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

[jjp8182]

I think this thread is doing a great job to illustrate that tractors (like just about every other tool) vary widely in their usage, and intent of design (even when the tractors might be very similar in power, weight or size) --- and what may work for one person may not work for another even when it comes to doing the exact same task.

Sort of like hammers really -- just about any type of hammer can be used for giving something a good whack, but sometimes there's just no substitute for having the right type of hammer (using a non-sparking hammer in a flammable environment comes to mind as great example, as does trying to build furniture with a sledgehammer - or drive fence posts with a tack hammer). So while it can be nice (really nice actually) to have exactly what's needed to do a task the way you want to do it; sometimes just having what will do the job in an acceptable manner is good enough. Of course the real trick is identifying when acceptable is good enough, and when there really is no substitute for the *right* tool for the job.

I think being able to identify the difference between the two comes from gaining an understanding the fundamentals of how tractors work (to potentially include some of the the basic physics of traction, hydraulics, and so many other tractor related topics), the tasks that will be performed (which will vary from person to person), and what is "acceptable" to the purchaser. All of which come into play when selecting a tractor to buy. Of course even then there's going to be some learning going on since even if/when the "perfect" or "best" tractor was purchased, any given operator will need to learn the limits of the tractor they are operating.

..... which is to say that even having done a lot of learning I've already crossed a point where I'm not sure I can recall all the times I've had the rear wheels start coming off the ground when doing loader work -- and that's despite working on flat ground, with a full set of wheel weights, a 660lb box blade on the back ...and being rather far removed from being light myself.

Being able to successfully get through that learning period (thus far since I doubt the learning ever stops) really (again) goes back to understanding the fundamentals, and taking the time to learn how to safely operate a tractor (especially when doing something that even starts to get close to published limits) - or as I like to say: If you're going to do something stupid, at least try to be smart in how you go about doing it.

Personally I figure if a person can do all of that, then which tractor to buy become far less significant as - from what I've seen throughout life; with enough skill many tools (to include tractors) can be used to successfully complete tasks that few think are even possible with that tool.

Which of course is where things like TBN can be of great assistance, in helping teach the basics of how tractors can do what they do, and how they can be operated in a safe manner, as well as illustrate the differing opinions, capabilities, and widely varying uses of tractors -- and even some of the constraints that arise from where a person is located (especially if at a high elevation).

Forgot to mention earlier, but I've been reading things here long before I ever created an account, or even bought a tractor -- so thanks to all who contribute here regularly.

 

[DieselBound]

^^^ Awesome post!:thumbsup:

 

[GirlWhoWantsTractor]

.....which tractor to buy become far less significant as - from what I've seen throughout life; with enough skill many tools (to include tractors) can be used to successfully complete tasks that few think are even possible with that tool.

To paraphrase a well-known saying, "I've done so much with so little for so long, that now I can do anything with nothing."

Having a nice 26 HP tractor is a huge luxury for me. I appreciate that for some folks, being able to do a job in one day instead of two is critical, but that's not my world. I'm never in that much of a hurry. Different perspectives; both are okay.

EDIT: Agree, awesome post!

 

[jeff9366]

During 1998 nonroad engine regulations reducing emissions were structured as a 3-tiered progression. Nonroad regulations use metric units, with regulatory limits expressed in grams of pollutant per kWh. Examples of regulated applications include farm tractors, excavators, bulldozers, wheel loaders, backhoe loaders, road graders, diesel lawn tractors, logging equipment, portable generators, skid steer loaders and forklifts.

Each tier involved a phase-in (by engine power) over several years. Tier 1 standards phased-in from 1996 to 2000. Tier 2 standards phased-in from 2001 to 2006. Tier 3 standards phased-in from 2006 to 2008 (Tier 3 standards applied only for engines from 37-560 kW).

Very stringent Tier 4 emission standards, phased-in from 2008 through 2015, require substantial reductions of Particulate Matter above 19 kW power output.

