John deere loader specs.

[Dizno]

Gentlemen, I just want to say that specs are important but only a small part of the story. A Deere loader will outlast anything Kubota any day, any month, and over many years. I have seen, heard, and believe.

John

From the JD brochure NEW 5 SERIES UTILITY TRACTORS, page 17;
John Deere Loaders built to fit:

512NSL

lift at max ht 2453 lbs*
breakout force 4775 lbs*
max lift ht 114"
clearance bucket dumped 85"
reach at max ht 26"
digging depth 3"
dump angle 57 degrees
rollback angle 23 degrees

* measured at pivot

 

[jenkinsph]

Gentlemen, I just want to say that specs are important but only a small part of the story. A Deere loader will outlast anything Kubota any day, any month, and over many years. I have seen, heard, and believe.

John

I have all Deere equipment and am well satisfied. But as far as your comments above, PROVE IT. Kubota makes some very good equipment, this kind of BS will make you look silly and should.

 

[Dizno]

Easy now - I was friendly so ...about the following:

-nickel chrome rods in the cylinders
-friction welded heads on the cylinders
-e-coat and powder coat finish
-how about no pressure relief valves on the bucket cylinders
-nodular cast mounting frames instead of weldments for longer life

How about the fact John Deere utility tractors actually have sleeves in the engine. How about the fact Kubota has not submitted their tractors historically for Nebraska testing? Or that on larger tractors John Deere uses a full frame tractor in their 6000 series that lasts much longer in brutal snow removal conditions?

How about the fact John Deere actually makes loaders for their larger tractors whereas Kubota uses Alo which they don't manufacture?

What more proof do you want?

Thanks and please be friendly.

John


QUOTE=Dizno;3558358]Gentlemen, I just want to say that specs are important but only a small part of the story. A Deere loader will outlast anything Kubota any day, any month, and over many years. I have seen, heard, and believe.

John[/QUOTE]

 

[GManBart]

Easy now - I was friendly so ...about the following:

-nickel chrome rods in the cylinders
-friction welded heads on the cylinders
-e-coat and powder coat finish
-how about no pressure relief valves on the bucket cylinders
-nodular cast mounting frames instead of weldments for longer life

How about the fact John Deere utility tractors actually have sleeves in the engine. How about the fact Kubota has not submitted their tractors historically for Nebraska testing? Or that on larger tractors John Deere uses a full frame tractor in their 6000 series that lasts much longer in brutal snow removal conditions?

How about the fact John Deere actually makes loaders for their larger tractors whereas Kubota uses Alo which they don't manufacture?

What more proof do you want?

Thanks and please be friendly.

John

You do realize that there are many loaders out there, without those fancy "improvements" still working after many decades, right?

Also, the thread is three yeas old....they probably got the answer they were looking for.

 

[Dizno]

You do realize that there are many loaders out there, without those fancy "improvements" still working after many decades, right?

Also, the thread is three yeas old....they probably got the answer they were looking for.

John Deere has had some of these features for years. Of course I know there are loaders still working after many decades. My 1967 John Deere 1020 with a factory original 47 loader can still put in a full days work. How old is your tractor? Point is, I might realize this more than most which is why I drive John Deere.

 

[TomSeller]

I have all Deere equipment and am well satisfied. But as far as your comments above, PROVE IT. Kubota makes some very good equipment, this kind of BS will make you look silly and should.

Oh, I think he was just waving the JD flag, nothing that terribly negative was said about any other color. I have Case, Kubota, JD and Massey loaders. All are good. The JD has the best spec except for speed to full height.

 

[GManBart]

John Deere has had some of these features for years. Of course I know there are loaders still working after many decades. My 1967 John Deere 1020 with a factory original 47 loader can still put in a full days work. How old is your tractor? Point is, I might realize this more than most which is why I drive John Deere.

My 8N was built in Oct of 1947 as best I can tell.

You drive old Deere....back when they were new, you would have had more of an argument. Things have changed....a lot (well other than being the most expensive for a set performance level).

Heck, even a cheapo LS X5000 series loader can lift 25% more, to 1.5" higher, than the JD loader mentioned. If they were truly "the best" they wouldn't get crushed in specs like that....they would lift at least as much, or more, AND have all those fancy improvements you mentioned. You're certainly paying enough that expecting the actual performance matching the durability isn't unreasonable.

 

[Dizno]

You judged my earlier post and challenged me to prove it. I gave concrete examples. I don't have any from your position at all - price and specification are different than quality, durability, and a company that stands behind their product. I do not get your point.

Old or new, John Deere has it. An 8N was not as good as a John Deere D then just as a Kubota is not as good as a John Deere today.

Solid, stable, still John Deere. Still building an awesome product.

It has not changed, my friend.

 

[TomSeller]

.
Solid, stable, still John Deere. Still building an awesome product.
.

Good to see a New John Deere fan on TBN. Quality, well supported product, always has been

 

[GManBart]

You judged my earlier post and challenged me to prove it. I gave concrete examples. I don't have any from your position at all - price and specification are different than quality, durability, and a company that stands behind their product. I do not get your point.

Old or new, John Deere has it. An 8N was not as good as a John Deere D then just as a Kubota is not as good as a John Deere today.

Solid, stable, still John Deere. Still building an awesome product.

It has not changed, my friend.

I didn't challenge anything, I just pointed out that the "improvements" you listed weren't necessary for machines to last virtually indefinitely.

I didn't compare my 8N, just answered your question about how old it was.

Yeah, Deere "has it"....a higher price tag, that is.

