3032E non-removable loader

[TomWhite]

Along with other models of tractors, the 3032E is one I have been looking hard at. The only thing that bothers me about this machine is the loader is a non-removable type. The bucket itself is removable.

Do you think this would cause problems down the line by adding wear to the front axle, wheel bearing, etc.?

Anyone with any real world experience on the increased wear leaving a loader on all the time might cause?

 

[Spudland_Dave]

If that loader would fit my 3520 Cab I'd offer a trade...I'd rather have a permanent loader that was SOLID.

Do you think this would cause problems down the line by adding wear to the front axle, wheel bearing, etc.?

Anyone with any real world experience on the increased wear leaving a loader on all the time might cause?

I dont think it would cause any increased wear....The loader itself isnt "heavy" compared to riding around at relatively high speeds with a heaping bucket of materials...THATS what causes the accelerated wear. Honestly, the loader on my dads L2900 has NEVER been removed in the 12 years he's owned it.

 

[TomWhite]

If that loader would fit my 3520 Cab I'd offer a trade...I'd rather have a permanent loader that was SOLID.



I dont think it would cause any increased wear....The loader itself isnt "heavy" compared to riding around at relatively high speeds with a heaping bucket of materials...THATS what causes the accelerated wear. Honestly, the loader on my dads L2900 has NEVER been removed in the 12 years he's owned it.

Thanks for the reply, Dave. Which ever tractor I trade for, it will be used with the bush hog much, much more than any loader work.

You know, the more I read all the threads about loaders and ballast, the more I think that these tractors are not REALLY made for loaders. It gets gets goofy the amount of weight people have to add to use an already expensive option. And I'm not talking about the little 2000 series Deere machines either.

 

[Spudland_Dave]

I dunno if I would go so far as to say they arent designed for loaders...I think they are...the axles under these machines are built for loader work. Look at tractor front axles from 25 years ago when compacts were a novelty and look at todays axles...they're clearly designed for loader work...plus another thing that has happened is loader capacities have gone up accordingly...

Ballasting is a necessary thing regardless of tractor use....When we buy a new tractor for farm work (I'm talking real tractors of 175+ horse) we have to ballast them just as much..only difference is alot of ballast usually ends up on the front end...not too many people could sit there and say a genuine "Farm Tractor" isnt designed to pull implements because of how much ballast we need to make em work efficiently...

 

[AKfish]

The loader on my JD970 was slightly "tweaked". I don't think the previous owner ever considered adjusting the loader arms or even bothered with noticing that the loader arms engaged out of sync, etc.

Nonetheless, I spent a fair amount of time getting things straightened out.

IMO - the quick disconnect feature on the FEL is a maintainence area that many owner's ignore or disregard. (Until there's an obvious problem..)

If you don't plan on using the tractor for extended periods of "only" mowing; or, swapping the loader out for a front mounted blade or snow blower, etc. then dropping the bucket is a much quicker option than disconnecting the FEL. And the real need for the quick-disconnect FEL is much less important.

The ballast question is a whole different consideration/discussion than just the option of the removable/non-removable loader - IMO.

Best of luck.

AKfish

 

[TomWhite]

The loader on my JD970 was slightly "tweaked". I don't think the previous owner ever considered adjusting the loader arms or even bothered with noticing that the loader arms engaged out of sync, etc.

Nonetheless, I spent a fair amount of time getting things straightened out.

IMO - the quick disconnect feature on the FEL is a maintainence area that many owner's ignore or disregard. (Until there's an obvious problem..)

If you don't plan on using the tractor for extended periods of "only" mowing; or, swapping the loader out for a front mounted blade or snow blower, etc. then dropping the bucket is a much quicker option than disconnecting the FEL. And the real need for the quick-disconnect FEL is much less important.

The ballast question is a whole different consideration/discussion than just the option of the removable/non-removable loader - IMO.

Best of luck.

AKfish

Yeah, there will be a lot of times where using the hog will be the main, if not only, work the tractor sees.

With your comments, are you saying that you might actually prefer a non-removable unit (and just dropping off the bucket) as opposed to the maint, of the removable one?

 

[AKfish]

Yeah, there will be a lot of times where using the hog will be the main, if not only, work the tractor sees.

With your comments, are you saying that you might actually prefer a non-removable unit (and just dropping off the bucket) as opposed to the maint, of the removable one?

Yup.. I probably removed the loader twice in 3 years. But, I didn't have to mow all summer long or need the use of a blower, front blade, etc.

It really depends on how you see using your tractor. If you want/need to have the least amount of weight in order to avoid tearing up a nicely finished lawn, etc. then removing the FEL would be an advantage. But, brush hogging... drop the bucket and get with it!

AKfish

 

[nmu98]

Yup.. I probably removed the loader twice in 3 years. But, I didn't have to mow all summer long or need the use of a blower, front blade, etc.

It really depends on how you see using your tractor. If you want/need to have the least amount of weight in order to avoid tearing up a nicely finished lawn, etc. then removing the FEL would be an advantage. But, brush hogging... drop the bucket and get with it!

AKfish

X2, I agree with Fish. I will never take the loader off my tractor, and I work on making it tighter and more non-removable every day. Once you remove the bucket, I don't even feel its there.

 

[TomWhite]

X2, I agree with Fish. I will never take the loader off my tractor, and I work on making it tighter and more non-removable every day. Once you remove the bucket, I don't even feel its there.

nmu, I see by your signature you have about 83 tractors! Heck you could leave one implement on each of them and never need to remove it.

Anyway, thanks to all you guys for your answers. I suppose I am just worried about getting a loader that can't be removed and doing EXPENSIVE additional wear to a tractor that would be used mainly for hogging. The property is 40 acres, some wooded, a lake, etc. but with some nice open fields that look really great when maintained.

 

[orlo]

Just my two cents. I have a 2305/200cx and a 3720/300cx cab. Load and mow with both of them. I've never taken the loader frame off to mow. I do take the bucket off to save a couple or few hundred pounds and not have that extra length hanging on but it's never been a problem to me.

The only time I take the loader off of either is to put on the snowblower on either.
I also tighten up the bolts on my 300cx to take the slop out also, disabling the quick disconnect feature without using wrenches.