I think you should have added rear ballast and showed how that takes weight off the front axles with the same load. This would highlight the importance of rear ballast for not only safety reasons but equipment protection and longevity.
@@lindseygoudge4243 Thank you for this comment. I was thinking of adding wheel weights to my BX2680 but not only would it be a more permanent install as it would be a pain to try and remove/reinstall them myself....but now after reading your comment I'm glad I haven't rushed into anything, and actually have planned on just building a weight box of some sort that I can hang suitcase weights on, or fill with sand/gravel.
To expand on your post, boltaction, in a very real sense there is a limit to how much you SHOULD pick up and move around with a sub or compact especially. Its a big safety thing. Those are not very big or heavy machines- but all the laws of physics still apply. Just because it "can" doesnt mean you should. Best advice: if you really need significantly more loader capacity, you need a bigger, heavier duty tractor. (Thats why there are a dizzying array of different models available) Correctly ballasting your machine shpuld always be a must, as well.
Neil, you had an earlier video where you measured hydraulic pressures in different situations. Along those lines, I worry more when I'm bouncing over my rough field with a bucket full of green firewood. The dynamic loads on both the hydraulics and the front axle must be really high at times. My solution is to slow down, reduce the bouncing, and try not to stress my Kubota LX2610 to its limits. Thanks for your videos.
Great point - what is the shock load capacity for the front axle? We know the load is carried by a center pin, this acts as a pivot point for a point load between the front tires. The leverage pressure must be tremendous while travelling with a FEL bucket full of gravel over rough terrain? (considering the BX23s has a heavy backhoe for ballast)
I think front axle capacities should be published. As a relatively new tractor owner, and engineer, I think the key to getting the most out of your front end loader while saving your front axle is the addition of ballast weight behind the rear axle.
You say engineer?? weight on the back keeps the vehicle on the ground, the same weight is on the front axle when you lift the 1000 LBS. the front axle is the pivot point.
@@jimputnam2044 Weight behind the rear axle will try to lift the front axle, using the rear axle as the pivot point. Simple physics. Also, many tractor videos describing it.
Neil did a video with pressure pads showing this. Or was it Tim? Maybe both. Regardless. Ballast behind the rear axle is more effective than wheel weights.
💥 Great topic for a video. This make a lot of sense and is important for so many who want to shim their relief valve. This really emphasizes rear ballast importance. 👍 *Keep on tractoring!*
Really good video to show front axle weights. Seeing as you used the BX23S, could you show how the backhoe installed affects the weight distribution! I leave mine on most of the time for that purpose.
I'm not sure what the weight of the BX backhoe is, but I'd bet it weighs more than my box blade or my roto-tiller...so having the backhoe one while doing loader work would probably be your best ballast option since it sits behind the rear axle...only issue of course would be space limitations but I think you could curl the backhoe in pretty tight and angle it left or right, compared to having a rear implement installed as ballast that can't be moved.
@@wildbill23c The stock backhoe is just over 600lbs I believe. Mine has a quick attach and thumb as well, and it really helps balance the tractor with a full bucket load. My question to Neil is how much it helps to take the weight off of the front axle. Normally, an operator would have an external ballast on the rear when they load up the bucket, so showing the weight without ballast seems a bit unconventional. Neil really does show that a ballast in the rear is required to use the front bucket to it's full potential, but there should be a part 2 showing the safe way to ballast and balance the weight towards the center of the load triangle.
@@brentholmes3339 600lbs yes. About 2 foot behind the pivot pin? So maybe 4 foot behind the rear axle? Whereas weight in the loader bucket is about 10 foot or more in front of the rear axle? So you're offsetting maybe 200-250lbs in the front bucket? Which is some, but not as much as you might hope ultimately.
For me, I consider price, performance and capacity and longevity. With today's pricing, I want a tractor that is going to last a LONG time. Deere has probably the best attachment systems on the market for most attachments, but that is it. The loader is the heart of my tractor, so hydraulic flow and lift capacity is key to me folllowed by drawbar HP. Having said that, I believe manufactures should make a front axle that can handle 2 times more then the loader can lift.
Neil, THANK YOU for this video. It's to the point. Plus, it gets people thinking about these axles. I also appreciate you trying to stay neutral in your comments between JD and Kubota. I highly respect you for putting out good information- while not crossing a line. Oh... FYI I own a 2038R..... Again, Thank you.
What happens to the load on the front axle when there is a 3PH attachment or ballast box on the back? I know when I have my backhoe on, my front end is way more bouncy. I would also never consider loading my bucket to the max without proper ballast on the back for safety reasons. This was a great video, and I look forward to more like it. Thank you.
You won't get much weight in the bucket without any rear ballast on these sub-compact tractors, they don't have enough weight in the ass end to keep them on the ground, and as I found out, even my 300lb tiller on the 3 point ain't enough when doing heavier lifting duties with the pallet forks....although I've found my BX can't lift much at all with the pallet forks I have since they're not for a sub-compact tractor....they're for a compact I believe, so they weight about 80-90 pounds more than the sub-compact version, and the forks are 42" VS 36".
Last summer I bought a new Kubota L4701 with the express purpose of managing large round bales. The tire pressure for the front tires in the manual is 20 psi. The first round bale we lifted (about 1200 lbs) caused the front tires to look flat. We had to increase the tire pressure to manage the load. These heavy loads do put a lot of pressure on the front axles.
Well, I've learned a little bit from reading the comments here. First, it's kind of frightening to see how many people can't spell "axle" correctly. (Kind of like those people who list a "KABOTA for sale" with a picture of a tractor with "KUBOTA" clearly visible on the side of the tractor, or a "John Deer" with a photo of the tractor with "John Deere" in yellow paint clearly visible).🤪 Second, and more to the point, I think it's great that you've done videos like this, to get people to think about those purchases, because apparently not a lot of people do enough to research before making a purchase.
Remember the Deer has a mower deck taking some of the front axle capacity also. As you noted you have no rear end balance, and that's how these companies get away with it. Remember it probably says in the warranty properly weight and balance the product 😊 And that doesn't mean have the wife stand on the drawbar...
Neil, you are so AWESOME at delivering the message where I can understand it. And. . . You know what we are thinking. I was thinking about, “hey why don’t they just beef up the front axle?” And. . . You covered it. Thanks so much for all your videos. I’ve learned so much.
Neil, How about the kinetic energy generated while driving on bumpy ground? Perhaps, there is a much higher instantaneous force exerted to the front axle hitting a bump or a hole in transit with a full bucket. I always try to keep my bucket as low as I can and dive slowly minding the fact I am not trying to make money and not in a hurry.
Neil, I grew up in a green dealership and know of many older tractors that are still working great but they are not over building like they did in the 60s and 70s. Everything you mentioned all comes down to profit. Yes the older tractors lasted 50, 60, 70 years with proper maintenance so this affected sales of new equipment. You are correct the throw away world we live in finally reached the tractor market. I have a Kubota B with a pin on front bucket and I am more than happy with the capacity. I know many of these tractors are for work not play like I do but this greed of saving 2 minutes or 1 load will cost the owner more in the long run when they must buy a new tractor in 5 to 10 years. I expect to have this tractor for the rest of my life with proper maintenance and care but you cant hotdog these tractors like you could with the older models.
