Aftermarket FEL

[Reg]

When I was a Kubota dealer, if you had an aftermarket loader on their tractor, and had a warranty problem, and there were many, they would refuse the warranty! I once had an L4200 break in half at the clutch housing, tractor was 6 months old! Kubota refused to pay because it had a Westendorf loader on it. Now that is embarrassing for a dealer. Clutch housing was paper thin.

Last sentence says it ALL !
or does it ?
It is at least POSSIBLE that the "awe_then_tik" KooBooBoo loader is designed to avoid stress to the "paper thin clutch housing".
A good loader sub frame will in any case extend back to the rear axle, so the notion of bending a tractor in half would probably require an inadequate loader sub frame as well as a paper thin clutch housing.

Anyone want to speak up for the Westendorf loader sub frame design (& implementation) ?

As always - JMAO.

 

[MessickFarmEqu]

I see a loader as an implement , no more no less.I sure would not like it if they refused to honor warranty if it were hooked to a plow,box blade,bushog or the like. A tractor is the base unit to handle tools in order to get work done.

A warranty is not coverage for stupidity. Just because something fits, does not mean it belongs on the tractor.

 

[MESSMAKER]

A warranty is not coverage for stupidity. Just because something fits, does not mean it belongs on the tractor.

I realize that a backhoe and loader subject a tractor to a lot of stress, but I don't think it unreasonable to design a tractor to handle it when it is the proper size is used and it is installed correctly. I can't argue the stupidity statement.
Kubota builds tractors that weigh less than most similar sized machines. This may be a case where extra metal was needed.

 

[Groo]

If a FEL attaches the same way as OEM and doesn't put more stress on it than OEM, than there is no reason to void a warranty. If it does increase the stress on the tractor over OEM design and the FEL maker listed it as working with that specific model, then the FEL maker would on the hook. If it was some jurry rig contraption, then no coverage.

The only aftermarket backhoe I saw mounted to the 3-point. I would call that an "implement"

 

[Grandad4]

There is a standard ISO design spec for 3 point implements but no such standards exist for FELs and backhoes. Anyone can come up with whatever design and call it a "loader". Makes sense to me that tractor manufacturers, who offer their own attachments, don't want to be responsible for someone else's good or not-so-good design ideas.

 

[Turbys_1700]

If a FEL attaches the same way as OEM and doesn't put more stress on it than OEM, than there is no reason to void a warranty. If it does increase the stress on the tractor over OEM design and the FEL maker listed it as working with that specific model, then the FEL maker would on the hook. If it was some jurry rig contraption, then no coverage.

The only aftermarket backhoe I saw mounted to the 3-point. I would call that an "implement"

I agree that if the aftermarket FEL is designed the same way it will not put more stress on it than the original OEM FEL. IMHO neither the FEL manufacturer nor the OEM manufacturer would honor the warranty. Both will claim operator error and list the thousands of tractor and FEL combinations out in the marketplace that have had zero issues.