Every tractor brand includes a model in the 2,600 pound to 2,900 pound (bare tractor) range with 100 cubic inch/24 horsepower engine. Tractors under 19 kW ( 19 KW = 25.4794-horsepower) are presently exempt from stringent Tier IV emission controls which rapidly increase a tractor's cost above the 19 kW power demarcation.



ARTICLE ON NON-ROAD DIESEL ENGINE EMISSION CONTROLS PROVIDED BY OOSIK.
Thank you, OOSIK.
Emission Standards: USA: Nonroad Diesel Engines

 

[majorwager]

Jeffy
Parroting an article w/o performing your own research or extracting data on the internet by implying said information is accurate can easily misinform fellow members. Oversimplification of the facts may also be misleading.

There was much consternation as engine manufacturers evolved through the tier llla, to lllb, interim tier 4 and tier4 final. There was the complexity of extensive testing and achieving certification in the US and the EU, since the same engine was marketed in both jurisdictions simultaneously. The significant expense associated w/ complience played a role in the achievable emissions goals.

Your rendition, posted under your heading, paints a simple picture of connecting the dots. The actual circumstances were far removed.

 

[shooterdon]

To paraphrase a well-known saying, "I've done so much with so little for so long, that now I can do anything with nothing."

Having a nice 26 HP tractor is a huge luxury for me. I appreciate that for some folks, being able to do a job in one day instead of two is critical, but that's not my world. I'm never in that much of a hurry. Different perspectives; both are okay.

EDIT: Agree, awesome post!

I am in the same boat....currently. Being retired, I have more time than money. I am starting my tractor ownership and learning on a JD 855. Down the road I may upgrade but time will tell. So far, it sure beats not having anything and my investment has been modest. Many here would consider my Deere just a little fawn. And alas it will never grow to be any faster or stronger. Yet already my neighbor sees where it will come in handy working in some of the tighter places on his property where his much bigger Kubota is a tad awkward.

I like the hammer analogy. If you are driving tacks, the 24 oz framing hammer is a poor choice.

 

[majorwager]

There is another consideration that the fastidious OP has neglected. Bare weight vs Operating Weight.
A tractor designer balances the build weight based upon the tractor's ability to perform a myriad of tasks across the platform.

The manufacturer can NOT know how each tractor will be utilized, so they incorporate "ALLOWANCES" for attachments and implements capacity.

Bare weight delivers a specific tractive and stability chacacteristic. In discussion w/ a member, it was suggested that operating weight always enhances the former.

I contend this to be untrue. The FEL actually upsets the stability factor, yet adds to task ability. MY MX was operated w/ no FEL until 2017. This tractor is NOW less stable W/ the FEL, raising the COG. Requires operation in lowest position on slopes.

The FEL and or monster grapples, do not "uniformly" add weight. Alas the presumption that operating weight automatically supplements bare weight is a fallacy.

We add weight to the front, we attempt offset weight to the rear, but there is no scientific application to either. It is either a situation of available options, such as wheel weights or loaded tires or different FEL attachments. BUT when changing FEL attachments, the added rear weight remains constant. Loaded tires remain loaded.

Again it is just a guess by the operator as to optimal balance. The presumption that operating weight is an automatic enhancement of the proportions established by bare weight are simply false.

I add a FEL to my tractor. I Add a 550 lb snow pusher to the FEL. According to the OP my operating wt increased 1200 ls for loader and 550 for pusher. I place the Loader in float position, to capture the driveway contours.

Have I increased operating weight? Yes. But in float, I completely defeat the front wheel assist factor of the tractor. As the pusher encounters snow, the resistance actually lifts the front wheels. Now the tractive ability is reduced by the front wheel contribution. The operating weight defeats its' own purpose. This is just one example of how operating weight can be contrary to the design balance of bare weight.

