Looking for a good compact tractor

[ptsg]

Bad assumption on your part. I have used a gear drive tractor for over 30 years. I have never operated it the way you describe. Perhaps that is why I am still alive. But what I am talking about is physics, not operator error.

What you're talking about has nothing do with what transmission the tractor has but rather how the load you're pulling is attached to the tractor. If it's attached above the center line of the axle, bad things will happen.

There is a reason why the drawbars are mounted under the axle. Even the German style, which slides up and down, can only go up so far to prevent things like that.

 

[Hermio]

All manufacturers make tractors of different frame size and weight. All full line manufacturers anyway.

Kubota isn’t unique here.

It depends on the use. If the main use is mowing/brush cutting, extra weight just wases fuel moving the tractor around. But for heavy pulling and FEL work, weight is quite important. That is why I chose the Mahindra over the Kubota, though I have had a Kubota in the past. But the Mahindra weighs in about 1500# more than the comparable power Kubota model. It also has larger tires, more 3-point lift capacity, more FEL capacity and larger axles. If I were doing lighter work, I may have preferred the Kubota.

 

[Hermio]

What you're talking about has nothing do with what transmission the tractor has but rather how the load you're pulling is attached to the tractor. If it's attached above the center line of the axle, bad things will happen.

There is a reason why the drawbars are mounted under the axle. Even the German style, which slides up and down, can only go up so far to prevent things like that.

Actually it does have to do with the transmission. If you have a gear drive, it will not stop unless you push in the clutch. This requires fast action and coordination. With an HST, if your foot goes off the HST pedal, which it will do when you start to flip or rollover, it will stop. So it requires less operator skill. Also, a tractor can flip to the side when it hits a hidden obkject. I have had this happen when underbrush hid an old stump. As far as drawbar location, what you say is true. But when logging, you want to get the log off the ground to avoid plowing a trough all the way back to the landing and getting the log all muddy. The act of lifting the log will put more of the load on the top link. Have you ever seen how high up the winch point is with a log skidder? Some are 8 feet off the ground. But most of the weight is up front. I mimic that weight distribution by having a heavy FEL.

 

[4570Man]

What you're talking about has nothing do with what transmission the tractor has but rather how the load you're pulling is attached to the tractor. If it's attached above the center line of the axle, bad things will happen.

There is a reason why the drawbars are mounted under the axle. Even the German style, which slides up and down, can only go up so far to prevent things like that.

The old school American tractors had large diameter rear tires and no loader or suitcase weighs on the front. They could backflip even if they were hooked below the axel.

 

[Hermio]

It’s usually old tractors doing back flips and a lot of the old tractors don’t have very low gears. Also you’re assuming it was hooked on an unmovable object and the operator was prepared for that to happen. You could be dragging logs down a skid trailer and a snag a stump. Are you suggesting you should drive everywhere at .5 mph and hover the clutch just waiting for something bad to happen?

I used a 1974 Ford 4010, I think. It was about 53 Hp, as I recall, and dry weight a bit over 5000#. It had a 3-speed trans and a high and low range. Low range was pretty slow in 1st gear. We added wheel weights to the front, so it was pretty stable. But it was a 2WD tractor, so it was not that great in the woods anyway. In though areas, I used a Kubota B7100HST. But it was smaller than what I really needed. Good little tractor, though. I managed to completely wear it out after about 20 years and 2600 hours. I ran a 4' Bushhog, an FEL, a 60" finishing mower, a 50" rototiller and a 4' scraper blade with it. Those implements were pretty much all it could handle.

 

[ptsg]

Actually it does have to do with the transmission. If you have a gear drive, it will not stop unless you push in the clutch. This requires fast action and coordination. With an HST, if your foot goes off the HST pedal, which it will do when you start to flip or rollover, it will stop. So it requires less operator skill. Also, a tractor can flip to the side when it hits a hidden obkject. I have had this happen when underbrush hid an old stump. As far as drawbar location, what you say is true. But when logging, you want to get the log off the ground to avoid plowing a trough all the way back to the landing and getting the log all muddy. The act of lifting the log will put more of the load on the top link. Have you ever seen how high up the winch point is with a log skidder? Some are 8 feet off the ground. But most of the weight is up front. I mimic that weight distribution by having a heavy FEL.

If I'm doing any heavy pulling, the foot will be close to the clutch, ready to press in case something goes bad. Plus, I'm running on the slowest gear I have and the throttle won't go above 1500RPM because it really doesn't need more than that on such a low gear. Plenty of time to react if anything go bad.

