Really really really want a tractor

[husky455rancher]

The middle red picture is a cutie subcompact, but I'd seriously check if i needed a BH at all. Infrequent use is like a anchor- literally. Only, PERHAPS, if you had a little thumb on it to load the rounds or bolts onto a cutting/splitting deck or table, but once you've dug every hole, and ditch on your land, what else would you use it for? You afre getting a FEL, so you dont need a BH to pick up a bolt. A BH is a one trick pony, and that show gets old when you've seen it once.

My reason for posting your reply is not to denigrate the BH. Its to check the tire choice. I'm not so much a fan of the wide low profile, even if they had some agressive tread. I prefer a tall R1 Tread on my ag tractor- as much because my own land is prone to have clayey sand, and when through the top 1-2 feet, you find Clay and Gumbo. The mud will load up those on the red one, as soon as you drive over it, and the machine really has no ground clearance for traversing the standing water. or through the mud slurry I make when I drive through it repeatedly.

Picture 2 is your tires on the red cutie.

View attachment 958050View attachment 958056

Yeah that’s a little sub compact Massey.

 

[fields_mj]

They are wheel loaders, yes, but they will work circles around a skid steer, especially a small skid steer, when it comes to moving wood. They'll drive through, over and around more while carrying more weight with more stability than any small skid steer, all while doing far less ground damage. The only thing that skid steers do better than those Kubota wheel loaders is dirt work. You are right about them not being cheap though.

I would actually disagree with this statement. I've worked a few disaster relief sights where we were cleaning up downed trees after F4 and F5 tornadoes. We had tractors with loaders and grapples, tracked skid steers with grapples, and track hoes all working side by side. The track hoes were the fastest tools for picking apart the trees from the brush simply due to their lift capacity and articulation capability. As far as moving logs and brush, the tractors couldn't even come close to keeping up to the skid steers. The skid steers could move bigger loads, move them faster and farther, and they could articulate around obstacles a lot easier and fit into tighter places. Now dollar for dollar, the tractors were WAY more cost effective.

 

[Bearcreek]

Bearcreek? You must be referring to a skid steer with wheels, not a rubber tracked skid steer....? I generally refer to mine as a Compact Track Loader, and the old 763 Bobcat skid steer, a Skid steer..... I didn't scroll back to see what PDQL was saying no to, but, a wheel loader isn;t going to have a 3ph or rear PTO either.

The ancient 763 rubber tired skid steer was worthless in my Hammock land, just as soon as you drove far enough for the wheels to make one complete revolution, the bar tread tires were loaded with mud and you had zero traction, with no load. The giant cat 956 wheel loader i had for an extended loan, faired only slightly better, but was seriously hard to get unstuck, being about 30,000 lbs.....

PDQL was talking about the Kubota R420 or R520 wheel loaders and comparing them to a small skid steer. The R520 weighs about 8000 lbs., the R420 6700 lbs. I own an R410, the model that was replaced by the R420. I have used all manner of skid steers extensively, of all sizes, both wheeled and tracked. (As you point out, many folks don't refer to the tracked machines as "skid steers", but rather as track loaders or some other term). My R410 will go places carrying heavy weight where you couldn't begin to go with any wheeled skid steer or track loader. If you've got uneven ground, hills, snow/ice, mud etc. to deal with, one of these Kubota wheel loaders is awesome. Skid steers or track loaders can be better for grading and general dirt work, but for what I use it for, (moving logs, steel, buildings, random heavy things, etc around) I'll take my R410 over any skid steer/track loader.

Yes, it does not have a 3 pt hitch or PTO. I was primarily responding to PDQL's comparison to a small skid steer, and it sort of sounds like the OP mostly wants a machine for loader work. He has not said, that I've seen, what his budget is, so this may all be a moot point.

