DL 95 vs DL 100 loaders for GC series

[AxleHub]

I have to bump mine a bit forward to get the top arms free.

I've been doing some testing recently regarding the removal of the fel.

I've discovered 3 things:

1. I found that if I detach my fel on concrete with both tractor and fel on concrete . . It comes off easy. If I detach where fel is on concrete and tractor is on grass . . . Fel pinches a bit and doesn't come off as easily . . CAUSE is not grass but rather tractor is tilted/cocked a bit from left to right compared to fel.

2. In multiple times repeated . . if I put parking brake on and get off unit and stand to the side of the machine . . I can detach much easier because I can see if bucket is making even contact left and right side. I'd have to get off anyway to attach or detach hoses . . so no difference in effort . . just easier to get fel off or on without delay.

3.. Sprayed a little heavy duty white lithium lub (CRC) in the fel frame mounts . . and it now doesn't bind as easily when it is cocked a little . . funny how when you see what is happening from a different angle . . you can diagnose issues much easier.

 

[jsftractors]

You can't base your decisions on the marketing material and specifications provided by the manufacturer when they are introducing a new product. The change in loader supplier is based solely on price, not quality. It's very clear if you simply look at and compare the the construction of the 2 loaders. If you want a quality loader that will last many years, go with the DL100. If you want a loader that hides the hydraulic lines nicely, go with the DL95. Keep in mind you will need to buy a replacement DL95 in a few years, if your lucky you could find a used DL100 to replace your 95.

 

[AxleHub]

You can't base your decisions on the marketing material and specifications provided by the manufacturer when they are introducing a new product. The change in loader supplier is based solely on price, not quality. It's very clear if you simply look at and compare the the construction of the 2 loaders. If you want a quality loader that will last many years, go with the DL100. If you want a loader that hides the hydraulic lines nicely, go with the DL95. Keep in mind you will need to buy a replacement DL95 in a few years, if your lucky you could find a used DL100 to replace your 95.

I really have a hard time agreeing with your viewpoint. Take as an example the bucket. The DL95 bucket is heavier built and its edge is significantly more reinforced for longevity. I'm not sure how that isn't obvious.

The DL95 uses a very strong channel inside a channel gusset structure with as well formed of weld beading as i've seen by anyone.

I also like how the DL95 utilizes stainless 2 point locking connectors with the zerks built into \hem at each point. It makes it cleaner and a very good connection joint.

1 inch pins provide a stronger bucket/pin/support arm construction. By the way this is 1/3rd heavier built than kubota loaders 3/4 inch pins.

Specifications is one thing that can be a variable . . but there is no mistaking in visual inspection the weld quality on the dl95 loader. There's no mistaking the weight and thickness of metal. There's no mistaking the double gussett support structure of the fel arms or the quality of hydraulic hoses and positioning of them.

While I'm sure the dl100 woukd do a fine job . . I deliberately chose the dl95 over the dl100 based on physical examination.

I have a hard time seeong logic in your claim that the changover happened just becsuse of price. I see know way you could no that unless you worked for massey or worker for the dl100 manufacturer. Certainly by visual inspection the dl95 does not have any appearance of being 2nd to the dl100 loader.

Lets also remember that the dl100 was on the older GC product and the initial gc1700s. But massey increased their warranty length at the same time it went to the dl95.

So to summarize . . If the dl95 is actually a cheaper price , plus a longer equipment warranty, plus a visually verified heavy duty build and quality of construction . . . It would seem the pgase out of the dl100 unut was well planned.

 

[jsftractors]

If you get a chance to attach a picture of the bucket, I'll let you know if it's the 95 or 100 version. A number of dealers put the 100 bucket on the 95 to help sell against the 100.

 

[TSO]

I really have a hard time agreeing with your viewpoint. Take as an example the bucket. The DL95 bucket is heavier built and its edge is significantly more reinforced for longevity. I'm not sure how that isn't obvious.

The DL95 uses a very strong channel inside a channel gusset structure with as well formed of weld beading as i've seen by anyone.

