Tractor ?

Has anyone had any experience with Mahindra tractors? I have a local dealer who is trying to work a trade with me and I have not heard much about them. The tractor I looked at was the 3016...if that matters.

Thanks

Take a walk over to MTF (mytractorforum.com). You'll find a Mahindra forum with lots of posts and folks who are very happy to answer your questions.

Thanks...will do. Just thought someone on here might own one...

Used to have one. Thought it was well built. I had no problems with it. Always started no matter the temp. Hydraulics were really strong, and would lift a bucket full of anything. It was actually too fast, and I had slow the hydraulics down. Never a fan of indirect injection, but it got the job done. I had to sell it when times weren't so good. I would get another now, but it's one of those things that is nice to have, but not necessary.

My Dad had a "Jimna" which is another brand of cheap overseas built tractors. Didn't use it a ton, but always seemed like there was something wrong. Nearly burnt down when the fuse block shorted out one day. The wiring looked like it was home made

I looked at them long and hard when buying a 50hp tractor. We went with a different brand due to layout of controls and for a flat platform where your feet go. I know a number of people with a Mahindra who are still very happy with theirs. I did like its heft - the new tractors are so light these days. Anytime you see a JD tractor ad where it is doing loader work you'll see there is a box of rocks on the rear to compensate for the lack of weight from structural steel, which is a far cry from the likes of their 80's era 2355, etc.

We have a local dealer about 20 minutes away. I looked at the briefly, but even "cheap" new tractors are out of my price range, Thus we went with the Massey listed in my sig. They seemed to be built well enough.

Thanks for the info guys.... I did a bit of research on the one I was looking at and it appears to be made by Mitsubishi.
It seems most who own that tractor as well as most of the Mahindra line seem to like it overall...
I am still looking around...I would like to have a smaller tractor with a FIL to move things around with instead of the bigger
tractor. I really like the Kubota tractors, but not the prices...I own one already and it has served me well.

I can remember ballasting plenty of old iron with FEL's on 'em. Used to fill a 55 gallon drum with concrete and run a bar through it to attach it to the 3 pt hitch. Plus, the loader tractor almost always wore heavy cast-iron wheel weights and loaded tires. Unless the tractor itself was massively oversized, ran a JD 4440 with a FEL and even that got a bit light in the rear with the loader lifting loads near capacity.

That ballast box you see in the photos does a lot more than just hold the rear end down, it also counterweights the loader reducing wear and tear on the front axle pivot and spindles.

Well said MasterMech. Always properly ballast a tractor with a FEL and install a ROPS if not equipped. This 7320 has fluid filled rear tires and 900lbs on each rear wheel and things can still get wild.

Thanks.... Even if it has good reviews, you can still get a lemon in anything....Ya pays ya money and takes ya chances...

Will see how good of a deal I can get him talked into....

Agreed. Ballast is useful and can increase the level of safety as well as reduce wear and tear. The three pt hitch (and drawbar) are also useful for more than simply providing a hanging point for ballast; ballast on the three pt can often be a hindrance. The Mahindra is built heavier than most mainline models of tractors today, and that weight can be useful in some situations.

One my one-tractor farm the cement ballast block sits in the weeds 95% of the time, available (and much appreciated (or at least as much as one can appreciate a cement block)) when needed. Rears are loaded, but I really ought to get some cast wheel weights, too.

You're right with the mass Flamestead, these new utility tractors are built more to spin the pto than to grip and rip.

Used to run bale spears on both ends of said 4440 and pluck round bales (both dry and baleage) out of the field and stack on a trailer or in the hedgerows. Always picked up 1 with the 3 pt spear first, then the loader. Stacked the bale from the loader, dropped the bale off the 3pt and go back for 2 more. When I had a couple bales from the 3 pt laying around I'd stack 'em before I drop the bale I was carrying and repeat the process for hundreds more bales. That's using your ballast! Could move much quicker than with the 3pt unloaded, fast enough to outrun/outstack my boss in a 310C backhoe with a chain on bucket spear and he had a shuttle trans!

I can't say anything about mahindra tractors. But as far as I am concerned any tractor that has a FEL needs a rops that fully covers the operator with a roof. Right after I got out of HS I dropped a 800lb round bale on myself on one with out it. And my 3rd vertebrae is crushed 10% on the front. A few years latter my uncle on the same tractor was carrying logs out of the woods on the bucket. One of the logs hit a dead tree and a 10" top fell from 30' feet up hit the full rops he put on it and it saved his life.

Billy

Needing ballast isn't a bad thing. I'd rather have LESS weight overall and be able to put the weigh I do need where I want it (on the wheels and/or behind the axles). Lighter weight tractors are easier to transport, handle better, and can go more places. As MM said, even the old iron had a ton of added ballast for tilling or FEL applications. Unless you are pulling a hay rake, you should count on needing at least a little.

Glad to see you are looking at a bit larger...50hp...because you can get a lot more tractor for about the same money as the 30HP market...seems to be the case around here anyway. If you can get away with 2wd you can pick up a nice machine for relatively short money. Used tractors don't really depreciate...if anything they will go up in value. Might be worth looking into something similar to a JD5105 in 2WD.

FYI, Mahindra isn't a new company, they've been building tractors for a very long time.

They used to build IH's units for that part of the world, I'm not sure if it's still true but up until a few years ago some of their models where based on time tested IH designs.

My neighbor has one and likes it. It's not really made for really cold starting (just has a intake heater) but other then that it works well.

I think of them a lot like Kubota of 20 years ago, they don't have a great established dealer network like Kubota has now but build good stuff and the network will come with time.

BTW, I'm a big Kubota fan as well.

K

They hooked up with IH in the 60s.

As far as mass goes, my 3510 weighed 4700 lbs with loader and 3 pt blade, and the rear tires were loaded with beet juice. I still could pick up the back end when digging into a pile of limestone. Never had trouble picking up a heaping bucket of anything. Really strong hydraulics.

I also liked the 540/1000 rpm pto. It was just a change of a lever and could use the regular 540 shaft, and I could run a pto generator at half throttle if I wasn't putting a huge load on it.

And FWIW, mine started at -10°, cycling the intake heater twice. Not that I had any business being outside at that temp, but I had to dig a stuck pickup out of a snowdrift on the road.

Did they learn from this mistake? They sound like a good deal I've always liked the 540 econo mode.

Got green blood?

I've saw and help fix enough IH's to have some bad feelings towards them.

Anybody running the old farm tractors with Hydro transmissions (966 Hydro on the farm where I grew up, helluva nice tractor but the trans has been rebuilt/replaced at least 3x that I know of.) will attest that not everything IH did was gold plated.