84" Too much bucket for Kubota M7060 HDC12?

   / 84" Too much bucket for Kubota M7060 HDC12? #31  
Phillip, I am not familiar with your Massey 1531, but am very familiar with your 185. Is it 4WD?
 
   / 84" Too much bucket for Kubota M7060 HDC12? #32  
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.
 
   / 84" Too much bucket for Kubota M7060 HDC12? #33  
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.

The tractor's ability puts the loader's ability in question. How ell would your loader do on a 4wd tractor?

I am familiar with your brand of loader. I'm also familiar with Westendorf loaders. Both quality products that have served the AG world well. But I'd never say they are superior to the tractor brand loaders.
 
   / 84" Too much bucket for Kubota M7060 HDC12? #34  
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.
 
   / 84" Too much bucket for Kubota M7060 HDC12? #35  
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.

You've asked a LOT of questions in this post. So, I'll try to give you my "opinion" in regards to each.

Will they work on a 4 wd??? Yes, I'm sure there are many, many Koyker loaders on 4wd tractors.

is it ugly??? Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

Is it slow??? Speed is also in the eyes of the beholder.

Have I been concerned about the loader??? I don't think you have any concerns on the tractor you are using.

Have I been concerned about the front end of the tractor??? I don't think the 185 was originally designed with the idea of using a loader as it's principal chore. I do believe the front end under those tractors are dependable and reliable. Adding ballast to the rear will increase the productivity of the tractor. It will also increase the load on the front axle assembly. This increase will continue until the capacity of the loader is reached. I can't offer an opinion which will fail first.

The loader controls??? Since you indicated you don't have a joystick, but didn't explain what you do have, I assume a two stick setup. There have been thousands and thousands of loaders set up that way. They work fine if they are located close enough to be used simultaneously with one hand. If you must move your hand back and forth, lever to lever, they are very inadequate. Considering your setup I don't imagine you are very concerned with speed and efficiency, so two levers will work fine.

Is the loader a little much for the tractor??? Not sure how any of us could determine that.

Have I had to use the loader to push myself out backwaeds from a mucky mess??? 4wd decreases the events that require this tactic. 4wd also gets the operator further into the mucky mess.

I think we all want reliability. Some of us put a higher emphasis on productivity. Some of us put a higher emphasis on convenience. It's all a trade-off. There are some setups out there that score very high in all these areas.
 
   / 84" Too much bucket for Kubota M7060 HDC12? #36  
Re: 84" Too much bucket for Kubota M7060 HDC12?

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.
 
   / 84" Too much bucket for Kubota M7060 HDC12? #37  
Re: 84" Too much bucket for Kubota M7060 HDC12?

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.

The 2200 loader fits a 484 like a glove and there is NO slop. Have a 2200 here as well. I always liked digging with it only because it's semi-permanently mounted to the tractor and pin on bucket. About as close to a industrial type loader as you can get on a farm tractor. Now it takes about 20 minutes and an overhead hoist and tools to take the loader off, and about 30 minutes to put it back on so it's a PITA to remove, and no easy bucket swapping.

The QA attach bucket and loader mounts on the LA1153 have play in them and rattle, so it's noisier to run than the 2200, but it's on a way more capable 4wd tractor, loader is off or off in less than 2 minutes with no tools anywhere I want to drop it and buckets swap in seconds. Far more useful loader and more capable.
 
   / 84" Too much bucket for Kubota M7060 HDC12? #38  
Re: 84" Too much bucket for Kubota M7060 HDC12?

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.
 
   / 84" Too much bucket for Kubota M7060 HDC12? #39  
Re: 84" Too much bucket for Kubota M7060 HDC12?

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.

Loader goes off for field work, so just for the summer now, less weight on the front end on soft ground making hay. Used have to plan work based if the loader was on the tractor or not.

I can do the fuel & oil filters on the 495 with the 2200 loader on, should be the same for a 484, fuel filter on each side of the tractor, work from underneath, use strap wrench and extension. Yes 2wd hurts. I ran a 2200 on a 485 4x4 with the 8x8 shuttle for a bit once, completely different tractor with the front end pulling.
 
   / 84" Too much bucket for Kubota M7060 HDC12? #40  
Farmer 495

495 and 484 have same engine, but I can't get fuel filter gasket to seat from underneath. On right side I need straight on access. I run eleven hundred implement tires on front and 17.5 R-4 on rear, so never had compaction concerns. These days, tractor is used for mowing. Had a shuttle on my IH 2400B TLB. Wish the 484 had a shuttle, would be nice. The MX is HST, great for loader work. Since the kubota and ford are 4 WD , not so important for the 484. I see that the 495 was built with a ROPS.
 
 
 
Top