When you see an avatar that toutes operating weight, the member misunderstands how the physics is applied. And when the bucket is working, as noted, it is part of the resistance, Can't be considered operating weight, and load simultaneously.

Operating weight is a value .most useful when calculating the load capability of your trailer or septic tank cover.

 

[majorwager]

_QUOTE_ Forgot to mention earlier, but I've been reading things here long before I ever created an account, or even bought a tractor -- so thanks to all who contribute here regularly.[/QUOTE]

Believe this ABOVE QUOTED PASSAGE is among the most applicable points offered by JJP8182.


In post ten, it was noted that these folks seeking advice are much more aware and savvy than they are afforded credit.


I contend that JJP is more typical than unique. Many new posters seeking advice may portray a degree of unfamiliarity, BUT in actuality have been non-members since they acquired a desire to own a tractor. Many have a list of tasks identified, and the tractor terminology very accurate.

Again, my belief is that forum following and monitoring had been underway before that first post. Perhaps way before first post. Suspect a few trips to a dealer or dealers as well but not necessarily publicly disclosed. Better to portray the novice than actually be the novice. Not alleging deception here, but rather the caution associated w/ a low profile as the experts fall all over themselves to save the poor new buyer from horrendous purchasing error.

The degree of research applied to this tractor purchase may very well be much more comprehensive than realized.

I harmlessly use Girl with Tractor as an example. She STUDIED these forums and other published data including manufacturers specifications. Prior to her actual purchase, I contend she knew MUCH more about tractors and their operation than many longstanding members and tractor owners. The adjustment to practical experience was a seamless transition do to the eye for detail.

How many tractors are sold to first time buyers across the US, a staggering # ? How many visit TBN in the process as new members. A handful? Believe those that do have the confidence and research to answer the questions they will field from the resident experts. Rest my case!!

 

[jeff9366]

During 1998 nonroad engine regulations reducing emissions were structured as a 3-tiered progression. Nonroad regulations use metric units, with regulatory limits expressed in grams of pollutant per kW. Examples of regulated applications include farm tractors, excavators, bulldozers, wheel loaders, backhoe loaders, road graders, diesel lawn tractors, logging equipment, portable generators, skid steer loaders and forklifts.

Each tier involved a phase-in (by engine power) over several years. Tier 1 standards phased-in from 1996 to 2000. Tier 2 standards phased-in from 2001 to 2006. Tier 3 standards phased-in from 2006 to 2008 (Tier 3 standards applied only for engines from 37-560 kW).

Very stringent Tier 4 emission standards, phased-in from 2008 through 2015, require substantial reductions of Particulate Matter above 19 kW power output.

1) A few light tractors slightly exceeding 19 kW power output, with (small) engine displacements from 68 - 77 cubic inches, meet Tier IV emission standards without costly Diesel Particulate filters.

2) Some tractors with engine displacement around 100 cubic inches are governed by the manufacturers to limit power output to less than the 19 kW demarcation. Tractors under 19 kW ( 19 kW = 25.4794-horsepower) are presently exempt from stringent Tier IV emission controls. Sub-19 kW powered tractors are required to meet only Tier II emission standards.

Since full adoption in 2011, very low sulphur diesel fuel has contributed to decreased diesel emissions.

 

[majorwager]

What jeff fails to note is that low sulfur content deprives all diesel engines, w/o regard for tier rating, the Lubricity necessary to reduce unnecessary engine friction.

As engines mature beyond 2011, increased cylinder sleeve wear is recognized directly attributable to the sulfur reduction, Lubricity additives to fuel can effectively reduce this wear.

As for the cheater comment, it is highly inappropriate. If a manufacturer has been accused or indicted by the EPA to be in violation of Federal Emissions laws, then the conditions change.

Untill that scenario occurs, it is disingenuous to make disparaging remarks w/o substantial proof that any illegality or cheating is ongoing or has taken place. If Jeffy has legal proof, he should produce it or remain mute.