4310 + 300CX Loader question/concern

[DavidVA]

Hey all. I'm new but thought i'd ask a question and see what y'all think.

I have a 2 yr old 4310 with about 160 hours. About a month ago, the local JD dealer installed a 300CX loader with a seemingly standard bucket and fixed tine pallet forks.

I have noticed that its lifting capacity seems very shy of what the dealer claimed (which was 1600 or so pounds). Yesterday on a few occasions, the lifting would just cut-out and refuse to go further. Secondly, I felt like I was going to tip over when the tractor unsuccessfully attempted a 900+/- pound load. I realize ballast is an issue, but more specifically, what's your experience with this loader? or loader/tractor combo? Previously, I lifted pieces of stainless steel equipment that weighed *much* more than 900 lbs. Furthermore, dozens of tons of gravel (pug stone) have been moved by this machine over the past few weeks.

I'd appreciate any opinions and insights.

Thanks!

 

[beenthere]

I'd be looking at the hydraulic system if it is changing over time. Also, I'd put some weight for ballast. The need for the right amount of ballast doesn't change over time.

A picture of the bucket and the fixed forks would be interesting.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

David,

The lift capacity of the 300CX is 1598# at the pivot point. Using a calculated 30% reduction to get the rating at the '500mm' point (commonly, but not accurately referred to as the 'bucket center' point), that puts the lift capacity of the 300CX roughly 1120# inside the bucket but does not include the weight of the bucket.

I'm not sure about JD, but many loaders capacity ratings, when rated at the pivot point, do not include the weight of the bucket. A bucket can easily weigh 300# or more for a 30-35 HP tractor. That weight must be added to the weight of the load you are trying to lift. So since you were trying to lift 900#, you add 300# and the real load is something in the order of 1200#.

The problem with loaders that many people do not understand is that the farther forward of the pivot points you place your load, the lower the capacity of the loader. This is true with every loader of every brand. As you have both a bucket and pallet forks, I'm going to take a wild guess and presume you have a QA system on your loader. That QA system pushes the bucket and forks out another few inches, and reduces the loader capacity a little bit more.

Now to maximize the loader capacity you MUST have ballast on the rear end. If you are lifting 900# there is probably no way to do that without proper ballast, it becomes mathmatically improbable, especially when you consider that a 900# load is within 20% of the real capacity of that loader as it would be used in normal useage. Now when you factor in the weight of the bucket, you realize you are over the rated capacity of the loader, that would make the tractor dangerously unstable and the odds of lifting the load approach a statistical zero.

For further exploration & explination of this topic, take a look at this thread (most of what you are concerned with will start several pages into the thread): Bucket Capacity VS Loader Capacity




EDIT :: Just curious, but the literature I have does not show the 300CX as being compatible with the 4310. Is your post a typo? Based on what I see, the 300CX is compatible with the JD 3120 to 3720 tractors. The 400CX loader is compatible with the 4120 through 4720 tractors.

 

[DavidVA]

Hey Bob -

Thanks for the info. The calculations help (and should explain) the troubles I was having unloading the tanks of grape juice.

Agreed that it seems that the 300CX isn't supposed to go with the tractor. But the four thousand 10 series information seems to be pretty incomplete online, anyway.

It seems to fit and it works well. I know that for the twenty series tractors things are very different, but for our lil 10, it seems to do the trick.

As for the photos requested up there, i'll snap a couple tomorrow and put them here, if it allows such.

It's turned out to be a *great* workhorse around the farm, particularly as we've been getting several pallets of things for equipping a small winery we've started here.

Thanks so much for the info - and it all does make sense.

Further, the ballast, i've found, is as critical as you report. Our rotary cutter (mx 5) usually provides plenty, but in small quarters, i've gone ahead and ordered a ballast box which should attach nicely to the imatch on the back.

and yes, it does have a quick attach in the front.

thanks again!

Dave

 

[rockyridgefarm]

First the quick attach. I don't think that has any effect IF you are using the std. Deere Quick attach, as it is integral to the design. If you have the skid steer carrier, than it does.

In addition to rear ballast, you will want ballast on the wheels. You could easily require BOTH wheel weights and loaded tires. Since you can load the tires yourself; you might want to start there (assunming they aren't already loaded of course!)

As you are pushing the limits, check carefully how much weight you can get in the rear. Lead ought to be about right..!