 

[Bearcreek]

I would actually disagree with this statement. I've worked a few disaster relief sights where we were cleaning up downed trees after F4 and F5 tornadoes. We had tractors with loaders and grapples, tracked skid steers with grapples, and track hoes all working side by side.

I think you're confused about what I was referring to. I was talking about the Kubota R series wheel loaders, which are not tractors, not even close.

 

[fields_mj]

Get the heaviest machine you can store that will fit into the location want to use it in. Pretty much every tractor on the market can lift more than it can safely carry on any kind of grade, so keep that in mind. Especially if you happen to have to make ANY kind of a turn while on even a slight grade.

Unless you're picking up a machine for practically free, 4wd is a requirement for a FEL.

Quick attach is an absolute MUST have. If the machine doesn't have it, BUY the kit the same day you buy the tractor. As far as bucket width, make sure it's a tad wider than your wheels. If it's much wider, you won't have enough weight/traction to make it dig. If it's narrower, you won't be clearing a wide enough swath to fit your machine into for the next pass.

Buy used if you can, but MAKE SURE its configured the way you want it to. Switching from turf to ag tires is EXTREMELY expensive.

Don't worry about HP much unless you might want to run a bush hog. Minimum power requirements for a bush hog is about 5hp at the engine for every foot of width on the mower, but 6 hp per foot is better. If you get a bush hog, buy an old used one. They're only a few hundred dollars that way, and they last forever until you run one over a stump. Then it's likely destroyed regardless of its age.

 

[Hermio]

If you plan to lift logs, then use this calculator: https://www.woodweb.com/cgi-bin/calculators/calc.pl?calculator=log_weight. I have found it very helpful. Also learn your loader's capacities. It will pick up a whole more below hood height than full height. Don't start out big. Get a feel for it and your tractor's tipping points which will vary with the load's weight, position and length, your speed, the terrain, etc. I treat mine pretty much like a tree - it will try to kill you.

Ron

Amen to that. Since a log can be long, if the center of gravity is not near the center of the loader, it can cause the tractor to tip sideways even with a log within the loader weight limits. (Been there, done that).

 

[Bearcreek]

Amen to that. Since a log can be long, if the center of gravity is not near the center of the loader, it can cause the tractor to tip sideways even with a log within the loader weight limits. (Been there, done that).

Yup. Tractors are designed to pull and lift loads from the back, not the front. That's why the front axle pivots, rather than the rear. You can get lots done with a FEL on one, especially if it's a bigger one, but it'll never work as well as a machine designed from the ground up to lift from the front, like a wheel loader or skid steer.

 

[rwoods]

Kubota R410


Some of the euro manufacturers have telescopic booms. I would love to have one, but most are $$$.


Ron

 

[holeycow]

I called the dealer who sells yanmar. I talked to him for 45 minutes. He seemed like a good guy. I told him what I was looking to do and I asked his opinion of the subcompact vs the compact. In his opinion he thinks the sub compact will work great for what I want to do. He sent me a couple pics that customers have sent him and it looked good to me. He also encouraged me to check out all the dealers and see what one I personally like. I told him I’m going to try to go check some out Friday or Saturday. The Massey 1725m is $17212 and the sa 424 was 24k. The Massey with the backhoe is $22,804. The yanmar costs more around here I guess lol.

Too. Small.

 

[pdqdl]

They are wheel loaders, yes, but they will work circles around a skid steer, especially a small skid steer, when it comes to moving wood. They'll drive through, over and around more while carrying more weight with more stability than any small skid steer, all while doing far less ground damage. The only thing that skid steers do better than those Kubota wheel loaders is dirt work. You are right about them not being cheap though.

Yes. For loader work in general, an articulating loader is hard to beat. Given a 10k weight limit, it can be done, however: Bobcat A300. The best of both worlds, it can skid steer, or 4-wheel steer, with a flip of the switch. But none of the aforementioned machines will outperform an agricultural tractor at pulling a load or navigating rough terrain, if limited to the same weight class. Don't even think about putting an articulating loader on a steep hill and working it. That's a recipe for a roll-over.

