Loader Dl95 loader capacity cuft?

[piercedtiger]

The dl100 loader has a smaller weight lifting capability than the dl95 by a fair sized amount (if you read the updated dl95 numbers instead of the original wrong numbers).

The bucket on the dl95 is 155 pounds. If you read going to put a 400+ lb bucket plus the q. a. attach . . . It would seem your payload capability is going to be considerably smaller. (and the isn't taking into account the dl100 weight lifting level vs. the Dl95). Just a thought.

Hydraulic pressure was increased by about 300 PSI over factory and 400 over the current setting first. So if the numbers are right, that's around 300lbs extra lift capacity (400 effective since it was low when I checked). At around 978 lbs that'll still leave 400lbs for snow, leaves, hay, compost, etc. Or about what I had before with below factory PSI, OEM bucket, and wood expander, but thanks. Just means the DL95 originally mentioned would have an even larger margin to play with starting out at 870 lbs without adjusting the PRV to 10 or 15% over.

 

[piercedtiger]

I installed a work saver ssqa that's made for the DL 95, weighs 80 lbs and bought a 60 inch CA bucket from everything attachment that weighs 210lbs and I couldn't be happier, $600 shipped for the ssqa and about the same for the bucket, best money I ever spent.

As long as it works for you, that's great. I really need more volume that just 6" added to either side of the bucket. Mostly for the hay and bedding from the animals. I can pile it up and use the tractor as a powered wheelbarrow to the compost pile or garden, or collect leaves in the fall. Winter will be mostly pushing with some edge tamers on the front to take off enough for the rear blade to clean up.

I want to weigh the QA when it gets here. I read one place it was 125 lbs, another it was 110 for the version I need, and then looking at the pictures it seems to come with plates that pin to the OEM bucket without modification so I'm assuming those add several pounds each. They won't be a factor on other attachments, only the OEM 155lb bucket.

 

[AxleHub]

Piercedtiger, I'm wondering what a 300 PSI increase over factory settings means on your hydraulic lines, connectors, and piston seals. I followed a GC user who checked and boosted his paw. He was very thorough in his pictures and documentation. As I recall from the manufacturer recommendation, he moved his up almost 200 PS but that was a new tractor, new ones etc.. And his was a dl95 which is rated higher capacity anyway but same tractor psi.

In my particular case I kept my gc1715 as it was and did the following (note the dl95 pins are more than 1 inch):

1. Take off the 155 pound bucket.
2. Attach my quick attach - weight is 74 lbs including the built in 2 inch receiver
Then either re-Attach my bucket at 155 #
Or attach my full set forks - weight 112 lbs
Or attach a mini grapple at 77 lbs with a 28 inch jaws opening

3. My point is merely this . . . Given equal performance strength of implement items . . . a Sub-Compact tractor can do considerable lifting if the implement items are designed with a lower accessory weight ratio. In that way you still have the same axle engineered capacity and hydraulic line safety.

In my personal case, although I'm quite strong, I can't even lift an ssqa set of forks or even slide a 400 pound bucket. But I can easily lift my full set of forks or slide easily or carry with strain - my bucket. And I've had to do it numerous times for my positioning or storage desires. We all choose what we think is best and most beneficial

I have considerable hills and sidehills and then the flat areas. I know for me that I don't want lots of weight spread outside my tires (implement weight and payload weight) or extended any further forward than needed because that all reduces what I can carry safely. I designed a very unique rear adjustable weight setup also for that very purpose. My goal is to have those 25 horses run till I don't need them to anymore

 

[piercedtiger]

The thread I was following had 10, 15 and max 20% increase over factory PSI setting. I'm still under the max recommendation at 15% over, after seeing another GC2600 owner able to do the same thing. Lines are all rated for 3,000 PSI so it's still well under that. Tractor still has under 300 hours on it as well, so "like new" from what I'm seeing on other tractors.

 

[Jonohio]

Very interesting. Based on this and another thread I'll be checking my prv to see where my hydraulics are at very soon.

 

[AxleHub]

Very interesting. Based on this and another thread I'll be checking my prv to see where my hydraulics are at very soon.

If you are in the 1750 to 1900 PSI range. . . Everything should be already operating ok. If you are in that 1300 PSI range like one operator had posted, you would be having significantly reduced lifting issues. The one thing to recognize is hydraulic lines rated at 3000 PSI is their MAX numbers. . . not their operating numbers. A 200 PSI increase on a 1900 psi MF recommendation is already a significant increase of. 11% and that's for new lines that are in excellent condition.

This later Spring I'll have the dealer check mine and verify I'm in the PSI mid or upper 1900s, while they are correcting my mmm deck lock. It's like everything else like tires etc. . . Because a tire sidewall says a Max PSI of xxxii doesn't mean that's a beneficial number.

