1401d vs 186D 3 point lift comparison

[284 International]

For a change, I have a question about a comparison between tractor models, rather than some maintenance or repair issue. A friend is looking at a Yanmar 186D. He has some implements (Brush-hog and disk harrow with roller) already. We have tried my 1401D on them, but they are just a bit too large/heavy for it.

It pulls them fine (Mine has a loader so the front end really works well in assisting with the tractive effort), but they are just a smidgen heavy, and everything is just a bit too large dimensionally, like the spread between the hitch points, and vertical separation between the top link and the lower arms.

The 1401D also can just barely lift them-they are fairly long, so they have a lot of leverage, and the disk weighs too much with any ballast on it to lift. Empty it's fine, but with 80 lbs of ballast it won't lift, and the system goes into bypass.

The issue is whether there is enough of a difference in capability between the two tractors to make it worth his while to invest in the 186D, or if he needs something larger. As mentioned, it isn't a traction or pulling issue, it's more about dimensions and lifting ability.

The implements could possibly be adapted to fit a smaller dimensioned tractor (The brush-hog easily by switching the direction of the pins, the disk would be a problem since it has a cast frame up front) so that isn't a huge issue, it's more about the lifting capacity. The specs on both come out to within an inch or so in most dimensions, but the 186D is listed about 250lbs heavier. 250 pounds isn't that much, except it's over 20% heavier than the 1401D is. The hydraulic pumps are the same according to parts from Hoye.

Sorry for being so long-winded, here are my exact questions: Is the 186D significantly heavier-duty and able to lift and handle more load than the 1401D? Are the three point dimensions the same? (Spare parts are listed the same from Hoye, but that doesn't mean the mounting dimensions are identical.)

 

[California]

I think YM186D is a half-size bigger than YM1401D, in terms of what it can do. Aaron (Hoye) mentioned that this US model has a more substantial 3-point assembly compared to YM1510D (its Japanese twin).

My YM186D will lift the implements I have for my YM240 (YM2000). And they mount up fine, although I have the rear tires at maximum width including the hubs turned out. ie the 4 ft mower, 5 ft tiller that is the 'native' model for YM2000, and even my near 6 ft disc. It lifts them fine but I have 240 lbs of suitcase weights on the front to allow steering the thing! In particular transporting the disc (with some ballast on it) has the front end dancing along. The lift is surprisingly strong - either one or the other end of the rig rises instantly.

I would wait for some more opinions, but I think this is a good idea.

 

[winston1]

My research shows the 1401D as 1168#. The 186D comes in at 1539#. That is a whopping 353# or 24% difference. Lift capacity of the 186 is 551# at 24" behind the pins. Can't find any lift capacity for the 1401. The 186 is definitely a beast compared to the 1401 but whether it is beastly enough to do what you want I confess I do not know.

 

[284 International]

California: I figured he would need significant ballast on the front. My little 1401 has a loader. It provides a lot of weight up front, and the front never tries to rise with any implement attached. How does your 186D pull the disk or tiller compared to the 240 you have? I have read your thread about using the mower, where you said they were fairly close except in the ability to cut wet, heavy crass at a fast pace, where the additional horsepower and torque of the 240 gave it an advantage. How do they compare in tillage type work?

Winston1, I think you found the same specs I did (tractordata.com), and I couldn't find any numbers for the 1401's lift either. Interestingly, the site also lacks data on the 3 point lift capacity for both the YM2000 and YM240 models, seemingly as popular a Yanmar offering as anything. You were more accurate than I was and found the 4 wheel drive 186's weight, I just took the first number I saw as a baseline. Thanks for the correct numbers.

It sounds as if it's worth at least looking at this tractor as a reasonably viable option for him, to start with. Any other input is still appreciated. Thanks again to all who continue to advise and assist me.

 

[California]

How does your 186D pull the disk or tiller compared to the 240 you have? I have read your thread about using the mower, where you said they were fairly close except in the ability to cut wet, heavy crass at a fast pace, where the additional horsepower and torque of the 240 gave it an advantage. How do they compare in tillage type work?

The 186 runs the 4 ft rotary mower fine but its running at 100% throttle to do it. (particularly uphill in tall wet grass).

6 ft disc: forget it, insufficient traction and weight so insufficient drawbar horsepower. (again, this place is all sloped so half the work is driving uphill which eats up horsepower on these little tractors - including the YM240.)