 

[DavidVA]

Yes! Lead at the very least. The rear tires were loaded by the dealer while they were installing the bucket. I'd really not like to die this young, so i'm going to be very careful about the ballast issue from here on out.

 

[dmp437]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( EDIT :: Just curious, but the literature I have does not show the 300CX as being compatible with the 4310. Is your post a typo? Based on what I see, the 300CX is compatible with the JD 3120 to 3720 tractors.)</font>

John Deere publication C25-350-2:

"The 300CX Loader is designed for use on the 4310 and 4410 Tractors, replacing the 430 Loader." There is a publication date of October 2004. It is also listed as being compatible with the non-current 4300, 4400, 990, 970, and 1070 Tractors.
For those of us with 430 Loaders it's...... SWEET. But not justifiable, for me anyway.
Check out the complete pub >HERE<

 

[Bob_Skurka]

dmp437 . . . thanks for the information. I have a current brochure for the "xx20" series and it only lists what I posted above. Its intersting that the new design fits the older machines. The new design is a nice improvement in visibility, especially combined with the new hood shapes. I got to briefly play with one at the dealership a month or so ago, the new JDs are very sweet machines! Very nicely designed and great ergonomics.

 

[rockyridgefarm]

Bob, did you notice the spin Deere puts out on their tapered rather than curved boom ends? Have you noticed any difference compared to NewHolland's design?

 

[MessickFarmEqu]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( dmp437 . . . thanks for the information. I have a current brochure for the "xx20" series and it only lists what I posted above.
)</font>

As a salesmen, I can't tell you have decieving this is to customers. There are several examples a week across TBN from owners who where under the impression that they have more loader capacity than they actually do. I have to explain time and time again why the tractors that I sell have lower loader rattings than the Deere dealer who is 5 miles from me - when the truth of the mater is if you equalize the measurements is rare for Deere to have the advantage. I've heard complaints from dealers at both Kubota and New Holland meetings encouraging the two companies who are truly honest to start heading down this path. Frankly, I don't know what to think.

We can talk about this here till we are blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is that until there is a lawsuit about this they are going to keep pushing the envelope with what can be slipped into the marketing literature.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

Mike, generally I like the NH design better than the Deere design, I think the combination of the hood slope and curved loaders offers somewhat better visibility than the newly designed Deere hood hood slope and somewhat curved loader arms. The reality is that the lower arm section being curved is less important than the upper part, so I think JD has a good design.

But in the case of BOTH companies, I don't understand why they don't duplicate their commercial loader designs, which are not curved, but are very low profile, offering even better visibility than the curved design. . . but that is another discussion!

The loader arms I really dislike are the old dogleg style, but if that is not bad enough, go take a look at the DK Kioti series loaders, the loaders on the M series Kubotas, and the entire line of Mahindra loaders and most lesser brand loaders. For the most part those all are positioned well above the hood of the tractors, and the worst offenders to destroy front visibility are the loaders which have dual tube designs with a round cylinder over a rectangular tube. After using the curved arms I am sold on the design as a dramatic improvement, mostly because it makes work easier and faster to accomplish.


<font color="red"> We can talk about this here till we are blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is that until there is a lawsuit about this they are going to keep pushing the envelope with what can be slipped into the marketing literature.
</font>
Neil, there is no question that this issue comes up on TBN constantly and no question that there is a huge amount of confusion. The reality is that LOTS of tractor companies are doing this. . . not that that clarifies anything to consumers, nor does it help anything for consumers who unknowingly purchased a loader that they thought would meet their needs but doesn't.

 

[DavidVA]

Yeah - it may be like the old litigation about the size of monitor screens. 19" vs. 18.1" viewable or whatever. The physics of the situation makes sense, but it'd be nice if in the lit it made reference to a workable weight that'd be commonly lifted "not" at the pivot point. The information i gleaned from here has been invaluable, though.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( it'd be nice if in the lit it made reference to a workable weight that'd be commonly lifted "not" at the pivot point. )</font>


That is why I think many of us like to use the 500mm forward measurement point. It actually puts the capacity in a point that is useable. But all of this is confusing. There are engineering standards, and many companies, including JD refer to these standards, so these are legitimate measurement points. But what is legitimate, and what are useful & consumer friendly may very well be different things.

 

[DK35vince]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( The loader arms I really dislike are the old dogleg style, but if that is not bad enough, go take a look at the DK Kioti series loaders, For the most part those all are positioned well above the hood of the tractors )</font>

A look at my DK/Kioti series loader as compared to the hood height