, the cylinders are just slightly larger. Which means the cylinders take longer to fill, slowing FEL lift.

Research until you drop.

 

[milkman636]

Here’s my advice:

The HST is a game changer for moving and placing things precisely. I’d say the improvement over feathering the clutch of the gear drive and jabbing the brakes is comparable to using a filet knife to clean a fish instead of a machete.

Don’t skimp on loader lift capacity. Do the math on everything you think you’ll need to move. Nothing will be more frustrating than pulling up to something you bought the tractor to move and finding out you can’t do it.

Independent PTO operation is also a huge improvement over the live and transmission driven ones. Making sure it has independent PTO will be doing yourself a favor also.

Quick change on the loader is also important. Being able to switch attachments in a minute vastly increases the versatility and usability of your investment.

Personally I’d steer you towards a 40+hp class machine. There are some good value models in that range that offer a lot of lift and hydraulic capacity.

 

[RjCorazza]

The few times I've maxed out my loader I have been very uncomfortable with the load. My machine is rated at about 1700lbs 500mm forward of the pins to a height of 1.5 m. I would not want to routinely lift that kind of weight.

 

[rbstern]

Looking around, I saw your barn project and that you had the LS so thanks for adding your thoughts. Even though the LS website states that the MT225-235 come with the LL3301 loader, the machines I've seen for sale locally have the LL3302 loader which adds about 500Lbs capacity, not sure if that's something the local dealers are choosing or something LS is doing to keep up with Branson and just haven't gotten around to updating the website. It seems like if you're happy with the size and capability and just wish for a little more loader capacity, this might be a good option for me. It's hard to spot a difference between the loaders so I'm not sure what they're doing to increase the capacity, maybe the cylinders are just slightly larger.

Buying/building a log arch is on my wish list but I built a shed over my mill and it's stationary so I probably won't be able to use it for loading.

That extra 500lbs of capacity would come in handy. If I'm really in a pinch to lift a log, I can take off the bucket and just use short straps on the lift arms. My saw is ground level, which means I only need a log about 1 foot off the ground to get in on the mill. I could probably do 1200 to 1300 pounds in that mode. Creeping around in 1st gear with a log like that, held low, on level ground, is not a problem at all. Carrying it out of the woods is another matter altogether. I have the Woodland Mills HM-122, so I max out at 22" logs, which keeps the weight manageable.

If you are going to use the tractor to feed the mill, you may want to factor a grapple into the mix, at least as part of a long term plan. I hop on and off the tractor a lot for log strap work, which would not be necessary with a grapple.

And get yourself a ballast box, and consider getting your tires ballasted. Low slung weight makes everything feel more stable.

Here's the log arch project thread:

https://tractorbynet.com/forums/threads/log-arch-need-some-suggestions.425380/

 

[Torvy]

Unfortunately, it is a bad time to want an inexpensive, but capable tractor. I'm right there with you.

A couple of things:
are you a capable mechanic? If not, you may want to sell some plasma and boost your budget a bit to get a new tractor.

The lift height at the pins problem only matters if you are trying to pick up something with a known weight. (And don't understand basic physics) It is a red herring used by people who favor brands with lower lift capacities to downplay their disadvantage. The reason it is used is to get a consistent point for comparison (and to make the numbers sound bigger).

Branson, Kioti and LS all make capable machines. Due the math on your trees and lift jobs. I want a loader than can easily lift my common loads.

In an inflationary period, there is no problem with financing as your asset will effectively appreciate due to rising prices. Of course, this assumes that your income is not cut off due to pending recession. Better to have your money working for you than shrinking in the bank due to inflation.

 

[Cahaba Valley Farm]

It's hard to spot a difference between the loaders so I'm not sure what they're doing to increase the capacity, maybe the cylinders are just slightly larger.

Or, maybe, steel has been eliminated from the FEL. Lower FEL weight = greater payload, perhaps at the cost of longevity. Loaders with "spec" lift capacity of close to one ton on compact tractors vary in weight from 900 pounds to 1,300 pounds.

Alternatively, the lift height may be reduced by shortening the boom, which increases lift capacity at the expense of lift height AND lightens the FEL.

Or, maybe, the cylinders are just slightly larger. Which means the cylinders take longer to fill, slowing FEL lift.

Research until you drop.

What you and Neil are saying is the consumer needs to research this implement like they would any other. It's not as simple as just looking at lift capacity numbers alone.

 

[Cahaba Valley Farm]

In an inflationary period, there is no problem with financing as your asset will effectively appreciate due to rising prices.

Unless the finance costs are stupid high. Then when the market turns the other way you lose.

 

[9035768HM]

Buy bigger than you think you’ll need

 

[WVH1977]

It is good you are doing diligent research and asking questions but I think you overthinking the loader capacity. The compact range loader capacity is only going to be so much before you have to step up to a utility size tractor. The differences of loader capacity on some of these machines at the same HP is not going to be life changing. If you are really concerned about lifting power then maybe an older Mid-80's to 90's, 50 to 75 HP utility tractor.

Think of it like this, if you where going to be pulling 10,000 pounds 5 days a week would you want a F-150 that has the max tow rating of 10,000 pounds or step up to the F-250 Super Duty that is designed for that purpose (just guessing at towing numbers here). These specs are MAX specs they are putting in these brochures. Keep that in mind. It is there to get your attention.

Also, if you base everything on loader capacity you might end up with a machine you don't like. You need to look at the machine as a whole. I have 40HP New Holland TC40 and can pick up 14 ft long, 14 to 18 inch diameter oak logs and move them around. I don't raise them up high but 3 to 4 ft off the ground. I think my loader is rated for 1800 lbs. but it feels plenty strong for most things I do but it is limited.

I would be more concerned about getting a good grapple bucket or forks if you plan on a lot of log moving/sawmilling. Make sure you have a bucket with hydraulic remote or get one installed right away. 4x4 would also be on the top of my list.