 

[piercedtiger]

If you are in the 1750 to 1900 PSI range. . . Everything should be already operating ok. If you are in that 1300 PSI range like one operator had posted, you would be having significantly reduced lifting issues. The one thing to recognize is hydraulic lines rated at 3000 PSI is their MAX numbers. . . not their operating numbers. A 200 PSI increase on a 1900 psi MF recommendation is already a significant increase of. 11% and that's for new lines that are in excellent condition.

This later Spring I'll have the dealer check mine and verify I'm in the PSI mid or upper 1900s, while they are correcting my mmm deck lock. It's like everything else like tires etc. . . Because a tire sidewall says a Max PSI of xxxii doesn't mean that's a beneficial number.

Assuming the math in the other thread is right, 1750 PSI would be nearly 200lbs less lift capacity. You don't think that's significant on a tractor with 678 or 870 lbs lift depending on his loader model? That's almost 1/3rd the capacity of a DL100.

Keep in mind, not a single person has even suggested running at 3,000 PSI. In fact, the absolute max suggestion is 2300 PSI, 700 below the max. Or about 3x the range you seem to feel would not impact the machine. Perhaps you could discuss this with your dealer when they're testing your pressure and making adjustments as needed?

I guess I'm confused about the amount of concern. The tractor operates at a consistent RPM and thus consistent PSI unless you're bouncing the throttle. At max RPM mine is set for 2200 PSI (2100 around 2600 RPM). So at most I'm still 800 PSI below the max line/fitting pressure (and let's be honest here what fitting or hose is designed to blow at or just over their "max" rating, there has to be a margin of safety in that as well) at just over 3000 RPM. If I hit a bump or something causes the loader to bounce with a heavy load, wouldn't the PRV open up before hydraulic pressure spiked high enough to exceed 3000 PSI? That is one of the main points of a PRV is it not? FWIW, I don't generally operate at 3000 RPM anyway, so if anything this gives a little more power in the lower RPM range I tend to operate and may even save a little fuel.

 

[Snobdds]

Like I pointed out in the other thread. There is no free lunch in hydraulic systems. Increasing the pressure is as simple as closing off a hole more. Like a garden hose, put your thumb at the end of it and close off half the hose and your have more pressure. However, now your decreasing the flow. The tractor hydraulics is the same thing, increase your pressure and your flow decreases. Now the loader, the hydrostatic transmission, and steering is slow. Is that really an improvement to lift a little more, NO. If you need to lift more than 1,000lbs, get a bigger tractor.

Plus, the older GC2600 front axle is not as strong as the new GC 1700 series tractors. The front axle was redesigned to handle much heavier loads, it's a pretty noticeable beefier axle.

 

[AxleHub]

Snobdds, you posted a very good point:

"Plus, the older GC2600 front axle is not as strong as the new GC 1700 series tractors. The front axle was redesigned to handle much heavier loads, it's a pretty noticeable beefier axle."

 

[piercedtiger]

Like I pointed out in the other thread. There is no free lunch in hydraulic systems. Increasing the pressure is as simple as closing off a hole more. Like a garden hose, put your thumb at the end of it and close off half the hose and your have more pressure. However, now your decreasing the flow. The tractor hydraulics is the same thing, increase your pressure and your flow decreases. Now the loader, the hydrostatic transmission, and steering is slow. Is that really an improvement to lift a little more, NO. If you need to lift more than 1,000lbs, get a bigger tractor.

Plus, the older GC2600 front axle is not as strong as the new GC 1700 series tractors. The front axle was redesigned to handle much heavier loads, it's a pretty noticeable beefier axle.

I read your post the first time so you don't need to point it out again. I just don't care about your point, TBH. I never said anything about speed. Nor did I ever say anything about wanting to lift more than 1,000 pounds so your suggestion to "get a bigger tractor" is the dumbest thing I've heard in awhile. Why the **** would anyone spend another $14k or more on a slightly bigger compact tractor (or even $5k on a 20+ yr old tractor with loader, or tractor plus aftermarket loader) when this free adjustment can get the extra lift capacity needed to do what I want? Your suggestion to trade this tractor for a newer, bigger one, move my lights, redo all the financing and all the other BS, or drop a few thousand dollars instead of making a free adjustment is, quite frankly, stupid.

Then again, by your logic I should probably just go buy a bigger house instead of adding another room onto it for a workshop. Afterall, the current house doesn't meet my needs.

Snobdds, you posted a very good point:

"Plus, the older GC2600 front axle is not as strong as the new GC 1700 series tractors. The front axle was redesigned to handle much heavier loads, it's a pretty noticeable beefier axle."

hmmmmm......

Nope, the front axle is the same with the newer DL95 loader.

http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/...-ssqa-conversion-post4727302.html#post4727302

So is it the same axle or not?