Looking for a tractor with front loader

[RoyJackson]

I
Looking at mfg websites to get the same 3pt lift and at least as much wt and as much loader capacity as a Mahindra 2615 4wd I had to go to the 32hp 3320. He would need to drop a bit more coin for that.

That's true...but how many of your implements weigh more then the 790's lift capacities? None of mine...or any I would have any need for.

But, like we always say:

It's only my opinion...

 

[mboulais]

Johnny123,
You can check with Gary's Equipment in Clay, NY, Lawalls Tractor in Batavia (A member here) and Wallace Tractor in PA (Also a member) for starters. I'm sure there are other dealers who may even PM you if they see you're looking for a used tractor. If you make a deal tell them I referred you.

George

My two encounters with Gary's equipment (Mahindra dealer) did not impress me. He can be short with customers and that does fly with me. I have gotten help from Galen Lawall, and would do business with him again any day.

 

[Z-Michigan]

Mahindra makes some very stout tractors. Check tractor wt and 3pt lift capacity of all brands you consider. That 790 won't even measure up to a 20 hp Mahindra. Seriously though, those are both good items to help compare apples to apples along with engine displacement/hp.

I don't think the tractor weight or 3ph lift are very important for most users. I have 3000lbs of 3ph lift and I doubt I'll ever use more than 1100 or so (with the possible exception of lifting round bales - and even then I'll be below 1500lbs). For most CUT owners who have anywhere from 1500-2700 lbs 3ph lift, I'll bet none of them buy an implement weighing over 1000lbs. So 3ph is rarely a limiting factor.

And tractor weight can be good or bad. Thing is, you can always add weight to a light tractor, but never remove it from a heavy tractor. Ever notice you don't see the midsize and larger Mahindras with turf tires? None of the uses you've mentioned sound like they require extra weight. I would worry about an unnaturally light tractor, but none of the major brands (or any minor brands that I know of) are in that category. Kubota is typically the lightest in a class and they have an excellent quality reputation. Excessive weight often indicates cruder construction or metallurgy. Also, the extra weight of the bigger Mahindras is in the engine and frame, largely centered in the chassis and therefore of limited use for counterbalancing the FEL lift or a heavy 3ph mounted implement. If you look at big ag tractors doing big tasks you will generally see add-on weight at one extreme end or the other - by using leverage, you minimize the amount of weight you need, and therefore minimize fuel use and ground compaction.

 

[mboulais]

I don't think the tractor weight or 3ph lift are very important for most users. I have 3000lbs of 3ph lift and I doubt I'll ever use more than 1100 or so (with the possible exception of lifting round bales - and even then I'll be below 1500lbs). For most CUT owners who have anywhere from 1500-2700 lbs 3ph lift, I'll bet none of them buy an implement weighing over 1000lbs. So 3ph is rarely a limiting factor.

And tractor weight can be good or bad. Thing is, you can always add weight to a light tractor, but never remove it from a heavy tractor. Ever notice you don't see the midsize and larger Mahindras with turf tires? None of the uses you've mentioned sound like they require extra weight. I would worry about an unnaturally light tractor, but none of the major brands (or any minor brands that I know of) are in that category. Kubota is typically the lightest in a class and they have an excellent quality reputation. Excessive weight often indicates cruder construction or metallurgy. Also, the extra weight of the bigger Mahindras is in the engine and frame, largely centered in the chassis and therefore of limited use for counterbalancing the FEL lift or a heavy 3ph mounted implement. If you look at big ag tractors doing big tasks you will generally see add-on weight at one extreme end or the other - by using leverage, you minimize the amount of weight you need, and therefore minimize fuel use and ground compaction.

I wasn't saying that he is going to need to lift a 2000 lb implement, but what if he decides to build a carry-all and needs to move flagstones for a sidewalk to the back of the property. It will be hard to lift 1200 lbs of stone with a tractor that can only lift 800 lbs.

As far as excessive wieght, there isn't such a thing unless your working on a soft lawn or in a swamp. The extra wight in a Mahindra is from the castings in the rear end and things like a heavier duty axle as mush as anything else. The additional wieght aids in doing chores like pulling a 2 bottom plow (without needing 4wd). Anyone who grew up around tractors should have seen this. A 30 hp 6000lb 2wd tractor from 1960 gets a lot more pulling done than a 30 hp 3000 lb 4wd CUT made last yr. The castings are niether crude or defective on a Mahindra. I understand castings pretty well, having over 12 years in the aluminum casting industry. Light tractors don't mean poor quality either, just lighter duty design. BTW your 5105 is heavier than my Mahindra 4110. That doesn't make it crude or mean it has metallurgical defects does it?

 

[Z-Michigan]

I wasn't saying that he is going to need to lift a 2000 lb implement, but what if he decides to build a carry-all and needs to move flagstones for a sidewalk to the back of the property. It will be hard to lift 1200 lbs of stone with a tractor that can only lift 800 lbs.

All true, but this can be used to justify a lot of things. I'd love to have one of those articulated loaders that can lift 40,000 lbs. Never know when I might want to pick up my barn and set it down somewhere else. My point is that for the way most people use CUTs and SCUTs, the 3ph lift is not a limiting factor.