There are no other classes of machine that can put as much power to the ground or an attachment, given the very reliable PTO on the tractors and the superior hitches they have. If you have a 4,000lb tractor, it will do more work per $ of investment than any other more specialized machine. Not better at all things... Just more versatility and value.

 

[Robpm]

he 990 is a great tractor by reputation and has held its resale value well. I couldn’t find one when I was shopping. And in hindsight that was good as it doesn’t have quite the lift capacity for much of what I do - greater than 24” diameter hardwood stems. For most, it should have more than enough capacity. I owned its little brother from the first series years ago - a 750, I wish I still had it.

Ron

I have lifted a lot of hard wood stems over 24" in diameter, Red and White Oak, White Ash, Beech, Maple with no problem along with some pretty big rocks as wells. I have an Artillian fork frame which is real light weight. The frame is 73 lbs and the forks are 48" and my guess is that they are close to 100 lbs each so we are talking under 300# for the fork. The spec on the 300CX with the 4005 which was the same as the 990, they just changed the model # and it had a 40 amp alternator instead of a 20 amp alternator, (mine was a late model 990 so a lot of the parts are the exact same as what are on the 4005) as follows from this site https://tractorsinfo.net/john-deere-4005/

John Deere 4005 Attachments​

Loader type:	John Deere 300CX
Weight:	856 lbs [388 kg]
Height (to pin):	103.9 inches [263 cm]
Dump reach:	21.7 inches [55 cm]
Dump angle:	45
Rollback angle:	27
Breakout force (at pin):	3015 lbs [1367 kg]
Breakout force (at 500mm):	2158 lbs [978 kg]
Lift to full height (at pin):	1256 lbs [569 kg]
Lift to full height (at 500mm):	887 lbs [402 kg]
Lift to 1.5m (at pin):	1797 lbs [815 kg]
Lift to 1.5m (at 500mm):	1395 lbs [632 kg]
Raise time to height:	3.57 s
Bucket dump time:	3.04 s
Lowering time:	2.11 s
Rollback time:	1.79 s

If you look at the earlier models of the 990 they used the older 430 FEL and its specs at lift to full height were about the same but they were better at 1.5 M lift compared to the later models which were sold with the 300CX. I am going to guess there was some better leverage with the 430 due to its design compared to the 300CX. They sloped the 300CX. Of course it could be cylinder size. I have thought at times to replace the cylinders with a little larger ones and that would give me some more lift as well. I do not like the idea of messing with the hydraulic pressure although I have toyed with the idea before since it is not too hard to do.

John Deere 990 Attachments​

Loader:
Loader type:	John Deere 430
Height (to pin):	101.9 inches [258 cm]
Clearance, dumped bucket:	78.3 inches [198 cm]
Dump reach:	25.3 inches [64 cm]
Dump angle:	45
Reach at ground:	51.2 inches [130 cm]
Rollback at ground:	30
Rollback, raised:	64
Breakout force (at pin):	3,285 lbs [1490 kg]
Breakout force (at 500mm):	2,306 lbs [1046 kg]
Lift to full height (at pin):	1,102 lbs [499 kg]
Lift to full height (at 500mm):	915 lbs [415 kg]
Lift to 1.5m (at pin):	1,943 lbs [881 kg]
Lift to 1.5m (at 500mm):	1,724 lbs [782 kg]
Bucket width:	61 inches [154 cm]
Raise time to height:	3.9 s
Bucket dump time:	1.8 s
Lowering time:	3.0 s
Rollback time:	2.2 s

If you look at just the 300CX loader which was also used for the 3x20 series CUT's the capacity was much better as these different site specs

https://www.gardenguides.com/13424296-specifications-for-a-john-deere-300cx-loader.htmlhttp://tractorgearbox.com/jd_300cx_front_end_loader_specs.html