A heavy counter weight hanging off the back will take some of that load off the front axle. You should always use rear weights to counter the loader load.
Not a complaint, but the position of the load as shown is not the highest load on the axle. At the point where the bucket is about shoulder height is where the extension from the center of gravity is greatest....and the load on the front axle is also the highest. At that position, the front axle load will be about 130% of what you measured on your scales. Further, static load is one thing, rolling or moving adds even more stress to the axle and bearings, especially on uneven ground. Your point is well made, however. But one reason for the lower axle capacities is not just engineering, but cost to the manufacturer.
For what I’ve seen for trucks is that load specs are limited by tires capacity. I’d take a look at the sidewall of those tires and compare the axle rating to the tires load rating.
We had a Case 830 2wd with a loader. Great loader tractor of the time with the hydromatic trans but the front axle was the weak point when it left the chat. Guess the point is be mindful when carrying the heavy loads in the loader and no bouncy bouncy down the path.
I was thinking the same thing. Even if it the specs are looking at the overall weight on the axle, what about the weight of just the axle by itself. Like he told the load for the loader but did he calculate the weight of the loader itself?
I also wonder if that's how JD does it for the 1025R in the video. Looking at the rear lift capacity (at 24") and lazily dividing the weight in half for the tractor (it probably weighs a bit more in the back) makes it about right. But if you want the tractor with the cab it adds 200 kg ( 440 lbs). Now there is very little left to use of the three point hitch.
I'm shopping for my first tractor but I wondered about this. Watching videos of newer and older tractors in motion I've seen a number of tractor where the front wheels seemed to move a bit too much. I wondered if it was modern articulating suspensions or if they were cutting corners or designing to narrower tolerances on the smaller machines that are more popular these days.
When I went to purchase my tractor, I checked the prices for both. Kubota had it 5 years. Interest-free. John deer, when he quoted the price, I told him abt the interest-free at Kubota. He said they had theirs Interest-free also, then he recalculated and the price was higher. So, it wasn't interest free. That's why I went 2 Kubota. And I have it serviced every year and they come and get it for me at no charge.
Adding weight to the rear doesn't take any weight OFF of the front. It actually slightly increases the load on the front a minor amount....but it BALANCES the tractor.
Great stuff. We just invested in a 23s to support our DIY ‘heavy’ landscaping. Our expectations for our machine are more short lived than generational. That said, you got us thinking about how we could extend the life of our machine. Thank you, Neil.
You began with talking about the reliability of the old tractors. My dad got his IH dealership in 1937 and being born in 1945, I got to spend a lot of time repairing those Farmall H & M, Cubs, A's, and C's. Then off to a 44 year career and back to farming buying my first tractor, a Kubota L3710. CUT so not in the same class as a mainline farm tractor H or M. I traded it off on a cab L5740 after 12 years with no mechanical problems whereas I had been fast at replacing wheel bearings, transmission bearings, loader cylinder seals, plus welding on the old tractors. Yup, I could keep them going, but compared to my first 2 Kubotas. My L5740 was replaced with a L6060 which was replaced by a M5-111. In addition I have a M7-171 KVT. I especially dread thinking of transmission repair on the M7 KVT but hopefully it is designed for more endurance than a Farmall H or M. Last year I did add an old tractor to my fleet, an Allis-Chalmers D10. less than an hour and it now has a place as yard art. As for axle capacity, yes, the CUTs are not good. However, it was cheap and easy to replace the bearings on my L5740 as they failed. Yes, I used the loader to max capacity a lot so failure was not unexpected as I knew it couldn't handle the load.
I just bought a Kubota MX5400 last Spring and am now concerned about the capabilities and long term durability of the front axle. In my simplistic mind, the cumulative load of the tractor and any potential weight that is added either to the front or rear via attachments should have been the minimum spec for the front and rear axles. Seems unethical to publish loader capacity numbers that far exceed the capacity of the axles. Thank you for sharing this and please keep the informative videos coming. 👍
It's worth noting that if you read the manual it specifies a minimum amount of rear ballast for FEL work, this is a big part of why. Rear ballast can cancel out the weight on the front axle from the FEL to make it safe to get to those capacities. Messick's did a video on it already: ua-cam.com/video/K4pgGJ_Tu9I/v-deo.html
There is a lot of discussion about JD CUT front axle seals leaking. People are selling $100 vent kits to relieve pressure in the front axle. I discussed this with my dealer and was told they believe it is due to overloading the front axle. There is also a lot of discussion about how much ballast is needed.
Hard to design a machine that's small enough to fit in a decent backyard shed, light enough mow the lawn, and strong enough to unload pallets of field stone. Some people really need a compact tractor, a zero-turn, and a fork-lift, often asking the former to be all three. Front axle capacities should absolutely be openly published. Educating the customer about topics like this will go a long ways towards forcing that kind of transparency in specifications as well. Many of those front axle repairs are due to simple lack of rear ballast.
The axle capacity is the load the axle can carry. That's not what you're measuring. You are measuring the load the axle is carrying plus the weight of the front axle assembly. How much does each front axle/wheels/tires assembly weigh?
Great video ! I think if a tractor owner uses common sense and follows manufacturers instructions, they will be fine ! Problem is, a lot folks seem to push their tractors to their limits disregarding manufacturers instructions ! Have a Blessed Day
one question i have, how is axle capacity technically measured? is measuring at the tires an accurate measurement of axle load? I'm wondering if the weight of the axle itself should be subtracted from your measurements? surely the weight of the wheels and tires wouldn't be counted? It seems strange that anyone would sell something that overloads its axle when empty.
Great video, Neil. This is why I chose the MX 5800. I didn't have specs. to go by but the beefy look of the front axle and width of the tires also they used a cat.2 3-point hitch on the rear end showed me that Kubota designed this model for strength.
I have grand L4060 and the front axle looks like a tree log made of metal its very beefy - I have moved hundreds of thousands of lbs of dirt over the last 80 hours of tractor use and its as tough as anything I have tossed at it.
@@tangoseal1 Good to hear! I love spending time on my Kubota. I believe that Kubota makes some of the finest equipment in the world. Be safe and have fun.
You're right about tractors being a generational investment. There are Farmall M series tractors still in daily use. I bought my JD 770 decades ago. It's reliable as gravity and only needed an upper radiator hose, two light bulbs and scheduled maintenance. It has an all mechanical Diesel engine and except for the fuel shutoff solenoid would be happy to run without and electrical system. Not trading it in on a newer tractor while it still runs. I bought my Kubota RDT900W in 2004. It's still in almost daily use with 3,200 hours on it. I have upgraded it with the one piece front drive shaft and had one quirky failure of the injection pump, but other than that, it's been as reliable as gravity.
Excellent info. I have a 15 yr old L5740 with 2200 hrs. I use it often and mostly using the front loader with grapple or bucket. Many times I’ve had to switch to 4wd to get traction to move because most weight was on front tires, way too much weight. I do worry that I might damage the front axle, but haven’t so far. I think you should be able to choose a heavy duty or regular duty axle when picking options for your tractor. Makes a difference what you plan to use your tractor for. Of course, as tight as supplies are now, I doubt you could get what you want anyway.
