Loader Bucket Breakout Force

[CADplans]

That extra hole would allow you to make a simple bracket to use the longer cylinders.
Cut four pieces of steel, triangular shaped.

Compared to a slice of pizza, add two holes at the "crust" edge,
so the new triangular brackets can be bolted to the holes shown in the pic in post #1

Then, add a third hole at the point of the triangle, that is now pointing up
(or angled back to accommodate the length of the cylinder)

The rear of the cylinder will drop in between the new brackets.
The new hole is positioned to fit the longer cylinders.
A rectangular plate is welded between the two new triangles, at the back,
Hopefully, no welding of the existing loader frame will be necessary.

I always prefer bigger cylinders as compared to added hydraulic system pressure.
There are too many other components in the hydraulic system that will not like a higher pressure.

I do not think I heard the answer to the toothbar question??
My tractor is a crazy digging machine when the toothbar is on,,,

Without the toothbar, I could barely scratch this hard clay/rock soil,,,

My toothbar is off a CAT skidsteer,,,

 

[Code54]

There is a chance that the PSI was set too low... would like to know the "before" PSI...

Don't disagree at all - if it is in spec the machine seems to have plenty of power for its weight/size. I have mine within spec but if I recall it was just very slightly under the max recommended.

 

[mopardude318]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I just love your International 584!

Here's one that recently came up for sale on tractorhouse. 4x4 too!

TractorHouse.com | INTERNATIONAL 584 For Sale

and here's even yet another, minus loader.

TractorHouse.com | 1977 INTERNATIONAL 584 For Sale

 

[bdhsfz6]

Im not seeing the 3981 number.

Im seeing 3102 vs 2605.......a 19% increase
and 2275 vs 1870 for lift to full height at pin.......a 21.6% increase
and lift to full height at 500mm forward.....1691 vs 1400.......a 20.7% increase....

AND.....kubotas loader model numbers indicate their lift capacity. Make the last number a ZERO and thats your lift capacity in KG. (last number is revision)
BUT......sometime about 3 or 4 years ago....kubota changed WHERE they measure that at for model # purposes. It used to be at bucket center.....
So the 723 loader is 720kg......3rd revision.........and 720 kg = 1584# at bucket center.....(about midway between the 1400lbs at 500mm and the 1870 at the pins).

Dont know if they still do....but kubota manuals used to list ALL 3 numbers for lift. Bucket edge (500mm), bucket center, AND pins. They also usually include a graph (curve) because a loader is MUCH stronger at ground level. Usually the "breakout" force is what the loader can lift at ground level with the lift cylinders. MUCH MUCH higher than at max height.

Now your LA1065 loader.....is newer. remember I mentioned they changed where they measure for model purposes. On your model.....1060kg refers to lift at pins in KG. or 2332# (pretty close to the actual spec of 2275...probably some rounding up involved) And its the 5th revision.

The previous loader on the MX (same loader different stickers) was an LA854. 850kg....4th revision.

So you are comparing a 720kg loader to a 850kg loader.

Gotta understand marketing......and just how loaders are rated. Because it can all get very confusing.

Just trust me when I tell you....that your MX loader is no where near 50% stronger than the LA723. The 20% stronger that I said......thats reality.

This is quite upsetting. I didn't expect a 50% increase in the overall strength of the MX / LA1065 (lifting capacity etc.) That's not what this post is about. My main concern is ground level breakout force.

I bought the MX primarily due to the dealers assurance the breakout force on the LA1065 was about 50% higher than the LA723. He showed me specs from the respective FEL manuals for the ground level breakout force measured at the pivot point. The LA1065 was rated at 3981# (see pics) and the LA723, 2605#. It seemed a fair comparison.



You are obviously more knowledgeable about Kubota FEL performance than either myself or the dealer. I've been a good customer at this dealership for many years and I don't deserve to be lied to. I'm going out there this week to pick up some filters and I'm going to confront them with your math.

This thread has been very educational for me and thank you for sharing your knowledge.

 

[TSO]

I don't particularly think he was lying to you, I mean he pointed out a number that was legitimately on the page. I think it was more like, he was telling you what you wanted to hear, and you fell right into it.

 

[teg]

(I'm saying this in jest!!!) Enough about Math and just get a tooth bar... A tooth bar will do more for your break out force than Math ever will!

PS adding the standard L's went from LA463 to LA524 and now to LA525 - they all lift the same amount.

 

[LD1]

This is quite upsetting. I didn't expect a 50% increase in the overall strength of the MX / LA1065 (lifting capacity etc.) That's not what this post is about. My main concern is ground level breakout force.

I bought the MX primarily due to the dealers assurance the breakout force on the LA1065 was about 50% higher than the LA723. He showed me specs from the respective FEL manuals for the ground level breakout force measured at the pivot point. The LA1065 was rated at 3981# (see pics) and the LA723, 2605#. It seemed a fair comparison.

View attachment 536551 View attachment 536550

You are obviously more knowledgeable about Kubota FEL performance than either myself or the dealer. I've been a good customer at this dealership for many years and I don't deserve to be lied to. I'm going out there this week to pick up some filters and I'm going to confront them with your math.

This thread has been very educational for me and thank you for sharing your knowledge.

Yea, I dont think it was intentional.

But I believe the 2605# for the LA723 is at 500MM......so that compares to one line further down in your manual.

As I said.....many people get hung up on the confusing specs.
Capacities at Pins? vs Bucket center? vs 500mm forward.... (and on larger tractors that is at 800mm forward).
then at what lift heights? Max height? Ground level? Somewhere in between?

And like I said....you basically have the newer version of a 854 loader. Going from the 723 to the 854 isnt much of a stem.

And it apears not as much of a step as you were lead to believe. Trust me....its only 20% more loader and not 50%.

But doubt there is anything the dealer can do now.....if he even remembers. But you may be able to talk him into checking system pressure on the house.....and boosting it to max spec.

I notice you also have a L6060. Do you have the LA1055 loader on it? Basically same specs on that loader. Notice any difference?

And unfortunatally.......you have the BIGGEST tractor you can get from kubota with a loader AND HST. Next step up puts you into GST trans.

Test pressure first and foremost.

I dont have a toothbar on mine. And have no issues digging out of piles. And with my old L3400.....pre bucket teeth vs after......still never noticed an issue breaking out from a pile......but the difference in digging virgin earth was pretty big.

 

[milligan36]

Larger cylinder will be stronger but slower L4701 only hasa 7.8 GPM Pump

 

[LD1]

Larger cylinder will be stronger but slower L4701 only hasa 7.8 GPM Pump

Good thing he has a mx5800 then. And already a pretty quick loader at speed. Pushing 10gpm

 

[Rock Crawler]

First check the pressure, 10% is the golden rule, it will make a huge difference. seriously

I am not familiar with your loader, but can you swap end to end the factory cylinders? therefore the rating would be the same but the curl back would be the stronger circuit and the curl down would be the weaker, instead of the way it is now? you could test by switching the hoses at the quick connect but then the controls would be backwards. if you like it then switch the cylinders around. dont leave the controls backwards, that could be dangerous to other drivers.

Just a thought.
MrC.

Maybe I am not understanding what your suggesting, but I think you are saying to remove the cylinders and flip the body end and chrome end, and put back on. If that is what you are saying, nothing will change. It does not matter if you flip the cylinder like that, extending is still dump, retracting is still curling the bucket. The forces have not changed at all.

To truly "flip" the function, you would need to weld brackets to the bottom of the loader arm and bucket so that extending was curl up and retracting was dumping. But then your cylinders would be underneath and in harms way.