Tractor weights. Is this really significant?

[e.myers]

All weights without loader.

Kubota Grand L4240 44 hp tractor= 3671
Kubota Grand L3940 40.5 hp tractor= 3627
Kubota Standard L4400 44 hp tractor= 3307

So, only 50lbs difference between the two grand L models.
And "only" 364lbs difference between the Standard and Grand L 44hp tractors.

Recognizing that not everyone puts front end loaders on their tractors, when you do put a front end loader on any of these tractors you already make up the difference.

If you take into consideration that everyone doesn't opt for the hydrostat, well that's another 130 lb lighter tractor in each of the models.

Also, once ballast is added to the tires (if ballast weren't added to the other tractor) you'd already pass the weight also.

In the grand scheme of things I guess the question is, is there going to be a noticable difference in the traction of a tractor that is down 364 lbs.

And then, if there is, since a lot of people opt for the R4 tires anyway, am I going to improve traction 364 pounds worth just by switching to the Ag R1's?

I understand that ballast is a part of it also (from a front end loader perspective and probably more so from a heavy rear implement perspective) but that's another topic.

Just curious as to everyones thoughts.

Overthinking as usual.

 

[MtnViewRanch]

I will give you my 2 cents on tractor weight. Heavier is better. Unless you have a particular job that requires that your tractor be as light as possible, weight is usually your friend.

I know that for myself, weight is a huge plus factor. I have two Mahindra tractors, one 75HP 7520 4x4 and one 32HP 3215HST 4x4. Both have loaders and R4 tires. Both machines have all 4 tires filled. It is hard to describe the difference in how the tractors feel with the tires filled. The 7520 is almost glued to the ground with the tires filled and almost 900lbs of wheel weights. Waaaaaay easier to load the bucket on the loader and to do ground engaging work with the 3PT implements.

With my 3215, I was going to leave the tires with air only due to how much the tractor will be transported. I thought that it would be nice to have a lighter tractor that I could move around easily, well it was just to light for me, and I was not able to work the tractor to it's potential. So I filled the tires and what a difference that it made, I can now load the bucket much easier and pull my box blade full up hill without any problems.

You asked if 364 lbs was going to make a difference, well about 10% is a plus in my book, but not enough to purchase that tractor just because it weighs more.

I know that all this may not really help you much, but you have been asking for a lot of opinions lately and I figured that I would give you mine on this subject. Are you any closer on you decision?

 

[DmansPadge]

If you are going for best traction definitely opt for the R1s. The R4s are the going thing and some people just love them but they don't compare in most all traction situations.

 

[MessickFarmEqu]

Personally I'd much rather see a tractor be properly ballasted, rather than just be stupid heavy. You can stall out R4's even on a light machine, so the amount of added traction that you get from raw weight is rather limited in my opinion. It is however very important to have ballast to balance out the implements your using, be that front or rear.

 

[MtnViewRanch]

Personally I'd much rather see a tractor be properly ballasted, rather than just be stupid heavy. You can stall out R4's even on a light machine, so the amount of added traction that you get from raw weight is rather limited in my opinion. It is however very important to have ballast to balance out the implements your using, be that front or rear.

Niel, may I ask how much weight is what you would consider stupid heavy?

 

[e.myers]

Hey everyone. I thought everyone knew by now that I was leaning heavily towards the L4400... thus partial reason for the question. I know I've been cluttering up the board enough with posts lately.

Anyway, should be pulling the trigger tomorrow unless something drastic chages. Just got finished discussing with the Wife whether to get the L4400 or the Grand L 4240. Ultimately, 4000 was too much of a difference for me to rationalize. Only real downside for me with the 4400 is the front end loader related stuff, thus all the questions.

I think by loading my tires and using my tiller as a counterweight, I'll be fine moving the red clay I have around. If not, I'll just have to deal with it.

Definitely going with the R1's.

Mtnviewranch-
Well, by your 10% rule of thumb, I guess the 364lb difference is significant after all.

