Woods 1009 vs. 1012

[Gomez]

Looking a the specs on these two loaders, they are similar, except for the weight. The 1009 weighs 1470 lbs. while the 1012 weighs 830 lbs. Does anyone know why there is such a big difference in weight?

I sent an email to Woods but have not received any reply. I'm going to the dealer soon and would appreciate any input before I go.

Thanks.

 

[Darren]

Manufacturers don't incorporate extra weight they don't need. Woods is one of those companies that also "plays" with the warranty to reduce claims. The heavier loader likely has a greater hp rating even though it may not be rated for a higher load.

 

[Gomez]

Ah, but that's the confusing part here. The 1009 and 1012 are both recommended for the same HP range (17-30).
http://www.woodsonline.com/catalog/ind_loader1012.html

 

[Darren]

That is interesting. Woods has a history of buying other implement manufacturers. Since my first guess was obviously wrong, my next is that the two loaders were designed by different companies. I know some or maybe all of the Wood's loaders were originally made by DuAl. You might be comparing a DuAl loader with an original Woods or somebody else's design.

I know Woods reduces the ratings on some of it's equipment. For example the shredder grinders that they buy from Bearcat are rated for less hp than the identical unit with a Bearcat name. The heavier loader may have designed by a company that rated it higher.

That's a good catch on your part. I'd like to know what Woods eventually says.

 

[BTI]

The 1012 is a pillar style mid mount. The 1009 is a full frame(from the looks of the pics). That's about the only thing I can see that would make any weight difference. Like what was stated in the other post, probably just different manufacturers.
BTI

 

[John_Mc]

<font color=blue>The 1009 weighs 1470 lbs. while the 1012 weighs 830 lbs.</font color=blue>

My Woods loader brochure shows the 1009 at 800 lbs. (and 1012 = 830). Wher did your 1470 lb figure come from? I show that as being the weight of a 1027 model.

The 1012 also has slightly higher lift and breakaway capacities, and larger rollback and dump angles

 

[Gomez]

My Woods loader brochure shows the 1009 at 800 lbs. (and 1012 = 830). Wher did your 1470 lb figure come from?

The Woods website (see links above). What your brochure has makes a lot more sense to me. I'm pretty sure it's a typo on their website. I sent Woods a email but have not received a reply. /w3tcompact/icons/hmm.gif

I'm comparing this loader to the Kubota LA352. Unfortunately, I can't find the weight for the LA352.
The Kubota dealer I spoke to last week did not give me much feedback about how the two compare. Only that the Woods is made to be more universal and uses a bracket to adapt to different tractors.

I was hoping to get a little more info from the dealer. I would like to do business with this dealer, he is out of state(NJ) and I could save the sales tax.