FEL, CUT and ballast box

[Charlton John]

4 runner, What tractor are youy looking at buying?

 

[pitt_md]

4runner:

I would definitely load the tires and forego the ballast box for a heavy boxblade. Jay

My experience says different. Ballast boxes are inexpensive and you can put a heck of a lot of weight in one. I know when I pick up my ballast box there is a lot more back there than when I pick up my boxblade. Boxblades heavy enough to come close to what a ballast box holds cost an arm and a leg.
The picture is what I have for a ballast box (filled with rock)

 

[4runner]

Charlton John-I'm looking at a JD 4110 with a 410 loader.

Here was my original thought. I was going to get the tires loaded. And I thought I would also get the ballast box. This would give me enough counter weight as well as lowering the CG of the machine. In addition, I was going to get a box blade in the near term, though not necessarily with the tractor. But now, I like the idea of using the box as 3 point ballast, so I may consider that instead of the ballast box.

 

[jbrumberg]

pitt_md:

I like your set up, especially the grapple. I need to hide most of my attachments from SWMBO ; so the fewer the better . Jay

PS: I do "load up" my box blade on occassion.

 

[kennyd]

Charlton John-I'm looking at a JD 4110 with a 410 loader.

That's a fine machine...but I am a little biased

 

[Soundguy]

pitt_md:

I like your set up, especially the grapple. I need to hide most of my attachments from SWMBO ; so the fewer the better . Jay

PS: I do "load up" my box blade on occassion.

I usually use a ballast block.. but occasionally use my 5' box blade with 3-4 5g buckets filled with concrete on them for weight.

soundguy

 

[pitt_md]

pitt_md:

I like your set up, especially the grapple. I need to hide most of my attachments from SWMBO ; so the fewer the better . Jay

PS: I do "load up" my box blade on occassion.

Loading the BB is something I never thought of... Part of the deal I made when I bought my tractor was the ballast box. I have had to start explaining why I need all the implements I have. Now I am getting the deal killer response from SWMBO, "if you spent X for that metal thingie can I spend X for..." All my attachments cost me double now...

 

[Charlton John]

I agree w/ Pittmd as the ballast box isnt as bulky on the back and allows for more clearance if doing loader work in tighter spaces (woods, close to house etc...) + cheaper. I beleive you can have more weight loaded in the Ballast box than you could get out of any implement (except maybe the backhoe) so IMO the ballast box has its advantages as well. I have had the ballast box on my scut as the implements just were not heavy enough. Now w/ the bigger tractor/implements w/ the loaded tires and the heavy Box blade I have had no issues. But in working in my woods as mentioned it would be a lot easier to have a box on the back as I am making trails etc... it is harder to manuever w/ the rake or box blade on the back. I just think though yes for a little more money if in your budget if you get the loaded tires the box blade is the way to go as you are not only getting good ballast but also a useful implement.

 

[jbrumberg]

I am currently in the process of widening the trails in my woods; wide enough to accomodate tractor and box blade. I'll never be able to use my 8' rake on these trails . Sometimes I really miss my little old Ford 1100. Jay

 

[Soundguy]

What about angling the rake.. make a windroe to the side?

soundguy