I think that depends on your intended usage. For me, my primary reason for buying a new tractor was to get a greater lift capacity. It was one of my top considerations in choosing a model, as I was so limited by lift capacity on my prior machine.
Here's a quick comparison of a 320R, 300R, and 300E on the same machine. You will see lift capacity varies 1180 up to 1630 lb. That's a "similar amount" in your book? I'd call it a 40% difference.
View attachment 809923
Ok. You give some figures and say, "I'd call that a 40% difference". So now we can talk.
I think you are going to find that we agree on most everything
Lets assume that those numbers represent basically the same loader on different models of tractor.
First of all, here is the "at the pins" versus 500mm (20") forward. Forward of the pins is what we want, because that would be at a usable bucket distance. Probably nobody ever used their loader to lift anything "At the Pins". So if you have a bucket then your numbers are not 1180 to 1630, they are 845 to 1144. But hold on, no bucket is mentioned. So we need to deduct the weight of the bucket. Call it 200 lbs without SSQA. So now 645 to 944. Doing the same math the same way you did, the difference has changed from your 40% (actually 38%) to 46%...THAT's GOOD! But the actual amount we are able to lift has fallen by 984 lbs.... THAT's BAD.
As a salesman, which number do you want to pick to showcase to our potential customer? Do you choose to showcase the spec showing the 46% greater lift? Or the spec showing 985 lbs less usable lift to full height?
And that decision as to which spec to use is exactly my point.
Not that loaders can't be different - of course they can be.
But my point is that loader specs can be manipulated by advertising and simple high school math in a way that confuses the unwary. That is why I would put loader specs at the bottom of my list.
BTW, did you notice on your table that those specs are at full height? Well, here is something you should know if using full height specs. If you take the same loader and change a few mounting points you will find that a higher spec at full height also ALWAYS gives you a lower lift capacity at the first half of the lift - from the ground to half height. Don't blame me; blame a guy named Euclid.
Ask yourself: How often do you lift to full height? Wouldn't you rather have the larger lift capacity from the ground to half height? Or from half height to full height as your chart shows?
Ask yourself why that loader spec chart doesn't show the one thing that you actually use? How about a spec showing lift capacity with a bucket & from the ground to half of full height.
I'll tell you why. It's because most same size loaders are very close to each other for what they can usefully lift for most jobs - even plus/minus 10% is not significant because it is the number that hydraulic pressure is allowed to vary.
So to finish, I agree with you completely about the advantage of a stronger loader.
But please know what the loader specs are actually telling you - or else don't use advertisements to make your decisions.
rScotty
But not with the conclusion that all of these loaders have the same effective lift capacity.