Lifting Capacity​

The 300CX will lift 1,122 lbs. to a maximum height of 102 inches, measured at the bucket edge. Measured from the pivot pins, the capacity is 1,598 lbs. The first rating is a more realistic measure of what you can expect from the loader, while the pivot pin rating relates more to gross lifting power. With a height limit of 59 inches, those capacities increase to 1,649 lbs at the bucket edge and 2,125 lbs. at the pivot pins.

and

John Deere 300CX Front End Loader Specs​

Compatible Tractor Models

Tractor Model .......... John Deere 970, 990, 3520, 4005, 4300, 4400, 4410
Front tires .......... 25x8.50-14.6 PR R4
Rear tires .......... 15.00-19.6 PR R4
Wheelbase .......... 1727 mm (68 in.)
Hydraulic System Rated flow .......... 32.5 L/min. (8.6 gpm)
Maximum pressure .......... 17.238 MPA (2500 psi)

John Deere 300CX Loader

Loader Model .......... JD 300CX Loader
Leveling System .......... Non-Self Leveling

Bucket

Width .......... 1550 mm (61 in.)
Length .......... 633 mm (25 in.)
Mass .......... 93.8 kg (206.8 lb.)

Cycle Times (Seconds)

Loader raising time .......... 3.56 seconds
Loader lowering time .......... 2.1 seconds
Bucket dumping time/regen .......... 2.96/1.21 seconds
Bucket rollback time .......... 1.75 seconds

Lift Height (Maximum)

To pivot pin .......... 2593 mm (102 in.)
With level bucket .......... 2388 mm (94 in.)
With bucket dumped .......... 2024 mm (79.6 in.)

John Deere 300CX Loader Dimensions

Overall Length .......... 3216 mm (126.6 in.)
Dipping Depth .......... 143 mm (5.6 in.)

Reach

At max. lift height .......... 562 mm (22 in.)
With bucket on ground .......... 1489 mm (58.6 in.)

Angles (Maximum)

Max. dump angle .......... 41.1 degrees
Max. dump angle at ground .......... 128 degrees
Max. rollback angle .......... 31 degrees
Rollback angle at full height .......... 119 degrees

JD 300CX Loader Lift Capacity

To max. height at pivot pin .......... 725 kg (1598 lb.)
To max. height 500 mm forward of pivot point .......... 509 kg (1122 lb.)
To 1.5 m (59 in.) at pivot pin .......... 964 kg (2125 lb.)
To 1.5 m (59 in.) 500 mm forward of pivot point .......... 748 kg (1649 lb.)

Breakout Force

At pivot pin .......... 14800 N (3327 lb-ft.)
At 500 mm forward of pivot point .......... 10750 N (2416 lb-ft.)

Bucket Rollback Force

At max. height .......... 7950 N (1787 lb-ft.)
At 1.5 m (59 in.) lift height .......... 13230 N (2974 lb-ft.)
At ground level line .......... 13730 N (3087 lb-ft.)

​

 

[Robpm]

The middle red picture is a cutie subcompact, but I'd seriously check if i needed a BH at all. Infrequent use is like a anchor- literally. Only, PERHAPS, if you had a little thumb on it to load the rounds or bolts onto a cutting/splitting deck or table, but once you've dug every hole, and ditch on your land, what else would you use it for? You afre getting a FEL, so you dont need a BH to pick up a bolt. A BH is a one trick pony, and that show gets old when you've seen it once.

My reason for posting your reply is not to denigrate the BH. Its to check the tire choice.

