Are wheel weights necessary for “typical” work?

[WigglyPiggly]

I have an MX6000 with R14 tires set to 70.5” width that are filled with Rimguard.

Would 2 sets of wheel weights per side (420lbs total) make a substantial difference in operation for loader and grapple work?

 

[85Hokie]

The real answer .......... yes there WILL be a difference ............. BUT the ease of placement on and off will be a real PITA.

I ballast box will do the same and do it better!!! Why - because now you are way behind the pivot point of the tractor, every inch you move reward you gain a tremendous mechanical advantage!

And taking the BB off is a lot easier too!

 

[SDT]

I have an MX6000 with R14 tires set to 70.5” width that are filled with Rimguard.

Would 2 sets of wheel weights per side (420lbs total) make a substantial difference in operation for loader and grapple work?

Considering the Rimguard, you will likely not notice an additional 420 Lbs. of cast weight.

A counterweight would be much more effective.

 

[windy city]

I also have an MX6000 with filled tires. When attempting to pick something over capacity the hydraulics for the loader limit out long before I see counterbalance issues.

 

[WigglyPiggly]

Considering the Rimguard, you will likely not notice an additional 420 Lbs. of cast weight.

A counterweight would be much more effective.

I have a 1400lb ballast box I use when needed. This is more for everyday tasks when I have have another implement on the 3pt.

 

[rc51stierhoff]

I have an MX6000 with R14 tires set to 70.5” width that are filled with Rimguard.

Would 2 sets of wheel weights per side (420lbs total) make a substantial difference in operation for loader and grapple work?

Good day.

What’s your ‘typical’?

I think ‘typical work’ is different for each user. How much lifting? How high? In smooth flat paved surface or off paved surface? Flat? Worried about potential holes, ruts, roots that change COG in pasture/woods or anything? IMO all those things matter. But I think everyone situation a little different too. If trying to lift close to loader limit off a deck over trailer, maybe you want more weight?

I am using weights and rimguard and feel more comfortable with ballast (implement, ballast box or BH) on the back if lifting much over 1200ish lbs. BH92 is the way to go with ballast off the back…it feels really planted then.

Ballast is important enough that there is a section in the tractor manual about it.

Go as slow as possible and fast as necessary. Keep the load as low as possible….and keep the rubber side down.

 

[TheOldHokie]

I have an MX6000 with R14 tires set to 70.5” width that are filled with Rimguard.

Would 2 sets of wheel weights per side (420lbs total) make a substantial difference in operation for loader and grapple work?

Short answer is yes. The liquid ballast alone is a start but not sufficient for a lot of (most???) loader work.

Dan

 

[NCL4701]

I have a 1400lb ballast box I use when needed. This is more for everyday tasks when I have have another implement on the 3pt.

You’re the best person to answer your own question based on the actual performance of your tractor.

While you’re doing “everyday tasks”:

• Does the back end lift off the ground?
• Does the back end get light such that lack of traction is a problem?
• Is it unstable on the ground where you need to use it?
• Is lack of traction causing problems completing “everyday tasks”?
  • Most modern tractors run out of traction before running out of torque so the question isn’t “can it break traction”, “is available traction sufficient for what you do with it”?

If the answer to any of the above is yes, then adding the wheel weights may be worth it. If not, adding wheel weights is likely solving a problem you don’t have.

 

[WigglyPiggly]

You’re the best person to answer your own question based on the actual performance of your tractor.

While you’re doing “everyday tasks”:

• Does the back end lift off the ground?
• Does the back end get light such that lack of traction is a problem?
• Is it unstable on the ground where you need to use it?
• Is lack of traction causing problems completing “everyday tasks”?
  • Most modern tractors run out of traction before running out of torque so the question isn’t “can it break traction”, “is available traction sufficient for what you do with it”?

If the answer to any of the above is yes, then adding the wheel weights may be worth it. If not, adding wheel weights is likely solving a problem you don’t have.

I understand that. I would prefer to not spend an extra $1200 if the performance gain is minimal based on other people’s experiences

 

[SRRGC1]

Rear ballast is always a must have with loader work. 3-pt is usually better because it can be removed when not needed. This can be a ballast box, rear implement, etc.. Wheel weights are normally left on.

 

[SDT]

I understand that. I would prefer to not spend an extra $1200 if the performance gain is minimal based on other people’s experiences

Been doing such things for decades, and your $1,200 will be much better spent toward a counterweight, e.g., ballast box, etc.

 

[RCW]

I’m not sure you would see a huge difference.

You also have the 1,400# ballast box and other implements to put on the 3PH already.

I’d probably not spend the $1,200 and just plan on carrying something on the back.

 

[mcmxi]

I have a 1400lb ballast box I use when needed. This is more for everyday tasks when I have have another implement on the 3pt.

I have filled tires and three sets of wheel weights on my MX6000 all the time. I typically have a flail mower on the rear all summer and a snow blower all winter. I've never found a need for a ballast box since when one implement is removed another is added.

The combination of wheel weights and liquid ballast helps with traction, and the tractor with the wheels at the second widest setting is very stable.

 

[Henro]

Something that I don't think has been mentioned is that another positive of weight behind the rear axle is that it takes load off the front axle.

In theory, this should be a positive and perhaps increase the longevity of the front axle before problems possibly arise. Significant or not, I don't know.

 

[TheOldHokie]

Something that I don't think has been mentioned is that another positive of weight behind the rear axle is that it takes load off the front axle.

In theory, this should be a positive and perhaps increase the longevity of the front axle before problems possibly arise. Significant or not, I don't know.

Of course that front axle load plus the ballast is added to the rear axle load. In theory this is a bad thing and should shorten rear axle life.

Wheel weights add ballast without increasing axle load. In theory this is a good thing.

My alloted time is up Bill - your turn to stir the pot again.

Dan

 

[Henro]

Of course that front axle load plus the ballast is added to the rear axle load. In theory this is a bad thing and should shorten rear axle life.

Wheel weights add ballast without increasing axle load. In theory this is a good thing.

My alloted time is up Bill - your turn to stir the pot again.

Dan

The pot is something I haven't dealt with in probably 50 years!

Even back then, I don't recall stirring it though…

 

[jimh406]

Most rear implements weigh something. I don't think you need the weights.

 

[notaz3]

I've run my L3560 for over 150 hours with out rear weight or anything in the tyers, nothing but a box blade. Did over 80 hours of loader work. Lifted many pallets, even attempted to lift weight beyond the hydraulics capacity.
Never had the rear wheels come off the ground, never had any stability issues, also have proper tyer slippage of around 12%.