Did I break it bad?

[SixHoeBob]

If a wrench is required, it defeats the concept of the quick attach loader.
I looked at the 955/70A today. There are definitely better designs for
quick-attach loader frames. The best design I have seen so far is an MF
236 loader on a 61hp MF265. Simple, effective, and almost fool-proof.
The most Rueggoldberg(sp) design is the JD CX loaders. Way too complicated.
Just because John Deere builds it, doesn't mean it is the best.

And yes, I do have a JD 310D that I like.

 

[slowzuki]

Ugh, I've never liked those little JD loaders, they have pretty light load capacities too, maybe due to this design?

 

[AKfish]

Just because John Deere builds it, doesn't mean it is the best.

And yes, I do have a JD 310D that I like.

Well... if I had a 310D - I'd be pretty happy myself!! :dance1:

I agree that the JD quick attach loaders can be a bit "temperamental" and require routine checks on the adjustment.

I wish that JD would offer "fixed" loaders on their smaller lineup of tractors as well as the QA loaders. After owning a JD 80 QA loader and a HD fixed loader on my JD 110TLB -- I'd go with a fixed loader every time! :thumbsup:

AKfish

 

[RoyJackson]

Ugh, I've never liked those little JD loaders, they have pretty light load capacities too, maybe due to this design?

Remember that those designs go back a long ways...1980's, at least and probably the 1970's for some.
Considering who they were designed for, I think they're pretty nice.
Also remember that most of these older CUTs would almost be in the subCUT category today, size and weight wise.
All in all, I think they're pretty good and, in some regards, more robust then new machines.
Jst MHO.

 

[Gizmo2]

Ugh, I've never liked those little JD loaders, they have pretty light load capacities too, maybe due to this design?

Quick attach = Weaker loader. But I still like'em.

 

[RoyJackson]

Quick attach = Weaker loader. But I still like'em.

Yep, price of the convenience of a dismountable loader.