I know your reason to post was about the tires. However as with all of us, we have our differing opinions, I differ with you on the BH and your statements. I continue to find all kinds of benefits with having the BH. For one thing it makes great ballast for FEL work. My well recently had a problem and it made a great tool for digging up the well and saved me a good amount of money. I use it to retrieve trees taken down or fallen down. I do have a mechanical thumb on it as well which can come in handy for picking up large rocks which I have an overabundance of. I was able to dig out a new drainage system for my gutters. I helped my neighbor dig out his area where he wanted to pour a concrete pad for his shed he wanted to build. He is a civil engineer. I did the same for where I put up a Carolina Car Port building to house my 990. I helped another neighbor dig out a whole area behind his house to put in a new brick patio and the list goes on. If you own any property I don't think you will ever run out of things to do with a BH. Having said that if you do not want to spend the money, because they are not inexpensive, and you are happy with subbing out the work or renting a track hoe or something like that then yes you can forget the BH. For me having it available when I need it for anything is a great benefit that I am thankful to have. As with the 990 there are many times I wish I had even more power but I am thankful that it was on the tractor when I purchased it. It beats using a shovel any day of the week.

 

[rwoods]

I have lifted a lot of hard wood stems over 24" in diameter, Red and White Oak, White Ash, Beech, Maple with no problem along with some pretty big rocks as wells. I have an Artillian fork frame which is real light weight. The frame is 73 lbs and the forks are 48" and my guess is that they are close to 100 lbs each so we are talking under 300# for the fork. The spec on the 300CX with the 4005 which was the same as the 990, they just changed the model # and it had a 40 amp alternator instead of a 20 amp alternator, (mine was a late model 990 so a lot of the parts are the exact same as what are on the 4005) as follows from this site https://tractorsinfo.net/john-deere-4005/

John Deere 4005 Attachments​

Loader type:	John Deere 300CX
Weight:	856 lbs [388 kg]
Height (to pin):	103.9 inches [263 cm]
Dump reach:	21.7 inches [55 cm]
Dump angle:	45
Rollback angle:	27
Breakout force (at pin):	3015 lbs [1367 kg]
Breakout force (at 500mm):	2158 lbs [978 kg]
Lift to full height (at pin):	1256 lbs [569 kg]
Lift to full height (at 500mm):	887 lbs [402 kg]
Lift to 1.5m (at pin):	1797 lbs [815 kg]
Lift to 1.5m (at 500mm):	1395 lbs [632 kg]
Raise time to height:	3.57 s
Bucket dump time:	3.04 s
Lowering time:	2.11 s
Rollback time:	1.79 s

If you look at the earlier models of the 990 they used the older 430 FEL and its specs at lift to full height were about the same but they were better at 1.5 M lift compared to the later models which were sold with the 300CX. I am going to guess there was some better leverage with the 430 due to its design compared to the 300CX. They sloped the 300CX. Of course it could be cylinder size. I have thought at times to replace the cylinders with a little larger ones and that would give me some more lift as well. I do not like the idea of messing with the hydraulic pressure although I have toyed with the idea before since it is not too hard to do.

John Deere 990 Attachments​

Loader:
Loader type:	John Deere 430
Height (to pin):	101.9 inches [258 cm]
Clearance, dumped bucket:	78.3 inches [198 cm]
Dump reach:	25.3 inches [64 cm]
Dump angle:	45
Reach at ground:	51.2 inches [130 cm]
Rollback at ground:	30
Rollback, raised:	64
Breakout force (at pin):	3,285 lbs [1490 kg]
Breakout force (at 500mm):	2,306 lbs [1046 kg]
Lift to full height (at pin):	1,102 lbs [499 kg]
Lift to full height (at 500mm):	915 lbs [415 kg]
Lift to 1.5m (at pin):	1,943 lbs [881 kg]
Lift to 1.5m (at 500mm):	1,724 lbs [782 kg]
Bucket width:	61 inches [154 cm]
Raise time to height:	3.9 s
Bucket dump time:	1.8 s
Lowering time:	3.0 s
Rollback time:	2.2 s

If you look at just the 300CX loader which was also used for the 3x20 series CUT's the capacity was much better as these different site specs

https://www.gardenguides.com/13424296-specifications-for-a-john-deere-300cx-loader.htmlhttp://tractorgearbox.com/jd_300cx_front_end_loader_specs.html

