Buying Advice 3700 vs 4400 or L3940

[PHILIP8N]

L3940 and L4240 are same frame size, look at WB length in literature. Front axle may be different? The V2003-M-E3B engine in the L3940 does have twin balance shafts. States so in literature. Where did you see they do not? The bucket cubic yard capacity on both loaders is the same, but the lifting capacity of the L4240 and up is more. Philip.

 

[PHILIP8N]

I'm down to the 3940 or 4240.


The 3940 has one edge in the lower cubes has to drink less fuel and being it will likely be the backup power source (with a PTO genny) that is a distinct advantage.

I wish they had numbers on the burn rate @ rpm.

QUOTE]

The L3940 with V2003-M engine has a brake specific fuel consumption of .41 lb/hp-h @ 2700 rpm. The L4240 with V2203-M engine has a bsfc of .41 lb/hp-h @ 2700 rpm. These values drop to as low as .39 lb/hp-h @ 1600 rpm on both engines. Thus, if both engines are producing the same bhp at the same rpm, both engines will consume the same amount of fuel. Of course, the V2203-M engine is capable of more power, and can consume more fuel if your load exceeds the bhp capabilities of the V2003-M engine. I hope that answers your question and helps make your decision much easier! Philip

 

[sbohan]

when I configure them it gives the specs... here is what is says
L3940HSTC-3
* * * EQUIPMENT IN STANDARD MACHINE * * *


DIESEL ENGINE
Model # V2003
4 Cyl., 122.0 cu. in.
+ 38.5 Net Eng. HP
+ 31.5 PTO HP
@ 2700 Eng. rpm
Indirect Injection (E-TVCS)
Charging Output 55 Amps
Radial Air Flow Cooling

L4240HSTC-3
* * * EQUIPMENT IN STANDARD MACHINE * * *


DIESEL ENGINE
Model # V2203
4 Cyl., 134.1 cu. in.
Internal Balancers
+ 42.0 Net Eng. HP
+ 35.0 PTO HP
@ 2700 Eng. rpm
Interim Tier IV Engine
Indirect Injection (E-TVCS)
Charging Output 60 Amps
Radial Air Flow Cooling

That's why i asked. so the difference is just cubes/HP.

Has anyone seen the front axles on both? They have the same WB and turning radius, but if the 4240 has a beefier axles I'll go with it, otherwise, I think it'll be 3940.

 

[PHILIP8N]

when I configure them it gives the specs... here is

Has anyone seen the front axles on both? They have the same WB and turning radius, but if the 4240 has a beefier axles I'll go with it, otherwise, I think it'll be 3940.

No, I have not seen both axles side by side. Does a dealer near you have both on his lot? The front axle case (case only, not assembly) on the L3940 is part number TD030-12004 and weighs 66 pounds. You could call the dealer you are buying from and ask him the part number of both front axle cases and compare. Philip.

 

[DiezNutz]

L4240 has almost 6" wider front track... something is different.

 

[beppington]

My Grand L series owner's manual lists:

Front axle case oil capacity:

L3240 - L3940: 6.9 quarts
L4240 - L5740: 9.5 quarts

Front tread:

L3240 - L3940: 45.5"
L4240 & L4740: 51.2"

FEL lift capacity:

L3240 - L3940: 1,590 lbs.
L4240 - L5740: 1,880 lbs.

I'd say the L4240 is definitely a bigger beast than the L3940.

 

[sbohan]

That would explain it then, because their wheelbase is the same, and their pump capacity is the same, so the larger loader must be because of the larger front axle. So it looks like that is the other diff. Turning radius it shows the same, but that's with 4wd disengaged and using the inside brake. Hmmm Still looks like 4240 might be worth the difference in the long run. Had I another larger one, I'd probably do the 3940.