Tractor Sizing 3016 vs 3616 vs 4010

[oldpilgrim]

Originally Posted by oldpilgrim View Post
When you say "bucket drop" are you referring to the main loader arms or the dump? My arms drop like a rock but the bucket curl is slower than I'd expect...not bad, very useable but just not what I hoped it would be. If I keep the rpms up to about 1800-2000, it's decent. I've never timed the main load arm drop but I suspect the 2.4 is close.

The time it takes from full lock of the bucket to full dump. If yours is closer to the stated time, then something is wrong with mine. Even the alleged "regen" process is just a bit faster than slow. I do not know if "regen" is something that needs hours on a tractor to break in but mine is snail like at 67 hours.

I was referring to the full loader drop which is quick, and the curl, from top to bottom of the cycle is a little slower than I thought. The 'regen' or fast dump doesn't seem any faster than the normal dump. As I said, it's acceptable, but it's not optimal in my estimation.

I paid $24k for my 3016 hst last summer and have not one regret.


To the OP, the 3016 is an excellent tractor, and I think it would suit you well.

That said, I agree with Arrow's last post about the 4010, although I prefer the HST over a gear version. Been there, done that for a long time, and I'd never have another gear machine.

 

[Navasot]

Obviously the op is in a select quandary. He is siding with the 4010 but as it is a new experience, he may be open to suggestion. I think it important, that if one is going to "suggest" a tractor over another, that the reasons for the opinion be included. The reasoning behind my statement is that we all use our tractors differently. Our opinions are going to be based on our experiences. These experiences may or may not be shared or confronted by the op, thus the validity of our own experiences may come into question. The devil is always in the details.

I have a 3016 gear. I did not like the 3016 hydro. For the work I do, (skidding and snow plowing mostly) the gear was a much better fit for me. Although I feel the 3016 as a capable tractor, the op wants to cut trails on side hills. I think he is better off with a heavier tractor that affords more hp for the hydro and more grunt to tear into earth. With the fel and loaded tires, he will have a tractor approaching 5000#. Weight for what the op wants to do is tantamount to efficiency and speed of accomplishment. I also think the extra weight may prove beneficial to stability so perhaps there is a safety advantage as well for the heavier tractor. He has a 1/4 mile drive that needs plowing out when it snows. Two swipes up and down with a 7' blade, will be child's play for the heavier tractor. The 4010 with it's larger tires will also provide more ground clearance for the ops woods work. He has woods that are complimented by blow downs. Nothing much messier and hard on a tractor than a tree fallen forest. The 4010 is a heavier and more substantially built tractor than the 16 series and I believe these advantages for the ops situation, lean me toward a recommendation for the 4010.

I do shy from enough details this is for sure. But the extra you get out of the 4010 is not near as much as the paper shows when put in real life situation. I have operated both and would still take the smaller 3016 between the two. If I went bigger especially when looking at price there is no reason to not go with the 4025 other than the needs up in size to haul it around

 

[lantxinNETX]

When I was doing the research for my first tractor purchase about 2 years ago, I heard several times to make sure I did not buy too small a tractor - the belief being that there would be plenty of things that I did not anticipate doing with my tractor and having extra power / weight / capacity in the future would be beneficial. In the Mahindra line, the two that I came down to were the 4010 and the 4035. Ultimately I choose the 4035.

Looking at the numbers between the 4010 and the 3016, I see the 4010 has about 20% more loader lift capacity. And the 3pt life capacity is bigger too.

Since you say you are going to get a BH with your tractor, I would be sure to check out the specs for the two backhoes. They are probably different - with the one for the 4010 almost certainly being a little 'better'.

Given the very similar prices, I would go with the 4010.

 

[lantxinNETX]

Products such as Rimguard Rim Guard - Liquid Tire Ballast provide the weight you need for ballast and improved traction. Rimguard is non-corrosive.

Of course if you actually get the Back Hoe, there really isn't any reason to fill the tires. As long as you have the BH attached, that will almost certainly be more weight added to the back of the tractor than what you would gain by adding the ballast to the tires.

