Loader Specs

[jaydee325]

I'm comparing two CUTs loader specs. Brand X has a lift capacity at the pin of 2250 lbs and a breakout force at the pin of 2746 lbs. Brand Y has a lift capacity at the pin of 1360 lbs and a breakout force of 2855 lbs at the pins.

Can anyone help me correlate these numbers into real world performance? I was surprised that the tractor with the lower lift capacity had a higher breakout force.

Thanks,

Bob

 

[LD1]

Lift capacity is just that. What the loader can lift.

Breakout force is really its curl strength. I actually think they word it as a function of curl AND lift. It is basically the ability to "break-out" of a pile of dirt with a full scoop.

And loader ratings are all over the place. For example, My L3400 has a relatively low rating of ~1200lbs at the pins. There are similar sized tractors with almost double that. But I tell you what, I have to have loaded tires and a 1100lb bushhog hanging on the back to keep them tires down. So I am not sure what I would do with any more lift capacity??

But one thing I have noticed in general, is that MFG,s usually size the loader pretty well to match the tractor. And I dont know any loader-tractors that at least cannot lift a full scoop of dirt, sand, stone, or whatever.

But if you are looking to move pallets or what-not, then lift specs may be a bit more important.

So IMO, if you are just looking for general loader work, I think there is far more important things to focus on between brand X and Brand Y than a few lift specs of the loader.

Perhaps you could clue us in on the two you are looking at???

 

[GManBart]

The other complicating factor is whether the manufacturer lists the lift capacity at the pins to max height, or an intermediate height. In some cases, they don't tell you which it is. Typically, the difference between weight to max height at the pins, and the intermediate height (I can't recall what the standard is, but it's a few feet), is quite significant...probably a third less in most cases.

The breakout force for the loader with 2,250lbs of lift capacity is pretty low. For example, the loader on an LS R3039 has 2,250lbs of max lift, and a breakout force of 3,457....a pretty typical difference between the two.

 

[Zebrafive]

The other complicating factor is whether the manufacturer lists the lift capacity at the pins to max height, or an intermediate height. In some cases, they don't tell you which it is. Typically, the difference between weight to max height at the pins, and the intermediate height (I can't recall what the standard is, but it's a few feet), is quite significant...probably a third less in most cases.

The breakout force for the loader with 2,250lbs of lift capacity is pretty low. For example, the loader on an LS R3039 has 2,250lbs of max lift, and a breakout force of 3,457....a pretty typical difference between the two.

I think the std intermediate height is 1.5 meters, approximately 5ft.
Also a loader with higher lift might have less capacity at full lift, but still more at 1.5m than a loader that can not lift as high.
I can't explain why, but mechanical self leveling loaders usually have greater capacity than non self leveling loaders.

 

[LD1]

It would be interesting to hear back from the OP on this.

He only has 4 posts, and one was questioning the LS3039 and another was questioning the JD 2720 vs the new 2032 deere.

It is ironic that he mentions one of the brands having 2250lbs lift as does the LS3039. Perhaps he mis-read about the break-out force.

In either case, if those are the tractors in question, they are tractors of a different class. The LS is much bigger. More comparable to the 3000 series deeres.

 

[jaydee325]

Ok guys. I did not mention brands since I was just trying to understand the specs and did not want this to turn into a brand battle.

Yes, brand X is an LS-R3039H. I quoted the specs for the LL3103 loader from my hard copy brochure I got from the dealer. I checked the specs against the down load brochure from the web site and there is a discrepancy! On line states breakout at 3457 lbs.

Brand Y is a John Deere 3320 with 300X loader. Yes, I have mentioned interest in the 2720 and now 2032R, but neither of these tractors are available. So, I've been looking at the 3320 that is in stock at two local dealers. This tractor is pricey though!

 

[k0ua]

Jaydee325, what are you wanting to do with your new tractor.. In other words, what do you want to lift, or move or push. Maybe that would help us help you. Just my thoughts are that JD's dealer network, and parts availability are second to none, but LS or Kioti or others may offer more tractor for less money. It is kinda up to you to decide how much these things should weigh in. There are no wrong choices. All of the ones mentioned and many others make good tractors. I have had 1 Long, (Brasilov tractor) 1 New Holland (made by Shibaura then ) 2 Kubota's and now 1 Kioti. I also have a JD lawn tractor, so I have some green paint too. I try to keep an open mind about tractors.

