Picked up these two Sears today....

Most every tractor comes with AG because most every tractor is designed for use in the fields or other terrain where those AG tires actually do work well.

...and no Im not a lone duck, I didnt invent the use of atv tires on a gt.... I read about it on some of these forums years ago... so I tried it and decided those guys were right..... and that has saved me alot of money over the years.

Im just the only one willing to debate the topic with the rest of you stubborn old coots. Lolol
 
Last edited:
Around the Midwest you see two tire treads - Turf or Ag's. I bought one pair of Ag tires and wheels from a guy I got a tractor from. Paid $50 for the pair. Others came on the tractors I bought. Trying to find used AVT tires with any tread left in 12" is a time consuming task. All 14" or 17" ATV or UTV tires. New ones in that size are out of my budget range.
 
maybe most of the new atv's and side-by-side come with larger wheels/tires these days... but there is more new/cheaper atv tires available than there was 10 years ago.
 
In my area 12” atv tires in reasonable shape with a good amount of thread are not to hard to find. Seems what’s worn out to a atv person is good enough for a garden tractor person. I bought a set off a atv years ago. Gators, I think is what they are. One set is on my John Deere 140, the other is on the MF 14. But they still need chains. Hehe

Noel
 
I don’t have a dog in this, but one reason tractor manufacturers used AG tires was that was all that was available. Even the R-4s(?) haven’t been around that long.

Lance has good experience with ATV tires. I believe him. He’s already had more snow yesterday, than I will have all year.
 
Doesnt HF down there carry some cheap atv tires.... they usually have the same stock as Princess Auto up here.
 
Propane1 said:
In my area 12” atv tires in reasonable shape with a good amount of thread are not to hard to find. Seems what’s worn out to a atv person is good enough for a garden tractor person. I bought a set off a atv years ago. Gators, I think is what they are. One set is on my John Deere 140, the other is on the MF 14. But they still need chains. Hehe

Noel
Click to expand...
I dont recall off hand how much extra weight your have on either of those tractors? On my jd110 I had 50# per wheel plus 130# on a rear weight bracket... it did OK but it wouldnt keep up to the Columbia.... those 960s are over 900# before you start adding weights
 
Lance, the John Deere has wheel weights. Don’t really know how heavy they are. They are a factory weight, so I’m guessing 35 lbs each. It some times has a home made box blade on it, with 40 lbs on it. So it might be 100 lbs in total. MF 14 has no wheel weights. But has a piece of metal on the rear. Have no idea what that weighs. 50 lbs maybe. ?
 

Attachments

  • 79D9EFF7-0460-4918-AD58-5FBE2449C389.jpeg
    79D9EFF7-0460-4918-AD58-5FBE2449C389.jpeg
    240.7 KB · Views: 8
  • A9989F01-2BBC-498C-B623-D7FBA9F2A3FE.jpeg
    A9989F01-2BBC-498C-B623-D7FBA9F2A3FE.jpeg
    160.8 KB · Views: 8
  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    334.3 KB · Views: 7
not sure what the tractors weigh but I would guess maybe 800#-850# as is..... so thats quite a bit lighter than my MTD at near 1200# without me.... so that will make a big differance for sure.

Those maybe atv tires but the tread pattern is very similar to an AG so I wouldnt expect them to function much differantly than an AG... and pretty much exactly the pattern I try to avoid... I look for smaller lugs but more of them.

006.JPG009.JPGKenda1.JPG
 
Last edited:
So as far as I know Lance, both my JD and MF are between 750 and 800 lbs. What make your Columbia base tare weight heavier than mine. ?

Noel
 
from the frame up the 960s are made with thicker metal than what was used on most GTs of the era.... for starters the back half of the frame is one big c-channel made of 3/16" plate... its 10" deep and 13" across and nearly 2' long... thats just the tunnel section between your knees and runs back under the seat....... most tractors have a couple smaller frame rails covered with 16ga steel at best, the 960s rear cover plate where the center link for the 3pt connects is 1/4" plate as are the side panels on either side of the dash... and a cast grill up front... the rear diff is the same 2300 as in your lgt100 but the briggs cast iron engines are heavier than the Kohlers... it is about 900# without attachments.... then add the custom winch mounts on either end that I built also out of 1/4" plate, plus about 300# of added wheel/suitcase weights... it is heavy and alot of the weight is over the rear tires where its needed.... all of which certainly does help me get traction but anyone can put the same amount of weight onto any tractor... the only advantage to the MTD is that I needed to buy fewer weights so I didnt spend as much.
 
