2015 vs the Cub Cadet 7205 Loaders

[sschriber]

I had narrowed my CUT hunt down to the Mahindra 2015 and the Kioti CK20, but the cost of a new unit has kept the purchase at arm's length. Recently, a Cub 7205 became available locally at a decent price (8k). I was thinking of purchasing the used unit now as a "bridge" tractor for a couple of years. My one reservation is that the loader ratings for the 475 loader on the 7205 are significantly lower than the 2015 loader. (and much lower than the Kioti) I understand the 2015 is the same tractor as the 7205. Any thoughts about the loader difference? I've read about what a bear the small Mahindra is, will I be frustrated when I start trying to do some general clearing and logging work with that loader?

 

[Bob_Skurka]

I had narrowed my CUT hunt down to the Mahindra 2015 and the Kioti CK20, but the cost of a new unit has kept the purchase at arm's length. Recently, a Cub 7205 became available locally at a decent price (8k). I was thinking of purchasing the used unit now as a "bridge" tractor for a couple of years. My one reservation is that the loader ratings for the 475 loader on the 7205 are significantly lower than the 2015 loader. (and much lower than the Kioti) I understand the 2015 is the same tractor as the 7205. Any thoughts about the loader difference?

Mahindra and Kioti both rate their FEL capacity at the the "pivot pins" which inflates the actual capacity by approximately 30%. Now that said, I don't know how Cub Cadet rates their loaders, but if they rate their loader at 500mm (19.7") forward of the pivot pins, then that would explain the difference. If Cub rates the loader at the pivot point then I am totally clueless as to why it is rated lower!

But for some background information . . . In the good old days, the tractor manufacturers used to rate their loader's capacity by what you could actually put inside the bucket, so they measured the capacity at 500mm/19.7" forward of the pivot point. But with the advent of so many competitors, and some of them looking to gain an advantage, some manufaturers have begun to publish ratings at the 'pivot point' which really has very little to do with real world capacity. Afterall, you carry dirt INSIDE the bucket and if you expect buy a tractor because you NEED to carry 1000# so you get a tractor rated at 1000# at the pivot point you will learn the hard way that the tractor is really only capable of carrying about 700# INSIDE THE BUCKET or about 30% less than you thought you were getting.

By the way, the exact same thing happens on 3pt hitch capacity. Some brands rate their hitch at the "ball eyes" and some brands rate them at 24" behind the ball eyes. Last time I checked, most implements hang well behind the ball eyes, so the more realistic measurment is 24" behind the ball eyes.

 

[sschriber]

Per the Model 475 Spec Sheet -
Lift Capacity to full height - 630 lbs
Breakout Capacity - 950#

mahindra ML104
Lift Capacity to full height @ pivot pins - 915 lbs
Breakout Force @ Pivot Pins - 1828 lbs

Breakout force is double!

 

[Bob_Skurka]

But where are the measurement points on the Cub loader? That is the problem. If the loaders are the same, then the specs are the same. We know the tractors are the same. It is very very likely the loaders are the same.

Now just to show you the math, if you take the Mahindra lift capacity of 915# and multiply that by 0.70 you will get 640.5#. The Cub lists its capacity at 630#. I'd say that those two loaders have the same capacity, but the measurement point is differnet.

As for the breakout capacity, there are unfortunately 3 common points of measurement for that. The most accurate is the Bucket Cutting Edge/Bucket Lip. There are two other common measurment points, one is 'pivot point' and the other is the 500mm/19.7" forward of pivot point. I suspect, but I do not know for fact, that Cub rates their loader at the cutting edge. The cutting edge measurement point is going to be the lowest. The pivot point is going to be the highest. The farther forward you measure from the pivot points, the lower the capacity rating. This is why this whole thing is so confusing. People in marketing departments know that we Americans are POWER HUNGRY and they know that we think MORE IS BETTER. So by manipulating the statistics they provide, they simply provide the statistics that MAKE THEIR PRODUCT LOOK GOOD. You've probably heard the old saying liars figure and figures lie. This is just a classic case of that.

Where are you actually going to need the breakout force? At the cutting edge or at the pivot pins? I'd suggest its more important at the cutting edge.

So take a look at the math again. We already know that capacity reduces about 30% going forward 500mm/19.7". It is therefore logical to assume that if you go forward 1000mm/39.4" would reduce the breakout force by roughly 60%. So if the breakout force is 50% lower on the Cub loader, and if the Cub loader is the same loader as the Mahindra loader (and that is VERY VERY likely) then it is reasonable to presume that the cutting edge is going to be roughly 30" in front of the pivot points to see the capacity rated at a 50% reduction.

 

[knute_m]

If the loaders are the same, then the specs are the same. We know the tractors are the same. It is very very likely the loaders are the same.

. . . and if the Cub loader is the same loader as the Mahindra loader (and that is VERY VERY likely) then it is reasonable to presume . . .

I don't think the loaders are the same. They are similar, but . . .

I have a Mahindra 2015 with the ML104 loader. A few years ago I got to use a 7200 with 475 loader. My ML104 was built by KMW, the CC-475 was built by Woods.

I haven't done a side-by-side comparison, and I haven't seen the CC for a while, but I believe that my Mahindra boom frame and main frame arms are heavier. Also, as I recall, my ML104 loader has more welding and welded structural plates than the Cub Cadet 475. For instance, the CC main frame arms were pinned to the grill guard. Mine are not only welded, but there are additional structural plates welded between the arms and the frame that holds the grill guard. Lastly, I think that I have heavier pins connecting the hydraulic cylinders to the bucket and arms.

