Log Splitter for a Tractor, what to buy?

I see you're in Scotland, so I don't know what you have available over there.

This is just my opinion, but I would rather have a stand alone splitter, than one that mounts on a tractor. I say that because you have to hook and unhook the splitter every time you want to use it. Also, I have no idea what the cycle time is on a tractor splitter, but it may have to be revved up to have the same cycle times and pressure. (That's just a guess) Plus, I would rather keep the hours down on my tractor. I don't have a tractor.......yet, so I am just speculating.

I have a coworker that bought a tractor splitter. He saw my Huskee 22-ton splitter one day and I demonstrated if for him. He remarked that he should have bought a stand alone.

Hopefully, some others with actual tractor splitters can chime in soon.

I agree with Nic36.

I ruled out all screw splitters--entirely too dangerous for my taste and not as versatile as the hydraulic. That pretty much left me with a 3-point mounted splitter for my John Deere 4600 (43hp diesel) or a tow-behind splitter.

The speed of a 3-pt splitter often is too slow if run directly off the tractor's hydraulics, so that means I'd have to add a PTO pump to run the splitter. Adding the price of the splitter plus the PTO pump gets me into the price range of gasoline powered tow-behind splitters. The advantages of the tow-behind are many. I can tow the splitter with any vehicle (even move it by hand) and not have to swap out a 3-pt implement every time I split wood. I can travel across town to split wood without having to take my tractor along at all.

Heck, if my situation changes and I have to move off the farm, I can take the tow-behind splitter with me. And if I have to sell it, there's a much larger market for a tow-behind splitter.

I'm afraid they aren't commercially available any longer, but I've been very pleased with my cantilever style tractor splitter:









It uses a 4"X8" cylinder so it's faster than I am feeding it. It raises high enough to hook a wagon to the tractor drawbar so I can go to the woods alone & split/haul in one trip. And, perhaps best of all, it means one less motor to maintain. My tractor is diesel so I doubt I use any more, and perhaps less, fuel than a standalone unit. I only run about half throttle and all the motor noise/exhaust are about 8-9 feet away and above where I'm splitting. My tractor flows 18 gpm at 2800 PSI, very similar to your Massey I suspect.

ETA: Perhaps the best part of a tractor splitter......no one ever wants to borrow it.

I still debate myself... and for the time being still using the hand tools and if I have a large quantity of rounds saved up, especially big or difficult to split ones I'll just rent a splitter for one day for $50 and split it all at once.

I think the tractor vs standalone is a tough one, each have advantages and disadvantages. If I had a tractor with hydraulics, I'd definately consider it. One thing my neighbor who has one mentioned, is that you can raise it up high so your not bending over. Really nice if you have a load of rounds on a trailer or something, you can match the hieght of the trailer and be right next to it. Or if you have big rounds on the ground, you can lower it darn near to the grass and just roll em. And its one less engine to maintain, oil, filters, etc. You'll usually burn a lot more fuel though, depending on the tractor. Some smaller diesels may use less fuel, IDK I havent done a comparison but I figure a little 5hp honda is going to sip a lot less fuel than most tractors.

Stephen thats pretty interesting never saw one of those before.

This is mine. Not that fast as the pump on the tractor is just less than 9 gpm. But, it was very inexpensive, doesn't take up much room to store and doesn't require any motor maintenance. As others have noted, as soon as you add the pto pump and tank on, the price goes up very quickly.

I've been around a few splitters guys have made or bought for tractors but have yet to see a good one. I really laughed when one old farmer around here mocked mine. He had a splitter he used with his tractor for years. I took mine so we could compare. His eyes almost bugged out of his head when he saw how "fast" my splitter was. This is the biggest complaint I've always heard about that type of splitter. Just too slow. Take a nap while splitting a log.

I bought that splitter used at least 18 years ago. The 4X8 cylinder is the secret to its speed, even if I use a full stroke (Rarely) the ram only travels a maximum of 8 inches for a full return. I've often wondered why more spliters didn't utilize a pivot design since eveyone seems so concerned with speed? Even with an 11 gpm pump on a standalone splitter the retraction time would be significantly less than that of a 24" cylinder, even with collars. IIRC, my splitter was made by Speeco, and available through farm supply stores at the time I bought mine used.

