Outlander1
Silver Member
You are absolutely right about the rice field tractors being the same. I have looked at many of them with an eye to parts interchange and you would be surprised. I think they all buy from the same part suppliers!
7235 &7275 Motor breaking and excessive clutches
- Thread starter cubhater
- Start date
- Views: 32053
- Status
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( That is right, but there are many times that that is exactly what happens when a owner crys to the manufacture that they want something fixed under warranty. All of the sudden it is a manufactures defect and not operator error or abuse. )</font>
Wow... someone finally hit the nail on the head here.
Wow... someone finally hit the nail on the head here.
I have been following this post for quite a long time now, and I think it has strayed off a lot and has just gotten many people bent out of shape. But one thing that hit me about this whole situation is this...
If I called Bush Hog tomorrow and ordered a loader for a compact tractor, or any tractor for that matter, I would expect that loader to work. I would expect the tractor to be able to handle the force the loader puts on it and visa verca.
Now I am just assuming here, but I imagine that Woods recommended the loader that is on these units. Shouldn't Woods carry some responsability for these failures? Maybe that have taken some and I just dont know about it.
But as has been mentioned in other post, no matter what a loader is recommended to handle operator missuse can cause unforseen problems.
If however, these problems are caused by "normal" use then I believe some responsibility would be in the hands of the loader manufacturer. I know that if I put an aftermarket loader (which this basically is) on a tractor and normal use caused problems as these loaders have then I wouldn't blame the tractor manufacture but rather the loader manufacture.
Just my thoughts, sure not all will agree...but it doesn't seem as though anybody can agree on this particular topic.
If I called Bush Hog tomorrow and ordered a loader for a compact tractor, or any tractor for that matter, I would expect that loader to work. I would expect the tractor to be able to handle the force the loader puts on it and visa verca.
Now I am just assuming here, but I imagine that Woods recommended the loader that is on these units. Shouldn't Woods carry some responsability for these failures? Maybe that have taken some and I just dont know about it.
But as has been mentioned in other post, no matter what a loader is recommended to handle operator missuse can cause unforseen problems.
If however, these problems are caused by "normal" use then I believe some responsibility would be in the hands of the loader manufacturer. I know that if I put an aftermarket loader (which this basically is) on a tractor and normal use caused problems as these loaders have then I wouldn't blame the tractor manufacture but rather the loader manufacture.
Just my thoughts, sure not all will agree...but it doesn't seem as though anybody can agree on this particular topic.
JimR
Elite Member
You are correct in saying that. That is why Woods designed and built the stiffening kit for the 7275. In my opinion and my opinion only. Mitsubishi made the engine with not enough bolt holes to bolt the loader sub-frame to the tractor. Hence the chance of the bolts loosening much quicker than if it had twice the amount of bolts. I will be ordering my stiffening kit tomorrow just to help prevent any future mishaps. The way I look at it is like this. If those two extra brackets help to relieve even a little bit of stress on my tractor then I will be better off having them on it.
I remember a fix for driveline vibrations that Ford made to the small Mustang, Pinto and Mercury lookalikes back in 1978. We hung a very heavy tuning fork off of the rear end housing to suck up the vibrations from the rear axle that the unibody was transmitting. Then there was the floorpans on the Ford Fairmont and Mercury Zepher. The rear floors were flat and popped like a tin can when accelerating and decelerating. The fix was to remove the rear rugs. Put the car on the lift and put a support under the floor while you beat the floor with a 2-3 pound ball peen hammer using the ball end to ripple it. This cured the tin can effect. Both of these car were designed very poorly and Ford fixed them as cheap as possible under warranty.
I remember a fix for driveline vibrations that Ford made to the small Mustang, Pinto and Mercury lookalikes back in 1978. We hung a very heavy tuning fork off of the rear end housing to suck up the vibrations from the rear axle that the unibody was transmitting. Then there was the floorpans on the Ford Fairmont and Mercury Zepher. The rear floors were flat and popped like a tin can when accelerating and decelerating. The fix was to remove the rear rugs. Put the car on the lift and put a support under the floor while you beat the floor with a 2-3 pound ball peen hammer using the ball end to ripple it. This cured the tin can effect. Both of these car were designed very poorly and Ford fixed them as cheap as possible under warranty.
JerryG
Super Member
<font color="blue">Shouldn't Woods carry some responsibility for these failures? Maybe that have taken some and I just don't know about it. </font>
I don't know about that. We have a member that bought a tractor with a Brush Hog loader. The loader was recommended to his tractor, but it was still way to heavy to be of any use on his tractor. BH wouldn't take any responsibility for the mismatch at all.
I don't know about that. We have a member that bought a tractor with a Brush Hog loader. The loader was recommended to his tractor, but it was still way to heavy to be of any use on his tractor. BH wouldn't take any responsibility for the mismatch at all.
JimR
Elite Member
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( <font color="blue">Shouldn't Woods carry some responsibility for these failures? Maybe that have taken some and I just don't know about it. </font>
I don't know about that. We have a member that bought a tractor with a Brush Hog loader. The loader was recommended to his tractor, but it was still way to heavy to be of any use on his tractor. BH wouldn't take any responsibility for the mismatch at all. )</font>
It sounds like all they care about is selling product regardless of wether or not it is right for the machine.
I don't know about that. We have a member that bought a tractor with a Brush Hog loader. The loader was recommended to his tractor, but it was still way to heavy to be of any use on his tractor. BH wouldn't take any responsibility for the mismatch at all. )</font>
It sounds like all they care about is selling product regardless of wether or not it is right for the machine.
JerryG
Super Member
It sure seems that way sometimes doesn't it? /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
JimR
Elite Member
That is a Woods loader on your Cub. Mine is the same loader. Model 417 is right on it. That stiffener part kit is WM-51916. My dealer told me thay have to get it from Woods. WM means Woods part. The MA before the other part numbers for Cub stands for Mitsubishi.
- Status