I keep seeing on videos with people running high gears and throttle to the max every time they pull something, light or hard pulls. That gives very little control or time to react.

 

[Milo]

Still it's surprising how much you can accomplish with a little compact utility tractor.

As SmallChange has mentioned, "Tractors are not the best machine (not really close) for clearing wooded areas. Rent a large excavator or pay someone to clear it. After, the tractor is great for maintaining."
I entirely agree with this statement. If you have trees you want taken out, renting or hiring a dozer or an excavator will make short work of it.....

While I agree with Jasper, we need to consider the OP's situation. He's not doing logging for a living he is looking for a tractor for his 11 acres of which on 5 of the acres there are dead trees to clean up. We don't know if they're still standing or laying. Regardless just cut them to whatever lengths your tractor can manage to move be it drag or lift.
I've posted this pic before but it illustrates what can be accomplished with a small, light weight tractor, like a 21 HP, 1,700 pound B7500 and only a bucket (no forks) and draw bar. It and I moved hundreds of 70' pine trees when clearing some of the property to build on. The company that took them wanted 11' lengths so that's what we cut them. That little tractor did struggle a bit lifting the lower trunk pieces, it could only lift them a foot or so, so those big ones were placed on the bottom of the piles I had to make for the boom truck. A larger tractor would have been better for this, no doubt, but it did the job and after the heavy work was done that B7500 was just the right size for maintaining our 4 cleared and 45 forested acres.

 

[Jchonline]

All manufacturers make tractors of different frame size and weight. All full line manufacturers anyway.

Kubota isn’t unique here.

You are missing the point. Kubota is historically known for lighter machines in a given “class” if you look at dimensions of the machines. Thats what I am saying.

 

[Hermio]

If I'm doing any heavy pulling, the foot will be close to the clutch, ready to press in case something goes bad. Plus, I'm running on the slowest gear I have and the throttle won't go above 1500RPM because it really doesn't need more than that on such a low gear. Plenty of time to react if anything go bad.

I keep seeing on videos with people running high gears and throttle to the max every time they pull something, light or hard pulls. That gives very little control or time to react.

I guarantee, if you hit an unseen obstacle in the woods, even at low speed, your foot would jerk away from the clutch pedal. And if the tractor really did start to do a wheelie, at 1 mph with a 50" tire, it would take about 2s to reach 90 degrees, the point of no return. My bet is you would have trouble keeping your foot on the clutch then, too. Of course, you could put anti-rollback legs on the tractor, as they do in tractor pull events. You could also pull with a scraper blade. Any large implement would stop a wheelie rollover, but not a side rollover. And I still had a close call with a sapling that popped up when it hit the front axle and ran into my chest. It nearly broke my ribs, which hurt for a week. And this was with an HST, where all I had to do was stop pressing the pedal. I am not trying to say which transmission is "better". I am trying to point out situations where there is an actual safety difference. And any system which requires more operator skill to avoid an accident is intrinsically more dangerous. I think that should be obvious. And the original poster indicated a variety os uses for the tractor. Woods use was one of them. That is probably the most dangerous activity a tractor can be used for,

 

[Boss 302]

Weight is your friend and without it horsepower is wasted, I would look at the heavier tractors IE: Kioti, Mahindra and around the 35 HP range or larger. Don't go too small because down the road you will be sorry.

 

[priberc]

"Loading" the tractor's rear tires with liquid will increase traction in a cost effective way.

Adding wheel weights will also increase traction, though iron weights are much more costly.

MORE ON WHEEL/TIRE BALLAST:

OrangeTractorTalks » Comparing Types of Liquid Tire Ballast

Consider routinely carrying around a Three Point Hitch implement as FEL counterbalance and additional wheel ballast if you need yet more traction. A considerable amount of the implement weight is transferred to the tractor wheels, both front and rear, through the Three Point Hitch.

Before your next tractor purchase consider this: Within subcompact and compact tractor categories, a significant tractor capability increase requires a bare tractor weight increase of 50%. It takes a 100% increase in bare tractor weight to elicit MY-OH-MY!

The problem with fluid in the tires is when a tire gos flat.....and they do go flat from time to time. Food for thought

 

[Carl_NH]

I'm looking for a compact tractor for 11 acres. 5 of those acres have a lot of dead trees we are looking to remove. We have goats and are looking to get more animals, and will need a tractor that can handle those. We also would like to be able to lift and pull a good amount. Any recommendations?