My comment is about the amazement of 70+ year old tractors that are still working today. Sure, they were built well. But there is more to it. The rapid growth in the size of farms quickly changed how they were used. If a farmer bought a Farmall M in 1950, it was probably the big tractor on the farm (36 hp). 8 years later the same farmer might have gotten a 560 (66 hp) and now the M got lighter jobs. The same farmer might have added an 806 (100 hp) 5 years later and the M and the 560 both moved on to lighter work. This along with simple design and being built well accounts for why so many are still out there.
All I’m gonna say is there are few tractors as tough, powerful (pound for pound) and easy to work on and fix affordably as those like the ford 8N- thousand series tractors and the old Farmalls and Deeres. Everything now is electronic this and that, the shifter linkages are vague, the operating stations seem “squished” and smaller. Not to mention a billion hydraulic lines. Granted, you can’t put a backhoe on an 8N like these, but there is something to be said about the old school durability of the old irons, pulling discs, plows, drags, planters and mowers and pulling forage wagons….these tractors will run long after the clutch and brake pedals are shined up smooth from years of operating.
Two words: survivorship bias! How many 30-40 year old tractors where made, and how many are still in use in a production environment are critical questions to ask before saying that they were built so much better back in the 'good old days.' The follow up question is can you do the same amount of work as quickly and easily with 40 year old tech as you can with modern tech. There is no doubt that there is less over engineering in machinery today, which may cause very long term longevity issues; but that doesn't make it worse than Grampa's Ford 8N that chugs along at a pedestrian pace and requires much more finite control than modern tractors.
Don’t forget, this is strictly a “static” test. You’re not bumping across a field, which lute even more strain on everything. Putting a max. Capacity load in the bucket, and on the front end as well under field conditions. Whole ‘nother situation….
Something to consider is that engineers will usually over-build a system to withstand forces far in excess of the specified requirements. I guess they know how much abuse we users are capable of dishing out! As a result, published engineering specs are almost always very conservative, sometimes by as much as 50% or even less than any possible failure mode. Of course, the manufacturers will never say that...they prefer to minimize the potential for warrantee claims.
Good information, but you are comparing apples to oranges to begin with...there is no mower on the Kubota. Some of the mower weight will certainly be carried by the front axle which is going to skew your starting numbers. While I occasionally complain that my BX2350 hydraulics are weak, I can consistently overload the bucket with regards to the capability of the rest of the tractor; meaning stability on slopes or the rear end being way too light to safely carry the rated load.
I have always thought the little front tires on my BX23S would fail before the front axle so I have not been concerned that I would have an expensive front axle repair! I have owned and operated a BX24 for over13 years virtually trouble free and recently upgraded to a BX23S and fully expect it to serve me trouble free for many years to come with proper care and maintenance. I would say operator error and not fully understanding proper operating techniques would cause premature equipment failure no matter what tractor you use!!!
This is why when I am asked for my opinion I will always tell someone to find the best tractor for your application and then purchase the next larger tractor size overall!!!!!!
Great video Neil. Safety is of my utmost concern when using my loader or forks. Published capacities are very helpful, if the consumer understands what they are reading and how to interpret it. My BX23s behaves very differently and can handle 200lbs of material in the bucket, than it does with 200lbs of honey supers on a pallet with the forks on (I keep the backhoe on for such tasks as ballast). The difference is the distance of the weight distribution from the font axle - makes a huge difference, so it is a "reduce the load, slow down and take it easy approach" to all things when using the forks. I also have been impressed with the quality of my purchase - hI am thinking that with proper care it will last like the Farmall A my in laws had on their farm until they retired.
That model Deere is a pile Always something leaking with the hydraulics and transmission or the cracked valve cover from the air filter bracket being mounted to it and sucking dirt in the engine
Remove the Weight of the Wheels & tires for a true weight of the Axle Assy. other than the load rating of the Tires, the load rating stops at the Bearings of the Axle. Do You have a link to the Scale set up ? Mike M.
Thank you for this video. I will think of it every time I try to fully fill my bucket. Maybe I can pour a little out to be lighter and safer. Thanks again.keep it up.
Im a little confused… when you checked the beginning weights and were saying that they were basically already at the capacity of the front axel, you have to remember that was including the weight of the axel itself as well as the wheels and tires that the axel was setting on. so if you subtract that then the weight actually setting on the axel itself is lower.
Great video and good information! Interesting to think about. These are a lot of money and we hope they last a long time! It would be interesting if you did the same experiment with ballast weight which I think is specified as required for loader work.
I know there is always told in john deere manuals, when using the front end loader with a full bucket, never exeed 5mph. My dad ran 2 john deere utility tractors with loaders and pushed them to the limit quite often. the first one did almost 20000 hours, without any problems of the zf front axle. The tractor he runs now has 14000 hours in 8 years and also this jd front axle never failed. So i think the dinamic load at full transport speed is at the rated load (heat build up in bearings) but with slow driving, you have less heat and less bouncing, so less dinamic stress on the axle. When you use your mind when operate a loader at a proper brand tractor, i dont think you got problems normaly
So let me get this straight. You are saying that the manufacturer is building a front axel that is already at capacity before the bucket is even loaded?
Awesome as always. My concern is the tiny tiny tires. I have rented the BX tractor and I've had problems with the tires not holding up. The same is true with the John Deere. Why are larger tires not offered?
Likely to keep both size and cost down. The small size, low height, and low weight are big selling points for models like those shown here. They make larger size models for those with heavier duty needs.
Great video. One item I think you missed is that more and more people are wanting skid/pay loader performance at a tractor price. The fact is these are Tractors with a loader attachment bolted on. I think it would be great to compare the front axels of say a MX series vs a R430.
I watch a lot of firewood guy videos, and it always makes me wince when i see what some guys are trying to lift or pull with sub/compact tractors. Some of them really need a utility tractor, not a compact... (before they kill themselves) . Some of the small frame utilities are very agile, and can fit in most places you want to go- theyre also WAY beefier, and have beefier loaders and hydraulics. All in all, id much rather be using one of them to pick up big hardwood logs, snake them out of the woods, etc.
I'm confused by Neil's argument. If the JD and Kubota are regularly weighing more than double the published axle capacity and there isn't some large number of owners with broken axles that leads me to conclude that the JD and Kubota numbers are wrong. Maybe the other brands that you feel are claiming too high numbers are more accurate?
Axles don't break, seal and bearing issues though do happen. One thing I was trying to do without being sleazy was to point out that Kioti, Mahindra and company are pushing the safety factor way beyond Kubota and Deere. I think orange and green probably stike a good balance between capacity and durability. Other companies are pushing that boundary, that's when tractors become disposable.
@@MessicksEquipwe just picked out a BX23S, waiting for the 3rd function switch to be installed to go with the grappler. While looking at different brands, and dealers I found that the companies you mentioned were very difficult to get information, and calling numbers on the Internet / talking to website chats they wanted my name and email before even saying hello. It felt sleazy and my search moved on quickly. I know we’re buying a smaller tractor, JD barely gave us time of day when we visited, but Kubota listened to what we wanted, what we needed and quickly took us out to the yard to take a look. Now, that could be the difference in dealerships, one out in a farming community and the other in Tucson, but we’re happy and anxiously awaiting our delivery.