Lifting Capacity​

The 300CX will lift 1,122 lbs. to a maximum height of 102 inches, measured at the bucket edge. Measured from the pivot pins, the capacity is 1,598 lbs. The first rating is a more realistic measure of what you can expect from the loader, while the pivot pin rating relates more to gross lifting power. With a height limit of 59 inches, those capacities increase to 1,649 lbs at the bucket edge and 2,125 lbs. at the pivot pins.

and

John Deere 300CX Front End Loader Specs​

Compatible Tractor Models

Tractor Model .......... John Deere 970, 990, 3520, 4005, 4300, 4400, 4410
Front tires .......... 25x8.50-14.6 PR R4
Rear tires .......... 15.00-19.6 PR R4
Wheelbase .......... 1727 mm (68 in.)
Hydraulic System Rated flow .......... 32.5 L/min. (8.6 gpm)
Maximum pressure .......... 17.238 MPA (2500 psi)

John Deere 300CX Loader

Loader Model .......... JD 300CX Loader
Leveling System .......... Non-Self Leveling

Bucket

Width .......... 1550 mm (61 in.)
Length .......... 633 mm (25 in.)
Mass .......... 93.8 kg (206.8 lb.)

Cycle Times (Seconds)

Loader raising time .......... 3.56 seconds
Loader lowering time .......... 2.1 seconds
Bucket dumping time/regen .......... 2.96/1.21 seconds
Bucket rollback time .......... 1.75 seconds

Lift Height (Maximum)

To pivot pin .......... 2593 mm (102 in.)
With level bucket .......... 2388 mm (94 in.)
With bucket dumped .......... 2024 mm (79.6 in.)

John Deere 300CX Loader Dimensions

Overall Length .......... 3216 mm (126.6 in.)
Dipping Depth .......... 143 mm (5.6 in.)

Reach

At max. lift height .......... 562 mm (22 in.)
With bucket on ground .......... 1489 mm (58.6 in.)

Angles (Maximum)

Max. dump angle .......... 41.1 degrees
Max. dump angle at ground .......... 128 degrees
Max. rollback angle .......... 31 degrees
Rollback angle at full height .......... 119 degrees

JD 300CX Loader Lift Capacity

To max. height at pivot pin .......... 725 kg (1598 lb.)
To max. height 500 mm forward of pivot point .......... 509 kg (1122 lb.)
To 1.5 m (59 in.) at pivot pin .......... 964 kg (2125 lb.)
To 1.5 m (59 in.) 500 mm forward of pivot point .......... 748 kg (1649 lb.)

Breakout Force

At pivot pin .......... 14800 N (3327 lb-ft.)
At 500 mm forward of pivot point .......... 10750 N (2416 lb-ft.)

Bucket Rollback Force

At max. height .......... 7950 N (1787 lb-ft.)
At 1.5 m (59 in.) lift height .......... 13230 N (2974 lb-ft.)
At ground level line .......... 13730 N (3087 lb-ft.)

​

The 460 loader on my 4710 at full height is 2330# at pin and 1705# 24” out vs the 300cx at 1256# and 887# at 500mm (approximately 20” out). Pretty much double the capacity. That said, the 300cx will take care of most here.

As I said the 990 and it’s kin have a great reputation. Rental yards rent them here.

Ron

 

[sb47]

I would actually disagree with this statement. I've worked a few disaster relief sights where we were cleaning up downed trees after F4 and F5 tornadoes. We had tractors with loaders and grapples, tracked skid steers with grapples, and track hoes all working side by side. The track hoes were the fastest tools for picking apart the trees from the brush simply due to their lift capacity and articulation capability. As far as moving logs and brush, the tractors couldn't even come close to keeping up to the skid steers. The skid steers could move bigger loads, move them faster and farther, and they could articulate around obstacles a lot easier and fit into tighter places. Now dollar for dollar, the tractors were WAY more cost effective.