Well Reagen - when you return, enjoy the dialogue and discussion on this thread! There are some good nuggets here - it's really how and which of those nuggets resonate best with your situation and goals.

BTW, "We have goats and are looking to get more animals, and will need a tractor that can handle those" I don't a tractor that can handle goats or any animal!

 

[Torvy]

I guarantee, if you hit an unseen obstacle in the woods, even at low speed, your foot would jerk away from the clutch pedal. And if the tractor really did start to do a wheelie, at 1 mph with a 50" tire, it would take about 2s to reach 90 degrees, the point of no return. My bet is you would have trouble keeping your foot on the clutch then, too. Of course, you could put anti-rollback legs on the tractor, as they do in tractor pull events. You could also pull with a scraper blade. Any large implement would stop a wheelie rollover, but not a side rollover. And I still had a close call with a sapling that popped up when it hit the front axle and ran into my chest. It nearly broke my ribs, which hurt for a week. And this was with an HST, where all I had to do was stop pressing the pedal. I am not trying to say which transmission is "better". I am trying to point out situations where there is an actual safety difference. And any system which requires more operator skill to avoid an accident is intrinsically more dangerous. I think that should be obvious. And the original poster indicated a variety os uses for the tractor. Woods use was one of them. That is probably the most dangerous activity a tractor can be used for,

I guarantee that if your control is so bad that you cannot stop your tractor (your own words by the way) then HST will not make a bit of difference. Hitting an obstacle with HST could cause you to increase pressure on the pedal and make things worse. Your imagination that makes a clutch foot wildly flail about but magically, your right foot is under control has more to do with your ability to spin a yarn than how one system works versus the other. BTW, many shuttle shift tractors do not require the clutch to change directions. Of course, if the narrative is that my hands also fly off the steering wheel, that would be hard. It is perfectly OK to admit that you prefer HST. Don't make false statements about it being inherently safer than a shuttle shift. I don't want someone else to get injured or die because they have a false belief that the HST will prevent accidents. All tractors are only as safe as the operator is being at the time they are being operated.

 

[Boss 302]

As Torvy said, go to school on whatever you decide. Spend whatever amount of time you need to understand each and every aspect of the tractor not only for your own safety but for your family as well. Personaly I like the powershuttle but I wouldn't say it's any safer than the other choices. Good luck and have fun

 

[lpakiz]

I've been in the woods since the late 50s with Farmall Hs and Case SCs. (Hint: don't turn sharp to the right). I also have owned a HST for the past several years.
I agree 100 per cent with Hermio. While log skidding, to get to the clutch pedal in time to stop a rear "flip over" is going to be very hard, even when traveling slow. Someone previously mentioned .5 seconds. I doubt it is even that.
What will be harder yet is holding the clutch down when the front end crashes back to earth. Chances are you will be slightly (or majorly) displaced from your normal seated position. Try KEEPING the clutch pedal down thru all this.
In contrast, as soon as your start a flip on a HST, you remove your foot (just as fast, or faster than a clutch) from the HST pedal. The tractor stops, crashes to earth, and operator can be flipped off the back, out of position or even on the ground, the tractor doesnt move again until the HST pedal is depressed. Which will be some minutes while the operator gets cleaned up and changes his underwear.

 

[Milo]

Interesting I never really thought how a hydro could be safer in this regard but it does make sense.

 

[IndyJay]

Interesting I never really thought how a hydro could be safer in this regard but it does make sense.

It also illustrates how important it is to use the drawbar instead of 3PH for pulling something.

 

[finn1]

You are missing the point. Kubota is historically known for lighter machines in a given “class” if you look at dimensions of the machines. Thats what I am saying.

I look at it a little differently. All tractor manufacturers offer lighter and heavier tractors for different markets, and offer different power levels within a tractor frame size, and offer different frame sizes for a reason.

If a given Kubota, say, at a given power level, is lighter than a Mahindra, for example, then the two may not be really comparable, and perhaps you should be comparing the next frame sized up Kubota.

The point being that most manufacturers offer different weight tractors at the power level you want, so choose the model that fits your both weight and power level.
Comparing a Kubota B with a Kioti isn’t right. Should be using something like an L or Grand L ( I don’t know my Kubota models, but you get my drift).
It’s senseless to compare a Smart car and a BMW 5 series, but , then again, Mercedes offers more than the Smart.

 

[Jchonline]

I look at it a little differently. All tractor manufacturers offer lighter and heavier tractors for different markets, and offer different power levels within a tractor frame size, and offer different frame sizes for a reason.