I also like how the DL95 utilizes stainless 2 point locking connectors with the zerks built into \hem at each point. It makes it cleaner and a very good connection joint.

1 inch pins provide a stronger bucket/pin/support arm construction. By the way this is 1/3rd heavier built than kubota loaders 3/4 inch pins.

Specifications is one thing that can be a variable . . but there is no mistaking in visual inspection the weld quality on the dl95 loader. There's no mistaking the weight and thickness of metal. There's no mistaking the double gussett support structure of the fel arms or the quality of hydraulic hoses and positioning of them.

While I'm sure the dl100 woukd do a fine job . . I deliberately chose the dl95 over the dl100 based on physical examination.

I have a hard time seeong logic in your claim that the changover happened just becsuse of price. I see know way you could no that unless you worked for massey or worker for the dl100 manufacturer. Certainly by visual inspection the dl95 does not have any appearance of being 2nd to the dl100 loader.

Lets also remember that the dl100 was on the older GC product and the initial gc1700s. But massey increased their warranty length at the same time it went to the dl95.

So to summarize . . If the dl95 is actually a cheaper price , plus a longer equipment warranty, plus a visually verified heavy duty build and quality of construction . . . It would seem the phase out of the dl100 unut was well planned.

I haven't directly compared the DL95 & 100... but I have with the DL130 & 135. In my observation, I felt that the opposite was true. I felt that the DL130 was a much more robust piece of equipment than the 135.

I can't agree with 'jsftractors' in that the Quicke loaders won't hold up more than a few years ... they look like good loaders. I just think the Soo loaders were more robustly built.

 

[jsftractors]

I'll back up for a minute, I do agree if your using the 95 for general yard work and nothing more, it will perform well for a long time. When you move into the CUE category and begin comparing the 120/125 or 130/135 there is no comparison.

 

[AxleHub]

I haven't directly compared the DL95 & 100... but I have with the DL130 & 135. In my observation, I felt that the opposite was true. I felt that the DL130 was a much more robust piece of equipment than the 135.

I also don't agree with 'jsftractors' in that the Quicke loaders won't hold up more than a few years ... they look like good loaders. I just think the Soo loaders were more robustly built.

I'm not familiar with the dl130 and dl135.

In welding fabrication . . . What are known as "step gussets" or "step sleeving" is what the dl95 has. As an example . . The width of the upper connector pivots is (I believe 2 and 15/16ths). And the width of the bottom attachment points by the bucket are 3 and 7/16ths) meaning at the point of greatest strain there is an additional almost 5/8ths inch of metal sleeving support that extends up nearly 8 inches in a surrounding fashion. If I was normal, I'd claim the dl95 is over built . . but the tradition of industrial arts instructors and machinists is "something can be over priced but never overbuilt" lol

 

[AxleHub]

If you get a chance to attach a picture of the bucket, I'll let you know if it's the 95 or 100 version. A number of dealers put the 100 bucket on the 95 to help sell against the 100.

Here















are photos of my bucket. But I'm certain it is not a dl100 bucket because of the bracket spacing and reinforcement additions.

 

[jc21]

You can't base your decisions on the marketing material and specifications provided by the manufacturer when they are introducing a new product. The change in loader supplier is based solely on price, not quality. It's very clear if you simply look at and compare the the construction of the 2 loaders. If you want a quality loader that will last many years, go with the DL100. If you want a loader that hides the hydraulic lines nicely, go with the DL95. Keep in mind you will need to buy a replacement DL95 in a few years, if your lucky you could find a used DL100 to replace your 95.

Exactly what do you consider substandard on the DL95 vs. the DL100? .... inquiring minds want to know.

 

[AxleHub]

Exactly what do you consider substandard on the DL95 vs. the DL100? .... inquiring minds want to know.

Exactly. Just today I had my bucket off and found the pins on the bucket are 1 and 3/16ths inch instead of kubotas 3/4 inch or the dl100s 1 inch.

I saw some other brands buckets and fel arms/pistons and the dl95 is suvstantially heavier than those as well.

I fail to see how the dl95 is anything other than well built and cleverly designed in its connectors and arm design and anchoring mount posts and. Locator clips.