Broke my bucket!!!

[gvw]

Just busted the bee-jeepers out of my bucket! Bucket is the 73" model on a 460 loader which is mounted on my 4700 HST. While back dragging some willows that I had just dug out - the mounting pins on the bottom of the bucket ripped out and the top hooks punched in = big oh-oh!
Bucket just went to the local welding shop to see what can be done as far as re-building this piece of S_ _ _. When we looked at the welds holding the pins in place, the contact area is about 3/16" which is all the thicker the metal is on the backside of the bucket. This is incrediably light weight material and construction - VERY disapointing to say the least!!! I really like the quick detach system as I can drop the bucket and have my pallet forks on in about 2 minutes - but the structural design of the pins mounts to the back of the bucket is pathetic!
Suggest readers with this setup - look at the mounting points - check for cracks and signs of distress - hopefully you will avoid what just happened to me!
Does anyone know of a manufacture that can build - or already makes a heavier constructed bucket that will fit the JD 460 loader -- the one that came with the loader is tin-foil caliber construction.

 

[rancar]

I have the JD 73" HEAVY DUTY bucket on a 460 FEL for my JD4710. I have to say I think this HD bucket is built like a tank. Welds look solid, steel nice and thick....I would suggest you look at the HD bucket instead of the standard bucket that JD sells. It's well worth the extra couple of hundred.

 

[gvw]

This was the HD bucket - and I assure you it is not solid

 

[gvw]

Rancar - now I'm not so sure that I have the HD model - this is what I wanted when I bought - however, mine came w/ only two ribs on the bottom - dealer had more ribs added and told me it was the same as Heavy Duty. Based on my latest experience I'm not so sure - I'm wondering if the flat sheet metal is heavier on the HD model - and where to go to find out - the dealer I bought this from says that the diference is in the exterior reinforcement and mine with the added bottom bracing is the same as a HD model - I'm not so sure at this point.
Also does anyone have part # for the HD unit?

 

[rancar]

gvw,

All the FELs and buckets are made at John Deere Welland Works, Ontario, Canada and are shipped that way to the dealers. If your dealer had to weld these extra ribs to your bucket, then it's likely he added them to a standard bucket (for whatever reason I couldn't say) and he's trying to tell you he turned it into a heavy duty one. I'm not so sure on this.

I bought two buckets...the HD one and JD's 4in1 bucket. All I can say is just looking at the sheet metal on both of them, the HD one looks very tough and durable. This is the reason I bought both. I wanted the HD one to transport field stone, rock, and digging swamp bushes and small stumps with the attached tooth bar. I've yet to put it to the hard test but one thing I can say for sure is I won't be using the 4in1 to dig out field stone simply because of its apparent light gauge steel and likely tendency to warp and bend if knocked around by heavy rock.

Bob

 

[beenthere]

My book on the loader shows 7 different buckets, three of which are 73" wide. They are:

73" Materials bucket with capacity of 10.7 cu. ft.
73" Heavy Duty materials bucket with 10.7 cu. ft.
73" High volume (light density materials bucket) with 15.0 cu. ft.

My 4300 with 430 loader came with the 73" materials bucket, and I wanted heavy duty, so settled with the 61" Heavy Duty Materials Bucket with capacity of 9.0 cu. ft.

The construction is quite different between the regular materials bucket and the heavy duty one. If you have the light duty (sounds like you do), then back dragging with it and the bigger tractor (4700) will but a tremendous force on the two pins. In normal bucket use, there is compression, not tension, on these pins. I hadn't thought of this when back dragging, but I will now.
Sorry to hear about your experience. I would hope you see your dealer, and find out if you really have the heavy duty bucket that you thought you were getting. I remember my dealer wondering how he could sell a materials bucket by itself when I bought the HD one. I expect it is a problem for them, in the form of a nightmare maybe.

It is such a neat quick tach system, as you have already found out, to switch quickly back and forth between the forks and the bucket. But if I tear it out as you did, I will have it welded back in so it works just as it does now.

 

[Anonymous Poster]

It is not only the welds on the bucket that need attention when back dragging, but also the welds on the hydraulics. I have broken the welds on the hydraulics of the FEL on my 4300 twice while back dragging. I thought that the connection of the piston to the swivel should have included a sleeve like the frames on some bicycles.
The dealer finally replaced them with heavier duty models.

 

[beenthere]

<font color=blue> "The dealer finally replaced them with heavier duty models."

"welds on the hydraulics"
<font color=black>

I am not sure what you were referring to when you said the dealer replaced them with heavier duty models?
Also, what are 'welds on the hydraulics" ? Would you enlighten us a bit more? Thanks.

 

[sniezur]

I am not surprised at all. I bought the hi-volume bucket because of the extra capacity I needed it for. The bucket bent the first time I used it!!! The material is very thin for the bucket shell and ribbing.

I brought it into my shop to re-enforce it with extra 1/2" plating and steel angle ribbing. I have since used it without any problems and it is now a HD hi-volume unit.

 

[gvw]

Beware of the mounting points - the metal on the backside of the high vol bucket is major league skinny- the result is the amount/strength of the metal at the top hooks and the bottom mounting pins is maybe and I mean maybe 3/16". The result is that when back dragging one can litterly yank the bottom pins out and cave in the top hooks. We are in the process of taking the top mounting hooks off - backing with 1/4" plate and doing the same for the mounting pins - mainly to get some strength and something to weld to - then we will see.

