A weighty question for a newbie...

[jcims]

Hi Folks,

Just trying to sort through one variable in the CUT market, weight. In the 25-30hp range, you can find reputable vendors putting out products that weigh anywhere from 1600lbs to 3100lbs, and I'm just trying to get a handle on what it means for me.

My concern is that I have a variety of environments I will be working in, from skidding logs out of the woods to dragging a box blade down a hard gravel drive, and of course traversing into and across our finished lawn on a regular basis. I foresee no plowing or disking, and no finish mowing.

I plan on running R4's for versatility and filling tires for stability (a few slopes involved). Any thoughts? For example, if i were to get a Bobcat CT230, fill the tires, and hang a loader and box blade off of it, I'll be in the 5000lb range. Is that going to put a big fat rut in the yard and get stuck in every mud hole i come across? Would a Kubota 2620, at 1550lbs, have enough traction to pull the box blade through hard packed 304's and #2's?

I have access to a truck and trailer that will haul anything in the spectrum, so that's not an issue.

Thoughts?

Thanks!

 

[Diamondpilot]

I have ran a 5,200# tractor on my yard for 8 years with no issues. For what you are wanting to do you need weight. You will do more damage with a light tractor spinning the tires all the time. Look at it this way. A small lawnmower at Lowes may have 25Hp but cant pull crap. You meed weight and gearing. I would look hard at the BobCat 335. Much more loader capacity for your logging.

Chris

 

[Grandad4]

You have put your finger on one topic that always brews some controversy, because different brands have taken different engineering approaches in the design of their products. Kubota, notably, engineers equipment with a light footprint for its size and horsepower, and argues that offers an advantage for situations like yours. It's further stated that weight can be added when necessary and that weight alone does not necessarily equate to durability. Other manufacturers, such as Mahindra, offer heavier equipment, and predictably argue the added weight means more strength and durability.

Which is best, heavy or light? I dunno. Even though Kubota makes light equipment, they have one of the best reputations for rugged, durable equipment that holds its value. So, light doesn't necessarily mean flimsy. But Mahindra is selling equipment descended from International Harvester designs from the 1950's, which were legendary in ruggedness and durability. And other manufacturers are likely somewhere in between.

If I were buying a true ag tractor that was going to do extensive tillage, I'd be going for something pretty heavy. But that wasn't what I needed, and I got the Kubota as an all-around, versatile machine. After 8 years, it hasn't let me down once, and has done its share of heavy work.

In your case, I'd look at the "large frame" CUT's, which offer a bit more grunt than the smaller ones of the same horsepower, mostly because of the logging and road maintenance you mention. In other words, not the lightest and not the heaviest. With Kubota, for example, the smaller L would catch my attention over the B series. But that's me. Others can probably make a good case for the lighter ones.

Not trying to push Kub on you... it's just what I know. There is a variety of good equipment to choose from, so you should look at a range of brands and models to find the one that suits you best.

 

[Gittyup]

I agree with Chris. For ground engagement, there is not substitute for weight. Now you can buy a heavy tractor, or buy a light one and add weight, or buy a heavy tractor and add even more weight. I, like you, had a lot of ground engaging work to do and so went for the heaviest, small frame tractor I could afford. I have a Kioti CK25 TLB with loaded R4 tires. Weighs around 5500 lbs with the backhoe. It's been awesome at digging, dragging, and loading tasks, and the short wheelbase lets you get into pretty confined spaces.

Yes, you can add weights to the wheels, and front and rear bumper. That let's you lighten your tractor when you need to. Me, I just didn't want to have to fool with the heavy things. Plus, they aren't cheap.

If you go with a heavier framed UT, there are 2 issues: size - will it fit where you want it? Cost - a few thousand more and require bigger implements (sometimes).

I don't have an issue with ruts when wet. But, I don't go on the lawn when it's like that anyway. What I have found is that it's more a problem of compaction. So, I always try to avoid driving the same path over and over again.

When I take the backhoe off, it feels like a lean sports car at about 4600 lbs!.....not really, just kidding

 

[Thomas]

Also consider ground clearance wheel base distance for your projects..logging.

 

[TripleR]

Like Chris, I have run heavy tractors on my yard for years without ill effects as long as it is not wet. When it's wet, I park my equipment anyway. On a portion of our yard, we have JD8320's and bigger, now those do a little damage, but eventually goes away.

 

[LD1]

I'd say shoot for a middle of the road weight.

I have a Kubota 3400, which is basically the same as a 2800 which you probabally looked at when researching specs. It is 2600lbs, I have loaded tires, FEL and an implement it will weigh between 4000-4500lbs. It also wears AG tires and not R4's. I drive it over the lawn, and even mow with it with little damage.

I do a lot of what you are planning on doing. FEL work, grading, logging, etc. And I find it easier it bog down the 34HP engine and sometines stall it, than it is to loose traction and spin the tires. Sure I could gear down to first or second and have no problem spinning, but to do loader work or grading at a reasonable pace and not a snails pace, traction is not an issue with my lighter kubota. R4's may be a little different though.

When skidding logs, I disobey the saftey police and use the 3PH, chain short, and lift the log. It accomplishes 2 things. Getting the log out of the mud, and giving me pleanty of weight. But I am not suggesting this. The ONLY tie I wish my tractor were a little heavier is when lifting heavy things in the FEL. Like loading bucketfulls of firewood in the truck, where you have to lift a good ways. The heavier tractors usually offer better stability.

 

[MarkV]

Another part of the equation is that not all manufactures rate tractor weights the same way. With some it is shipping weight and with others it is field ready weight.

MarkV

 

[duckhunt]

I personally like weight. My 2816 has a loader and filled rear tires. I think she weighs, with my box blade or bushhog attached around 4,000#. When box bladeing really hard dirt or pulling big trees or logs I wish she was heavier. She will tend to spill when under heavy loads. I have Industrial or R4 tires. Maybe if I had AG I could pull a bit harder. A good size root can stop me in my tracks with the rippers down on the box blade. I think you will be happier with a heavier tractor for your mentioned tasks. My tractor has little if no footprint in my yard. Just my thoughts.

 

[jcims]

Thanks for all the responses, folks...this is why this place is so popular, theory is great, but experience is what counts.

I hadn't even considered the idea of a lack of traction tearing up the yard, but most of the damage from any skid steers I've run is due just to that, bald rental tires spinning while hauling a load, and of course any sharp turns. On the other side, I've seen what a 12 ton lift can do to my lawn just by rolling over it, so it's good to hear folks say they've run the 2+ ton rigs across the yard (sensibly of course) without massive destruction.

Ultimately the tractor is likely to be Kubota or Bobcat. I think they would both shine in one area and do a really good job in the other, it's just that I'm looking at a quote from Bobcat, and the nearly $5K coming off list price in free loaders and rebates is hard to ignore. I'm even daring to dream i could fit a backhoe into the budget.

So thanks again!