I looked at the cylinder and flow specs on both. The ML104 bucket cylinders are 1.75-inch, and the CC-475 cylinders are 1.5-inch. The ML-104 hydraulic specs are 5.8 GPM at 2050 PSI relief. The CC-475 is 5 GPM at 1660 PSI relief.

The The ML104 maximum level lift height is 76.5 inches, while the CC-475 is 84 inches with R-4 tires installed on the front.

But, with that said, both models of tractors are great. A $4000 to $5000 difference in price between a used and new tractor of this quality is significant. I think I'd go for it, even if the bucket doesn't have quite the same lifting capacity.

By the way, I did do some strengthening of my bucket. I welded a 2x2x3/16-inch piece of angle across the top lip of my bucket. I did this because the first time I used the loader, I bent that top lip.

I've posted some photos of the ML104 that you might use for comparison. Photos 1 - 3 are of the arms and pins. Photo 4 shows how the FEL attachs to the tractor -- I think the loader mounting is heavier on the Mahindra vs. the CC. Photo 5 shows how I strengthened the top of the bucket.

Good luck,
Knute

 

[Bob_Skurka]

Knute, just curious, but since these are not identical loaders, and yet they have an overall lift capacity is almost identical, would you suspect that the breakout force would also be very similar?

 

[rback33]

Knute, just curious, but since these are not identical loaders, and yet they have an overall lift capacity is almost identical, would you suspect that the breakout force would also be very similar?

I am sure they are probably close. The issue is Mitsubishi giving the blessing on things. ML104 bucket is sized the way it is on purpose. Ii all comes down to axle loadings and the max Mitsubish will allow.

Oh and BTW am I overly sensitive or are you trying to bait me into another "measuring" discussion? I mean.. WE can't help it that AEM changes their minds about published specs and where and how to measure...

 

[Bob_Skurka]

Oh and BTW am I overly sensitive or are you trying to bait me into another "measuring" discussion? I mean.. WE can't help it that AEM changes their minds about published specs and where and how to measure...

You are probably sensative enough that you wear pink shirts NOT that there is anything wrong with that

No, I'm not trying to bait you. I figured they were the same loader because they are the same tractor. I figured whoever was the OEM for one brand is probably the OEM supplier for the other. My bad. But that being said, loader capacity is as much a function of what the tractor will bear as what the loader will bear. So you have a front axle that acts as a limiting factor and the loader, if properly designed, won't be sized to lift more than the axle rating, etc. It strikes me that these two loaders are probably twin sons of different mothers, however the Cub's version seems to have the advantage of a higher lift height. It also strikes me that the capacities of these loaders are probably near clones of each other.

Now if you want to, we can talk about tractors with thick axles and compare them with tractor with thinner axles, and we can discuss the fact that more often than not, the one with the thin axle has a loader with similar capacity to the one with thicker axles, and then we can move off into a disucussion that the thicker axles are, therefore, not necessarily stronger, and perhaps we could even get into the topic of whether the thick axle tractor uses inferior metal and therefore needs more metal to attain the same strenght as a tractor with thinner axles. But that can be the subject of another discussion, perhaps over a beer while watching the Bears on HDTV.

 

[rback33]

*LMAO* U had to go there with the Pink....

No cloning involved, but naturally the specs had to be the same if not better in most respects...

U go on vacation with Neil? lol I have not seen much of you lately and u pop back up in good spirits.. I mean there was even JOKING going on in the Kioti forum after all... I have been watching MSN for an update on the apocalyopse sicne then..

I am sure Highbeam, Island Tractor and TB l will let me have it for that one...

U think the pink shirts are bad.. Neil prolly had some New Age Lava Mud exfoliating Facial while on vactaion that he doesn't want us to know about

That treatment almost sounded real too.. a made up list of words I've seen on the potions in my wifes bathroom...

 

[knute_m]

Knute, just curious, but since these are not identical loaders, and yet they have an overall lift capacity is almost identical, would you suspect that the breakout force would also be very similar?

Bob,

I've attached the spec sheets from each of the loaders. Mahindra puts in more info than does CC.

My gut feeling is that the Mahindra is a little stronger than the Cub Cadet, partially because of the bucket cylider size and the controller. But, it does seem that the specs are actually pretty close.

Cub Cadet doesn't say how or where they measure. They also show faster lift/drop/curl times, which I think might be erroneous. Mahindra specs these at various engine speeds, which seems more realistic. CC lifts higher, so . . .

Mahindra includes a graph of lifting capacity vs height. If we assume breakaway to be close to ground level, then they show it at approx 1300 lbs. 20 inches in front of the pivot point, and 1800 lbs. at the pivot point. If you look at roll back at ground level, the equivalent breakout would only be about 900 lbs.

Again, looking at the Mahindra graph, they show a maximum lift capacity of about 600 lbs., at 75 inches (max height?) at 20 inches in front of the pivot point. At the pivot point, Mahindra shows 900 lbs. We'll probably never know where CC measured their maximum lift of 950 lbs. at maximum height (84 inches).

Are they about the same, but different? I think so.

As for baiting -- it's time to go feed my deer a little more corn and apples.

Knute