@@windzer No, it doesn't. Or at the very least not really. The weight on the front axle is still the same when you max out the lifting specs of the loader whether you have a rear counterweight or not. The big difference is that with a rear counterweight you will keep the rear axle planted a little better which mean better stability. This is why most large front end loaders are designed and built to have the rear end up in the air before the loader hits its max lifting capacity, it adds a layer of safety and redundancy. If you can't drive it around you wont lift it even if the loader can physically lift it.
@@adamliske This is completely wrong. When you hang weight off the back of the machine it makes the front axle light. Load and balance calculations are your friend.
So can anyone tell me if this trend of front axels not meeting the the loader capacity follows suit all the way through the tractor lineup? Does my B2650's loader push it's front axel capacity even more past it's rated cap? Or...does the gap start narrowing as you go up in tractor size?
I feel like the "smaller" tractor brands always will out lift deere and kubota to market their tractor as more "capable" tractors. People just don't want to face the fact that they may need a bigger tractor then they want because of price.
Neil, it would be interesting to demonstrate how the axle loads changes as you pick up a load. The front axle should spike as you lift the load off the ground then drop, then slowly increase as you reach mid lift then drop as you get to full height. The rear axle should do the opposite. The specs on loaders usually give capacity at full height, but that isn't the worst case. Maybe this would people visualize the physics of what is happening.
@@phild9813 if you are operating at the specified capacity of your loader, it may be more significant than you realize. I think that was the point of this video. But he was showing just one case. It may not be the worst case when it comes to front axle loading.
I agree with a lot of the comments, put a 500 pound piece of equipment on the 3 point hitch and see if that changes the amount of weight on the front axil.
If I’m laying out the money, I want a tractor to last me a lifetime or beyond with little trouble. I currently run a late series Ford 1700 4wd tractor with Ford 770 loader that my grandfather bought new in 1982. I know that early 4wd 1700s with loaders had front axle issues. So far my axle is ok, but I’m working on the kingpin dust seals now and discovered a totally shredded thrust bearing and shot kingpin bushings on one side in the process. Understandably those things don’t last forever given the loads they experience, but you never want to see an axle breaking!
I want my tractor to last 40+ years. My dad bought a brand new 1973 Ford 3000 back in 1973. I mowed with it last weekend. I want my next tractor to get passed down to my kids / grandkids. Build them to last.
Good information, I would have to agree with also following this video up with one showing the rear ballasting and weight distribution off of the front axle. Another good spin off of this video would be to compare the kubota farm tractor models example l30 whatever..., to the true kubota backhoe models l35/47whatever,... and see if the front axles are the same or built stronger on the actual backhoe models....you got a couple of good rabbit holes to go down with this viedo here, thanks' for making it!
Great video. Im curious if different amounts of ballast lifts some of the weight off the front end? I have a BX23s love it. I also have a older B7200 HST great machine as well as a Ford 9N still able to get up and work. Lets hope the Kubotas make it to be that age. I wont be around but somebody will be happy to have them.
It's called ballast for a reason. It BALANCES the tractor. In no matter of physics does it take weight OFF of the front. Adding total weight to the tractor by adding ballast technically increases the front weight by a minor amount.
@@evracer I understand your reply and it does make sense. I still feel that the see saw puts the little kid in the air while the big kid is on the ground. Im trying to figure why my truck gets much easier to steer the more wood I load in the back. When Im actually putting more weight on the front axle??? I would like to understand it a little better. Thanks
As I understand things the front axle capacity is somewhat higher when using rear ballast and rated to be considerably higher in "restricted operation" (ie: low speed, ~ 5mph). I know that Case publishes these numbers for its tractors, does Deere or Kubota do the same?
Believe it or not that's why I decided on an older b7100d with a pin on loader. Simplicity and serviceability. Granted until I saw my tractor I was ready to buy a new 18hp Kubota. What swayed our decision was plastic vs steel. And yes Messick's does actually still carries parts for my 1979 machine. Wonder what front axle weight is for mine? Not really worried it's a tool. Remember.... You can use a framing hammer to dig a hole ... But is it the right tool for the task at hand?🤔
Thank you for an excellent explanation. Reason I bought the LS MT342 was its lift capacity. I put 1100 lbs in the rear tires and add a 700 pound implement on 3 pt so I can pick up large boulders and move around trees that have fallen on the property. Hopefully it's enough to help protect the front axle. Any idea of the load capacity of the front axle?
I think you should have added rear ballast and showed how that takes weight off the front axles with the same load. This would highlight the importance of rear ballast for not only safety reasons but equipment protection and longevity.
This.
And cover why adding weight in the rear tires doesn’t unload the front axle the way ballast on the 3pt does.
@@lindseygoudge4243 that's interesting. It makes sense that leverage behind the tires has a different effect than the tires themselves.
@@lindseygoudge4243 Thank you for this comment. I was thinking of adding wheel weights to my BX2680 but not only would it be a more permanent install as it would be a pain to try and remove/reinstall them myself....but now after reading your comment I'm glad I haven't rushed into anything, and actually have planned on just building a weight box of some sort that I can hang suitcase weights on, or fill with sand/gravel.
To expand on your post, boltaction, in a very real sense there is a limit to how much you SHOULD pick up and move around with a sub or compact especially.
Its a big safety thing. Those are not very big or heavy machines- but all the laws of physics still apply. Just because it "can" doesnt mean you should.
Best advice: if you really need significantly more loader capacity, you need a bigger, heavier duty tractor. (Thats why there are a dizzying array of different models available) Correctly ballasting your machine shpuld always be a must, as well.
Neil, you had an earlier video where you measured hydraulic pressures in different situations. Along those lines, I worry more when I'm bouncing over my rough field with a bucket full of green firewood. The dynamic loads on both the hydraulics and the front axle must be really high at times. My solution is to slow down, reduce the bouncing, and try not to stress my Kubota LX2610 to its limits. Thanks for your videos.
Great point - what is the shock load capacity for the front axle? We know the load is carried by a center pin, this acts as a pivot point for a point load between the front tires. The leverage pressure must be tremendous while travelling with a FEL bucket full of gravel over rough terrain? (considering the BX23s has a heavy backhoe for ballast)
This would be nice to know. Most dealers don't have a clue until a bunch of warranty claims come in.
I think front axle capacities should be published. As a relatively new tractor owner, and engineer, I think the key to getting the most out of your front end loader while saving your front axle is the addition of ballast weight behind the rear axle.
I think what I’m curious about after reading your comment is how many pounds ballast weight it takes to remove a pound of weight off the front axle.
You say engineer?? weight on the back keeps the vehicle on the ground, the same weight is on the front axle when you lift the 1000 LBS. the front axle is the pivot point.
@@jimputnam2044 Weight behind the rear axle will try to lift the front axle, using the rear axle as the pivot point. Simple physics. Also, many tractor videos describing it.
Neil did a video with pressure pads showing this. Or was it Tim? Maybe both. Regardless. Ballast behind the rear axle is more effective than wheel weights.
@@jagx234 Yes but it does not take weight off the front axle...axle is still the pivot point.
💥 Great topic for a video. This make a lot of sense and is important for so many who want to shim their relief valve. This really emphasizes rear ballast importance. 👍
*Keep on tractoring!*
Really good video to show front axle weights. Seeing as you used the BX23S, could you show how the backhoe installed affects the weight distribution! I leave mine on most of the time for that purpose.
