Tractor Sizing GUIDE: Shopping/Sizing A Tractor (Version 1.0)

[GirlWhoWantsTractor]

So having bought *my* first tractor within the last year-ish (worked around/with a few different ones tractors belonging to family members growing up), and working as engineer/acquisition professional I'd full agree with:

"The optimal way to shop for tractors is to list your tasks first." - as it's always good to know what the requirements are before making a purchase.

Welcome to TBN!

Nice analysis.

Every time someone comes here asking for recommendations I think "Here comes 10 people saying 'buy bigger' and 10 people saying 'small is actually ok'."

 

[airbiscuit]

So having bought *my* first tractor within the last year-ish (worked around/with a few different ones tractors belonging to family members growing up), and working as engineer/acquisition professional I'd full agree with:

"The optimal way to shop for tractors is to list your tasks first." - as it's always good to know what the requirements are before making a purchase.

After that I think it's worth further identifying and defining any constraints (e.g. maximum footprint, minimum absolute lifting capacity, spending limits), and any trade-offs that would be acceptable (for example: time to complete a task safely vs. money spent on larger equipment).

Until a person has an relatively good idea of what they are willing to accept it doesn't seem to make much sense to be deciding on what to buy (unless there's no/little issue with trading a new purchase in order to adjust either up or down in size). Note: that doesn't say anything about "window shopping" to see what is currently available in different size/price ranges.

For example some requirements/constraints I had on my own purchase:

- effectively use non-powered tillage equipment (moldboard plows, disc harrows, etc) -- which favors heavier (for size/HP) tractors
- a FEL capable of lifting a minimum of 500lb load (roughly what a 55 gallon drum full of water weighs) to full lift height --- (preference for lifting 2+ drums)
- size had to be as small as possible (and still meet other requirements) given it would be used as a primary mower for just under 3 acres of lawn & pasture
- PTO usage would be primarily for finish mowing -- based on tearing up and bogging down multiple riding/zero turn mowers, the general rule I've developed for mowing (at least in this part of the country) is no more than 2" of mowing width per gross HP when mowing at 3-5mph
- had to be able to handle mowers capable of covering tractor width at a minimum
- speed/direction control had to be quick and simple as mowing involves maneuvering around multiple trees, as well as fence lines, with added potential for quick stops due to dogs & vehicular traffic
- open platform was preferable due to potential for contact with low/over hanging tree limbs
- dealer/repair/part support had to be readily available for the expected life of the tractor (no matter how well something is made, things eventually break and need to be repaired or replaced)
- a 3rd function valve would be required to support grapples and other hydraulic loader attachments used for assisting with tree care & storm cleanup
- rear remotes were desirable for top & tilt cylinders, while being able to simultaneously supporting a third hydraulic function
- telescoping lower links became a must (having grown up around tractors that had them it seemed natural thing to have, and after seeing videos of hooking up implements without telescopic lower links it became a mandatory requirement based on expected implement changes)
-preference was to buy new so as not to spend time dealing with potentially inherited problems

It wasn't until I had most of that list compiled that I even started looking at tractors which could potentially meet my needs (even then there was some refining going on regarding some specifics: like the number of rear remotes, and telescoping lower links).

Ultimately this all resulted in the purchasing of a L3560 HST as the tractor met my requirements and constraints -- and just as importantly the dealership was on my daily commute (it is also staffed by people who are helpful and friendly). In fact working with them was the only time I've ever had a sales person try to talk me into buying something cheaper/smaller than I came in intending to buy.

However, if even some of my requirements had been a bit different (for example if I was planning to use a tiller instead of a plow/disc combination) I may very well have gone with a lighter higher horsepower tractor. Where if my FEL minimums weren't what they are a Kubota B or BX size tractor would likely have sufficed. That's not exactly idle speculation either as I looked at going down both routes while I was developing my list of requirements for purchasing a tractor.

As it is with ~110 hours during my first year of use I currently can't see selling my L3560, even though I can see uses for adding both larger and smaller tractors (along with a lot more property) to my collection.

Anyway, just figured I'd share few thoughts on the topic given I've spent the last few years casually going through the process of researching, refining and eventually purchasing a first tractor (and it was definitely a difference to be buying one instead of just working with what was available).

Yep, you had the good sense to consider and evaluate all the relevant factors before you chose. A lot of newbys don't have a clue about such things. They get a brochure and see a John Deere:

1025R SCUT
2025R Small Frame CUT
3025E Medium Frame CUT

And say Heyyyy, they all have about the same power so I can get the cheapest one and save thousands. So they buy the SCUT. That might serve their needs well. On the other hand it is lighter weight than a CUT and has the same size tires as a lawn and garden tractor. They may well end up spinning their wheels.