We have a tractor but bought a stand-alone splitter instead of getting a PTO driven model. My splitting schedule is erratic and the tractor is used for mowing and tilling - minimizing the need to swap equipment was a major factor in our decision. I agree though that not having another motor to worry about is a plus.

My home built was originally run off my tractor, but decided to change to stand alone for a bunch of reasons. Did not seem right to pile hours to the tractor to do something that a $ 100 motor could do (plus pump, tank etc)

I admit I've tinkered with the idea of putting a simple 3 pt hitch on the rear of a small trailer and having a standalone with its own motor/pump. The splitter could then be used either way by just plugging the hoses in to whichever power supply worked the best for the job at hand. I work entirely alone, so being able to take a wagon on the same trip is a big advantage to me. I split directly onto the wagon rather than piling up then loading.

AngusMac said:

I ve been on another forum and speed also seems to be the main complaint.
So whats differant about your splitter Dennis, that makes it much faster?

Click to expand...

AngusMac, I'm not 100% positive for the reason so will defer rather than giving a half baked answer. I'll just say that every one I've seen has been super slow. Our splitter is not super fast but plenty fast enough for me. I rarely let the ram go all the way back up which speeds things up a bit but even if I do let it go all the way, the cycle time is still measured in seconds. I do not want to work any harder than that!

The problem is that tractors are made for pulling not pumping hydraulic fluid. All the small 3 point backhoes have PTO pumps for that reason. I have to run mine above 2K rpm even to make it tolerable with the 8.7 gpm pump. And that is a 35 hp diesel. Just doesn't take that much power as long as you have the right pump. But, you can buy an appropriate motor and a pump for less than the price of a PTO pump.

Yeah tractor hydraulics arent designed specifically for splitters so its not necessarily and optimum setup for such. Its more of a universal setting for multiple pieces of equipment. A good dedicated splitter is usually going to be faster, dual stage hydraulic pumps etc.

Like I said they have advantages and disadvantages. Some folks like a dedicated piece of equipment for everything. Thats usually going to have the best performance but also higher price and more maintenence. Other folks like to have a tractor and a bunch of attachments. Kinda like my little cub tractor in my pic, I have various attachments that all run off it, rear mounted roto tiller, belly mower, snow blower, snow blade, single bottom plows, etc. (and lots that I dont have yet). Some would rather have a simple lawn mower, seperate roto tiller, walk behind snow blower, etc. I had even talked to many folks on the cub cadet forum about running a splitter but the hydrostatic trans in them just wouldnt be able to do it. I'd have to put a pto powered hydro pump and then you've increased the cost to about what a cheap standalone would be anyhow.

I have a 3pt splitter that I added an engine, pump, and tank to right after I bought it. I did not want to put hours on the tractor just to run the hydraulics. I already had the engine and the rest of the parts were not too expensive. With a 16 gpm 2 stage pump I get reasonable cycle times. This combination works for me for the following reasons:
1) The splitter never leave my property - and I don't have to turn anyone down who would like to borrow it. "sorry, there is no way to tow the splitter so I can't loan it out"
2) I'm 6'6" tall and I can set the 3 pt height to a comfortable working height for me. I can also lower it all the way to the ground for the really big stuff.
3) If I want to split in the woods, I can set the end of the splitter right on the tailgate of my old wood haulin' truck and chuck the splits right into the bed.
4) With the splitter on the tractor I can get into places in the woods easier than with a tow behind. I can take the splitter anywhere the tractor will go and I don't have to mess with backing a 'short' trailer around.
5) I've found it's nice to have the splitter tied to something heavy when wrestling with some of the more stringy elm rounds I have.
This is my situation and is not an universal solution. Just as others have said they would never have a 3pt splitter, I would never have a tow behind. It all depends on your needs/situation. That said, I doubt you would be happy if you did a lot of splitting using the tractor hydraulics as they are slow. For occasional use for a few hard to slit rounds, it may be a good choice, if you're splitting a lot of elm you will want something with a faster cycle time. If your elm is like the stuff I usually split here you need to dive it all the way though the wedge to get it apart. This makes a fast cycle time more important.

That brings up a good point about cycle time, depending on the species of wood you cut that could be more important or less. For the usual cherry I split often times once the wedge pops it open thats all you need. However my last truckload, which was almost all black locust (my first experience with it) I had to frequently split it all the way to the end since there was alot of stringiness and they were nearly impossible to pry apart otherwise.