strantor
Platinum Member
When I bought mine I was looking around 40hp. I don't remember the model of Kubota I was looking at, but there wasn't anything like you described. Maybe I was looking at too small a tractor to encounter it.
55HP Tractor
- Thread starter presnewt
- Start date
cathy liebchen
Platinum Member
Needed something to compete with the great value of the MX
Macinnis
Gold Member
They never said anything that you implied.Dang....a post implying that LS is a better designed and engineered loader than deere and kubotas
jyoutz
Super Member
My MX6000 is 63 hp. You may be correct on some of the other Kubota models.
jyoutz
Super Member
The mirrors on that Kioti ROPS model are a nice touch.
airbiscuit
Super Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2004
- Messages
- 5,851
- Location
- NW Wisconsin
- Tractor
- New Holland T2310, Kubota L3010 GST, New Holland TC21DA, Farmall H *** Previously - 1941 John Deere B, Shibaura SD1500, John Deere 850, Bobcat 642, New Holland 1925
With the reference to 3/4" plate I was referring specifically to the interface between the loader and the tractor. It is hard to find good pictures of this on the internet but I did my best (hence why recommend looking in person).
I see what you are referring to. That said, that is an area that I seldom if ever see reports of failure. Loader arms, yes. Loader mounts, not so much. I would trust 3D CAD Modelling and Finite Element Analysis, before I would rely on a tape measure and intuition to determine strength under load.
I'm sure LS makes a very functional loader, as do the others.
Last edited:
strantor
Platinum Member
Fair enough, thanks for acknowledging my point. I'll take your word on the common failure modes of front end loaders, I don't have any stats. Anyway I was reluctant to post pictures of what I was talking about because I rightly feared that would make the discussion too focused on that one spot. I was asked specifically about my reference to 3/4" plate so I obliged, but my point is really about the entire loader and I don't have the motivation to scour the internet for pictures of all these loaders from just the right angles to illustrate all my points. This is why I keep harping on "just go look at them."
Until the 60s there was no FEA, and what they made by tape measure and intuition, are the things we look back on as the gold standard and say things like "they just don't make em like they used to." FEA was created for all the right reasons but it's primary purpose today is finding out just feebly a thing can be made and still last a couple weeks past its warranty date.
Good point. I'm sorry if my remarks came across offensive to anyone.
LD1
Epic Contributor
Glad you arent an engineer. Pound for pound a round tube is the strongest shape for torsion.
The pic you have of that kubota....the plate that bolts to the block is at least 1/2" plate. And the upright that connects to the loader is a hefty solid piece. They are connected by a round tube that is probably 6" in diameter and a good 3/8" wall thickness.
The LS only "looks" beefy. But isnt really any stronger. They had to overcompensate for not using a round section when trying to resist torsion.
LD1
Epic Contributor
Then you have a reading comprehension problem.
strantor
Platinum Member
Except, I am.
And is torsion the only force that piece is expected to endure?
You have an orange tractor in your profile so I know your word automatically trumps mine, but I brought a caliper with me when I went to look at these and the measurements were not what you claim.
You know what? You're right. You win. I'm the one with the inferior loader. This is tiring and I don't have any reason to continue arguing this obvious point with people who go out of their way to avoid seeing it. OP is not going to buy an LS.