4300 needs weight

DDT · Feb 25, 2001

I got a chance to try my new GB loader today. I got to move about 10 ton of very wet rock to a drive way. I had my king kutter box blade on, it only weighs 435 LBS and no liquid in the tires (becauces of mowing dutys) This B Blade was enough for the 855 but not the 4300. I think I will add a bar to hold some suit case weights off of a farm tractor. If I add 4- 96 lbs weights with my b blade then I should have close to 800 lbs on the rear, The way she acted this may not be enough total weight either. Any thoughs about total LBS of rear weight. Thanks for every ones insight/ experience. DDT

cowboydoc · Feb 26, 2001

DDT,
I have my tires filled and I have 600 pounds of weight on my tires with a 6 ft. woods box blade on the back. With that I can lift 1600-2000 pound round bales with the loader. The only time it gets tipsy is when I lift it way up to put them in the round bale feeders. Other than that I never have a problem.

Caretaker · Feb 26, 2001

Dana,

I don't know if this helps, but it seems to me that the amount of rear weight should IDEALLY equal the amount of front weight.../w3tcompact/icons/shocked.gif

I'm thinking here that a tractor is usually pretty well balanced front to back, without anything on the 3PT or anything in the FEL bucket. Of course, it's sometimes hard to figure what a full bucket weighs, /w3tcompact/icons/blush.gif but I called a local material yard, and they gave me some numbers (tons per yard) for some various types of materials, and they seemed pretty accurate. /w3tcompact/icons/cool.gif Of course, the practical use of that is to insure that one has ENOUGH weight to balance out their tractor - I don't plan on dumping sand out of my weight box! /w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

I dunno - any other thoughts/notions/ideas/suggestions ?

Dave Wells

jfakerj · Feb 27, 2001

DDT

My rear tire on my 4300 are filled andthe tractor is a little light in the front with the b/h on. The tractor is very stable but there isn't much weight on the bucket for digging. The tractor does very well with nothing on the back but it's a little light in the back-not much just a little. Also with nothing on the back the front tires really squat with the loader full. In my case I think about 3-400 pounds on the 3ph would be about perfect along with the filled tires(don't know how much weight is in them so I can't tell you how much tatal weight that would be).

Jerry

rekees · Feb 27, 2001

>>I'm thinking here that a tractor is usually pretty well balanced front to back, without anything on the 3PT or anything in the FEL bucket.<<
Dave your thinking is VERY dangerous. The weight of an empty FEL bucket (without corresponding weight in the rear) is enough on a 4300 to cause lose of rear wheel traction and therefore a runaway tractor without any braking. This can happen going downhill. I speak from personal experience.

Chuck in IN

Muhammad · Feb 27, 2001

Dave,

Balanced without anything attached to the front or rear, yes, but balanced without anything in the FEL? No. The weight of the FEL alone will throw the F/R weight distribution way off. With a loaded bucket (gravel, sand, etc), you might need about 800-1,000lbs on the back of a 4300 to counter-balance the load. Even without a load in the bucket, without a counter-balance of some kind (250, 400lbs minimum I'd say, if there were to be no additional load on the front) you could easily get the tractor to be unstable... there are always changing ground conditions, etc. I wouldn't ever do much without some counter-balance.

Caretaker · Feb 27, 2001

Chuck & Muhammad,

Thanks for your input. I admit to total ignorance about anything other than my own JD4100Hydro. Mine does seem pretty well balanced with JUST the FEL & smallest bucket (54" or 60", not sure), but if I take the bucket off and put the pallet forks on I can tell the difference - the frame & forks must weigh over 200 lbs, while the bucket itself probably weighs less that 100.

I NEVER use either the bucket or pallet forks without the ballast box. Fortunately I learned that lesson the first time I felt the rear end go up . . . /w3tcompact/icons/shocked.gif

Thanks again for pointing that out - it's very easy to assume something that doesn't apply in your situation. /w3tcompact/icons/blush.gif

Dave Wells

Muhammad · Feb 27, 2001

I NEVER use either the bucket or pallet forks without the ballast box.

Good idea. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif Just always keep safety in mind. I have heard from others with tractors similar in size to the 4100 warning others of stability issues with no rear ballast, even with just the FEL installed... But of course, as the operator, you know more about the way the tractor handles/feels than others.

Thomas · Feb 27, 2001

DDT,
Don't think only of moving dirt,gravel etc.. w/your FEL w/no weight on the back,for if your transporting good size rock or rocks w/your FEL on a side slope or going down the slope,and the rock or rocks sides in your bucket you may end up for a ride do to no traction on the rear tires.

Thomas..NH /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif

vtrick · Feb 28, 2001

It appears that this question has been brought up numerous times. I don't understand why the equipment manufacturers can't produce a table or chart estimating additional rear weight required for lifting various loads on different grades. It appears that this method would be much safer than trial and hope. Maybe this process explains why the farming industry leads other industries in accidents.
Thanks,
Rick

Edited by vtrick on 02/28/01 03:56 AM (server time).