My other 4 ft disc works better but that doesn't get much work done. If I ballast it heavy enough to cut deep, there will be spots where I can't move it.

RS1400 tiller (56 inch, I think): Too much tiller for this little tractor. Horsepower is sufficient if I don't let it cut too deep on the first pass. But this orchard is operated by my neighbor with larger equipment and I'm mostly doing the fence lines, around low trees, etc where he can't go. When I'm tilling along and hit a 6 inch step up from his disced ground to untouched ground, the tiller stalls just as the nose of the tractor climbs that step.

In summary - the implements are adequate for minor work - a garden, deer plot, fence lines, etc, but you need the hp and weight of YM2000 or better to work those implements as they were intended for.

For me the YM186D is a specialty tractor to get right under my apple trees where full size farm equipment can't go. Here's a link to a 2005 photo before I put the ROPS on the YM240. Now with its ROPS getting in there would be impossible. The YM186D goes through there (uphill, and a twisty path) just fine.

 

[normde2001]

I have not seen it mentioned for a long time, but it makes a big difference in rotary mower cutting ease if the front is about 1" lower than the rear. The blade only has to cut on the front half of the cycle and free-wheels, (re-gains speed), on the back side.

 

[284 International]

Thanks for the tips and guidance. It sounds as if the 186 would be right at the bottom end of useful for him and his implements. If it's a good price it is maybe worth a shot.

California, your picture reminded me of tending a grove of apricot trees when I was a child. They grew low and thick with prickly branches, and keeping the grass and weeds suppressed under the canopy of the tree was always a chore. I found an old sickle blade hay mower that protruded about 7 feet from the tractor, and used that while driving in an orbit around each tree. It worked like a charm, kept me out of the scratchy branches, and didn't break any limbs. I was a pretty contented 12 year old!

 

[California]

My research shows ... Lift capacity of the 186 is 551# at 24" behind the pins.

Confirmed. Before I came in for lunch I looked at my '6 ft' disc. It is a Leinbach 97. The CG is 24" behind the pins.

Per Leinbach's website it weighs 525 lbs. Looks like my tractor still meets specs.

 

[clemsonfor]

California: Winston1, I think you found the same specs I did (tractordata.com), and I couldn't find any numbers for the 1401's lift either. Interestingly, the site also lacks data on the 3 point lift capacity for both the YM2000 and YM240 models, seemingly as popular a Yanmar offering as anything. You were more accurate than I was and found the 4 wheel drive 186's weight, I just took the first number I saw as a baseline. Thanks for the correct numbers.

Looking in my YM240 original service manual it lists the lift capacity of the tractor at 1,430lbs. This i assume is at the arms. I think 24"s back its at least 700 and i think maybe 1000? Some one on here knows those calculations to figure the 24" back amount. Assuming the 240 is identical to the 2000 these #s would be the same.

Later in the manual on page 80 under tractor const. and maintence in #4 under hydraulic lifting device it specifies "lifting capacity at the tip of lower link" to be " more than 1,430lbs."

 

[284 International]

There is some really good information in this thread; I hope it is useful to others in the way it has been useful to me. It's interesting that the manual doesn't specify precisely what the number is, or how it is calculated/measured.

California, did you figure the CG previously, when you were suspending the disk from your loader, or did you figure it out by some other method? I didn't see the information on the website. Either way, thank you.

It's neat to see that your little tractor meets or exceeds all engineering specifications, including lift capacity and brake dynamometer horsepower. The level of engineering and build quality that goes into this type of equipment is especially impressive when compared to automobiles. No reasonable person would expect a 20 or 30 year old car to exceed published horsepower numbers after a life of normal use for that amount of time.

In point of fact, it is assumed that information published regarding the horsepower and fuel consumption of an automobile is inaccurate. In this world, much more detailed information is available, including specific fuel consumption per horsepower delivered, at several throttle and rpm settings. It's a shame, in my view, that with the amount of mandated testing and demonstration that goes on with passenger vehicles that specific fuel consumption of xx sedan at 65 miles per hour on flat, level pavement isn't available. "Real world" EPA testing isn't as empirical (at least in the readily available literature) as testing data are for 30 year old agricultural equipment. Sorry for the divergent rant.