ARRRRRRGH!!!!!!! Broke my tractor.... Engine Block went SNAP...

[MikePA]

Abusive bachoe use , were you there ?

No, I simply read the thread.

As for the rest , were talking about bad loader frame engineering . ANY loader frame thats built in such a bad fashion .

Thanks, I know what the 'experts' are talking about. I'll simplify my answer. It's not bad engineering or there'd be more failures reported. However, I'll defer my common sense argument to your engineering credentials.

 

[KrisHansen]

does this loader tie to the front of the tractor? i tried using the NH site, but it is slow as heck with pictures taken from 2 miles away, couldnt tell. one of the reasons i went with my 300cx on my JD machine over the others i was looking at, at the time was the fact the loader arm uprights are tied to the to the front of the frame to provide a strut when lifting, preventing arm rotation and also when slamming into something, it goes into tension, again preventing rotation/unloading the other way. yet still quick attach. lot of the other quick attaches i looked at got away from a front component, probably a design issue. heck a lot of distance between the attachment of the loader to the tractor and the weight it is lifting, large moment, so that attachment has to be beefy!

It doesn't TIE to the front, but it leans on the front somewhat.. I guess what bothers me most about the design of hte loader, there is NOTHING rigid that connects the front to the rear.. SO all of the downward pressure on the nose of the engine is transferred to the area where the block mounts to the bellhousing..

What I'd like to do is make up some bracketry that connects the bellhousing to the block freamework, like the way the Kubota grand L loader mounts.

 

[KrisHansen]

No, I simply read the thread.


Thanks, I know what the 'experts' are talking about. I'll simplify my answer. It's not bad engineering or there'd be more failures reported. However, I'll defer my common sense argument to your engineering credentials.

So you think it's fine that the engine block alone should be expected to handle the weight of a full loader with no reinforcement at all? Why are most tractors in the range of 30+hp equipped with robust loader frames which tie to the rear axle, and often tie to the rear axle AND tie into the engine subframe? Since this event, I've looked at a few tractors, and most have much more substantial bracing on their loader mounts..

 

[MikePA]

So you think it's fine that the engine block alone should be expected to handle the weight of a full loader with no reinforcement at all?

Why do you, and others, think one failure make it a bad design?

 

[NewToy]

Why do you, and others, think one failure make it a bad design?

If you were sitting there with the engine cracked in two pieces it might be easier to see the point of, MAYBE, there could have been a bit more metal used to keep the whole thing tied together.

John

 

[MikePA]

If you were sitting there with the engine cracked in two pieces it might be easier to see the point of, MAYBE, there could have been a bit more metal used to keep the whole thing tied together.

I have said several times I sympathize with Kris. I simply don't see that as license to jump to the conclusion it's a bad design. Obviously, others do.

 

[bjr]

This problem isn't unique to any one brand and it IS a common occurance. Anyone that spends much time watching the "tractor for sale" ads will find the ones that are broken in half and price for the loader that's still attached. I know that the majority of tractor/FEL owners haven't had problems yet. I feel badly for the ones that do, just no options that don't cost the replacement value of the tractor with labor in a shop. I'm hoping somewhere down the road the manufacturers look at what this is doing to their warranty reputations. This situation just isn't fair and shouldn't be allowed to continue just from a business stand point alone. bjr

 

[plastikosmd]

no doubt the design with no tie to the rear or front to help offload and support the coupling of the vertical arms to the subframe/block or whatever it attaches can be done...it needs to be very strong. having bent a tractor before, I specifically looked for a machine that tied to the front.

 

[KrisHansen]

So I went to my local Kubota dealer (closer than my New Holland dealer) to look at tractors, specifically to look at how the loaders mount. What I found was somewhat shocking, and mostly not shocking. EVERY tractor I found had significant bracing on the loader mounts, tieing the engine subframe to the loader mounts, and in many cases, then also back to the rear axle. This is true on the L Kubotas, and some other various machines on their used lot....

The orange ones are Kubota obviously. The red one was some off brand I forget.. I did happen to find one Ford on the lot. What I saw didn't surprise me one bit.

NO BRACING. Yes, it's an older machine, but some other older junks on the lot had tons of bracing..

 

[NewToy]

It amazes me how stuff like that bracing is so easy to overlook until you start looking for it specifically, then it seems to scream out at you. It may be designed perfectly, but, it still looks like it could have more bracing on it when you start comparing it to other similar tractors of various makes. Just my own non-engineer observation. One would begin to think all the other tractors with bracing tying the main components together may be over-engineered.

John