Selecting a box blade for a subcompact

[ejb11235]

Looks like a good one!

I sure hope so! I still have to pick it up, but it's paid for.

This was the first 3pt implement I've bought for my tractor. The 3pt hitch kit is sitting in my living room. The telescoping stabilizer bars are supposed to arrive tomorrow. Then I do the 50 hour service, take the backhoe off, and mount the 3PH and the box and see how it all works. I'll make sure to bring a magnetic level.

 

[BetterThanAShovel]

Enjoy yourself! I had the exact same scenario a couple weeks ago: First time taking off the hoe, put on 3pt hitch arms, attach box blade. I'll be honest, when I raised it off the ground, I felt like I REALLY had a tractor then. I was kinda giggly for a little bit, driving around. Thankfully no one was around to notice.

 

[ejb11235]

Enjoy yourself! I had the exact same scenario a couple weeks ago: First time taking off the hoe, put on 3pt hitch arms, attach box blade. I'll be honest, when I raised it off the ground, I felt like I REALLY had a tractor then. I was kinda giggly for a little bit, driving around. Thankfully no one was around to notice.

Thanks. Oh yeah, I read your posts on your thread very very carefully. I started looking into the Bobcat boxes to see if I could find one locally to take a look at, but I guess this morning it was time to check out the Braber and see if it fit the bill, which it did. The Bobcat BB sure is a nice looking unit...a little beefier around the 3PH mount than the Braber. lol

I hope I maintain the ability to be giggly until the day I die.

--eric

 

[Dcguinn]

I have a BX23S and am starting the process of finding a box blade for it. Yesterday I spent a considerable amount of time (as in, up until 4AM) researching the design & specs on a bunch of different makes and models and compiling the results. My process is to learn as much as I can so when I finally make the purchase decision, I'll know what I bought, why I bought it, and what compromises I made.

I've identified what I think are some key design/construction differences. I'm curious if anybody has thoughts about these, or some aspect I have missed.

I live in the Pacific Northwest, so that seems to put me at a disadvantage, since most manufacturers seem to be on the east side of the country. Although I have some local options, there are a couple of units I'm interested that would have to be shipped, and I haven't yet investigated the shipping costs.

But first, I'm trying to identify the characteristics that will allow me to build my short list of candidates.

Overall weight & weight per foot
Of all the items listed here, this is the one where my lack of experience really limits my analysis. The overall weight affects the tractor's ability to lift it. It also affects the tractor's ability to drag it when the box is full of material. The BX23S specs indicate a 24" behind pin capacity of 680 pounds. While this is a couple of hundred pounds above the heaviest box I'm looking at, I don't want to have to run the engine wide open in order to lift the box. I assume that weight per foot affects the box's ability to keep the scarifiers in the ground. The guy from Everything Attachments says it this way: "This is weighing about 65 pounds per foot. And on a BX tractor, that's all it needs. You've got a 600, 700 pound lift. You've got a 260 pound box blade. That still gives you 400, 500 pounds to work with, and you've going to have that much dirt in here when you're done."

Width & Volume
A 5' box seems like it would get jobs done faster than a 4' provided the tractor can pull it. Plus, it seems like it would be good to have a box that's wider than the tractor's wheels for working on driveways. But I am aware that the overall volume is potentially a limiting factor if the box can carry so much material that the tractor can't pull it.

Stoutness of construction

• Side panel thicknesses range from .179" to 1/4 to 5/16 to 3/8.
• mast design & attachment: A-frame vs plate (not sure what the term is). I'm not really concerned about this, but there are some boxes where the mast only connects to the shank bar. This seems like a weak design. Most boxes also have connections to or near the back of the box
• clevis vs pin: a clevis design seems like it would provide better longevity by eliminating a flex point. The pin design seems like a real weak point for an implement that is dragging dirt
• type of steel: this seems like something to be aware of but not something that will drive my decision

Curved/formed moldboard
Several manufacturers touted their curved or formed moldboard and claim that it helps material stay moving in the box and reduces friction, which would be a good thing for a smaller tractor. I have no experience so I have no way to evaluate this claim.

Shanks

• # of shanks: More seems better but again, I have no experience so I can't evaluate the importance of this. There are some 4' wide boxes with only 3 shanks, and there are some 5' boxes with 4 shanks (instead of 5).
• Pin vs clip: I am almost deadset against buying a box that uses clips, but I know that the clips can be replaced with rods.
• Country of origin: some manufacturers tout that their shanks are not sourced from China
• Replaceable tips: shanks don't seem all that expensive so I'm not sure it matters that much

3pt hitch

• Category: Some of the boxes have a Cat 1 pin on a Cat 0 spacing. I don't think I like that.
• Mast height (upper linch pin): I don't know if this varies and if it's an issue
• Quick hitch compatibility: This seems like a good thing to have just because it gives me options in the future

I have a bx2380, one year new to tractors. I got a 48” tiller less than 400# and am happy with it. My rule now is to go with the lightest implements so the small tractor has a chance. Easy to add weight, not so much if you are overloaded. I got a set of 306# forks; I made a set of 100# forks from a skid plate and bale spears. Guess what; I can lift 200 more pounds. Weight is my first attachment consideration By a long shot.