That's why I am a proponent of identifying your implements, tasks and work to be done first, choosing appropriate frame size second, and horsepower third. I've talked with tractor sales people who say often enough customers buy a SCUT, and come back later to trade it in for a CUT for the added traction (for their tasks). YMMMV

 

[jeff9366]

JJP8182

An excellent *FIRST* post. Clear information, clear history and clear presentation.

I hope you contribute regularly.

I wish you fortitude.

 

[kenmac]

They should be and are, on flat level ground. Likely the lift specs are with the tractor sitting on a concrete floor. Carrying that same load *safely* up or down a hill or on rough ground may require ballast. Hilly/steep property is different. Why is this so hard to understand?

Nope ! Not the case with my MX. Sitting on flat ground, The rear will come off the ground with a bucket full of material.
Why is this so hard to understand ?

 

[GirlWhoWantsTractor]

Presumably there is *some* condition under which a stock tractor can lift its spec weight, or else those numbers are lies.

 

[majorwager]

A neighbor had driven 1/2 " grounding rods around the perimeter of his above ground pool to attach the winter cover. The pool is now removed so so wanted the rods gone as well.

I volunteered assistance using my MX. There is a small compression clamp attached to each rod to which I wrapped a small chain underneath.
When attempting to pull the rods w/ the forks at the most rearward position close to the QA, the rear end of the tractor came right off the ground.

I believe the kubota loader might lift the rated capacity w/ a huge counter-balance hung upon the rear linkage. Absent that scenario, I believe the loader lifting 900 lbs would be at max to keep the rear wheels planted, this presumes level ground. I have no desire to test this theory.

My 550 lb snow pusher can bounce the rear wheels.

 

[majorwager]

As Girl W/ Tractor states, there are situations where BOTH larger and smaller tractors suffice. Certain members are ecstatic when a smaller model is disparaged in favor of the heavy CUT.

The point remains that many tasks may be equally accomplished W/ a smaller tractor albeit more input time may be required. The author of post #23 is often quoted by the OP. And yet this professional participant disagrees, and actually opposes the position that excessive weight accomplishes most tasks. Read # 23.

The new poster above stipulate that a smaller model would also satisfy most of his needs

The cost factor should not be ignored. It is senseless to spend additional resources unless there is a need.
However, if the tasks do not warrant such, but it is what you desire, then by all means, go for it.

Somewhere, I suppose there is a forty foot cruiser on a mile square lake.

BUY as MUCH TRACTOR as YOU WANT, but if COST is a FACTOR, BUY as MUCH TRACTOR as YOU NEED.

 

[ThirdMan]

Presumably there is *some* condition under which a stock tractor can lift its spec weight, or else those numbers are lies.

Why would it be the case that the stock tractor with no counter weight should be able to lift the amount stated? My manual has a section on maximum possible mass, towing load, axle load, and tire loads. It states as part of this, "When working with front loader or rear heavy loaded attachments installed to the 3-point linkage, install ballast weights on the counter-part axle to maintain the front and rear weight balance of the tractor. If not, front or rear axle can be strained by the overloaded weight."

 

[majorwager]

ThirdMan,

Now you have actually gone ahead and ruined everything by reading the owner's manual. :shocked:


EDIT:

Believe any load lift rating incorporates the mobility of that load, and not simply at a static position.

Some ratings quantify the height position of the load but still included a mobility aspect for same.

EDIT:

DieselBound,


To qualify your position, weight and ballast is very much dependent upon intended use of the tractor, TASKS, In MY case, weight is a determent.

 

[DieselBound]

BUT, that could be for safety more so than outright capability. If one just dead-lifts then perhaps not an issue (for many). But go to move about it then becomes problematic. To use the case of trucks and towing, the manufacturers account for the more extreme conditions that one might encounter, such as steep hills and such (safe/effective braking is also a big part); on flat ground (optimal conditions) the truck can tow a LOT more.

I've got ballasted rears on both my tractors. Preference is to also use additional ballast, 3pt attachment, when I can, but sometimes it's not possible. I did a LOT of materials hauling with my NX5510 and a dump trailer. I was hefting some pretty intense amount of weight w/o any additional ballast; but, I wasn't moving very far with a loader full of material either (nor would I have wanted to). I'll never know whether I could have lifted that amount of weight/material w/o ballasted rears as I got the tractor with them ballasted. My B7800, on the other hand, ran for a couple years before I managed to get its rears ballasted: had I truly known what a difference it makes I'd have done it from the start (which is why I didn't hesitate to have it done on the NX5510 at time of purchase).

In general it's just a wiser move to have ballast.