Messick-
Is that almost as simple as adding weight to the front for ground engaging work which includes adding a front end loader (only needed if front end wants to lift) and adding weight to the tires or further back if the back end wants to lift for FEL work (only needed if the back end wants to get squirrely with a full load).

Crossing my fingers!

 

[sunnyside360]

Niel, may I ask how much weight is what you would consider stupid heavy?

I can see where some applications like cutting lawn grass you would not want lots of weight. On the other hand, in just about any ground engaging work more weight is generally better.
I'm not sure what is meant by "stupid heavy" ??

 

[MESSMAKER]

I don't have my tires loaded on my current tractor, due to the increase in transport weight. That being said, I have used tractors in the past with loaded tires and they are better. They lower the center of gravity and make the tires bite better. I think it makes more difference than you would expect. R1 tires do give more traction.

 

[Diamondpilot]

Weight makes all the difference in the world. I have done things with my tractor, 28HP with me on it, rear wheel weights, rears loaded, 4 front suit case weights, and FEL that my neighbors 35 HP tractor could not think of doing. Especially snow removal and loader work. I have R1's and its at 5,200# His tractor, a JD, is only around 4,000# even with the rears loaded running R4's.

The weight and R1's make all the difference.

Chris

 

[biggerten]

If you need more weight, you could eat a few extra potatos.....

 

[LD1]

360 lbs imo is not a lot when you consider it is probabally evenly distributed over the 4 tires at about 90 lbs per tire.

If you take the 4400 and put a 360lb implement on the back to make them weight the same, the 4400 will get better traction because you have more weight on the bigger rear tires even though they would weigh the same.

I agree that there is such a thing as too much weight for what most compact tractors do. If you were going to be at a construction site, on pavement, or other hard surfaces ALL the time, more weight is better.

But when doing work in less than Ideal conditions, that added weight causes more ground pressure (if tires are the same). The heavier tractor will cause a deeper hole/rut that it will have to climb up out of whereas the lighter tractor might not. My L3400 can probabally go further into soft areas than a comprable heavy tractor such as a mahindra, allthough I will be sacrificing a little traction on harder surfaces.

 

[IslandTractor]

Niel, may I ask how much weight is what you would consider stupid heavy?

Neil hasn't replied so let me guess that his response would be "anything more than a similar HP Kubota would weigh".

"Stupid heavy" may be a marketing slogan developed by Kubota dealers to fend off complaints about their tractors relatively light weight. In all fairness, it is easier to add weight than to subtract it so Neil has a point. The only time it would be important however would be for lawn mowing. Not too many 40hp tractors have that as their major use. It might be nice to trailer a lighter tractor but unless you have a way of reballasting it once you arrive you will need to carry all the extra ballast on the trailer anyway.

The area that light weight tractors might (note, I said might) be a problem is in having lighter duty axles, especially in the front. Front axles take a lot of abuse with loader work so it is not an area to skimp on. Kubotas don't have any problem with front axle damage but that could be a result of their consistently under powered loaders for tractor size. Did Kubota go light to emphasize lawn mowing and then downside their loaders to protect the lighter axles??? Who knows?? It does mean that for a given tractor size you can do better elsewhere if loader capacity is a prime consideration.

I know that some Kubota dealers like to talk about high grade metals that allow light construction but that is most likely bunk. Korean and Indian steel companies lead the world in steel production these days so I find it hard to believe the myths about "pot metal" used by Kubotas competitors.