James K0UA

James K0UA

 

[LD1]

Well just take the specs with a grain of salt. Unless you plan on ballasting the crap out of it, and using it like a forklift, understand that either tractor and loader will do what you expect.

But I have to say, the LS3039 is physically very similar to my L3400 kubota. It only weighs about 100lbs more, and darn near identical dimensions otherwise. But has a full 1000lbs more lift capacity:shocked: Very surprising. My loader is only rated @ ~1200lbs. Any more would be pointless other than bragging rights, cause the tractor w/loaded tires and 1000# on the back barley manages the lift capacity I got.

 

[GManBart]

Just to add a little more info to the discussion, I pulled out the loader manual for my R4047 (LL4101 loader). Their website, and brochures say it can lift 2,500lbs at the pivot pin, but don't specify whether that's to max height, or something less. The loader manual specifies max weight, to full lift, at the pivot pins as 2,634lbs. It also lists breakout force, at ground level, at the pivot pins, as 4,354lbs, which is what the website, and brochures show.

For whatever reason, many of the manufacturers seem to do a poor job of listing loader specs, and it only gets worse once you add in third parties like TractorData (although they generally do a fine job).

 

[GManBart]

My loader is only rated @ ~1200lbs. Any more would be pointless other than bragging rights, cause the tractor w/loaded tires and 1000# on the back barley manages the lift capacity I got.

Wow, that's surprising. I would have thought that with just a 1000# counterweight, you'd be fine at maxing the loader.

My R4047 has a somewhat stronger loader than the R3039, and with unloaded rear tires, and nothing on the 3pt, I've lifted 1,500-1700lbs, with the rear tires starting to get light. With my counterweight (1,350lbs), and unloaded tires, I can put the forks under something beyond the capacity of the loader, and the rears stay on the ground. If I do that, and try to use the breakout force, I can start to raise the rears, but not terribly so.

 

[LD1]

Your 4047 is also about 1100lbs heavier than the R3039.

OR lets look at it this way, The R3039 is a full 1100lbs lighter, but has a loader that will lift just about as much as the 4047.

So the 3039 WITH ballast is going to behave more like your 4047 without ballast. So now imagine that light tractor, with 2250lb capacity loader, and no ballast:shocked:

 

[k0ua]

I can imagine it: Scary! that's what it would be. Heck for fun, as soon as the L3400hst came off the truck I ran over to the gravel pile and scooped up a load of gravel, nothing on the 3pt and air in the tires.. talk about scaring the crap out of you! I just wanted to see what it would feel like, and it was BAD! I never thought that the L3400hst had a weak loader, It would easily lift the rears up nice and high in the air! Proper ballast is definitely called for! My Kioti is about 1100 lbs more than the Kubota, yet its loader only lifts about 200-300 lbs more. Now when you jump up to the DK40, with its huge KL401 loader it will lift 2700 lbs to full height at the pins yet it weigh's only about 100 lbs more than my tractor.. so you are back to SCARY! if you don't ballast properly..It is all about matching ballast to the tractor.

James K0UA

 

[Grandad4]

This is like the horsepower wars of the 1960's. "My SS Chevelle has more horsepower than your Dodge." "But my Dodge has more torque." Anyone remember those days? The tractor manufacturers can only do so much with engine horsepower, but loader specs are an easy and cheap place to play similar marketing games and build customer interest.

Not much of what I do with a loader is at max capacity; others can speak for themselves. Having a killer loader on a little tractor seems like an invitation for either eventual structural problems with the tractor or disaster in the hands of less experienced operators. Sort of like those '60's muscle cars in the hands of a teenager long ago! :steeringwheel:

 

[jaydee325]

Thanks for the replies/insights.

It does make sense to me that breakout force is a function of both boom lift and curl. The ratings published by each manufacturer are all over the place. There is no standard any where I could find. Deere literature provides more loader info than most and states a more realistic lift capacity is 500 mm ahead of the pin. Who knows? Too bad there is not a standard to compare apples to apples.

