How much ballast for an MX6000?

[Lucky_Ducky]

What would be your preferred ballast weight for an MX6000?

 

[jonsstihl]

depends on what you are doing. Max lift loader work I would want as much weight on the 3pt hitch as possible taking into consideration physically capacity, financial capacity, and size limitations in the area you are maneuvering.

 

[jonsstihl]

if you are talking about just 3pt weight in general I would go with atleast 1000lbs on the 3pt. filled tires will help keep the rear end on the ground but it won't help unload the front axle.

 

[Lucky_Ducky]

if you are talking about just 3pt weight in general I would go with atleast 1000lbs on the 3pt. filled tires will help keep the rear end on the ground but it won't help unload the front axle.

The rear tires are filled with Rimguard.

I am building a ballast box that can hold 1800lbs of concrete but was thinking of ~1400 lbs (~30% of tractor weight)

 

[jeff9366]

Is your tractor OPEN STATION or does it have a cab?

 

[JWR]

Ballast boxes have pros and cons. The lever arm out behind the tractor is shorter with the box than say a bush hog would be. The longer the lever out back the more a given ballast will help unload the front tires/axle. As James said, it really depends on what you are doing and want to do. Ballast boxes are better in one sense -- more maneuverable in back, around objects, backing up, etc. The downside is they don't do anything and serve no purpose other than ballast.

I run a heavier tractor than your MX6000, right at twice the weight incl. the loader, etc. My rear tires are loaded and set 8ft apart at outer edges. My ballast (which is on the tractor nearly all the time) is a 7ft Bushhog which weighs in at 1460 lbs. with the hog's cg probably 2ft further to the rear than a ballast box might be. Anyway for whatever it is worth I am real pleased with the Bush Hog being my ballast and of course it is very useful day in day out. The FEL work I do is most often using a grapple and picking up good sized trees or trunks of trees & debris cleaning up around the farm.

When I last had a large bucket on the front (it weighs 1000 lbs) and tried to pick up an overloaded bucket (too full of mud cleaning out a spring in a pasture field) I had to back off and grab a smaller load of mud and was putting a hurt on the front tires. That is the only case I can recall wanting more rear ballast.

For all around general use I suggest using about 1000 lbs in your case while considering some implement to keep on it.

 

[Lucky_Ducky]

Is your tractor OPEN STATION or does it have a cab?

Cab

Ballast boxes have pros and cons. The lever arm out behind the tractor is shorter with the box than say a bush hog would be. The longer the lever out back the more a given ballast will help unload the front tires/axle. As James said, it really depends on what you are doing and want to do. Ballast boxes are better in one sense -- more maneuverable in back, around objects, backing up, etc. The downside is they don't do anything and serve no purpose other than ballast.

I run a heavier tractor than your MX6000, right at twice the weight incl. the loader, etc. My rear tires are loaded and set 8ft apart at outer edges. My ballast (which is on the tractor nearly all the time) is a 7ft Bushhog which weighs in at 1460 lbs. with the hog's cg probably 2ft further to the rear than a ballast box might be. Anyway for whatever it is worth I am real pleased with the Bush Hog being my ballast and of course it is very useful day in day out. The FEL work I do is most often using a grapple and picking up good sized trees or trunks of trees & debris cleaning up around the farm.

When I last had a large bucket on the front (it weighs 1000 lbs) and tried to pick up an overloaded bucket (too full of mud cleaning out a spring in a pasture field) I had to back off and grab a smaller load of mud and was putting a hurt on the front tires. That is the only case I can recall wanting more rear ballast.

For all around general use I suggest using about 1000 lbs in your case while considering some implement to keep on it.

I have 40 acres with 8 acres of cherry orchard and the rest mixed hardwoods. I need the compactness of a ballast box over the increased lever arm of an implement. I am making the ballast box able to hold my saws, tools, PPE, and chain.

 

[jeff9366]

The cab on your MX6000 weighs about 700 pounds. Most of the cab weight is carried on the rear wheels.

The weight of your MX6000 cab is akin to ballasted/liquid filled rear tires.


The rear tires are filled with Rimguard.

Enough weight already.


If you more stability, spread the width of the rear wheels. Adjustable rear wheel widths has been standard on new MX series tractors since MX cabs were introduced.

 

[5030]

One thing I DON'T believe in is filled tire on any tractor. Rim Guard, Brim Guard, washer fluid or CACL, never happen here because I grow and harvest hay and the more ground weight the more alfalfa plants get crushed and my yield drops. If I need ballast on the back, I just hang my 8 foot land pride shredder on the back and call it good. Both my tractors came with cast centers on the rear axle anyway and those add an additional 600 pounds per side which is usually plenty enough weight for my Kubota M9000's with loaders on both capable of handling almost 2 tons of lift on the loaders. Like I said, if I need more (like when offloading steel from a tractor trailer), I just hook the shredder on the back and call it good.