 

[dex3361]

I think about the International Harvester manual that I read about how to deal with tractor issues and I laughed because every answer was add weight to the front or add weight to the rear or add weight to the front and rear. I have to agree that adding weight in a balanced manner works well. For instance when I do loader work with my 7 foot box blade on the L4400HST I add 480# of weight to the top of the box blade, it makes it get great traction and it takes weight off of the front axle and it helps the box blade get a better bite when I drop it down and pull dirt or rip the ground. Now when I add weight to the front like the loader full of rocks and head down hill I think the weight is a matter of safety( should say I know it is a matter of safety but thats another story). If I were looking at the Kubota L4400 or the L4240 and making the decision it would be about the heavier 3 point hitch and the heavier loader capabilaties. I looked at all of that and still went with the 4400HST with the only thing that I dont like about the loader is the rollback angle on the bucket. Other than that I like the L4400 better because of the simplicity and the lack of electronic bells and whistles. That said they are both great machines and either would serve you well.

 

[art]

When filling tires they loose the flex in the side walls often not allowing them to change fast enough for ground conditions. That will cause a loss of traction in field work. To fill a bucket, often is just the operators ability!!! Loaded tires or not with identical machines!

When looking at the recommended weights for a tractor some people have them ballasted to heavy, on the nose it will wear out the steering system prematurely on the rear the extra weight will cause drive train issues. Starting with the clutch needing to be slipped more for a smooth start.

There is a lot of new technology out there and newer types of nodular cast that weigh in less and is far stronger then then the old style castings with all the air pockets and flaws of years ago tractor design.

I like starting with three sets of rear wheel weights and with a loader on you don't need front weights.

The ability to put the weight where it is needed the most to balance the unit is the most important.

There are tractors that are being built today that when ballasting for a loader the tractors performance is drastically reduced to the point of not being able to match top engine rpm in high gear.

For the percentage of time that most use a loader a three point hitch attachment will work just fine.

 

[Gary Fowler]

Filling your tires should not in any way cause them to loose their flex. You likely have too much pressure it the tire or too much water and no air pocket left to absorb the bump. Loosen the valve stem, drain out any water above the valve core with it at TDC and only put about 7-10 pounds of air pressure in the tire.

 

[Gary Fowler]

One additonal comment, if you are travelling so fast that your tractor is bouncing up in the air, traction is probably the least of your worries. Watch for those broken axles and other items that are getting abused including the operator's back bone.

 

[MessickFarmEqu]

Neil hasn't replied so let me guess that his response would be "anything more than a similar HP Kubota would weigh".

No. That's coming more from what farmers look for when doing heavy tillage. 'Stupid Heavy' ... or weight for no good reason, its not desirable as all it does is wear the tractor and burn fuel. The goal is to have just enough to eliminate slippage and balance out the tractor. I'd say the same goes for loader work.

that could be a result of their consistently under powered loaders for tractor size.

I'm calling cheap shot on that one! If Kubota is underpowered, what does that make New Holland and Deere? Of the major lines Kubota typically has the strongest loaders around. Someone needs to do some real world testing on some of these other machines.. ever look at what TYM specs their loaders at...? It makes your Kioti look pathetic!

 

[LBrown59]

If you are going for best traction definitely opt for the R1s. The R4s are the going thing and some people just love them but they don't compare in most all traction situations.

R1s are made for tractors but tractors aren't made for R4s.

 

[LBrown59]

Personally I'd much rather see a tractor be properly ballasted, rather than just be stupid heavy.
You can stall out R4's even on a light machine, so the amount of added traction that you get from raw weight is rather limited in my opinion. It is however very important to have ballast to balance out the implements your using, be that front or rear.

People seem to miss the inportance of safety because they get all hung up about traction .

 

[IslandTractor]

I'm calling cheap shot on that one! If Kubota is underpowered, what does that make New Holland and Deere? Of the major lines Kubota typically has the strongest loaders around. Someone needs to do some real world testing on some of these other machines.. ever look at what TYM specs their loaders at...? It makes your Kioti look pathetic!

I had to say something to make sure you responded. You are correct that there is no independent testing. I know that you believe Kubota rates their loaders very conservatively. There doesn't seem to be much debate about other Kioti specs though, like HP or weight for example. I've never compared the loaders geometry or cylinder size which I would imagine would help in comparisons.