My 1862 Cub is listed a 892 lbs. so not much difference between the Columbia and the 1862. Add 240 for me, 35lb weight on each wheels which I have and 32lbs of fluid in each tire and it is pushing 1200 lbs.

HF only has the mounted utility type tires and wheels. Most of the F&H stores have limited sizes of tires.
 
I have a white 1655 that has the OEM turf tires with chains that stay on all the time. Has the 3 point so not used a whole bunch. Mainly with the blade and rock rake. It is a heavy tractor also. Bigger back tires, etc. Same as one of the 900 series MTD machines.
 
Never knew briggs and stratton cast engines would be heavier than a kohler cast one. So is the rear differential gearing as fast in reverse like my LGT 100 with the 2300 rear end.

Noel
 
the hydro MTDs dont have the same c-channel rear frame as the gearbox tractors so even tho the hydros have a longer wheelbase and bigger rear tires the two tractors weight about the same. The earliest 760/860/960/990 used heavier ga metal for the seat pans, fenders, hood and grill so those were a couple pds heavier than the later 992 thru 999 models.... but they were all right around the 900# mark. The big hydro MTD tractors also feel bigger when you climb on, they are closer to a super GT or SCUT size than they are to most other GTs of the era... but the 960 was comparable in size to other GTs such as the jd3xx or massey 1650, Cub 1650..... the 860 was more like a jd2xx and a 760 was more like a jd1xx.

not sure of the weight diff between the two engines but my back can still pick up a 16hp K series... it dont like those Briggs tho... it is quite noticable.

and yes all the 2300s rip in reverse unless you have the variable pulley setup like a jd110, the inside gears never change, only the size of the outer drive pulley does.
 
My Ford LGT 165 is 850 pounds so it says in my manual.
Tractordata says my MF 14 is 930 pounds. I don’t think that’s right.
And it also says my JD 140H3 is 770 which I believe is right.
And my Case 446 is 770 pounds it says in the manual.
Any way, don’t about the rest of them. Oh, my Case 224 is 715 pound, tractor data says.

Noel
 
Ive always thought that 850# was high on the Fords with the tube frame.... but that may have been the shipping weight with a deck included, and it might be the same with the MF14, the rest of your #s are probably close I would think.

I havent had an mtd 760 but I have had 860 and 960 and those frames are significantly heavier than any other GT Ive seen. I cant find a weight listed anywhere online but I have taken the Columbia to the scale at the pulls and it was 1226# with 292# of added ballast so that leaves 934# for the tractor including my two winch mounts... still wondering why I think the 960 is such a beast of a machine??? Dont forget the clutch ;)

Im really not much of an mtd fan... dont like much else they have built over the years... but I do have fun showing up at the pulls with something everyone else likes to call junk... and send them home early. Lolol
 
Last edited:
For the most part, MTD builds the lower $ machines. Kind of caters to the big box stores with all kinds of badges pasted on them. Limited hour machines. We all know Lance is not a hydro man - except his ZTR maybe ?? ;);)
 
and for the most part I agree... mtd has catered to the box stores... but thats what the majority of consumers wanted. In the 60s-70s people expected to buy a rototiller or mower and have it last a lifetime with a little maintainance... by the 90s the average consumer didnt know how to fix anything and they wanted a throw away product... mtd and most every other manufacturer gave them exactly what they wanted.

and again you are correct... Im not a hydro man.... but only because I dont like to waste horsepower on a machine that only has 12-16hp to start with. I would have gladly held onto my Ford lgt165 with a fel... but a guy was offering 3x what I paid for it... and yes my mower is hydraulic drive... but it is just a mower. I actually do like hydraulic systems if/when I can spare the hp.

Most of what I do with my Columbia involves push/pull/drag heavy loads that dont always roll very well, or may not even have wheels, so giving up 3-4hp just to move the oil around in a hydro system doesnt work for me... I need the gearbox because its more effecient at putting the hp to the wheels and it doesnt require the engine to run at high rpm... so there is also a big differance in fuel costs and a big differance in wear/tear on an engine over time.... Im cheap so such things matter to me.

..and I will still gladly sell the Columbia IF/WHEN I find another small tractor that can push/pull/drag shlt around better... still lookin' ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top