I agree, a track loader will run circles around any wheeled tractor. Both in lift capacity and maneuverability.

 

[Robpm]

The 460 loader on my 4710 at full height is 2330# at pin and 1705# 24” out vs the 300cx at 1256# and 887# at 500mm (approximately 20” out). Pretty much double the capacity. That said, the 300cx will take care of most here.

As I said the 990 and it’s kin have a great reputation. Rental yards rent them here.

Ron

Ron, I agree, you have almost double the lift power and I would sure love to have as much as you do. I could have used it a couple of times. But I make due in those instances. As I said I have toyed with putting some bigger cylinders on the 300CX to give me a little more lift. The front end of the tractor can handle it and the original 430 loader had more grunt at 59" on the 990 than the 300CX has. Again the specs on the 300CX are much better on the 3x20 series than on the 990. I am going to guess due to pressure being higher on the 3x20 series.

 

[ericm979]

I prefer a manual transmission over a hydro static all day long. I don't like having to keep my foot on the pedal to make it go. I like putting in in gear and letting out the clutch and not having to have my foot on a peddle.

Most newer HST tractors have "cruise control" which locks the HST in position so you can remove your foot from the pedal.

 

[Snowman59]

Good Works Tractors just posted an interesting video yesterday pointing out pitfalls to avoid when buying a tractor as well as explaining who manufactures what brands of equipment. Here is the link:

 

[pdqdl]

I would actually disagree with this statement. ... As far as moving logs and brush, the tractors couldn't even come close to keeping up to the skid steers. The skid steers could move bigger loads, move them faster and farther, and they could articulate around obstacles a lot easier and fit into tighter places. Now dollar for dollar, the tractors were WAY more cost effective.

I agree, a track loader will run circles around any wheeled tractor. Both in lift capacity and maneuverability.

As with all things, that depends on the situation.

Skid steers excel at tight quarters, and their loaders are much stronger than the tractors. If you put the machines in a situation where the travel time is greater, that conventional tractor will eat a skid steer's lunch and laugh at them on the way.

There is no way my A300 bobcat can move as much material as my 5603 John Deere tractor, given a 100 yard or more travel distance, especially if the terrain is real bumpy. Moving brush (using the same quick-tach grapple as the tractor) from a back yard out to load the truck in the street up front? Bobcat will slaughter the tractor.

Just evaluate your needs and goals, then get the best machine for that job. The very best machine in the world in the wrong spot is a big mistake.

 

[Bearcreek]

Yes. For loader work in general, an articulating loader is hard to beat. Given a 10k weight limit, it can be done, however: Bobcat A300. The best of both worlds, it can skid steer, or 4-wheel steer, with a flip of the switch. But none of the aforementioned machines will outperform an agricultural tractor at pulling a load or navigating rough terrain, if limited to the same weight class. Don't even think about putting an articulating loader on a steep hill and working it. That's a recipe for a roll-over.

I live in the Clearwater mountains of North Idaho. The terrain is rugged, uneven and steep. My Kubota R410 will do things on a steep hillside that a comparable sized 4x4 tractor with loader would not even be close to capable of. I'm not guessing here. I have used all of the machines in question extensively. If the articulated design was so inherently unstable, skidders wouldn't all be designed that way. I'm talking about loader work here, not farm tractor tasks involving a PTO or 3 point hitch. Obviously the tractor works best for that because it was designed for it. Tractors are designed to pull and lift loads from the back.

 

[chipper1]

I prefer a manual transmission over a hydro static all day long. I don't like having to keep my foot on the pedal to make it go. I like putting in in gear and letting out the clutch and not having to have my foot on a peddle. Hydro's are noisy and wine like they are in a constant bind.

Oh, okay.
Did you read my post.