Years ago I fabbed up a weight box and filled it concrete and finally gave it away. Useless junk and a pita to deal with.

 

[LD1]

The cab and tire ballast is NOT enough.

Sure, it "might" be enough to keep the rear tires on the ground, but all you are doing is adding to the potential weight that the front axle and tires carry when you have a heavy load up front.

But I think 1400-1800 or anything in between is gonna work well. But since you are just filling with concrete....why not start out with 1400lbs. IF that works well, leave it. If you find yourself wanting more, get a couple more bags and add til your happy.

I dont use a ballast box, but have a ~1250lb rear blade and a ~1600# bushhog. Both sit back quite a ways. Both work well. I have loaded tires as well. No cab But I have 600# of wheel weights too which is probably equivalent to the cab.

1000lbs mentioned earlier is not enough. I had a 1000lb barrel of concrete that I used on my old L3400. I used it a few times on the MX. And while better than nothing, it was not enough

 

[Code54]

LD1 is correct. The cab and filled tires is NOT enough. I have the MX5100 (same machine, less HP) and run a rear weight box that is around 1900-2000 lbs and I have loaded tires spread to max width. With max loader lift I can still feel a little light in the rear moving bins of Oak firewood. Even with this much weight on the rear, I do avoid my steep hills. That loader with 4' forks is way out in front of the wheels and add a heavy load you get a lot of leverage trying to lift the rear of the tractor.

 

[Lucky_Ducky]

LD1 is correct. The cab and filled tires is NOT enough. I have the MX5100 (same machine, less HP) and run a rear weight box that is around 1900-2000 lbs and I have loaded tires spread to max width. With max loader lift I can still feel a little light in the rear moving bins of Oak firewood. Even with this much weight on the rear, I do avoid my steep hills. That loader with 4' forks is way out in front of the wheels and add a heavy load you get a lot of leverage trying to lift the rear of the tractor.

I have been moving IBC totes of water (200 gallons) and sometimes it is…..uncomfortable with how the tractor is responding.

 

[JWR]

The cab on your MX6000 weighs about 700 pounds. Most of the cab weight is carried on the rear wheels.

The weight of your MX6000 cab is akin to ballasted/liquid filled rear tires.


The rear tires are filled with Rimguard.

Enough weight already.


If you more stability, spread the width of the rear wheels. Adjustable rear wheel widths has been standard on new MX series tractors since MX cabs were introduced.

I see it differently than Jeff. Whatever the cab weight is , yes it is more on the rear wheels , BUT mostly in front of the rear wheels, not behind the rear wheels and thus does not help reduce front wheel/axle loading at all, in fact it hurts slightly. Loading the rear tires is neutral as far as changing/not changing the weight on the front tires. From Lucky's comments it looks like he has things pretty well figured out/under control.

 

[LD1]

I see it differently than Jeff. Whatever the cab weight is , yes it is more on the rear wheels , BUT mostly in front of the rear wheels, not behind the rear wheels and thus does not help reduce front wheel/axle loading at all, in fact it hurts slightly. Loading the rear tires is neutral as far as changing/not changing the weight on the front tires. From Lucky's comments it looks like he has things pretty well figured out/under control.

Actually loading the rear tires can increase the load the front axle sees

 

[JWR]

Actually loading the rear tires can increase the load the front axle sees

Nope. If any added (or reduced) load is directly over the rear axle it cannot exert (or lessen) any load on the front axle or tires. The load on the front axle is unchanged with no tires, empty tires or loaded tires on the rear so long as the rear axle is a free pivot in the longitudinal axis. As I said neutral.

 

[LD1]

Nope. If any added (or reduced) load is directly over the rear axle it cannot exert (or lessen) any load on the front axle or tires. The load on the front axle is unchanged with no tires, empty tires or loaded tires on the rear so long as the rear axle is a free pivot in the longitudinal axis. As I said neutral.

Its NOT neutral when you factor the use of the front end loader.

Ill give some examples with some round numbers and easy to follow

Tractor.....MX6000....With loader and cab......lets call it a 6000# machine
The matching loader is "capable" of lifting 2000#.

However.....in its bare configuration (unloaded tires), it can only muster to lift 800# in the bucket before the rear wheels lift into the air.

The WHOLE 6000# tractor AND the 800# load is now ALL on the front axle.

Now lets load the tires with 700# of fluid. Bringing our tractor weight to 6700#. This added ballast now allows the loader to lift 1500# before the rears hike into the air. 6700+1500 you now have 8200# of weight all on the front axle. Thats 1400# MORE than if you didnt even load the tires.

