Compact Tractor-Loader Specs Comparison

[Orahov]

Hello, this spreadsheet compares the compact tractor published specs. Made this upon making up a purchase decision. Tell me what brands you think I should add, I know I'm missing JD, LS, & Mahindra. Bad Boy & Rural King should also be added.

Compact Tractor Specs

 

[RayIN]

You've put a lot of work into that document. I hope future buyers take advantage of your work.

 

[Tractorable]

Need to add Yanmar too. Believe the YT235 lifts 1300lbs and the YT347/359 lift 2500lbs.

 

[WinterDeere]

Hello, this spreadsheet compares the compact tractor published specs. Made this upon making up a purchase decision. Tell me what brands you think I should add, I know I'm missing JD, LS, & Mahindra. Bad Boy & Rural King should also be added.

Compact Tractor Specs

Great chart! That should be a site sticky, if ever there were one.

As to what to add... I've always used loader lift capacity at 60" for comparison, instead of lift capacity at max height. My reasoning is that, when an object is very heavy, near max capacity, I'm never lifting it to max height. Where I usually need max lift capacity is when lifting logs off the ground with chain slings or forks, or when lifting pallets out of the back of a delivery truck. Both of these activities happen between 0" and 60" off the ground, never near max height.

 

[dodge man]

John Deere 2025r, 2032r and 2038r.

 

[hiddentacocatneddih]

Id be curious if someone has the specs to build an excel spread sheet with the dimensions off the loaders and cylinders where you can plug in the hydraulic pressure, loader angle and calculate the max lifting force across the loaders movement range.

Then you would calculate the ballast requirements.

We do something similar to this at work all the time for our machines.


I would think most the machines run out of ballast before anything.

 

[Orahov]

You've put a lot of work into that document. I hope future buyers take advantage of your work.
View attachment 2092681

Thanks, in the future I will link a Youtube video I saw of someone else doing a similar chart (if I can find it again).

 

[Orahov]

Great chart! That should be a site sticky, if ever there were one.

As to what to add... I've always used loader lift capacity at 60" for comparison, instead of lift capacity at max height. My reasoning is that, when an object is very heavy, near max capacity, I'm never lifting it to max height. Where I usually need max lift capacity is when lifting logs off the ground with chain slings or forks, or when lifting pallets out of the back of a delivery truck. Both of these activities happen between 0" and 60" off the ground, never near max height.

Thats very true to point out, however its hard finding specs consistently at 60", either at pins or certain distance away from bucket; across each brand/model. Especially with brands using metric/imperial measurements it gets extra complicated.

 

[Orahov]

Id be curious if someone has the specs to build an excel spread sheet with the dimensions off the loaders and cylinders where you can plug in the hydraulic pressure, loader angle and calculate the max lifting force across the loaders movement range.

Then you would calculate the ballast requirements.

We do something similar to this at work all the time for our machines.


I would think most the machines run out of ballast before anything.

That would be very interesting to see. To add, you could take those tractor-loader dimensions and calculate the moment (tendency to rotate) that causes the tractor to tip over (on level ground).

 

[WinterDeere]

Thats very true to point out, however its hard finding specs consistently at 60", either at pins or certain distance away from bucket; across each brand/model. Especially with brands using metric/imperial measurements it gets extra complicated.

True. But there are two possible work-arounds:

1. Just use whatever closest "shoulder height" number is provided, whether that be 1.5 meters or 60 inches.

2. Do a simple linear fit between whatever numbers are provided. I can help with this, if you have data.

The table you have is already very good, even without this. My thought was just that choosing a loader which is engineered to show the best max lift at max height, at the expense of the 60" number, is not always in ones best interest.