I'm not sure what the weight of the BX backhoe is, but I'd bet it weighs more than my box blade or my roto-tiller...so having the backhoe one while doing loader work would probably be your best ballast option since it sits behind the rear axle...only issue of course would be space limitations but I think you could curl the backhoe in pretty tight and angle it left or right, compared to having a rear implement installed as ballast that can't be moved.
@@wildbill23c The stock backhoe is just over 600lbs I believe. Mine has a quick attach and thumb as well, and it really helps balance the tractor with a full bucket load. My question to Neil is how much it helps to take the weight off of the front axle. Normally, an operator would have an external ballast on the rear when they load up the bucket, so showing the weight without ballast seems a bit unconventional. Neil really does show that a ballast in the rear is required to use the front bucket to it's full potential, but there should be a part 2 showing the safe way to ballast and balance the weight towards the center of the load triangle.
@@brentholmes3339 600lbs yes. About 2 foot behind the pivot pin? So maybe 4 foot behind the rear axle? Whereas weight in the loader bucket is about 10 foot or more in front of the rear axle? So you're offsetting maybe 200-250lbs in the front bucket? Which is some, but not as much as you might hope ultimately.
For me, I consider price, performance and capacity and longevity. With today's pricing, I want a tractor that is going to last a LONG time. Deere has probably the best attachment systems on the market for most attachments, but that is it. The loader is the heart of my tractor, so hydraulic flow and lift capacity is key to me folllowed by drawbar HP. Having said that, I believe manufactures should make a front axle that can handle 2 times more then the loader can lift.
Neil, THANK YOU for this video. It's to the point. Plus, it gets people thinking about these axles. I also appreciate you trying to stay neutral in your comments between JD and Kubota. I highly respect you for putting out good information- while not crossing a line. Oh... FYI I own a 2038R..... Again, Thank you.
What happens to the load on the front axle when there is a 3PH attachment or ballast box on the back? I know when I have my backhoe on, my front end is way more bouncy. I would also never consider loading my bucket to the max without proper ballast on the back for safety reasons. This was a great video, and I look forward to more like it. Thank you.
You won't get much weight in the bucket without any rear ballast on these sub-compact tractors, they don't have enough weight in the ass end to keep them on the ground, and as I found out, even my 300lb tiller on the 3 point ain't enough when doing heavier lifting duties with the pallet forks....although I've found my BX can't lift much at all with the pallet forks I have since they're not for a sub-compact tractor....they're for a compact I believe, so they weight about 80-90 pounds more than the sub-compact version, and the forks are 42" VS 36".
Last summer I bought a new Kubota L4701 with the express purpose of managing large round bales. The tire pressure for the front tires in the manual is 20 psi. The first round bale we lifted (about 1200 lbs) caused the front tires to look flat. We had to increase the tire pressure to manage the load. These heavy loads do put a lot of pressure on the front axles.
So your claim is that John Deere and Kubota designed very popular machines with an axle capacity that is basically maxed out with an empty bucket?
My 20 yr old Cub Cadet 7305 with 1320hrs runs like a champ for mowing. I just bought a L2501DT for the loader and it will last me my lifetime.
Well, I've learned a little bit from reading the comments here. First, it's kind of frightening to see how many people can't spell "axle" correctly. (Kind of like those people who list a "KABOTA for sale" with a picture of a tractor with "KUBOTA" clearly visible on the side of the tractor, or a "John Deer" with a photo of the tractor with "John Deere" in yellow paint clearly visible).🤪 Second, and more to the point, I think it's great that you've done videos like this, to get people to think about those purchases, because apparently not a lot of people do enough to research before making a purchase.
Remember the Deer has a mower deck taking some of the front axle capacity also. As you noted you have no rear end balance, and that's how these companies get away with it. Remember it probably says in the warranty properly weight and balance the product 😊 And that doesn't mean have the wife stand on the drawbar...
Actually I was going to get my husband to act as the counterweight while I worked.
Time to leave the old world behind, girls like tractors too.
Neil, you are so AWESOME at delivering the message where I can understand it. And. . . You know what we are thinking. I was thinking about, “hey why don’t they just beef up the front axle?” And. . . You covered it. Thanks so much for all your videos. I’ve learned so much.
if i had a $1 for the ammount of sub compacts ive seen with snapped axles id have enough to buy a big steak dinner
Neil, How about the kinetic energy generated while driving on bumpy ground? Perhaps, there is a much higher instantaneous force exerted to the front axle hitting a bump or a hole in transit with a full bucket. I always try to keep my bucket as low as I can and dive slowly minding the fact I am not trying to make money and not in a hurry.
For sure there is. That's often what actually causes the failure when it was already stressed without that load.
The user's have changed greatly. People have to know their limitations.
Neil, I grew up in a green dealership and know of many older tractors that are still working great but they are not over building like they did in the 60s and 70s. Everything you mentioned all comes down to profit. Yes the older tractors lasted 50, 60, 70 years with proper maintenance so this affected sales of new equipment. You are correct the throw away world we live in finally reached the tractor market. I have a Kubota B with a pin on front bucket and I am more than happy with the capacity. I know many of these tractors are for work not play like I do but this greed of saving 2 minutes or 1 load will cost the owner more in the long run when they must buy a new tractor in 5 to 10 years. I expect to have this tractor for the rest of my life with proper maintenance and care but you cant hotdog these tractors like you could with the older models.
A heavy counter weight hanging off the back will take some of that load off the front axle. You should always use rear weights to counter the loader load.
Not a complaint, but the position of the load as shown is not the highest load on the axle. At the point where the bucket is about shoulder height is where the extension from the center of gravity is greatest....and the load on the front axle is also the highest. At that position, the front axle load will be about 130% of what you measured on your scales.
Further, static load is one thing, rolling or moving adds even more stress to the axle and bearings, especially on uneven ground.
Your point is well made, however.
But one reason for the lower axle capacities is not just engineering, but cost to the manufacturer.
You're 100% correct. There's a lot of ways I could get much bigger and terrifying numbers, the principal though, doesn't change.
Why would a manufacture have front axels that cant even support the lifting capacity of their own loader???
I wonder the same, but unfortunately it appears that's become the norm.
For what I’ve seen for trucks is that load specs are limited by tires capacity. I’d take a look at the sidewall of those tires and compare the axle rating to the tires load rating.
We had a Case 830 2wd with a loader. Great loader tractor of the time with the hydromatic trans but the front axle was the weak point when it left the chat.
Guess the point is be mindful when carrying the heavy loads in the loader and no bouncy bouncy down the path.
maybe they aren't including the tractor weight already on the axle in the spec
I was thinking the same thing. Even if it the specs are looking at the overall weight on the axle, what about the weight of just the axle by itself. Like he told the load for the loader but did he calculate the weight of the loader itself?
I also wonder if that's how JD does it for the 1025R in the video.
Looking at the rear lift capacity (at 24") and lazily dividing the weight in half for the tractor (it probably weighs a bit more in the back) makes it about right. But if you want the tractor with the cab it adds 200 kg ( 440 lbs). Now there is very little left to use of the three point hitch.
I'm shopping for my first tractor but I wondered about this. Watching videos of newer and older tractors in motion I've seen a number of tractor where the front wheels seemed to move a bit too much. I wondered if it was modern articulating suspensions or if they were cutting corners or designing to narrower tolerances on the smaller machines that are more popular these days.
