New small tractor

Iloverain

Thinking of buying a new small tractor for handy jobs around the yard. What would be the smallest one that would be able to handle a silage bale? Have a 100hp tractor already but would like something a handier size for smaller jobs.

anthony500_1

I would say 60hp min if looking to lift a silage bale but that won't be a super steady size tractor at bales and would be hard on a tractor of that size. But would be capable of lifting bales in my opinion

emaherx

anthony500_1 wrote: »

I would say 60hp min if looking to lift a silage bale but that won't be a super steady size tractor at bales and would be hard on a tractor of that size. But would be capable of lifting bales in my opinion

Wouldn't base ability to lift bales entirely on engine size. For example an MF 360 is 60HP but is basically a turbo charged 135. An MF365 is 65hp and more than capable of lifting silage bales on either front loader or rear linkage. An MF390T is 93HP but is basically the same tractor as the 365 only with bigger wheels and a turbo.

jimmy G M

When you say new... I presume you mean second hand but new to you ?

SuperTortoise

Look at the rated lift capacity of the tractor you're interested in, quick google should show it.
A wet fusion bale plus bale carrier would be getting on for a ton in weight.

hopeso

The way bales are going, your current 100hp tractor (assuming it's a 4 cylinder) is about the minimum to be on the safe side. Modern balers and damp grass means big weight.

Donald Trump

Wouldn't be bothering a 60 hp tractor anywhere near a bale of silage if you have a 100hp one knocking around. 20 years ago maybe but not these days with chopped and packed bales. Maybe with a bale lifter on the back if you were stuck, but you aren't stuck given the 100hp one. Of course, it's the size of the machine rather than engine size but you're generally going to have a fair difference between any 60Hp and a 100Hp tractor. (Different if you are talking about a JCB or other machine vs a tractor)

emaherx wrote: »

Wouldn't base ability to lift bales entirely on engine size. For example an MF 360 is 60HP but is basically a turbo charged 135. An MF365 is 65hp and more than capable of lifting silage bales on either front loader or rear linkage. An MF390T is 93HP but is basically the same tractor as the 365 only with bigger wheels and a turbo.

Ah, there's a fair difference now in size between a 365 and a 390T. I'd be fierce nervous carrying a heavy bale of silage on a loader on a 365. We had a similar sized yoke back in the day when first dealing with bales of silage and it used to manage ok, but I couldn't imagine going back to it now. Maybe that's just getting too used to handier comforts!


Edit: I googled specs for 390T vs 365 and it told me 365 was heavier. Something wrong there I think! Either my memory is completely messed up or else the website I found was wrong. I am thinking the latter. 365 is a great small tractor though if you can pick one up!

49801

Must it be a tractor or would you think about a skid steer, telehandler or artic steer handler

_Brian

We have front loader on a DB 996. Handles bales on front loader no problem.

All winter I had bale spike on back and lifting a bale on the back to balance lifting bale on loader rather than fit concrete weight. So she was handling 2 bales all the time.

I think it’s 65 hp and manages with ease. I’d expect more modern similar hp tractor should do likewise.

Donald Trump

Here's a fella moving a wrapped bale with 2 "Hp" :pac:

emaherx

Donald Trump wrote: »

Wouldn't be bothering a 60 hp tractor anywhere near a bale of silage if you have a 100hp one knocking around. 20 years ago maybe but not these days with chopped and packed bales. Maybe with a bale lifter on the back if you were stuck, but you aren't stuck given the 100hp one. Of course, it's the size of the machine rather than engine size but you're generally going to have a fair difference between any 60Hp and a 100Hp tractor. (Different if you are talking about a JCB or other machine vs a tractor)






Ah, there's a fair difference now in size between a 365 and a 390T. I'd be fierce nervous carrying a heavy bale of silage on a loader on a 365. We had a similar sized yoke back in the day when first dealing with bales of silage and it used to manage ok, but I couldn't imagine going back to it now. Maybe that's just getting too used to handier comforts!


Edit: I googled specs for 390T vs 365 and it told me 365 was heavier. Something wrong there I think! Either my memory is completely messed up or else the website I found was wrong. I am thinking the latter. 365 is a great small tractor though if you can pick one up!

I have a 365 and a 390T they are almost identical except small wheels on 365, they even have the same engine except one is turbo version. You may be thinking of a 362.

Both the 365 and 390T here have loaders and both are capable of handling silage bales.

Anyway my point is engine HP has little to do with lift capacity. There is also a 3CX here with the same Perkins engine and it will lift far more than either of the tractors.

_Brian

There’s allot in how a tractor is driven handling bales or indeed any work.

Lads need to understand the extra loading and work accordingly. You’ll manage with smaller equipment if your more careful.

twin_beacon

Iloverain wrote: »

Thinking of buying a new small tractor for handy jobs around the yard. What would be the smallest one that would be able to handle a silage bale? Have a 100hp tractor already but would like something a handier size for smaller jobs.

It depends on the jobs you need done. I wouldn't limit your search to a second tractor if its just for yard work, a small loading shovel or telehandler may do the job.

Donald Trump

emaherx wrote: »

I have a 365 and a 390T they are almost identical except small wheels on 365, they even have the same engine except one is turbo version. You may be thinking of a 362.

Both the 365 and 390T here have loaders and both are capable of handling silage bales.

Anyway my point is engine HP has little to do with lift capacity. There is also a 3CX here with the same Perkins engine and it will lift far more than either of the tractors.

Well you would know for definite as you have both. (There was also a 390 which I was sure was the non-turbo version of 390T.)


We had a 365 here. When I was younger, I did a bit of work for a fella with a 390T and it might just have been me misremembering that it seemed bigger in comparison. Low profile cab vs high profile might have contributed to that as well.

Iloverain

Was thinking alright that the bales would be too heavy for a smaller tractor. We have a front loader on the bigger tractor so no real need for the loader. was thinking a small one would be handy for spreading fert, topping spraying and getting into clean a few low sheds. Was looking into a quad but taught a small tractor would be better as already have the implements to go on one.

emaherx

Donald Trump wrote: »

Well you would know for definite as you have both. (There was also a 390 which I was sure was the non-turbo version of 390T.)


We had a 365 here. When I was younger, I did a bit of work for a fella with a 390T and it might just have been me misremembering that it seemed bigger in comparison. Low profile cab vs high profile might have contributed to that as well.

390 is same tractor but slightly bigger engine, so more HP than 365 but less than 390T.

Small wheels and low profile cab can make 365 look small.

Didn't mean to start a full comparison of MF300 series, just not all 60/70HP tractors are equal, newer turbo and even more modern common rail engines can make a light powerful tractor that might not be suitable for handling bales.

joe35

For loader work has anyone seen the EVERUN loading shovel. Will lift 1.6t, 16500euro for a new one (done deal). If you had this for your loading work and no loader on your tractor.

emaherx

joe35 wrote: »

For loader work has anyone seen the EVERUN loading shovel. Will lift 1.6t, 16500euro for a new one (done deal). If you had this for your loading work and no loader on your tractor.

The BIL has one, it's slow noisy and a bit gutless.
It's ok as a yard machine, but wouldn't be any use for anything else.