Spend my money.

[muddstopper]

Jeff, dont know where you are getting your charts, but the numbers dont seem to matchup with the advertisements.
Massey 2605h
3-Point Hitch

Rear type	II/I
Control	-
Rear lift	2755 lbs [1249 kg]
Front hitch	-
Front lift	-

Power Take-off (PTO):

Rear PTO	live
Clutch	-
Rear RPM	540 (1.375)
Front PTO	-
Engine RPM	-

Capacity

Fuel	14.5 gal [54.9 L]

Dimensions & Tires

Wheelbase	80.7 inches [204 cm]
Weight	4894 to 5394 pounds
Front tire	6.00x16
Rear tire	13.6x28

Massey Ferguson 2605H Power:

Engine gross	55 hp [41.0 kW]
Engine max	-

Mechanical

Chassis	4x2 2WD
Differential lock	mechanical rear
Steering	power
Brakes	wet disc
Trailer brakes	-
Cab	Two-post folding ROPS.

 

[DonaldP]

I can see it now, a ford 1210 with a loader with 2000lb pallet of fertilizer on the front. No thank you. And I already know what a L4240 with a 6ft bushhog will do on steep ground. You can try it and we will decide what you think about it when you hit the bottom, either on its wheels or on its top. I dont hold out much hope for the L3200 either. I had better luck on the same hill side with a 4610su, 2 wheel drive, than the l4240. There is a reason I dont consider kubota when it comes to tractors to go in the wood with. Yes, I know a lot of folks own them and like them, but my experience tells me to stay far away. Best tractor I have found for wood work ( I probably should have mentioned small logging as work to be done, is actually the Massy Ferguson, older models, (235, 245's). It just seems to me they are more stable and heavier weight wise, and have more actual pulling power when dragging a heavy load. I dont know if that holds true to the newer ones being sold now. I dont know if they ever made a 245 with 4x4, but if they did, I would be looking for one. I dont need the latest bells and whistles. I appreciate the suggestions, but those are not the tractors I would consider.

MF 245/L4240/4610 : from Ops manual (parenthesis is Tractor data.com)

Wheelbase 73 1/8" (74.5") (74.6") (71.5")
Overall length 116" (126.5") (121.5") (117.5")
Width overall 70" (71") (66.5") (62.4")
ground Clearance 9 3/4" (9.3") (14.6") (15.0")
Wheel Tread Front 48" to 72" (48" to 80") (51.2") (50.8")
Wheel Tread Rear not defined (56 to 76") (50.6 to 60.2") (46.5 to 60.8")
weight (4000 to 6000 with ballast) (3500 to 4000) (3200)
w/o ballast w/0 ballast

Just comparing these machines does some validation of experience over specs when it comes to someone like Muddstopper who has enough experience that he doesn't seem to need to spout specifications over the way he feels a machine behaves on a slope.

Ground clearance alone, while it doesn't show the height of the Center of gravity of the MF, it does show that the MF could be a whopping 5 to 6 inches lower to the ground than the 4240 or 4610. Add to that the wider stance of 70" vs 63 or 64", and you get the two main constructs that can determine stability (barring a Cab...). We don't however know if the Ground clearance measurements are directly comparable.

TractorData.com Kubota L4610 tractor dimensions information

www.tractordata.com

TractorData.com Kubota L4240 tractor dimensions information

www.tractordata.com

 

[DonaldP]

I already know what a Kubota L4240 with a 6ft bushhog will do on steep ground. You can try it and we will decide what you think when you hit the bottom, either on its wheels or on its top. I dont hold out much hope for the L3200 either.

The primary factor influencing tractor stability is the spread/stance of the rear wheels/tires. The Kubota L4240 has rear tire/wheel spread adjustment of 12" as a standard feature with both R1/ag or R4/industrial tires. Did you set the wheels wide on the L4240?

The second factor is wheel ballast. Loading tires 50% to 75% with ballast improves tractor stability by lowering the center-of-gravity. Were the L4240 rear wheels ballasted with liquid or wheel weights?

Third stability factor is ground clearance. Less ground clearance is better than more for stability. R1/ag tires increase ground clearance over R4/industrial tires.
What tires did you have on the L4240?


The Three Point Hitch tractor has been marketed in the USA since 1939. Patents on the Three Point Hitch and TPH hydraulic controls expired in 1955. Since 1955 (66 years) all traditional compact tractors have been designed and produced around the Ferguson Three Point Hitch, worldwide.

The Three Point Hitch tractor design is generic.​

When T-B-N correspondents correlate any TPH tractor brand directly with stability it invites skepticism.

Best tractors I have found for wood work are the older Massy Ferguson models, (235, 245's). It just seems to me they are more stable and heavier weight wise.

Ground clearance of MF245 (1976-1983) is 9.4 inches.
Weight, diesel, 4,050 pounds bare tractor.
Width 71"

I saw this after I posted my comments... we are on track here! I agree other than Ground Clearance.... its the Center of gravity (mass) that determines this point. IMO, and to take it to extremes to prove the point... you could have a tractor that is 3" off the ground but have a weighted height that could overcome that low ground clearance benefit. Great post!!

 

[DonaldP]

I dont know the details on the l4240, it was a borrowed tractor. It did have ag tires and they where fluid filled. About all I can say about that. I didnt know the weight of the mf 245, but the low ground clearance and weight sort of explains the pulling ability. Just a little more comparison info to help in my search.

I have ran farm tractors skidding logs since the late 1960's, early 1970's. Not commercial logging, persi, but we cut 5ft pulpwood until I went to work for the railroad in 1976. I am no stranger to running a tractor, I just dont know anything about this new stuff. I want HST because of a metal knee. I want a tractor to mow and maintain the field on the farm. A loader for loading logs on a bandsaw mill and moving lumber, a scrape to maintain my driveway and a tiller to work a garden. Most any tractor will do those things, some just better than others. I dont like JD or Kubota, I have my reasons and enough said about that.

Perfect - Great comments from experience, there is nothing better in my book!

 

[IndyJay]

I saw this after I posted my comments... we are on track here! I agree other than Ground Clearance.... its the Center of gravity (mass) that determines this point. IMO, and to take it to extremes to prove the point... you could have a tractor that is 3" off the ground but have a weighted height that could overcome that low ground clearance benefit. Great post!!

Maybe @jeff9366 should revise the text to read:
"The primary factor influencing tractor stability is the spread/stance of the rear wheels/tires... relative to the center of gravity"
Great thread, lots to learn here.

 

[DonaldP]

After looking up these numbers I decided check out the comparison for my L3650 HSTC with Cab.
--------------------------------MF 245 ------------- L4240 ------------ L4610--------L3560 Cab
Wheelbase ..................73 1/8" (74.5") ............(74.6") ..............(71.5")..........(71.1")
Overall length..............116" (126.5") ...............(121.5") ...........(117.5")..........(115")
Width overall ...............70" (71") ....................(66.5") ............(62.4").............(59.8")
ground Clearance ........9 3/4" (9.3") ................(14.6") ............(15.0").............(13.5")
Wheel Tread Front .......48" to 72" ....................(48" to 80") .....(51.2") (50.8")..(45.5")
Wheel Tread Rear ....... (56 to 76") ...................(50.6 to 60.2") ..(46.5 to 60.8").(58.3")
weight............(4000 to 6000 with ballast) ........(3500 to 4000) ..(3200).............(3900)

It's interesting to note that most if not all of the weight difference in the L3560 between cab and non cab models is 400 to 500 Lbs. the further away from the CG of the tractor that weight is, the less stable it is.

In the case of the Cab tractor and 500 lbs of that additional weight being up, say about 2 to 3 feet above the Center of Gravity of the mass, there is definitely not a lot of margin for error. The cab height is 91". That's 7 feet of a decreasing value of that 500 lbs acting against tractor stability depending on the point of measurement. And the width of the L3560 is the narrowest of all of those listed at only 59" overall.

If there is any question on whether your requirements dictate stability over comfort or anything else related to CAB functionality, the option of an open station would probably beat out the stability of a cab model much more than not.

 

[DonaldP]

Perfect - Great comments from experience, there is nothing better in my book!

Its interesting that I have not seen anything to state the CG of any of this equipment. I can understand why though.

Lets say you sell implements and you want to design a front boom articulated mower that will reach at heights of 12 feet or more, or reach into a ditch or pond lower than the tractor out 4 to 8 feet...

If you then relied on anything from the manufacturer related to CG, well, depending on how the user loads his equipment or not, that CG could be off enough to make adding what might be a "safely designed" piece of equipment dangerously lacking in a margin of safety to prevent a rollover. Its just crazy how quickly weight above the CG can change depending on the height something is placed. A pair of 125lb chains hung at 3 feet have a directly increasing load against overall stability for every foot it is above the CG. Everybody adds lights, radios, maybe a cooler (with ice), some tools in a tool box mounted at 4 to 5 feet. I have seen folks on Youtube videos ride with two adults in a cab meant for 1. Not saying that someone is going to hit a steep incline when doing that, but what does a 175lb persons weight at 3 feet above the CG do for stability in a Cab unit that's already top heavy AND a pair of chains? I haven't calculated the answer but we probably could.

Could that situation decrease stability by 25% ? 45% ? or 60% in a cab model ? ... I'm afraid that we will find out all too soon as more and more folks make the switch to cabs as a "general use tractor" and not simply for snow blowing or mowing. Add to that Folks being given more and more options for universal front end attachments that increase functionality at the cost of stability without adding back in the safety margin that ballast may or may not be able to overcome.

What are your thoughts?

 

[DonaldP]

I’m not here to bash any tractor manufacturer, I’ll discount my advice from $.02 to free.
I bought a new Branson 3510 in 2004, it’s been a great tractor until this July 2021(thread about it in the Brandon/century section)
I lost hydraulics in early July, and with help from this forum I was able to dive into repairs on my own. The hydraulic drive gear inner spline was wiped out, this gear drives the hydraulic pump.
My first parts order from my local dealer, (that no longer sells Branson tractors, but will repair and order parts) were wrong, wrong gear, bearings and hydraulic pump. It took several calls to Branson to hopefully get the correct parts ordered, the gear however has to come from Korea and could be months, as of today 8-27-2021 I’m still waiting almost two months later.
cost of parts will be over $1200 ( Gear, bearing, hydraulic pump, bearing housing and two gaskets).
This lead me to decide I will not keep the tractor after it’s repaired.

I decided the Kubota L3901 was the right tractor with dealership support for me. Yes I paid more for the brand name
but I’m getting too old to worry about the Branson breaking down again and poor support (at least in my area), or if I will be able to get the parts I need in a timely manor.

Wednesday my new tractor was delivered, I was told 4-6 weeks, it took less than two.
My dealership has seven branches (Jacobi Sales), I recommend only buying a Tractor from a dealership you think will be around to support your needs for a long time.

Mike

Mike,

Thank you soooo much for the discount. But, I'll still need a receipt showing the discount for tax purposes if you could please?