If a given Kubota, say, at a given power level, is lighter than a Mahindra, for example, then the two may not be really comparable, and perhaps you should be comparing the next frame sized up Kubota.

The point being that most manufacturers offer different weight tractors at the power level you want, so choose the model that fits your both weight and power level.
Comparing a Kubota B with a Kioti isn’t right. Should be using something like an L or Grand L ( I don’t know my Kubota models, but you get my drift).
It’s senseless to compare a Smart car and a BMW 5 series, but , then again, Mercedes offers more than the Smart.

You arent considering dimensions. L, W, H, wheelbase also matter. There are always reasons not to move up a frame size just to get the same weight. This affects storage, interaction with implements, stability, and accessibility.

We usually compare tractors by their dimensions…then look at weight. I would not consider a machine that is the same weight but 2 feet longer than another to be comparable.

 

[hornett22]

I'm looking for a compact tractor for 11 acres. 5 of those acres have a lot of dead trees we are looking to remove. We have goats and are looking to get more animals, and will need a tractor that can handle those. We also would like to be able to lift and pull a good amount. Any recommendations?

A Mahindra 1626 would be perfect for your plans. You'll need the rear tires filled no matter what you buy.

Hydro or shuttle options available. I have the shuttle but that's my preference.

I use mine for a business. From burying horses to bush hogging,It's been an amazing machine. If something happened to it, I'd buy the exact same thing again.

 

[pmsmechanic]

A Mahindra 1626 would be perfect for your plans. You'll need the rear tires filled no matter what you buy.

I would buy cast iron weights or build a ballast box long before I would concider any liquid weight.

 

[hornett22]

I would buy cast iron weights or build a ballast box long before I would concider any liquid weight.

Liquid weight is always there. Much better than weights. Been there, done that. Plus good luck finding weights and getting them shipped. Washer fluid is cheap and available everywhere.

Ballast box is great until you have to take it off for another Implement. I bush hog on steep hills, the fluid in the tires is night and day when it comes to stability on hills.

 

[pmsmechanic]

Well I live in an agricultural area and weights are not hard to find. Any dealer has them. What do you do with washer fluid in your tires when you don't need it. Your stuck with it and I like a nice light tractor for mowing my lawn and other jobs.

I have 600 lbs on a 3 point hitch bracket. If I don't need weight I remove it. It doesn't work that way with liquid. I use a quick attach with a hydraulic top link. Exchanging implements is quick and easy.

Many times I have lifted the bush hog just enough to pull the rear tire down so that it's on the ground again. If I'm in a really steep situation it's time to install my duals. More weight...Never.

 

[hornett22]

Well I live in an agricultural area and weights are not hard to find. Any dealer has them. What do you do with washer fluid in your tires when you don't need it. Your stuck with it and I like a nice light tractor for mowing my lawn and other jobs.

I have 600 lbs on a 3 point hitch bracket. If I don't need weight I remove it. It doesn't work that way with liquid. I use a quick attach with a hydraulic top link. Exchanging implements is quick and easy.

Many times I have lifted the bush hog just enough to pull the rear tire down so that it's on the ground again. If I'm in a really steep situation it's time to install my duals. More weight...Never.

I never don't need it. It has never been a problem. I till a lot, still never an issue.

Not once have I ever wished I hadn't filled my tires.

I don't mow lawns with my tractor though. Bush hogging only.


I'm in East Tennessee. At the base of the Smoky Mountains. If there are wheel weights around here, they a hiding them well for some reason. Never see them around here. Tried to find them when I first got the tractor. Honestly, I'm glad I didn't.

 

[Milo]

Let's face it there are situations where filled tires are, and are not desirable.

 

[finn1]

I imagine one advantage of loaded tires is that they probably lower the center of gravity.

Not sure how full “full” is, though.

I had mine done as part of the deal. I don’t mow lawns, though.

 

[mo1]

I imagine one advantage of loaded tires is that they probably lower the center of gravity.

Not sure how full “full” is, though.

I had mine done as part of the deal. I don’t mow lawns, though.