 

[arrow]

Of course if you actually get the Back Hoe, there really isn't any reason to fill the tires. As long as you have the BH attached, that will almost certainly be more weight added to the back of the tractor than what you would gain by adding the ballast to the tires.

i don't necessarily agree. Here's why: If his woods are tight, one of the last things i'd want on my tractor is a hoe. Just too large of an encumbrance. If there are other situations where a hoe gets in the way and needs removal or proves too dicey to cart around on his side hills., tire ballast is a good thing to have. As a result of not wanting the backhoe on permanently, filled tires are a great alternative for ballast.

 

[arrow]

I do shy from enough details this is for sure. But the extra you get out of the 4010 is not near as much as the paper shows when put in real life situation. I have operated both and would still take the smaller 3016 between the two. If I went bigger especially when looking at price there is no reason to not go with the 4025 other than the needs up in size to haul it around

It stands to reason Nava that a 5000# tractor is going to outwork a 3800# one. In your operation of the two, what was being done? I would wager that the 6' bucket on th 4010 (if you were doing loader work) would make it seem that the 4010 may not have as much "push" or penetration as the 60" bucket on the 16. Load up both tractors with ballast, now things become different with the larger tractor. I can understand your point about "not much difference' as the tractors are not a zip code away from each other size wise if you weren't doing "grunt" work, I agree with your assessment. But the advantage of over a thousand pounds (tractive forces being equal) is too large a factor to ignore. I know from my experience of logging and pushing snow, the 3016 I have now is a thousand pounds more than my last tractor. There is a night and day difference in work efficiency between the two. Both tractors had filled ag tires. Larger tires and more weight equate to more efficiency in my mind.

 

[millsan1]

Thanks for all the great info guys.

 

[oldpilgrim]

Gotta agree with Arrow again.

I had a BH on my old tractor and it was a bear in the woods and too problematic to remove it regularly.

When I got my new machine, with BH, I was using it in the woods with the same difficulty. Once I got the courage to attempt to disconnect the BH, and saw how easy it was to do, I was amazed at how much better it was in the woods. I loaded the tires and don't put the hoe on unless I need it.

It's off now, even when using the machine for snow removal. The loaded tires make all the difference in the world.

 

[Navasot]

It stands to reason Nava that a 5000# tractor is going to outwork a 3800# one. In your operation of the two, what was being done? I would wager that the 6' bucket on th 4010 (if you were doing loader work) would make it seem that the 4010 may not have as much "push" or penetration as the 60" bucket on the 16. Load up both tractors with ballast, now things become different with the larger tractor. I can understand your point about "not much difference' as the tractors are not a zip code away from each other size wise if you weren't doing "grunt" work, I agree with your assessment. But the advantage of over a thousand pounds (tractive forces being equal) is too large a factor to ignore. I know from my experience of logging and pushing snow, the 3016 I have now is a thousand pounds more than my last tractor. There is a night and day difference in work efficiency between the two. Both tractors had filled ag tires. Larger tires and more weight equate to more efficiency in my mind.

Im not stating it wont do a bit more... because it is a bigger tractor no fight there... its more of a longevity comparison

 

[arrow]

Gotta agree with Arrow again.

I had a BH on my old tractor and it was a bear in the woods and too problematic to remove it regularly.

When I got my new machine, with BH, I was using it in the woods with the same difficulty. Once I got the courage to attempt to disconnect the BH, and saw how easy it was to do, I was amazed at how much better it was in the woods. I loaded the tires and don't put the hoe on unless I need it.

It's off now, even when using the machine for snow removal. The loaded tires make all the difference in the world.

There is another aspect here Pilgrim about the attached back hoe for snow removal. I don't know if you ever confronted this but I know a gentleman somewhere on this forum found it a pain in the backside for having the backhoe on for snow removal. It seemed anytime he put downward pressure on the bucket, the backhoe would kind of "take over" the tractor and wanted to lift the front end up. This caused him the inability to scrape down to that last layer of snow when cleaning his drive. He always clears his property of snow now with the back hoe off.