Hey, if you're happy with inferior performance, at a higher price, for a possible slight increase in longevity, that's wonderful for you.

"Stable"? You mean like forcing small, responsive, local dealerships out of business? That's really, solid, and stable moves that do wonders for the consumer!

"Quality" should include performance, but you're suggesting it's something independent, because it ruins your argument.

If Deere was really offering a "better" product, at their higher price, they would at least roughly match the performance of far less expensive alternatives....but they aren't.

 

[sd455dan]

You judged my earlier post and challenged me to prove it. I gave concrete examples. I don't have any from your position at all - price and specification are different than quality, durability, and a company that stands behind their product. I do not get your point.

Old or new, John Deere has it. An 8N was not as good as a John Deere D then just as a Kubota is not as good as a John Deere today.

Solid, stable, still John Deere. Still building an awesome product.

It has not changed, my friend.

Well- lets go a little farther back John Deere pioneered the first smooth faced plows ( didn't have to stop and kick the dirt off)
but at that time there were other companies building work horse tractors- JD had NONE they had to BUY their way into a working tractor in 1918 with the Waterloo...

at least Ford had 10 years of its own engineering invested in the F model and came out with its own design.. and I'm sure the Waterloo was a good machine- since JD rested on it's basic design for years .. and before you think I dislike old JDs our family owns a restored model R

I just think many companies have built some great machines- not just Deere

 

[Dizno]

I didn't challenge anything, I just pointed out that the "improvements" you listed weren't necessary for machines to last virtually indefinitely.

I didn't compare my 8N, just answered your question about how old it was.

Yeah, Deere "has it"....a higher price tag, that is.

Hey, if you're happy with inferior performance, at a higher price, for a possible slight increase in longevity, that's wonderful for you.

"Stable"? You mean like forcing small, responsive, local dealerships out of business? That's really, solid, and stable moves that do wonders for the consumer!

"Quality" should include performance, but you're suggesting it's something independent, because it ruins your argument.

If Deere was really offering a "better" product, at their higher price, they would at least roughly match the performance of far less expensive alternatives....but they aren't.

You still don't get my point. When my John Deere 1020 comes to a grinding halt at ...say...12,000 hours which many of them get to, I will be able to:

-get an OEM engine kit from the same company that manufactured it
-will not have to bore it out because it has sleeves
-have it rebuilt many, many times

While you will have to:

-get your tractor rebuilt long before I do
-bring your engine to a machine shop to get bored out
-try to get your parts from FIAT because FORD no longer exists similar to many other tractor companies

Quality should NOT include performance. No different than a stock car might be able to win a race for a year while a well appointed working car could last years. The laws of metallurgy whereby heat treatments, and wear characteristics all have to come together. An example could be ratio of rear axle to front axle and front axle to bucket pivot point. It all has to make sense or the loader tractor is not balanced. This is the reason why I DISAGREE that specifications are the answer. You would buy a "will fit" loader, put it on your tractor because of specification only to have your front axle bust in half. What good is that?

You are smart not to compare to John Deere. The hard work and care John Deere dealerships have for customers for whom they deal with along with the humbleness they exude always is so amazing to see and experience.

 

[LD1]

No doubt deere's are good tractors.

But if they were the best possible choice for everyone, there wouldnt be any others in business. But since there are several other manufactures out there thriving, means that deere obviously isnt the best for everyone.

Ford, Chevy, Dodge debate just with tractors. They all have strong points and weak points

 

[murphy1244]

Too bad there built by Yanmar.

 

[TomSeller]

Built by Yanmar to John Deere specs, but that is only the smaller ones. John Deere is not the only good tractor around but they are certainly very high on most lists, the top of many lists, particularly in the big boy tractor world.

 

[murphy1244]

Not much here in the States, I see Case New Holland and Fendt. About a couple JD I think more west of me you would see more as the Big Dealer is there.

 

[arlen4720]

Too bad there built by Yanmar.

I think that the 2xxx series, 4005, and the 4105 are the only ones built by yanmar now. There might be another one, but the point is that there is only a handful built by yanmar these days.

 

[Wobblin-Goblin]

I looked at John Deere and Massey Ferguson before buying. Here is what I learned before making my decision:

1. JD is more expensive. There's no getting around that. Model for model you will pay more.
2. I wanted something in the 40 horse range with a loader. That had me looking at the 3000 and 4000 Twenty series JDs and the MF 1600 series.
3. The 3000 Twenty series was a wee bit too small (ie, not enough tractor) for what I wanted.
4. The 4000 Twenty series was real close to the mark in terms of size and performance.
5. The MF 1643 was almost a direct hit in terms of size and performance, was more tractor than the 3000s and less expensive to boot. While the 4000 series was more tractor than the 1643 and therefore not an equal comparison, it was the closest JD could come to what I wanted without compromising...it was much, much more expensive than the 1643.
6. I would have liked the 400cx loader, but gosh darn it, spending another $4-$5K just wasn't appealing.
7. The MF 1643 won me over with its build quality, size, performance, and price.
8. Not bashing JD at all, their 4000 Twenty tractors are really nice and I seriously looked at them.

 

[ajd187]

When I looked, the Massey was a lot more than Deere , at least the subcompact, which is really an Iseki anyway. For less hp and features too.

 

[dirt ditch]

Does anyone know where you can get the specs for JD loaders. I can't seem to find any useful lifting specs. Maybe I am just blind!:confused2:

Here is a comparison of the 200/300/400 John Deere loaders for anyone interested.

View attachment 349081