 

[ejb11235]

I have a bx2380, one year new to tractors. I got a 48” tiller less than 400# and am happy with it. My rule now is to go with the lightest implements so the small tractor has a chance. Easy to add weight, not so much if you are overloaded. I got a set of 306# forks; I made a set of 100# forks from a skid plate and bale spears. Guess what; I can lift 200 more pounds. Weight is my first attachment consideration By a long shot.

I ended up buying a 4' box blade that weighs in at 368 pounds, which is a good bit heavier 290 pounds, which is what typical box blades weigh that are explicitly rated (by the manufacturer) for sub-compacts. I haven't used it yet, so I'm a little nervous, but I did go with the 4' instead of a 5' to keep the load on the tractor down. The last thing I want is a box blade I can't use without a lot of trouble, and I suspect that the width is at least as important, if not more important, than the static weight of the box. Hopefully I made a good decision.

Funny you should mention forks. I was looking at some that were SSQA compatible, but they were for skid steers not sub-compact tractors...3,000 pound capacity and the weight to go with it. But it got me thinking. This is where implement weight is a no-wiggle zero-sum game ... as you implied, every pound the forks weigh is one less pound of payload capacity.

 

[OrangeKrush]

I ended up buying a 4' box blade that weighs in at 368 pounds, which is a good bit heavier 290 pounds, which is what typical box blades weigh that are explicitly rated (by the manufacturer) for sub-compacts. I haven't used it yet, so I'm a little nervous, but I did go with the 4' instead of a 5' to keep the load on the tractor down. The last thing I want is a box blade I can't use without a lot of trouble, and I suspect that the width is at least as important, if not more important, than the static weight of the box. Hopefully I made a good decision.

Funny you should mention forks. I was looking at some that were SSQA compatible, but they were for skid steers not sub-compact tractors...3,000 pound capacity and the weight to go with it. But it got me thinking. This is where implement weight is a no-wiggle zero-sum game ... as you implied, every pound the forks weigh is one less pound of payload capacity.

I have the PLF1242 LP forks 220lbs and rated for 1200lb, I'm very happy with them.

 

[B737]

On SUT every pound your fork weighs is one less pound you can carry.

I bought my forks from Earth & Turf Attachments in New Holland PA, they are 36", rated for ~1500 pounds, and weigh about 100 pounds, SSQA ~$500. Won't find a lighter set, even though Artillian falsely claims theirs are the lightest, they arent, their frame alone weighs 100 pounds.

this oven weighed nearly 900 pounds. If I had a set of 200 pound forks I wouldnt have been able to lift it with B2601

 

[Vigo]

Back from a 2wk break from the internet, this thread was still open on my computer.

I suspect that the width is at least as important, if not more important, than the static weight of the box

It's sort of a ratio. The more blade width you are engaging to the ground, the more weight you need to make it work. So a heavier, narrower blade is going to work much better when cutting with the blade, than a wider AND lighter unit.

I too am building a fork attachment for my tiny tractor with an emphasis on minimal weight.

Congrats on the purchase!

 

[ejb11235]

Back from a 2wk break from the internet, this thread was still open on my computer.



It's sort of a ratio. The more blade width you are engaging to the ground, the more weight you need to make it work. So a heavier, narrower blade is going to work much better when cutting with the blade, than a wider AND lighter unit.

I too am building a fork attachment for my tiny tractor with an emphasis on minimal weight.

Congrats on the purchase!

Thanks! I've gotten a chance to use the box blade a little bit, and I like it. I am definitely glad I got the four foot one. The tractor does well with it, but occasionally, with the scarifiers all the way down or the box full, I can tell it's working. Interestingly, I'm starting to think about a rock rake, and for that I'm thinking of getting a five footer or maybe even a six footer ... I can always remove some of the tines if needed for the conditions ... remove tines for raw land clearing, keep the full complement of tines for finishing gravel driveways.

 

[ejb11235]

just did a linear regression of cost vs length for Titan Implements rock rakes ... pretty linear relationship.

Cost = $346 + $103*Length

 

[Vigo]

I definitely recommend getting a 5 or 6 ft rake, and honestly I'd do the 6 ft unless you plan to use it near a bunch of things it might snag on or damage. It takes very little power to pull a landscape rake and if it has an angle feature it effectively gets 'narrower' once angled. I have a non-angling ~51" landscape rake made for an ATV that i don't mind the width of, but i have a 60" angling rear blade that i wish was 72" just so it would be wider when angled (even though my tractor is really too light for that much blade and the back will get drug sideways when cutting at an angle with the 60" already). I think since a landscape rake is not likely to drag your tractor sideways when angled, I would go 60" as minimum and strongly consider 72" if it has an angling feature.

 

[ejb11235]

I definitely recommend getting a 5 or 6 ft rake, and honestly I'd do the 6 ft unless you plan to use it near a bunch of things it might snag on or damage. It takes very little power to pull a landscape rake and if it has an angle feature it effectively gets 'narrower' once angled. I have a non-angling ~51" landscape rake made for an ATV that i don't mind the width of, but i have a 60" angling rear blade that i wish was 72" just so it would be wider when angled (even though my tractor is really too light for that much blade and the back will get drug sideways when cutting at an angle with the 60" already). I think since a landscape rake is not likely to drag your tractor sideways when angled, I would go 60" as minimum and strongly consider 72" if it has an angling feature.

Thank you. Your thinking mirrors mine.