Fill can vary but is generally either about 40% or 75%. There are several ways to tell how full a filled tire is. The easiest way is to simply look at a filled tire on a warm, humid late winter or early spring day after it has been cold for a while, you will see condensation on the tire where the fluid is and no condensation above the fluid level. The next easiest is to tap on the tire gently and listen for the dull thud you hear lower down on the tire to turn into a hollow thump. Where this changes is your fluid level. I did the "tap" method to find out mine are about 75% full, just above the top of the rim. Other ways include removing the fluid and measuring it, and weighing the filled, mounted tire, subtracting the published weight of the empty tire and rim, and then converting the resulting weight into gallons based on fill weight/gallon, and computing the percentage fill based on the published fill capacity of the tire.

If you know what your fill is, that may tell as well. If you have tubeless tires with calcium chloride fill, they must be filled so that the rim is completely under fluid, which is generally at that 75% level. If the rim in a calcium chloride filled tire sees air, it will rust very quickly.

 

[hornett22]

Let's face it there are situations where filled tires are, and are not desirable.

Well I do just about everything and I haven't found that situation yet.

 

[hornett22]

I'm for sure in a minority but I don't agree that tractor weight is the most important criteria at all. You can always make a light tractor heaver but you cannot make a heavy tractor lighter. For mowing my lawn I want my tractor as light as possible. If I need extra weight for stability or traction I can always pick up my rear three point hitch weights. If I need more weight up front I have two different sets of front weights depending on the job. The two most important considerations are: How well the dealer takes care of you and is able to supply parts, and how comfortable and intuitive the tractor is to operate. For example I will never buy a treadle pedal HST tractor. Others find them comfortable but I don't. Also very high on the list is reliability.

I disagree on the weight but I would never mow my lawn with my tractor but that's just me.

I agree with you 200% on those stupid treadle peddles. I'll never buy one either.

 

[Boss 302]

Weight is your friend and I also believe that the best way to get the most from added weight is from filling the tires.

 

[hornett22]

Having owned geared tractors, and Hydrostatic transmission tractors with treadle pedals and twin pedals. In my experience it takes about 1 full days operations to get comfortable in switching back and forth from treadle pedal designs to twin pedal designs. I sure would not base my whole decision to buy a tractor because I "hate" one or other of the designs. Many here "hate" treadle pedal designs, and they base that "hate" on a 5 minute test drive around the dealers lot. You CANNOT in any way make a valid decision on such a low time test. If you haven't operated the "hated" treadle pedal design at least a full 8 hours, you are just fooling yourself. BOTH designs are just fine. Sure it takes a little getting used to at first, but you CAN adapt. It just requires a little self enforced training. My current tractor is twin pedal design, but I have owned two that were treadle pedal, and they worked just fine.

I can promise you using that stupid design would cramp my leg and get old quick.

Weight is your friend and I also believe that the best way to get the most from added weight is from filling the tires.

Filling my tires was the best improvement I made to my tractor.

 

[Milo]

Well I do just about everything and I haven't found that situation yet.

Good for you but others might. Like maybe people who work their tractor where there's a higher likelihood of picking up nails, screws, etc. such as doing excavating work around new construction on a tractor which has a hoe hanging off the back. The hoe itself provides ample ballast, and they don't want to deal with the additional weight and mess of leaking liquid when making tire repairs. I myself have had two flats over the last 14 years and I was sure glad my tires were only filled with air.
Or maybe running a 25-30 hp tractor on hills pulling a heavy 6' cutter on the back where additional rear ballast isn't needed at all and another 600# of added liquid just makes the tractor slow down and struggle that much more.
Or maybe people who use their compact tractor to mow? They remove the ballast box, FEL and they then have a bare weight tractor that doesn't rut up their lawn. They certainly wouldn't need, and likely wouldn't want, the additional weight of filled tires.

 

[hornett22]

Good for you but others might. Like maybe people who work their tractor where there's a higher likelihood of picking up nails, screws, etc. such as doing excavating work around new construction on a tractor which has a hoe hanging off the back. The hoe itself provides ample ballast, and they don't want to deal with the additional weight and mess of leaking liquid when making tire repairs. I myself have had two flats over the last 14 years and I was sure glad my tires were only filled with air.
Or maybe running a 25-30 hp tractor on hills pulling a heavy 6' cutter on the back where additional rear ballast isn't needed at all and another 600# of added liquid just makes the tractor slow down and struggle that much more.
Or maybe people who use their compact tractor to mow? They remove the ballast box, FEL and they then have a bare weight tractor that doesn't rut up their lawn. They certainly wouldn't need, and likely wouldn't want, the additional weight of filled tires.

