Backhoe Which Backhoe to Choose?

[brettmarty]

Hey fellas,

I am tractor shopping and I am giving LS a very serious consideration. I, like many posts in the past, was suspect of the LS brand being so much CHEAPER! But after hearing alot of your testimonies and alot of research it sure seems like a great tractor.

One of my largest concerns is the power of the backhoe. I will be doing alot of road work and trenching in rough rocky soil. At a certain point I know there will be rocks that I just cant dig with any tractor-backhoe and that's when you call in the mini-ex, however the more I can do in house the better.
I'm currently looking at the R3039, R4041, and the R4047. Beyond extra digging capacity I really doubt I need more horsepower than the 39. The stock backhoes that would best fit these tractors are as follows: 39=LB2100(digging force 2679#); 41and47=LB2101 (digging force 2679#). Oddly enough the the backhoe for the 3038 has a digging force of 2800#.
Now there is another option; put a larger backhoe on the tractor. LS makes a 3100 and 3500 series backhoe. The 3500 is for the U series and 50 HP tractors however my dealer thinks that the 3100 would fit on either the 41 or 47 no problem. That would up the digging force to 3750#.
My only experience with backhoes was operating a micro excavator (TB100) with a digging force of 2250# but the thing only weighed 1000# which was the limiting factor in most cases (the rear end would just lift in the air). These LS tractors will weigh alot more though. So the bottom line is should I go for the bigger backhoe. Would a R41 be able to handle a 3100 series backhoe, and more important than that do I even need the extra 1000# of digging force. What are your guys' experience with backhoes on these units.

Cheers,
Brett

 

[Gary Fowler]

I would put the hoe that is recommended on it and not up it to a utility tractor size even if I could make it fit which is doubtful as the subframe would require major mods to make it work and you could end up breaking your tractor. Your limiting factor is going to be the weight of the tractor anyway, same as your mini ex you used. You cant put any more force on it than the tractor weighs regardless of the size of hydraulic cylinders or arrangement.
I have the Kubota B26 and it does a pretty good job of digging in hard clay and even shale but it is limited by weight (4001# with FEL and backhoe). Edit: I just checked the B26 (26 HP) specs against the LS hoe for the 4047 and was very surprised. The B26 is a much smaller tractor yet the specs are quite different. I didn't find the overall weight listed for the 4047 so I cant compare that.
Digging depth B26 99.8 vs LS 89.7, reach 133.9 vs 125.1, bucket digging force 4211 vs LS 2819 (big difference there) dipper stick 2123 vs 2105(none to speak of there) Stabilizer width min 53 vs 46.4, maximum width 83.3 vs 68.7 (over a foot more)The hoe can pick up the tractor with the bucket on the ground so that is the limit of down force available which is likely going to be the same with the LS units, try one and see if it will lift the tractor with the boom and dipper extended about 1/2 to 2/3 of the way out. I move mine around side to side and forward and bake using this method so I don't have to raise the stabilizers. If the backhoe wont do this, the in hasn't got the capability to exert maximum force that the tractor is capable off. Only if it wont do this would I look at the possibility of putting a larger hoe size on if it will fit.

 

[brettmarty]

Good point Gary. I was figuring there was a real weight limitation here, however it is surprising that the LS hoes are not graded to have a larger digging force. It also still amazes me that the smallest hoe LS has is stronger than the mid size ones. Of course with the tractor fully loaded (weighted wheels and a full FEL) it would be interesting to see what the different hoes do in the real world. Your B26 stomps the digging force of the LS! The kubota L45 comes in over 5000# too! I guess this could be the one weak link in the LS line-up. Any thoughts or experiences in regards to LS backhoe capabilities out there?

 

[Gary Fowler]

One thing to consider is bucket size. My B26 with superior specs only handles a 12" bucket comfortably when digging in hard soil. I have a 12" and a 7" (cut down from an 18" by first owner) and I can see why he cut the 18" as it would be pretty useless unless digging in sand. I use the 7" for trenching and it work well in dry soil, but if it is a little wet, it is hard to get out of the bucket, 8"or 9" would have worked better. The 7" is good for cutting thru stump roots also due to the higher forces that can be exerted.

 

[Short Game]

It looks like they have gone the same way with the backhoes as they have with the loaders on their CUTs: smaller and less powerful. This is making me rethink getting an LS BH for my 4010. On one of the next sunny days (if it ever comes), I will park my Cub Cadet 7*** series next to my LS 4*** series to photographically illustrate the differences in the loaders.

I don't understand, with what are apparently strong tractors with adequate frames, these implements are seemingly downsized. There is nearly a foot difference in the length of the loader booms between the 3600 pound 4*** and the 2300 pound 7***, inverse to their sizes.

 

[Gary Fowler]

Good point Gary. I was figuring there was a real weight limitation here, however it is surprising that the LS hoes are not graded to have a larger digging force. It also still amazes me that the smallest hoe LS has is stronger than the mid size ones. Of course with the tractor fully loaded (weighted wheels and a full FEL) it would be interesting to see what the different hoes do in the real world. Your B26 stomps the digging force of the LS! The kubota L45 comes in over 5000# too! I guess this could be the one weak link in the LS line-up.QUOTE]
One thing to consider is difference in price, you can almost buy two G 3038 with back hoe for the price of one B26 (about $40K)

 

[Guesseral]

I don't know a lot about Kabotas but isn't a B26 a TBL designed to be a backhoe first and a tractor second? If so it probabley has a larger hydraulic pump with more GPM avalable! That makes a lot of difference in the rpoformance of a backhoe or any piece of hydraulic equipment. If you just buy an LS tractor or anyone's tractor and add a backhoe it will not prefrom as well as any TBL, because it is a tractor first and a backhoe second, the backhoe is only an after thought! Hay just my :2cents: but that doesn't mean anything!:ashamed:

 

[brettmarty]

would one be wise to consider a different brand backhoe for an LS tractor? if so what brand?

 

[Gary Fowler]

Just look at the specs on other brands, likely wont be a lot of difference in the performance. You only have limited GPM off your pump and set hydraulic pressures to use. Some may have larger cylinders to allow more digging force but is so, then they are going to run slower also due to lack of fluid from your pump. I wouldn't think there would be much difference from the OEM ones in those that use the tractors hydraulics. Arent most of the ones using PTO hydraulic pumps 3 PH without subframes? Just a though, I haven't looked at many add on BH.

 

[LindenBruce]

Yes. I was at an MF dealer yesterday and was looking at compact tractors. The salesmen told me the hydraulics on the CUT's just don't have the flow for a back hoe. He told me even the 1533 sized MF tractor uses a PTO powered self contain backhoe. Which surprised me to as I hadn't even thought about it that way. I checked out some PTO backhoes today on the net. Betstco has some nicely sized backhoes for CUT's. The 7' hoe for 30+hp tractors has 2500+ pounds of force on the boom and the bucket has 4400+ pounds of force.

We did compare an MF 1533 with the smaller R4 tires next to an Mahindra 3016. Both were nearly identical in physical dimensions. However, the seat on the MF 1533 was about 4" taller than the Mahindra as were the tops of the fenders. Bruce