As far as excessive wieght, there isn't such a thing unless your working on a soft lawn or in a swamp. The extra wight in a Mahindra is from the castings in the rear end and things like a heavier duty axle as mush as anything else. The additional wieght aids in doing chores like pulling a 2 bottom plow (without needing 4wd). Anyone who grew up around tractors should have seen this. A 30 hp 6000lb 2wd tractor from 1960 gets a lot more pulling done than a 30 hp 3000 lb 4wd CUT made last yr.

I strongly disagree that "there isn't such a thing" as excessive weight. Every pound you don't need burns fuel and compacts the soil. For any task at all, you are better off with the minimum weight you can safely and reasonably perform the task with. Yes, this will be a lot of weight in many cases, but that doesn't mean more weight is always better. My 5105 with filled rears has plenty of traction to do serious tillage, but its weight makes it out of the question for finish mowing on my lawn. I would like to see a pulling contest between a 3-ton 2wd and 1.5 ton 4wd. The 2wd should have a slight advantage since most tractors put more weight on the rears, but it definitely won't be a 2:1 advantage. And the 4wd is a lot less likely to get stuck in mud or with an inexperienced operator.

Moreover, all this is talking about pulling power. How many CUT owners really use their tractors primarily for tillage? Only a few, I would think. For mowing and material handling, the pulling power is of little importance.

The castings are niether crude or defective on a Mahindra. I understand castings pretty well, having over 12 years in the aluminum casting industry. Light tractors don't mean poor quality either, just lighter duty design. BTW your 5105 is heavier than my Mahindra 4110. That doesn't make it crude or mean it has metallurgical defects does it?

I haven't seen a Mahindra in person, and let me be clear that I'm not saying they are poorly made tractors. Instead, I am saying that extra weight is not inherently a sign of strength or usefulness. Mahindra makes a huge advertising deal of their extra weight and all the wonderful things they think it does. I think it mostly burns extra fuel and causes soil compaction.

 

[mboulais]

I would like to see a pulling contest between a 3-ton 2wd and 1.5 ton 4wd. The 2wd should have a slight advantage since most tractors put more weight on the rears, but it definitely won't be a 2:1 advantage. And the 4wd is a lot less likely to get stuck in mud or with an inexperienced operator. Moreover, all this is talking about pulling power. How many CUT owners really use their tractors primarily for tillage? Only a few, I would think. For mowing and material handling, the pulling power is of little importance.
.

Just look around your area for an antique tractor pull this summer to see what those old 2wd tractors can do. I never said it was a 2:1 ratio, but if someone wants to plow garden, they need enough tractor to pull at least a single bottom 12" plow. My comparison was about ability to pull/plow. The weight will also help when pushing snow down a long driveway. The advice I gave him is considered conventional wisdom by everyone I know who has used tractors for most / all of their lives. It applies to any tractor application, If I was looking for a tractor for mowing lawn and real light work only I would start comparing 20 - 24 hp machines using those same criteria. I did not recommend a 60 hp ag tractor for johny123. Even the heaviest tractor around 28 hp - 32 hp would be usable for mowing a lawn with an RFM and would pull a single bottom plow in most soil types. I know a guy mowing his lawn with a 38 hp kubota with an RFM and turf tires. Most brands offer turf tires up to 40hp . I know Mahindra and Kubota do. I am impressed with my Mahindra and proud of it, but my advice is to shop around and those are they measurements I use along with cost, dealer support, and dealer location. Too many people narrow the search to John Deere and Kubota right away without comparing features. When I was shopping for my tractor I instinctively looked at Case/International and Massey first becuase that's what I grew up around and my first two tractors were those brands too, but I found that Mahindra offered the most bang for my buck, closest dealer, and the best reputation for dealer support in the area.

 

[coasterez]

There has been much discussion about weight being good or not so good. It really depends on the tasks. Plowing, heavy loader work, backhoeing, fork lifting, digging and serious ground engagement - give me a heavy tractor. Mowing, spraying, spreading, general non-ground engaging - give me a light one. It's that simple. When chores are equally weighted between the two, then removable weights or a "middle weight" tractor makes sense. For me adding, removing, and storing weights is a PITA.

 

[Oleozz]

Around this area weight in a tractor is a good thing but most are used for ground engaging work. I was looking at a restored JD 630 yesterday, only approx 50 hp but it had the weight. I can't add much to what Coasterez has said, I think his comments make sense. I had a smaller JD with front weights and that did get to be a PITA when you wanted to remove the loader and do mowing jobs.

 

[johnny123]

I'm still searching..I like the looks of the Kioti tractor..They look like they a built stronger than the Mahindra's are....So how about some comments on the Kioti tractors...

 

[Jaybr]

I'm still searching..I like the looks of the Kioti tractor..They look like they a built stronger than the Mahindra's are....So how about some comments on the Kioti tractors...

I puchased a Kioti CK35 w/ FEL and BH a month ago. I shopped all the major brands, including Mahindra, and the Kioti offered the best value and dealer for me.

I love the Kioti, put 35 hours on it so far, everything from grading driveway, digging trenchs, to tilling garden and food plots. This weekend I tipped trees and dug about a 10 stumps.