 

[IndyJay]

Good for you but others might. Like maybe people who work their tractor where there's a higher likelihood of picking up nails, screws, etc. such as doing excavating work around new construction on a tractor which has a hoe hanging off the back. The hoe itself provides ample ballast, and they don't want to deal with the additional weight and mess of leaking liquid when making tire repairs. I myself have had two flats over the last 14 years and I was sure glad my tires were only filled with air.
Or maybe running a 25-30 hp tractor on hills pulling a heavy 6' cutter on the back where additional rear ballast isn't needed at all and another 600# of added liquid just makes the tractor slow down and struggle that much more.
Or maybe people who use their compact tractor to mow? They remove the ballast box, FEL and they then have a bare weight tractor that doesn't rut up their lawn. They certainly wouldn't need, and likely wouldn't want, the additional weight of filled tires.

I have rolling hills that I mow so I do want the ballast. I use Liquitube Ballast Sealant so I am not concerned with screws and nails. I have the original (non-ballast) in the fronts and their newer ballasted formula in the rears with RV (non-toxic) Antifreeze. I don't know what your problem is with ballast.

 

[hornett22]

He just can't

I have rolling hills that I mow so I do want the ballast. I use Liquitube Ballast Sealant so I am not concerned with screws and nails. I have the original (non-ballast) in the fronts and their newer ballasted formula in the rears with RV (non-toxic) Antifreeze. I don't know what your problem is with ballast.

I have rolling hills that I mow so I do want the ballast. I use Liquitube Ballast Sealant so I am not concerned with screws and nails. I have the original (non-ballast) in the fronts and their newer ballasted formula in the rears with RV (non-toxic) Antifreeze. I don't know what your problem is with ballast.

Some folks just want to argue. Even when they have no basis for their argument.

 

[Jchonline]

I disagree on the weight but I would never mow my lawn with my tractor but that's just me.

I agree with you 200% on those stupid treadle peddles. I'll never buy one either.

Love my treadle pedal on the HST+ transmission. So I disagree on that one...but I agree on the loaded tires.

As mentioned...its all personal preference really. I dont mow anything in the mountains, so I dont need lite weight. I also have either a snow blower, a rear blade, or a chipper on my machine 100% of the time so there is no way I would deal with a ballast box. Wheel weights maybe, but as you mentioned never had a need.

 

[hornett22]

I DO mow in the mountains. I definitely WANT the weight. I'd be dead without it.

 

[Jchonline]

I DO mow in the mountains. I definitely WANT the weight. I'd be dead without it.

The Rockies?

 

[Milo]

I have rolling hills that I mow so I do want the ballast. I use Liquitube Ballast Sealant so I am not concerned with screws and nails. I have the original (non-ballast) in the fronts and their newer ballasted formula in the rears with RV (non-toxic) Antifreeze. I don't know what your problem is with ballast.

I have hills here in WV as well. Ballast in the rear or front is needed on tractors for most use, that is not what's being debated at all so where in the world did you come up with I "have a problem with ballast"?
What I'm saying is (and outlined a couple reasons why) everyone doesn't need or want liquid filled tires as their ballast. The way I use my tractor now I want (and have) liquid filled tires because I now have more property along with a smaller tractor and ZTR for mowing duty. But that wasn't the case when could only afford one tractor that also had to be the mower for my usually wet yard.
As mentioned one concern for me is potentially having to deal with a puncture, or as in my last flat an L shaped cut from a steel fence post that had broken off at ground level. To be honest I wasn't aware of Liquitube which seems like a great product, thanks for mentioning it I'll look into it further and probably will add it to my tractor that has Rimgard.

 

[gstrom99]

OP hasn't been heard from since the first post... ?

 

[jezreel]

For the OP. I know of a Hoyt-Clagwell that might be available. You can contact a guy named, Mr. Haney. Call Mr. Drucker at the General Store in Hooterville, and he will get you the number.

 

[Boss 302]

Weight is your friend in almost every instance, keep up the good work

 

[hornett22]

The Rockies?

Smoky

 

[Jchonline]

Smoky

Those aren't mountains, they are hills. Highest point is 6600ft, I live at 9000 ft!

 

[hornett22]

Those aren't mountains, they are hills. Highest point is 6600ft, I live at 9000 ft!

Good for you.

Looks like the lack of oxygen is taking a toll on your brain.

 

[FERLING]

I'm looking for a compact tractor for 11 acres. 5 of those acres have a lot of dead trees we are looking to remove. We have goats and are looking to get more animals, and will need a tractor that can handle those. We also would like to be able to lift and pull a good amount. Any recommendations?