Odd that LS doesn't list lift capacity at maximum height?

[4tillingdirt]

I have noticed some tractors mention lift capacity at maximum height and that would seem to be more telling than what LS mentions - For example LL4104 loader Lift Capacity(@ Pivot pin) (lbs.) 2,713. Since LS is known for having a lift height that is lower than most other brands (a foot lower in most cases), the LS could really be low on the totem pole when it comes to this specification. Has anyone found better information than what is listed on the LS site?

 

[3Lfarms]

The lift capacity is to full height. The reason LS has comparatively low lift heights is because they have more capacity. It’s a trade off.

 

[ruffdog]

Shorter loader arms = more capacity but also = less height.

 

[s219]

This is one of the oddities of tractor ratings, not all "full heights" are equal. I have found that in a lot of cases, Kubota goes 8-12" higher than other brands and so they end up with a lower weight rating. But if you look at the loader curves in the owner's manual and trace them down 8-12" lower, the weight rating is a heck of a lot better.

It's even true when comparing different Kubotas -- here's a comparison of loaders on the B2650 (blue) and L2501 (red). The L2501 loader has a lower weight rating on paper, but that's because it goes 8" higher. Compare the lift curves anywhere at the same height, and you can see the L2501 loader lifts more.

 

[oosik]

I can definitely verify the statement by ruff dog and s219 - - lower lift means greater lift capacity - - higher lift means reduced lift capacity.

The FEL on my M6040 has two rear pin positions on the FEL - one for height - - one for max lift capacity

It breaks down like this:

POWER position Max height - 108"

HEIGHT position Max height - 124"


However on following pages there are graphs that indicate max lift capacity in both modes

Power position Max capacity at 108" @ pivot pins - - - ~1300 pounds

Height position Max capacity at 124" @ pivot pins - - - ~1120 pounds

My FEL is rated to lift 4300 pounds - 16" forward of the pivot pins ( dead center of my grapple jaws) at 200mm(8") off the ground.

Subtract the grapple weight (820 pounds) and I have the "spec ability" to lift 3480 pounds.

I have gigantic ancient Ponderosa pines - I have lifted a ten foot chunk that weighed 2850# - green. It was so heavy and put such a load on the FEL and tractor that as I move it the bottom of the grapple left high spot drag marks in the dirt. It was only when I got to the final spot that I lifted this log three feet up and into position.

 

[ruffdog]

Which is better? It all depends on the job you are doing and what you like. I like a loader that is tight to the tractor, strong, and has high lift capacity. Some people may need a certain height to reach instead of capacity. To each their own.

 

[CobyRupert]

Answer: 0.
At full height it can’t “lift” anything.

 

[s219]

Some folks seem to be under the impression that you have to give up height/reach in order to get more capacity. But in most cases I have seen, the higher-reaching loaders will have the same or similar capacity as the lower-reaching loaders when compared at the lower height. So get the higher-reaching loader and just don't lift it all the way up if you want more load capacity.

You really need to have the lift curve to really make any conclusions. It's really basic geometry, but having single sets of load ratings at max height doesn't really tell the story.

 

[oosik]

s219 - spot on. My owners manual has curves for total lift in power mode and total lift in the height mode. I'm able to track total lift in both power and height from ground zero to the full lift height. At 200mm( 8" ) there is a 420 Kg(920#) difference at 2500mm( 100" ) there is only a 100 Kg ( 220# ) difference