I've wondered that as I take full buckets of dirt around our farm. Good topic Neil! Tractor Hard! 🚜💪!
When I went to purchase my tractor, I checked the prices for both. Kubota had it 5 years. Interest-free. John deer, when he quoted the price, I told him abt the interest-free at Kubota. He said they had theirs Interest-free also, then he recalculated and the price was higher. So, it wasn't interest free. That's why I went 2 Kubota. And I have it serviced every year and they come and get it for me at no charge.
I'd like to see this added to by having equal rear ballast in each and see what if anything that changes on the weights.
Adding weight to the rear doesn't take any weight OFF of the front. It actually slightly increases the load on the front a minor amount....but it BALANCES the tractor.
@@evracer Wrong. Watch Neil's followup video he posted.
Great stuff. We just invested in a 23s to support our DIY ‘heavy’ landscaping. Our expectations for our machine are more short lived than generational. That said, you got us thinking about how we could extend the life of our machine. Thank you, Neil.
What kind of failure for front axels have you seen? Is aftermarket front axels an option?
I'm interested in the failure mode also. My >guess< is bearings, but I actually have no idea.
You began with talking about the reliability of the old tractors. My dad got his IH dealership in 1937 and being born in 1945, I got to spend a lot of time repairing those Farmall H & M, Cubs, A's, and C's. Then off to a 44 year career and back to farming buying my first tractor, a Kubota L3710. CUT so not in the same class as a mainline farm tractor H or M. I traded it off on a cab L5740 after 12 years with no mechanical problems whereas I had been fast at replacing wheel bearings, transmission bearings, loader cylinder seals, plus welding on the old tractors. Yup, I could keep them going, but compared to my first 2 Kubotas. My L5740 was replaced with a L6060 which was replaced by a M5-111. In addition I have a M7-171 KVT. I especially dread thinking of transmission repair on the M7 KVT but hopefully it is designed for more endurance than a Farmall H or M. Last year I did add an old tractor to my fleet, an Allis-Chalmers D10. less than an hour and it now has a place as yard art. As for axle capacity, yes, the CUTs are not good. However, it was cheap and easy to replace the bearings on my L5740 as they failed. Yes, I used the loader to max capacity a lot so failure was not unexpected as I knew it couldn't handle the load.
I just bought a Kubota MX5400 last Spring and am now concerned about the capabilities and long term durability of the front axle. In my simplistic mind, the cumulative load of the tractor and any potential weight that is added either to the front or rear via attachments should have been the minimum spec for the front and rear axles. Seems unethical to publish loader capacity numbers that far exceed the capacity of the axles. Thank you for sharing this and please keep the informative videos coming. 👍
It's worth noting that if you read the manual it specifies a minimum amount of rear ballast for FEL work, this is a big part of why. Rear ballast can cancel out the weight on the front axle from the FEL to make it safe to get to those capacities. Messick's did a video on it already: ua-cam.com/video/K4pgGJ_Tu9I/v-deo.html
There is a lot of discussion about JD CUT front axle seals leaking. People are selling $100 vent kits to relieve pressure in the front axle. I discussed this with my dealer and was told they believe it is due to overloading the front axle. There is also a lot of discussion about how much ballast is needed.
Hard to design a machine that's small enough to fit in a decent backyard shed, light enough mow the lawn, and strong enough to unload pallets of field stone. Some people really need a compact tractor, a zero-turn, and a fork-lift, often asking the former to be all three.
Front axle capacities should absolutely be openly published. Educating the customer about topics like this will go a long ways towards forcing that kind of transparency in specifications as well. Many of those front axle repairs are due to simple lack of rear ballast.
The axle capacity is the load the axle can carry. That's not what you're measuring. You are measuring the load the axle is carrying plus the weight of the front axle assembly. How much does each front axle/wheels/tires assembly weigh?
Great video ! I think if a tractor owner uses common sense and follows manufacturers instructions, they will be fine ! Problem is, a lot folks seem to push their tractors to their limits disregarding manufacturers instructions ! Have a Blessed Day
Late to the party, but this is such a good video. This stuff should really be published and easily available to consumers.
one question i have, how is axle capacity technically measured? is measuring at the tires an accurate measurement of axle load? I'm wondering if the weight of the axle itself should be subtracted from your measurements? surely the weight of the wheels and tires wouldn't be counted?
It seems strange that anyone would sell something that overloads its axle when empty.
Great video, Neil. This is why I chose the MX 5800. I didn't have specs. to go by but the beefy look of the front axle and width of the tires also they used a cat.2 3-point hitch on the rear end showed me that Kubota designed this model for strength.
This is great advice, shopping by the numbers isn't enough. I see more steel in the fel than the axle on many machines.
I have grand L4060 and the front axle looks like a tree log made of metal its very beefy - I have moved hundreds of thousands of lbs of dirt over the last 80 hours of tractor use and its as tough as anything I have tossed at it.
@@tangoseal1 Good to hear! I love spending time on my Kubota. I believe that Kubota makes some of the finest equipment in the world. Be safe and have fun.
You're right about tractors being a generational investment. There are Farmall M series tractors still in daily use. I bought my JD 770 decades ago. It's reliable as gravity and only needed an upper radiator hose, two light bulbs and scheduled maintenance. It has an all mechanical Diesel engine and except for the fuel shutoff solenoid would be happy to run without and electrical system. Not trading it in on a newer tractor while it still runs.
I bought my Kubota RDT900W in 2004. It's still in almost daily use with 3,200 hours on it. I have upgraded it with the one piece front drive shaft and had one quirky failure of the injection pump, but other than that, it's been as reliable as gravity.
Excellent info. I have a 15 yr old L5740 with 2200 hrs. I use it often and mostly using the front loader with grapple or bucket. Many times I’ve had to switch to 4wd to get traction to move because most weight was on front tires, way too much weight. I do worry that I might damage the front axle, but haven’t so far.
I think you should be able to choose a heavy duty or regular duty axle when picking options for your tractor. Makes a difference what you plan to use your tractor for. Of course, as tight as supplies are now, I doubt you could get what you want anyway.
My comment is about the amazement of 70+ year old tractors that are still working today.
Sure, they were built well. But there is more to it. The rapid growth in the size of farms quickly changed how they were used.
If a farmer bought a Farmall M in 1950, it was probably the big tractor on the farm (36 hp). 8 years later the same farmer might have gotten a 560 (66 hp) and now the M got lighter jobs. The same farmer might have added an 806 (100 hp) 5 years later and the M and the 560 both moved on to lighter work.
This along with simple design and being built well accounts for why so many are still out there.
All I’m gonna say is there are few tractors as tough, powerful (pound for pound) and easy to work on and fix affordably as those like the ford 8N- thousand series tractors and the old Farmalls and Deeres. Everything now is electronic this and that, the shifter linkages are vague, the operating stations seem “squished” and smaller. Not to mention a billion hydraulic lines. Granted, you can’t put a backhoe on an 8N like these, but there is something to be said about the old school durability of the old irons, pulling discs, plows, drags, planters and mowers and pulling forage wagons….these tractors will run long after the clutch and brake pedals are shined up smooth from years of operating.
Two words: survivorship bias!
