4310 + 300CX Loader question/concern

DavidVA · Sep 18, 2005

Hey all. I'm new but thought i'd ask a question and see what y'all think.

I have a 2 yr old 4310 with about 160 hours. About a month ago, the local JD dealer installed a 300CX loader with a seemingly standard bucket and fixed tine pallet forks.

I have noticed that its lifting capacity seems very shy of what the dealer claimed (which was 1600 or so pounds). Yesterday on a few occasions, the lifting would just cut-out and refuse to go further. Secondly, I felt like I was going to tip over when the tractor unsuccessfully attempted a 900+/- pound load. I realize ballast is an issue, but more specifically, what's your experience with this loader? or loader/tractor combo? Previously, I lifted pieces of stainless steel equipment that weighed *much* more than 900 lbs. Furthermore, dozens of tons of gravel (pug stone) have been moved by this machine over the past few weeks.

I'd appreciate any opinions and insights.

Thanks!

beenthere · Sep 18, 2005

I'd be looking at the hydraulic system if it is changing over time. Also, I'd put some weight for ballast. The need for the right amount of ballast doesn't change over time.

A picture of the bucket and the fixed forks would be interesting.

Bob_Skurka · Sep 19, 2005

David,

The lift capacity of the 300CX is 1598# at the pivot point. Using a calculated 30% reduction to get the rating at the '500mm' point (commonly, but not accurately referred to as the 'bucket center' point), that puts the lift capacity of the 300CX roughly 1120# inside the bucket but does not include the weight of the bucket.

I'm not sure about JD, but many loaders capacity ratings, when rated at the pivot point, do not include the weight of the bucket. A bucket can easily weigh 300# or more for a 30-35 HP tractor. That weight must be added to the weight of the load you are trying to lift. So since you were trying to lift 900#, you add 300# and the real load is something in the order of 1200#.

The problem with loaders that many people do not understand is that the farther forward of the pivot points you place your load, the lower the capacity of the loader. This is true with every loader of every brand. As you have both a bucket and pallet forks, I'm going to take a wild guess and presume you have a QA system on your loader. That QA system pushes the bucket and forks out another few inches, and reduces the loader capacity a little bit more.

Now to maximize the loader capacity you MUST have ballast on the rear end. If you are lifting 900# there is probably no way to do that without proper ballast, it becomes mathmatically improbable, especially when you consider that a 900# load is within 20% of the real capacity of that loader as it would be used in normal useage. Now when you factor in the weight of the bucket, you realize you are over the rated capacity of the loader, that would make the tractor dangerously unstable and the odds of lifting the load approach a statistical zero.

For further exploration & explination of this topic, take a look at this thread (most of what you are concerned with will start several pages into the thread): Bucket Capacity VS Loader Capacity

EDIT :: Just curious, but the literature I have does not show the 300CX as being compatible with the 4310. Is your post a typo? Based on what I see, the 300CX is compatible with the JD 3120 to 3720 tractors. The 400CX loader is compatible with the 4120 through 4720 tractors.

DavidVA · Sep 19, 2005

Hey Bob -

Thanks for the info. The calculations help (and should explain) the troubles I was having unloading the tanks of grape juice.

Agreed that it seems that the 300CX isn't supposed to go with the tractor. But the four thousand 10 series information seems to be pretty incomplete online, anyway.

It seems to fit and it works well. I know that for the twenty series tractors things are very different, but for our lil 10, it seems to do the trick.

As for the photos requested up there, i'll snap a couple tomorrow and put them here, if it allows such.

It's turned out to be a *great* workhorse around the farm, particularly as we've been getting several pallets of things for equipping a small winery we've started here.

Thanks so much for the info - and it all does make sense.

Further, the ballast, i've found, is as critical as you report. Our rotary cutter (mx 5) usually provides plenty, but in small quarters, i've gone ahead and ordered a ballast box which should attach nicely to the imatch on the back.

and yes, it does have a quick attach in the front.

thanks again!

Dave

rockyridgefarm · Sep 19, 2005

First the quick attach. I don't think that has any effect IF you are using the std. Deere Quick attach, as it is integral to the design. If you have the skid steer carrier, than it does.

In addition to rear ballast, you will want ballast on the wheels. You could easily require BOTH wheel weights and loaded tires. Since you can load the tires yourself; you might want to start there (assunming they aren't already loaded of course!)

As you are pushing the limits, check carefully how much weight you can get in the rear. Lead ought to be about right..!

DavidVA · Sep 19, 2005

Yes! Lead at the very least. The rear tires were loaded by the dealer while they were installing the bucket. I'd really not like to die this young, so i'm going to be very careful about the ballast issue from here on out.

dmp437 · Sep 19, 2005

( EDIT :: Just curious, but the literature I have does not show the 300CX as being compatible with the 4310. Is your post a typo? Based on what I see, the 300CX is compatible with the JD 3120 to 3720 tractors.)

John Deere publication C25-350-2:

"The 300CX Loader is designed for use on the 4310 and 4410 Tractors, replacing the 430 Loader." There is a publication date of October 2004. It is also listed as being compatible with the non-current 4300, 4400, 990, 970, and 1070 Tractors.
For those of us with 430 Loaders it's...... SWEET. But not justifiable, for me anyway.
Check out the complete pub >HERE<

Bob_Skurka · Sep 19, 2005

dmp437 . . . thanks for the information. I have a current brochure for the "xx20" series and it only lists what I posted above. Its intersting that the new design fits the older machines. The new design is a nice improvement in visibility, especially combined with the new hood shapes. I got to briefly play with one at the dealership a month or so ago, the new JDs are very sweet machines! Very nicely designed and great ergonomics.

rockyridgefarm · Sep 19, 2005

Bob, did you notice the spin Deere puts out on their tapered rather than curved boom ends? Have you noticed any difference compared to NewHolland's design?

MessickFarmEqu · Sep 19, 2005

( dmp437 . . . thanks for the information. I have a current brochure for the "xx20" series and it only lists what I posted above.
)

As a salesmen, I can't tell you have decieving this is to customers. There are several examples a week across TBN from owners who where under the impression that they have more loader capacity than they actually do. I have to explain time and time again why the tractors that I sell have lower loader rattings than the Deere dealer who is 5 miles from me - when the truth of the mater is if you equalize the measurements is rare for Deere to have the advantage. I've heard complaints from dealers at both Kubota and New Holland meetings encouraging the two companies who are truly honest to start heading down this path. Frankly, I don't know what to think.

We can talk about this here till we are blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is that until there is a lawsuit about this they are going to keep pushing the envelope with what can be slipped into the marketing literature.