 

[Anonymous Poster]

gvw, my biggest concern about all of John Deeres compacts have been the loader. The 460 loader to me is very lightweight and flimsy. Perhaps the bucket saved you from bending the loader. Compared to Kubota and even New Holland, the loaders are very lightweight. Checkout the web size on the loader arms, the cross bracing and the bucket attachement compared to a Kubota. I wanted to get a John Deere, it was the loader that stopped me. It just does not compare to Kubota. I was really hoping JD's new lineup would come up with a structurally better loader, they didn't, I won't buy a JD until they do even with all the new stuff they've come up with. Flimsy, flimsy, flimsy!!! Design a loader to match this great tractor. The current loader is made in Canada, perhaps like Kubota, they need to build it here in the USA or at least get some new engineering and have the current builder start over. The loader on the new JD 110 is very nice, but the tractor is very underpowered and slow. I use a JD 210 and the JD 110 has more in common with the compacts then the industrial ones. Perhaps they should have painted it green instead of yellow.

 

[kevinro]

I have a 460 loader with the HD bucket, and I have been nothing but mean to it since I bought it. I routinely lift heavy loads of rock, knock down trees, dig, and a host of other things. I have been very impressed with the HD bucket. Sounds like you might not have the actual HD bucket to me.

I did have the 'standard' bucket when I first bought the machine. It was substantially less impressive, and I managed to bend it the first day.

Kevin

 

[rancar]

The 460 loader and HD bucket I have on my 4710 appear to be the toughest I've seen and are comparable in quality to the best that Kubota and NH have to offer. Welland Works doesn't turn out chinzy products...they are known for quality workmanship. I did my research for two years and this is why I bought JD. If you guys are having problems breaking and bending your buckets, FEL arms, etc, I'd suggest you're using them in a far more aggressive manner than what they were ever intended to be used for. Even the best equipment will break if you abuse it enough. Know your limitations.

 

[Anonymous Poster]

Well, as long as your happy with it, thats all that is really important. The 460 loader is about half the web size and the cross bracing is tiny compared to what the Kubota sports. The 460 has a 2.5 inch tube cross brace while the Kubotas (LA850) is about a 4" tube. Pivot points are smaller as well. Maybe its just overkill, but when you run a 4000lb+ tractor into a object that is stubborn, I don't want to permanently change the loaders aspect. While I think the 460 loader is in everyway well built in terms of workmanship, I'd personally like to see more steel in it. I have second thoughts about the bucket, I would go for all the bucket I could and even add some bracing to prevent the twist a loader gets when picking up uneven loads. Its inevitable that you will use the left or right front lip or tooth to catch a root etc, and lift which will put more strain on that side of the loader. A sturdy bucket will help ensure the loader stays level. Other then that, I think the new JD's are fine tractors.

 

[rancar]

Understood....thanks for the qualifiers. /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif

 

[dsgsr]

The 73" HD bucket for the 460 loader has much more reinforcement than the regular bucket, for example the
HD has 3"X1/4" plates welded to the vertical cutting sides, A heavier cutting edge, reinforcement in the top-inside and 4 wear bars on the underside of the bucket. When I bought my unit in July 2000 dealers (at least in my area) were selling the regular bucket with 4 wear bars and calling it a HD bucket. I showed my dealer a JD pamphlet (with the real HD bucket) and told him that was what I wanted, thats what I got and now thats the only bucket he sells with the larger units unless otherwise requested by the customer.

 

[centex]

I have the 460 loader with the standard duty 73" bucket on a 4700. I had not given a whole lot of thought about it's strength for different applications until now. It is pretty easy to look at the bucket and loader and get some idea of what it can and cannot do. It is pretty obvious that one of the key design decisions that the JD engineers made was to make changing buckets very easy. They could have chosen to make the bucket attachment stronger instead. I have the forklift attachment and make use of this feature and really like it. This is however a weak point for any application that places an upward moment on the lip of the loader because the lower attachment is a pair of 1.25" pins welded to the bucket. I don't see how making the bucket stronger would do much to help. Clearly you could make the bucket stong enough that it would not bend or tear but the welds on the pin and the 1/2" clevis pin will still be a weak point even if the bucket were made out of 1/2" steel plate. One has to keep this in mind in doing any kind of back dragging with this bucket. If the load is applied at the top of the bucket instead of it's lip then the upper quick attachment points will be a weak link and could bend if enough load is applied. I looked at the loader designs of the big 3 when I was shopping and it appeared to me that both the Kubota and New Holland loader designs were stronger but this was not a primary decision point for me.

I have used the loader for moving a lot of dirt and a lot more large rocks and have not damaged anything yet. The thing that worries me now is that I have been using it to take the load off the tractors front tires when I use the BH. This put a lot of force on the lower quick attach pins and I wonder if the shock loads from the BH use might damage it. I think I may start just lowering the bucket to the ground.

 

[rancar]

Don,

<font color=blue>"...One has to keep this in mind in doing any kind of back dragging with this bucket. If the load is applied at the top of the bucket instead of it's lip then the upper quick attachment points will be a weak link
and could bend if enough load is applied...I have used the loader for moving a lot of dirt and a lot more large rocks and have not damaged anything yet..."</font color=blue>

I agree. Point I was trying to make with my comment on potential damage to buckets and FEL arms is to simply know one's limitations. Up my way, I sometimes see farmers and others who are hotheads use their tractors and FELs like they were front end loaders, dozers, or excavators. They ram their FELs into stumps, rocks, earth mounds, etc trying to do something that these machines are not designed to do. Using it this way, it doesn't take long for something to break.

Bob

 

[dsgsr]

I agree rancar. It seems that 'everybody and his brother' is buying a CUT and not educating themselves in its use or using much commonsense and then complaining about its flimsy material or poor design.