How many 30-40 year old tractors where made, and how many are still in use in a production environment are critical questions to ask before saying that they were built so much better back in the 'good old days.' The follow up question is can you do the same amount of work as quickly and easily with 40 year old tech as you can with modern tech. There is no doubt that there is less over engineering in machinery today, which may cause very long term longevity issues; but that doesn't make it worse than Grampa's Ford 8N that chugs along at a pedestrian pace and requires much more finite control than modern tractors.
Don’t forget, this is strictly a “static” test. You’re not bumping across a field, which lute even more strain on everything. Putting a max. Capacity load in the bucket, and on the front end as well under field conditions. Whole ‘nother situation….
Something to consider is that engineers will usually over-build a system to withstand forces far in excess of the specified requirements. I guess they know how much abuse we users are capable of dishing out! As a result, published engineering specs are almost always very conservative, sometimes by as much as 50% or even less than any possible failure mode. Of course, the manufacturers will never say that...they prefer to minimize the potential for warrantee claims.
Good information, but you are comparing apples to oranges to begin with...there is no mower on the Kubota. Some of the mower weight will certainly be carried by the front axle which is going to skew your starting numbers. While I occasionally complain that my BX2350 hydraulics are weak, I can consistently overload the bucket with regards to the capability of the rest of the tractor; meaning stability on slopes or the rear end being way too light to safely carry the rated load.
I have always thought the little front tires on my BX23S would fail before the front axle so I have not been concerned that I would have an expensive front axle repair! I have owned and operated a BX24 for over13 years virtually trouble free and recently upgraded to a BX23S and fully expect it to serve me trouble free for many years to come with proper care and maintenance. I would say operator error and not fully understanding proper operating techniques would cause premature equipment failure no matter what tractor you use!!!
I have an RK 55 (TYM) hydrostatic with 6’ Bucket w/6’ Bexpanded tooth bar, & fear nothing!
This is why when I am asked for my opinion I will always tell someone to find the best tractor for your application and then purchase the next larger tractor size overall!!!!!!
Very informative, I have a bx 24 since 2009 and it’s still running great, the plan was to keep it for a very long time.
And you will indeed keep it a long time. Kubotas are built very good in my opinion.
This seems similar to 1/2 ton pickups on the ever increasing tow capacity, but static payload capacity. It's an accident waiting to happen.😢😵
Great video. Just hoping that my bx25d last me the rest of my life. So like 20-30 years. 😂
Great video Neil. Safety is of my utmost concern when using my loader or forks. Published capacities are very helpful, if the consumer understands what they are reading and how to interpret it. My BX23s behaves very differently and can handle 200lbs of material in the bucket, than it does with 200lbs of honey supers on a pallet with the forks on (I keep the backhoe on for such tasks as ballast). The difference is the distance of the weight distribution from the font axle - makes a huge difference, so it is a "reduce the load, slow down and take it easy approach" to all things when using the forks. I also have been impressed with the quality of my purchase - hI am thinking that with proper care it will last like the Farmall A my in laws had on their farm until they retired.
That model Deere is a pile Always something leaking with the hydraulics and transmission or the cracked valve cover from the air filter bracket being mounted to it and sucking dirt in the engine
Remove the Weight of the Wheels & tires for a true weight of the Axle Assy. other than the load rating of the Tires, the load rating stops at the Bearings of the Axle.
Do You have a link to the Scale set up ?
Mike M.
Thank you for this video. I will think of it every time I try to fully fill my bucket. Maybe I can pour a little out to be lighter and safer. Thanks again.keep it up.
Im a little confused… when you checked the beginning weights and were saying that they were basically already at the capacity of the front axel, you have to remember that was including the weight of the axel itself as well as the wheels and tires that the axel was setting on. so if you subtract that then the weight actually setting on the axel itself is lower.
That is a great point. The front axle though with the wheels weighs maybe only 200lbs I'm guessing?
I asked for some clarification on my methods here from some internal folks and no one corrected my findings.
I really struggled with this when deciding between an Lx 2610 and an L2501. Ultimately I chose the compactness of the Lx.
I think that all tractor manufacturers should have the loders cupsutae be good 600 ponds below the full axial lode just in case
The John Deere “axle capacity” rating is not the maximum weight the axle can handle. It is a “constant use” axle rating.
Great video and good information! Interesting to think about. These are a lot of money and we hope they last a long time!
It would be interesting if you did the same experiment with ballast weight which I think is specified as required for loader work.
I agree, with everything I've got with my BX2680, it was almost $26,000...I'd sure hope it lasts longer than the warranty period by a few dozen years.
Neil covers ballast in the following video:
ua-cam.com/video/K4pgGJ_Tu9I/v-deo.html
I know there is always told in john deere manuals, when using the front end loader with a full bucket, never exeed 5mph. My dad ran 2 john deere utility tractors with loaders and pushed them to the limit quite often. the first one did almost 20000 hours, without any problems of the zf front axle. The tractor he runs now has 14000 hours in 8 years and also this jd front axle never failed. So i think the dinamic load at full transport speed is at the rated load (heat build up in bearings) but with slow driving, you have less heat and less bouncing, so less dinamic stress on the axle. When you use your mind when operate a loader at a proper brand tractor, i dont think you got problems normaly
So let me get this straight. You are saying that the manufacturer is building a front axel that is already at capacity before the bucket is even loaded?
I. Certainly don't miss driving a tricycle tractor with a dangerous belt drive on the side.
Great video. Very informative and thought provoking. Thanks for making this video!
Great information. Have you sold the JG yet if not let me know? Looking for a used tractor.
Awesome as always.
My concern is the tiny tiny tires.
I have rented the BX tractor and I've had problems with the tires not holding up.
The same is true with the John Deere. Why are larger tires not offered?
Likely to keep both size and cost down. The small size, low height, and low weight are big selling points for models like those shown here. They make larger size models for those with heavier duty needs.
They don’t make it like they used too they just make them better now this is especially true with vehicles they last way longer then they used too
Great video. One item I think you missed is that more and more people are wanting skid/pay loader performance at a tractor price. The fact is these are Tractors with a loader attachment bolted on. I think it would be great to compare the front axels of say a MX series vs a R430.
Very good point. Theyre very different animals. I think Neil could get an entire video.out of that discussion.
They arent cranes, either!
Well should have took the mower off the John deer. Lol now is there load rating from what can be add on top of the tractor?
Shows me the importance of not being able to have one machine for all tasks which seems to be the push.
Great video.
Why dont tractor have suspension? Every other vehicle does
Wut? The front axle doesn’t see the entire weight of the tractor
The more weight you put behind the rear axle, the more you take off the front axle.
Yes, but the amount required to correct it would put the rear axle way over capacity.
@@MessicksEquip That would depend on the tractor.. Most rear axles can take 2 - 3 times the weight of the front axle.
@@bradjenkins932 specs are published for these two tractors, it's only about 25% more.
@@neilmessick2043 Wow, that's pretty low.. They must have aluminum housings.
TAKE THE SCALES OUT FROM UNDER THE REAR WHEELS!!!!!! you're doing nothing more than weighing the whole machine.
Our scales provide us with a measurement for each individual scale, we can then add the two front scales together to get the values used.
Generational equipment? Those are toys.
Fascinating video Neil 👍👍
Imagine having a load cell in the pivot pin of the front axle stopping the user from overloading the machine.
Imagine when it fails and you can't get a replacement part :)
@@JCWren Imagine when your front axle fails and the factory won't honor the warrantee because it has an FEL.
