Cant get 410 FEL any more

[bigpete]

Pretty darn'ed interesting. /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif But how does the smaller (height and length) 2210 with a lighter hydraulic system make the same specs? Inquiring minds want to know. /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

 

[ADin]

Thanks for clarification/information. I missed noticing the 200CX as it did not have the normal "(4110, 4115)" type designation afterwards and for some reason the "attached photos" were not showing up for the 200X, although the 410 loader had the photos. Go figure...

Couple remaining easy loader spec questions:
1) Do you have specs on the volume held for the loaders and are the volumes measured as max "level" load?
2) Are the loaders buckets identical other than width (e.g. 49" vs 53") or is depth, height, metal thickness, etc. different between buckets?

In any case, I'm seeing "green" again. Now if only we had some details on those new models...

 

[rockyridgefarm]

First. Specs will show for a certain model. So the 2210 might be slightly less.

Second. These specs don't show raise times, your speed may vary.

Third. As long as the hydraulic system meets a minimum psi requirement, the lift force will be there.

Fourth. All assume proper ballasting.

Now on the loaders themselves:

I am sorry, but as usual I hate the bargain loaders. I just can't imagine putting a 200x loader on any of these small machines. They are such great mowing machines, and the Quick Attach loaders come on and off so quickly.PLEASE pay the $480 and get the CX!!!!!!!!!

 

[ADin]

Clearly I need to learn to navigate the JD site better as I have yet to find the details specs you provided. I'll go foraging again after I finish here. I found the photos and general verbage on the 200CX loader under the "Build Your 4410 4WD" but info is otherwise lacking. When I dig under the "Attachments" links the 200CX does not even show up yet although the 210, 410, etc are there.

The choice of 200CX over 200X is and always has been absolutely clear (for me) as well. My questions were really geared more only at the buckets themselves and in particular for the 200CX (e.g. 49", 53", 61"). Since it wasn't clear to me I would get an answer back to my cubic volume question on the buckets, and my natural overall curiosity for details, I was trying to determine if the volume held by the 53" is 53/49 or 1.08 times more volume over a 49" or if the volume was in fact larger because depth/height also change. Additionally, just as with mower decks, I thought the construction *might* be different on the 61" versus the other two smaller bucket - not that I'm seriously considering a 61" bucket anyway.

 

[rockyridgefarm]

Your post snuck in while I was composing mine. I wasn't responding to yours at all.

When you go to "build your own" at Deere's site there is a menu accross the top - click on "features" that is where the specs are hiding...

I am not an expert on small chassis machines. (or any size, for that matter..) But my guess is the buckets are the same other than width. In the larger buckets they have heavy duty style and large capacity styles as wel as the std. buckets They are pretty clear on the distinction. Sisnce there is no such disclosure on these (and they come from the same souce) I am guessing the width is the difference.

Generally, matching the width to the tire track is a good size to go. Getting the biggest bucket might reduce the capacity of the loader. If all you lift is , say grain, the biggest bucket is best, but with gravel or clay, it could be a disadvantage.

 

[keeney]

On the older 410 and 210 loader, the buckets were all interchangeable with the 420 and 430 loaders. Not that you would want to put a 72" heavy-duty 4n1 bucket on your 210, but it would likely physically fit the bucket attach.

I am a betting man, and I would bet that the 200x and 200cx share the same bucket attach setup and the buckets have not been redesigned at all.

My dealer talked me into the 61" on my 410/4100 becuase that is what he had in stock. Said he would swap it out if I was actually unhappy.

I have never reallly wished for a smaller bucket, but when moving stuff like mulch, or scrap wood and debris, I have wished it was even bigger!

On the 4110 /4110, I'd go with the 53" minimum, and consider the 61"

- Rick

 

[garchib]

I also have the 61 inch bucket, even though I ordered a 54 inch bucket. When it arrived, the bucket looked large, so I measured it and then called the dealer and told them of their mistake. After talking to them, I decided to keep the larger bucket and I am glad I did, as it makes a wider cut when moving snow. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[bigpete]

I found the 48" bucket on the 210 loader on a 2210 perfect, especially for tough digging and heavy materials. The 53" bucket seems to be perfect for the 410 on a 4110--but most of the stuff I do is heavy dirt, rocks and removing stumps and such. If I moved lots of mulch or used the loader for snow removal, I think I would have gone for the 61" bucket, for sure.

 

[JD2210MAN]

There is no law that says... you can only have one bucket /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif