The ideal tractor size?

[jjp8182]

As I find myself looking at tractor options, I find myself wishing a tractor existed with the following (rough) specs:

Frame size - That of a Kubota B series. That is, small(ish) and relatively agile.
Loader capacity - At least twice that of a B-series. Ideally about 2,000 lb at maximum height.
Weight - To safely handle this loader capacity, and other tasks, a bare tractor weight of ~4,000 lbs.
Width - Extra wide for stability. Wide tires for flotation would be nice as well.
HP - ~40-45

Am I the only one that feels this way? Probably, which likely explains why no tractors like this seem to exist

Not in the least I actually was looking for something very, very similar (I was lighter on the loader as I good with lifting 1000lb load w/ pallet forks), and the closest tractors I could find (that had dealers in my area) ended up being the Kubota Grand L series, and the John Deere 3/4 family tractors. There does seem to be a trend toward lighter tractors with higher horsepower that are more suited for PTO (or in some cases hydraulically) driven implements.

I went with the L3560 since it did cover most of what I wanted/needed -- and more importantly the dealer was good to work with (in fact it's the only time I've ever had a sales person try to talk me into buying something smaller/cheaper), and is on my daily drive so stopping by to get parts/new equipment isn't a special trip. On the flip side, while there's a John Deere dealership (which is part of a local/regional chain) just down the street from Kubota/New Holland dealership (where I bought my tractor) the times I've been in there for Stihl equipment/accessories have pretty much turned me off of making purchases there -- or going there at all really since I found a Stihl dealership that isn't affiliated with that chain).

While many will probably have a lot to say on the actual brand of tractor or which model, I'd say it's also very much worth considering the logistics and dealership aspects since sooner or later parts will be needed (either for repairs or routine maintenance) and having to unnecessarily travel long distances or deal with unpleasant/stressed-out or sub-par service can make a big difference.

 

[MossRoad]

.....There does seem to be a trend toward lighter tractors with higher horsepower that are more suited for PTO (or in some cases hydraulically) driven implements.
....

You need higher HP to spin mower blades and keep them spinning in tall grass, while lighter tractors are easier on the ground and lessen soil compaction. That one of the reasons these smaller 4wd machines have taken over chores that used to go to bigger 2wd tractors of the past.

I've always been a fan of getting the highest HP offered in a particular platform.

 

[majorwager]

Moss,
The post link critical of the compact tractor design is interesting. However the poster authored the piece in 2001, then purchased a conventional compact in 2003, or later. ?? Did he ever own a power trac?

Also power tracs existed since at least 1998 when a friend owned a 422, why in all these years, are folks continuing to patronize the conventional design when the alternate design is available, and ventrac has since entered the market ??

I don't suscribe to a premise that the historical is without flaws. Your link reference and tractor girl adequately make their respective arguments.

However, if a traditional conceopt continues to outsell any serious attempt to uproot the status quo, little is expected to change.

Manufacturers are creatures of habit yet vulnerable to the whims of the buying public. If the power trac task model, were to suddenly capture the noticeable percentage of market share, the immediate competition would be enormous.

New Holland and several others offered a reversible platform in the TV-145, later in the TV 6070?. It was articulating, hydrostatic, capable of driving implements from both ends w/ a rotating operators station. I believed that was close to perfection. It was a big Ag tractor, 18,000 pounds, 145 hp, genuine 4wd, 4 equal tires, not mechanical front wheel assist which is mislabeled as 4 wd. By almost EVERYONE.

If that concept were miniaturized to compact proportions, it could be the real deal. But then the cost factor rears its' head and too few folks will spend the extra $$$. The power trac machines are not inexpensive. They are, I believe, compatible w/ comact $$.

So the question is again posed? Why does the public continue down the traditional path?

 

[sd455dan]

Moss,
The post link critical of the compact tractor design is interesting. However the poster authored the piece in 2001, then purchased a conventional compact in 2003, or later. ?? Did he ever own a power trac?

Also power tracs existed since at least 1998 when a friend owned a 422, why in all these years, are folks continuing to patronize the conventional design when the alternate design is available, and ventrac has since entered the market ??

I don't suscribe to a premise that the historical is without flaws. Your link reference and tractor girl adequately make their respective arguments.

However, if a traditional conceopt continues to outsell any serious attempt to uproot the status quo, little is expected to change.

Manufacturers are creatures of habit yet vulnerable to the whims of the buying public. If the power trac task model, were to suddenly capture the noticeable percentage of market share, the immediate competition would be enormous.

New Holland and several others offered a reversible platform in the TV-145, later in the TV 6070?. It was articulating, hydrostatic, capable of driving implements from both ends w/ a rotating operators station. I believed that was close to perfection. It was a big Ag tractor, 18,000 pounds, 145 hp, genuine 4wd, 4 equal tires, not mechanical front wheel assist which is mislabeled as 4 wd. By almost EVERYONE.

If that concept were miniaturized to compact proportions, it could be the real deal. But then the cost factor rears its' head and too few folks will spend the extra $$$. The power trac machines are not inexpensive. They are, I believe, compatible w/ comact $$.

So the question is again posed? Why does the public continue down the traditional path?

it is what customers have become accustomed to?

Ford- New Holland bought Versatile who were the original designers. Steiner also built large articulating 4 wheel drive tractors.

Thinking making a model around 40-60 HP based on a compacted/lightened model 150 which was about 70 hp ~ 50 PTO hp and was right around 8 k lb would be close to what would cover the bases. Not sure it had the rotating platform though or attachment capability at each end. Hard to get all that in even a 150 sized machine.
looking at the standard tires on the 150 (11.2 x 24) and its~ hp would be great just needs to be a bit more compact. Actually the 150 with FEL sounds pretty darn good!
edit: but having to remove the FEL to do 3 point work would not cover all the bases, but size wise it is getting close.
http://www.tractordata.com/photos/F001/1332/1332-td3b.jpg

 

[jjp8182]

You need higher HP to spin mower blades and keep them spinning in tall grass, while lighter tractors are easier on the ground and lessen soil compaction. That one of the reasons these smaller 4wd machines have taken over chores that used to go to bigger 2wd tractors of the past.

I've always been a fan of getting the highest HP offered in a particular platform.

Yup, the real question is going to become at what point does the vehicle become too light/small to effectively use all the HP being provided?

When it comes to ground engagement tools (plows, box blades, etc) I think that point may already have been crossed, and it's probably just a matter of time before it happens with mowers as well given there are multiple industries that have conditioned society into believing more HP is *always* better.

Even it was possible to stuff a 100HP power engine into a subcompact-sized tractor (like BX or 1025R) I'm not sure I'd want to be pulling (or pushing) a 10'+ mowing implement with such a machine.

 

[majorwager]

SD455,
If cost were no object, guess this swiss tractor would top my list. High HP, front + rear PTO, linkage, FEL, slope stable, cab, HVAC, HST, 4 wheel steer, locking differential F+R, a real chassis FRAME,

 

[searcyfarms]

First 4570 im jealous.........a 95-2 - drooling........I will say this with all of the new electronics/aws extra parts/seals/sensors/wiring and most people leaving things outdoors - these new tractors might be very problematic at 60yrs unlike what are still VERY usable and SOLID tractors today

 

[RSR]

SD455,
If cost were no object, guess this swiss tractor would top my list. High HP, front + rear PTO, linkage, FEL, slope stable, cab, HVAC, HST, 4 wheel steer, locking differential F+R, a real chassis FRAME,

That's perfect! Now, about the price ...

I guess we (I) want it all, except the price tag that goes along with it.

 

[MossRoad]

The reason they continue down the old path is because it's tried and true. Pretty simple. If it works for Bob, it'll work for me. And, it'll work pretty darn well,too. So why try something different, right?

Lots of folks don't want to take risks, or, they may not know about alternative ways to do things.

Listen, I'm a Beta VCR guy. I'd take a straight 6 over a V8. I have a Landcruiser, not a Jeep. I was a Unix god in my past life. And I'm left handed.

That should explain it well enough. :laughing:

 

[RSR]

You have a point. Tractors are STILL designed for farming on reasonably flat, open land and they are great for those tasks. Far from ideal, for woods work, hilly land, or even the many little gardening and maintenance tasks of the average landowner. Not very agile. Too tall and narrow to be stable on hills without modifications. Little protection for vulnerable lines and underparts, leading to punctures from even small sticks. The thing that shocked me the most was the lack of visibility. You literally can't see what you're doing in front or back. Some people install mirrors.

So get used to it, and some models may be better than others. I got the widest, heaviest, smallest tractor I could find, but really think we need a completely redesigned and re-thought-out tractor specifically for the non-farmer landowner.

My ideas, just for fun:

The FEL. Could it be possible to have the back panel open, and then maybe it can swing down for when you're carrying material? Or some kind of open mesh maybe? How great would it be to be able to see the FEL edge, esp for backdragging, but also to be able to place the edge exactly where you want.

Rear Visibility. Include a large rear view mirror on a tall bracket, for folks without cabs.

Box Blade. How hard would it be to move that large support bar so you can see where the rear blades touch the ground?

3PH. A 150-year-old design. Awful. Also needs the ability to either float free or be fixed; without lots of float, you can't really use rear implements on uneven, rolling ground because your implements will simply replicate and even increase the existing contours (without constant, neck-twisting adjustments).

My ideal tractor would much shorter and wider, with more built-in weight. Small and powerful. Engine compartment much shorter for better visibility. Better noise reduction! Redesign the FEL so it's less bulky and in the way. Protected underparts. And of course my imaginary see-through FEL. I can dream, can't I?

Having read through your buying experiences, they appear very similar to my interests, and I've considered that size of Mahindra for the exact reasons you stated. However, I'm also concerned about having sufficient PTO HP, as snow clearing with a blower will be my number one use.