One of the reasons I chose my standard L series was how beefy the front axel is, I remember Neil saying Kubota matched the axel to the loader capacity
I watch a lot of firewood guy videos, and it always makes me wince when i see what some guys are trying to lift or pull with sub/compact tractors.
Some of them really need a utility tractor, not a compact... (before they kill themselves) . Some of the small frame utilities are very agile, and can fit in most places you want to go- theyre also WAY beefier, and have beefier loaders and hydraulics. All in all, id much rather be using one of them to pick up big hardwood logs, snake them out of the woods, etc.
Read your owners manual and info on ballast to rear.
I'm confused by Neil's argument. If the JD and Kubota are regularly weighing more than double the published axle capacity and there isn't some large number of owners with broken axles that leads me to conclude that the JD and Kubota numbers are wrong. Maybe the other brands that you feel are claiming too high numbers are more accurate?
Axles don't break, seal and bearing issues though do happen. One thing I was trying to do without being sleazy was to point out that Kioti, Mahindra and company are pushing the safety factor way beyond Kubota and Deere. I think orange and green probably stike a good balance between capacity and durability. Other companies are pushing that boundary, that's when tractors become disposable.
@@MessicksEquipwe just picked out a BX23S, waiting for the 3rd function switch to be installed to go with the grappler.
While looking at different brands, and dealers I found that the companies you mentioned were very difficult to get information, and calling numbers on the Internet / talking to website chats they wanted my name and email before even saying hello. It felt sleazy and my search moved on quickly.
I know we’re buying a smaller tractor, JD barely gave us time of day when we visited, but Kubota listened to what we wanted, what we needed and quickly took us out to the yard to take a look. Now, that could be the difference in dealerships, one out in a farming community and the other in Tucson, but we’re happy and anxiously awaiting our delivery.
Does rear ballast counteract some of the weight on the front?
would like to know this too
It does. Every one of these small tractors should be doing loader work with some type of rear ballast. Whether it's a ballast box or an implement.
@@windzer No, it doesn't. Or at the very least not really. The weight on the front axle is still the same when you max out the lifting specs of the loader whether you have a rear counterweight or not. The big difference is that with a rear counterweight you will keep the rear axle planted a little better which mean better stability. This is why most large front end loaders are designed and built to have the rear end up in the air before the loader hits its max lifting capacity, it adds a layer of safety and redundancy. If you can't drive it around you wont lift it even if the loader can physically lift it.
@@adamliske This is completely wrong. When you hang weight off the back of the machine it makes the front axle light. Load and balance calculations are your friend.
@@timcartwright4679 Saved me typing that. Anything behind the rear axle takes away from the front axle load. Its a teetertotter.
Another reason why you should use a ballast box
Wiat until Neil finds out about Hydrosplus, adding 33% more lift to a BX loader a foot higher in the air. Probably gonna see some snapped axles then…
Saw it. Just so people know what they are getting into.
So can anyone tell me if this trend of front axels not meeting the the loader capacity follows suit all the way through the tractor lineup?
Does my B2650's loader push it's front axel capacity even more past it's rated cap?
Or...does the gap start narrowing as you go up in tractor size?
I would suspect the gap narrows as you go up in size.
Always appreciate your fairness
I feel like the "smaller" tractor brands always will out lift deere and kubota to market their tractor as more "capable" tractors. People just don't want to face the fact that they may need a bigger tractor then they want because of price.
Some of us need the smaller tractor to get us in tighter spaces. Bigger isn’t always better.
Neil, it would be interesting to demonstrate how the axle loads changes as you pick up a load. The front axle should spike as you lift the load off the ground then drop, then slowly increase as you reach mid lift then drop as you get to full height. The rear axle should do the opposite. The specs on loaders usually give capacity at full height, but that isn't the worst case. Maybe this would people visualize the physics of what is happening.
I would be interested in seeing this. I think your logic is sound, but how much difference does load distance from the front axle actually make?
@@phild9813 if you are operating at the specified capacity of your loader, it may be more significant than you realize. I think that was the point of this video. But he was showing just one case. It may not be the worst case when it comes to front axle loading.
Neil, Would Ballast on the rear would help the front axle weights as it is not lifting the back of the tractor and adding that weight to the front?
Seems like a good topic for a follow up video. Yes, it will help. It won't bring things into balance though.
I agree with a lot of the comments, put a 500 pound piece of equipment on the 3 point hitch and see if that changes the amount of weight on the front axil.
coming shortly :-).
If I’m laying out the money, I want a tractor to last me a lifetime or beyond with little trouble. I currently run a late series Ford 1700 4wd tractor with Ford 770 loader that my grandfather bought new in 1982. I know that early 4wd 1700s with loaders had front axle issues. So far my axle is ok, but I’m working on the kingpin dust seals now and discovered a totally shredded thrust bearing and shot kingpin bushings on one side in the process. Understandably those things don’t last forever given the loads they experience, but you never want to see an axle breaking!
I do still smile at the bloopers lol
I want my tractor to last 40+ years. My dad bought a brand new 1973 Ford 3000 back in 1973. I mowed with it last weekend. I want my next tractor to get passed down to my kids / grandkids. Build them to last.
Good information, I would have to agree with also following this video up with one showing the rear ballasting and weight distribution off of the front axle. Another good spin off of this video would be to compare the kubota farm tractor models example l30 whatever..., to the true kubota backhoe models l35/47whatever,... and see if the front axles are the same or built stronger on the actual backhoe models....you got a couple of good rabbit holes to go down with this viedo here, thanks' for making it!
Great video. Im curious if different amounts of ballast lifts some of the weight off the front end? I have a BX23s love it. I also have a older B7200 HST great machine as well as a Ford 9N still able to get up and work. Lets hope the Kubotas make it to be that age. I wont be around but somebody will be happy to have them.
It's called ballast for a reason. It BALANCES the tractor. In no matter of physics does it take weight OFF of the front. Adding total weight to the tractor by adding ballast technically increases the front weight by a minor amount.
@@evracer I understand your reply and it does make sense. I still feel that the see saw puts the little kid in the air while the big kid is on the ground. Im trying to figure why my truck gets much easier to steer the more wood I load in the back. When Im actually putting more weight on the front axle??? I would like to understand it a little better. Thanks
@@evracer Also wrong. Again, watch Neil's followup video.
As I understand things the front axle capacity is somewhat higher when using rear ballast and rated to be considerably higher in "restricted operation" (ie: low speed, ~ 5mph). I know that Case publishes these numbers for its tractors, does Deere or Kubota do the same?
Believe it or not that's why I decided on an older b7100d with a pin on loader.
Simplicity and serviceability. Granted until I saw my tractor I was ready to buy a new 18hp Kubota. What swayed our decision was plastic vs steel. And yes Messick's does actually still carries parts for my 1979 machine. Wonder what front axle weight is for mine? Not really worried it's a tool.
Remember....
You can use a framing hammer to dig a hole ... But is it the right tool for the task at hand?🤔
Thank you for an excellent explanation. Reason I bought the LS MT342 was its lift capacity. I put 1100 lbs in the rear tires and add a 700 pound implement on 3 pt so I can pick up large boulders and move around trees that have fallen on the property. Hopefully it's enough to help protect the front axle. Any idea of the load capacity of the front axle?