I also agree that ballast makes a big difference. What ever tractor I end up with will have ballast. I just don't know if I want to go with a ballast box or loaded tires. Either has advantages/disadvantages.

Since I'm mostly going to be moving brush, dirt, and eventually building some raised berms for landscaping on the land I'm clearing, I think any tractor in the 30 to 40 hp will exceed my needs.

 

[LD1]

I also agree that ballast makes a big difference. What ever tractor I end up with will have ballast. I just don't know if I want to go with a ballast box or loaded tires. Either has advantages/disadvantages.

.

On tractors of this size, loaded tires are good, but you still need something heavy on the 3PH if you are planning any heavy loader work. Loaded tires dont do anything to lessen the stress on the front axle. They actually increase the weight you "can" put on the front. Weight on the 3PH counterbalances the loader and takes weight off the front.

 

[crazyal]

Loader specs are kind of like MPG ratings on cars. Good as a rough guide but need to be taken with a grain of salt. Plus if you add an option, like a roof rack the mileage will drop. The same holds true for loaders. Every MFG has their own way of coming up with numbers. On top of that if you add the skid steer quick attach option you loose lifting capacity yet MFGs don't include those numbers.

 

[k0ua]

+1 on loaded tires AND 3pt ballast, for the reasons LD1 mentioned, and when you have the 3pt ballast off and your rotary cutter on the 3pt and you are cutting on less than flat ground the loaded tires help lower your center of gravity to keep your shiny side up. But the loaded tires won't do a thing for "unloading" your front axle like the 3pt ballast will.

James K0UA

 

[Zebrafive]

+2 on loaded tires AND 3PT ballast. Traction is another advantage of loaded tires. I lost the fill in one of my rear tires. Never had it refilled after the repair. It is ALWAYS the first one to spin.

 

[Guesseral]

You know I just don't know how a manufacturer can determine a lift capacity at the pins, juts how would you calculate that know one ever lifted anything at the pins that is halfway back the tractor. Another questions is how do so many different manufacturers have different at pin numbers when many or maybe most loaders are made at the same place. Now bear with me here I am not trying to start a war here or a mine is yours is thing but aside from Kubota many manufactures use loaders or equipment manufactured by Amerequip. Look at their site here Design, Engineering and Manufacturing Solutions for OEMs, and Custom Equipment, Tractor Attachments and Backhoes - Amerequip (ARPS) they make equipment for many different manufactures that have been mentioned here with different listed ratings, here is their client list from there site

Client List

•Ariens - Snow Blowers, Zero Turn Mowers, Riding Lawn Tractors - ARIENS
•Branson Tractors - Branson Tractors - (North America) - Home
•Bush Hog - Bush Hog
•Case IH - Case IH Agriculture & Farm Equipment
•Caterpillar - http://www.cat.com
•Cub Cadet - Riding Mower, Lawn Tractor, Zero Turn Mower
•John Deere - John Deere Home Page Redirect
•LS Tractors- LS Tractor USA
•Mahindra Tractors - Mahindra Tractors - World's #1 Selling Tractor including Compact tractors, Sub-Compact Tractors, Utility Tractors and Farm Tractors with Loaders, Backhoes, Implements, Mowers and more.
•McCormick - McCormick Tractors | Landini Tractors | USA | McCormick USA
•Landini - McCormick Tractors | Landini Tractors | USA | McCormick USA
•Oshkosh Corporation - Severe-duty trucks by Oshkosh for defense, airport, municipal and concrete
•New Holland - New Holland United Kingdom - Tractors - Agricultural machinery - Combines - Grape harvesters, etc.
•Toro - http://www.toro.com
•Yanmar America- Yanmar :: Home

Now of course they probably don't make every size of loader that each of these companies have by who knows and they probably make them different but there shouldn't be that large of a difference. Oh well just a thought I have wondered this for a while.

 

[oldballs]

I'm not even close to having any mechanical engineer background, but.......the variations could be due to the design and target buyer by the manufacturer. It seems to me that the geometry of the hard parts, the size of the hydraulics etc. could produce some variation in rating even if there was some "standard". The design/dimensions of the tractor could create some geometry differances. The manufacturer probably targets the use his buyer would expect. Thus the differances.
Just a thought.