I was referring to the rated lifting capacity according to the Kubota manual. Yes, I would expect that the actual lifting capacity would be more. If it were, then I think that I would for sure have a ballast problem. Regardless, I do think that I can lift enough that the extra 100# for the heavier duty forks would not make a lot of difference to me.
42" light duty forks or 48" heavier duty forks?
- Thread starter rbtjr
- Start date
- Views: 16207
ishiboo
Platinum Member
I agree completely. I almost bought, actually I paid for and had them move the Bradco forks for me. In the meantime I was borrowing a set of Case heavy duty forks. They not only looked right for the tractor, but I can use them on a skid loader or anything without worrying. I'm definitely glad I did. There is a small reduction in lift capacity, but they look much more at home.
tman1020
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2014
- Messages
- 1,466
- Location
- north west indiana
- Tractor
- Bobcat ct225 and Bad Boy zero turn
I went through the same concerns when I purchased my forks. I went with the light-duty 42 inch forks that everything attachments used to sell. I like it that they don't take up as much loader capacity and I definitely did not want The 48 inch forks. That last 6 inches seems to make it harder to maneuver and really eats up the power on your curl function.
That being said if you're doing things other than moving pallets or timber such as prying rocks or concrete the heavier duty forks might be a better way to go if you could find them as short as possible. Overall I'm happy with mine but I am cautious when I start using them for something other than just lifting and moving pallets.
That being said if you're doing things other than moving pallets or timber such as prying rocks or concrete the heavier duty forks might be a better way to go if you could find them as short as possible. Overall I'm happy with mine but I am cautious when I start using them for something other than just lifting and moving pallets.
When I ordered my tractor, both the green and orange dealers were pushing me toward shorter forks (I think both dealers quoted me with 42" forks). I insisted on 48" forks, and even on my much smaller tractor I'm glad that I did.
If all you're going to do is move pallets, then 42" forks are fine. But when you want to move a big stack of small-diameter logs, hang straps from the forks to lift an awkward load, etc., then the longer length makes it a bit nicer.
If all you're going to do is move pallets, then 42" forks are fine. But when you want to move a big stack of small-diameter logs, hang straps from the forks to lift an awkward load, etc., then the longer length makes it a bit nicer.
ishiboo
Platinum Member
I had the 42" forks and they worked fine for a long time, but an extra 6" comes in handy from time to time where it would surprise me. Especially putting stuff over trailers, pushing into truck beds, etc.
Deere Dude
Elite Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2011
- Messages
- 3,887
- Tractor
- John Deere 3720
My reasoning was how many times was my load at the exact point where a 42" would lift it but a 48" would not lift it because of the extra weight of the forks. I will never know because most loads are either to heavy or liftable.I never worried about that extra 100# of payload and the extra 6" sure was handy many times carrying work benches and tables etc. It never seemed to be unwieldly.
TitanSkidsteer
Advertiser
Depending on how wide and thick the forks are that you're considering, the difference between the 42" and 48" would probably be approximately 20 lbs. or so per pair. It's pretty minimal. The 48" is definitely our most popular selling forks. On rare occasions, I have seen people shave down their longer forks, when they've decided they did want them shorter after all. But, there's something to be said for saving a few bucks on the shorter fork, and they can be a tad bit easier to maneuver.
Ultimately, I've talked to more people who regretted going short than I have those who went long. If price, weight or maneuverability aren't deciding factors, maybe bigger is better.
I hope this helps. Good luck!
Ultimately, I've talked to more people who regretted going short than I have those who went long. If price, weight or maneuverability aren't deciding factors, maybe bigger is better.
I hope this helps. Good luck!
All of these replies are why I really like this web site. Great feedback and information. With no disrespect whatsoever to the advocates of the 42" lighter forks, I have decided on the heavier 48" forks. I do recognize and appreciate the differences that have been so well pointed out by you posters. It was a very close call. The thing that made the difference was that I used to have a Kubota M5700 that I really liked. I sold it and got our L3800 because my family members were uncomfortable with the larger tractor. They said they would use a smaller, more "user friendly" tractor. So, I sold the M5700 and bought the L3800. And since then, about two years ago, only two family members have used the L3800 for probably a total of an hour of seat time. I prefer the larger tractor. Since my thought of trying to make family members users didn't work, I may go back to a larger tractor.
Regardless, I really appreciate all of the great points made with respect to all alternatives.
Regardless, I really appreciate all of the great points made with respect to all alternatives.
truckdiagnostics
Platinum Member
Out on the end of a 48" fork you can get a lot of force. How the mount is made is really important!, I've ripped mine off twice, digging out rocks and the like. You can have a heavy duty fork, and if the mount isn't strong enough.....:2cents:
