Well here go again. Everybody knows an allis is not 4 wd. The loader is what is what is in question. After looking at some specs, I think I'll keep my koyker thank you.
Westendorf, koyker, and farm king all seem to be good loaders. Will they work on a 4 wd??? Don't know, only seen that once with a farm king and it seemed to be working ok. Back to the koyker: is it ugly??? A big yes. Is it slow??? Yes I think that has to do with the tractor hydraulics. As far a brute strength I going to stay with the koyker. Westendorf and farm king are also pretty rugged. Have I been concerned about the loader??? No. Have I been concerned about the front end of the tractor??? A few time, but haven't broke anything yet. Because I'm not 4 wd, the biggest problem is if you get something pretty heavy up on the loader, you got to weight the back end down or you can't get any traction to move. All them old tractors were that way. The loader controls??? The way I go it plumbed in is A little unhandy compared to a joystick. I'm basically after brute strength. Is the loader a little much for the tractor??? Maybe, but other 185's have had the same loader and me and this outfit seem to be getting a long fine. Have I had to use the loader to push myself out backwaeds from a mucky mess???yes so 4 wd would be advantageous. But I've pushed my 1531 out the same and it is 4 wd. I've been looking for a replacement for my 1531. Really haven't anything that I like and trust. Guys having emission trouble. Apparently a guy screwed up a transmission the other day in a mf 1533. I looked at a case-ih last fall. It was about 40-45 hp. If something acted up looks like it would be complicated to work on. And the loader looked pretty cheap and flimsy. I go for brute strength over computerized, flashy, flimsy stuff. My wife's SUV is got all the bells and whistles on it. If it acts up, I'll have to take it some where to get it fixed. And I think it is pretty flimsy. In a crash test with a Ford galaxy 500 I believe I'd put money on the galaxy 500. The thing is, if I got more loader than tractor, and that's possible, then you can go with a bigger tractor with no concern for the loader. I hate stuff that breaks, acts up or fall's apart.
Some previous posts are mired in the tall weeds, Lets focus on some facts:
Loaders are tools, every tool ,when used improperly, is subject to abuse. Compact tractors are generally sturdy. Their loader capacity is matched to the tractor size and the task undertaken. What is the primary design use for compact loaders?. Is it lifting? Yes, of course. Generally loose materials with a bucket or items using pallet forks. The built-in safety pressure release valve prevents overloading. A member mentioned digging, more appropriate for utility class. I contend that excavating in hard soils is not an intended use, neither is CHARGING into a hard pile of anything. Charging = approaching the object faster than is reasonable. Can't debate this point with an idiot. The high speed offset approach where one side only, of the bucket contacts the pile, is abuse. The point here is that lifting weight alone seldom results in abuse. Other careless operation does produce damage, and then THAT damage may manifest itself during a lifting function. Repeated again below.
More points. The construction of quick disconnect loaders differs from dedicated mounts. I have a koyker loader on a 28 hp ford compact, 4wd. The mounting brackets are offset substantially from the tractor housing. Same with my 50 hp kubota, perhaps to provide a wider distance between loader arms for stability at height. I believe this concept weakens the loader ability to withstand abuse noted above. I have a 50 hp IH utility w/ matched IH 2200 loader. The mounting brackets are coupled very close the tractor housing. Width of tractor and distance between loader arms, about the same. It is perm mount loader. This application appears more durable but less convenient. I also owned a IH TLB in the past. Point is as stated previously, match the tractor to the task. Lifting won't necessarily cause the abuse but abusive operation may become visible as a result of lifting. I believe tractor manufacturers do not design to fail. Front axles fail from other causes like lack of maintenance, changing loader relief pressure. Etc. Excessive bouncing with a loaded bucket is another issue. Again, speed = abuse. Just saw long has introduced aftermarket ride nitrogen accumulator. Finally, This is written for everyone other than Phillip. He won't alter my position, I have No Desire to address his issues, so please save the keystrokes for other posts, Phillip. The posts have gotten well into the irrelevant tall weeds, technology, modernization is here to stay and even advance. Most of us except the inevitable. The whining and complaining, (new vs old) has become monotonous, repetitious and irritating.
FARMER495,
Thanks for comments. I actually added the titan quick attachment adapter to the 2200. With the bucket removed, there is really no reason to remove entire loader, however it is necessary to detach the arms to servive fuel filters or work on the starter. I have no tasks where the loader frame alone is an impediment. Can use overhead jib crane in shop or simply suspend another loader over the 2200, for service, dependent upon duration of issue. 484 has the disadvantages of any 2wd machine. Light in rear end, unlike aTLB. Still, as you noted, if digging is the work objective, farm tractors, and compacts, are no real substitutes for industrial loader tractors. My Kubota LA 844 is obviously less capable than your LA 1153.