So using that example....say you wanted to move stuff thats 1000#. The tractor simply CANNOT lift it. But in the process of trying....your front axle is seeing 6800#.

Load the tires and now you CAN lift and move 1000#. BUT, your front axle is now seeing MORE than 6800# due to the transfer of weight.

The MAXIMUM weight the front axle will see, is when you have the bare minimum amount of ballast to max out the front loader. That puts the entire tractor weight, entire ballast weight, and entire lift capacity of the loader ALL on the front axle.

Any less ballast....means the loader will lift a lesser amount, and less weight on the front axle.

Any more ballast (in the form of counter weight on the 3PH) and now you begin unloading the front axle.

So basically, having just enough weight to keep the @$$ on the ground is the worst possible combination as it allows for the maximum amount of front axle load. You have to go significantly BEYOND just keeping the rear planted to make any meaningful difference unloading the front axle.

A tractor that lives its life with no ballast and nothing on the 3ph cant make much use of the loaders capacity, and is dangerous and unstable, but unlikely to ever damage or overload the front axle.

People who ballast, but just enough not to be "tippy" and still max out front loader....thats the worst. It literally blows my mind the number of people who constantly recommend ballast numbers that are no where enough. 1000# of counterweight is what you want on a 3-series deere or a 35hp L-series kubota. The larger GrandL's, MX's, or equivalent 4-series deeres.....1000# is not enough period unless all you are doing is moving mulch

 

[Midniteoyl]

Whatever weight you decide try to also incorporate the ability to carry tools, chains, and other things you might need when 2000' from the barn.

 

[Code54]

All heavy steel and concrete - set it up for carrying saws and towing the log splitter at the same time. (MX5100 in photo)

 

[JWR]

Its NOT neutral when you factor the use of the front end loader.

Ill give some examples with some round numbers and easy to follow

Tractor.....MX6000....With loader and cab......lets call it a 6000# machine
The matching loader is "capable" of lifting 2000#.

However.....in its bare configuration (unloaded tires), it can only muster to lift 800# in the bucket before the rear wheels lift into the air.

The WHOLE 6000# tractor AND the 800# load is now ALL on the front axle.

Now lets load the tires with 700# of fluid. Bringing our tractor weight to 6700#. This added ballast now allows the loader to lift 1500# before the rears hike into the air. 6700+1500 you now have 8200# of weight all on the front axle. Thats 1400# MORE than if you didnt even load the tires.

So using that example....say you wanted to move stuff thats 1000#. The tractor simply CANNOT lift it. But in the process of trying....your front axle is seeing 6800#.

Load the tires and now you CAN lift and move 1000#. BUT, your front axle is now seeing MORE than 6800# due to the transfer of weight.

The MAXIMUM weight the front axle will see, is when you have the bare minimum amount of ballast to max out the front loader. That puts the entire tractor weight, entire ballast weight, and entire lift capacity of the loader ALL on the front axle.

Any less ballast....means the loader will lift a lesser amount, and less weight on the front axle.

Any more ballast (in the form of counter weight on the 3PH) and now you begin unloading the front axle.

So basically, having just enough weight to keep the @$$ on the ground is the worst possible combination as it allows for the maximum amount of front axle load. You have to go significantly BEYOND just keeping the rear planted to make any meaningful difference unloading the front axle.

A tractor that lives its life with no ballast and nothing on the 3ph cant make much use of the loaders capacity, and is dangerous and unstable, but unlikely to ever damage or overload the front axle.

People who ballast, but just enough not to be "tippy" and still max out front loader....thats the worst. It literally blows my mind the number of people who constantly recommend ballast numbers that are no where enough. 1000# of counterweight is what you want on a 3-series deere or a 35hp L-series kubota. The larger GrandL's, MX's, or equivalent 4-series deeres.....1000# is not enough period unless all you are doing is moving mulch

No sir. Incorrect. Any weight centered on the rear axle regardless of source has zero effect on the load on the front axle/tires. Vertical weight added on the tractor chassis forward of the rear axle increases weight on the front tires. Vertical weight added on the chassis aft of the rear axle (like at the 3pt hitch) reduces the weight on the front axle/tires. That is the context of us discussing Ballast in the first place. Strength of Materials, Statics 101 problem -- levers and weights. Do the diagram.

LD1 , you said "it can only muster to lift 800# in the bucket before the rear wheels lift into the air." I cannot imagine where you got the idea it would (or could or might) lift the rear wheels off the ground (!!) Get serious.

 

[jyoutz]

On my MX6000, my rear tires are filled with bio-ballast liquid, and I will either use my 1025# 8’ rear blade or my 6’ rotary cutter for ballast on the 3ph. So far this has worked well for lifting a one ton pallet with my QA forks.