WranglerX
Super Member
Have you tried looking for "Shop Manual" on line if one did not come with tractor?
Maybe....
Maybe....
Last edited:
School me on FEL hydraulics
- Thread starter Blue Mule
- Start date
- Views: 2309
OP
Blue Mule
Gold Member
My father tested it with a hydraulic guage and it tests at 2,500 PSI at the FEL cylinders which is around 82 PSI higher than spec per that snapshot of the manual ^^^
Guess this is just the way the 140TL loader is supposed to be. Thanks guys.
Guess this is just the way the 140TL loader is supposed to be. Thanks guys.
MechanicalGuy
Platinum Member
MechanicalGuy
Platinum Member
That’s a lot less capacity and smaller tractor than mine, 1500lbs vs 2250lbs lift and 2700lbs vs 3900lbs breakout... I can see why you feel like it’s weak if you’re used to a bigger machine
OP
Blue Mule
Gold Member
Well that's the thing. The old tractor was 11 HP less and very slightly smaller in size. I guess they just "don't make em like they used to."
ptsg
Super Member
Or could be that the Bush Hog FEL was too big for that tractor. Or could be that the previous tractor didn't have a backhoe on the back and your current one does (if I remember right from your other threads) and you feel that it doesn't lift the rear of the tractor at all.
Found another thing and maybe that's the case here. The NH website lists around 1600 lbs at max height at the pin for that loader, although other websites mention a lot less. And then on TractorData they have this right on top of the specs:
Last edited:
MechanicalGuy
Platinum Member
Well you didn’t list the bush hog loader model or specs so I’d only be guessing.
Tinhack
Elite Member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2020
- Messages
- 3,029
- Location
- Lytle, TX
- Tractor
- Ford 3910, John Deere 420C, Kubota G32XKS, IH 2606, Bad Boy Maverick-60"
Perhaps the cylinders are different. Like 2" instead of 2.5 or 3". I don't know what the cylinders are supposed to be. Smaller cylinders would certainly reduce the load capabilities.
OP
Blue Mule
Gold Member
Yep that's very interesting.
Even more interesting to me is that when I just now investigated a little further on the New Holland website, it shows the 140TL loader to be a match for the old Workmaster 33/37 tractors. The newer Workmaster 35/40 tractors like mine list the 110TL loader, with a rated lift capacity of 1,843 lbs. at the pin and a breakout force of 3,338 lbs.
I'm beginning to wonder if the original dealership ordered the wrong loader to put onto the Workmaster 35 they had, which then got transferred over to the Workmaster 40 I bought without anyone checking the details.
In any case, what's done is done now so the loader I have will just have to work. It's all a moot point from here on....
LD1
Epic Contributor
That isn't what I'm seeing. What I saw looks like the 110 was for the older models and the 140 is the current. The 140 is a little weaker
I think the confusion on tractor data....and a user reporting the manual says 12xx pounds lift cap and he's Holland shows 1500 is how it's measured. Both are technically correct.
Newholland says the 1500 pound lift is to 1500mm and the 12xx is to full height.
Where as the 110 is like 1500 full height and the 18xx at 1500mm.
So the 110 is about a 300 pound stronger loader.
I'd be curious to see the cylinder sizes. Maybe something like the older and stronger one was SAE cylinder like 2.5" bore....and the newer one is slightly smaller and nominal metric measurement like 70mm??
I think the confusion on tractor data....and a user reporting the manual says 12xx pounds lift cap and he's Holland shows 1500 is how it's measured. Both are technically correct.
Newholland says the 1500 pound lift is to 1500mm and the 12xx is to full height.
Where as the 110 is like 1500 full height and the 18xx at 1500mm.
So the 110 is about a 300 pound stronger loader.
I'd be curious to see the cylinder sizes. Maybe something like the older and stronger one was SAE cylinder like 2.5" bore....and the newer one is slightly smaller and nominal metric measurement like 70mm??
