DL 95 vs DL 100 loaders for GC series

[AxleHub]

Cylinder force is the product of hydraulic pressure and the area of the cylinder. GPM from the pump only impacts cycle time.

I am wondering if the GC's actually output 2227 psi? Seems high to me for a smaller tractor and i read somewhere they output ~1900 psi. If this is the case, then these lift numbers they are publishing are garbage. Thats what I'd love to confirm.

But logic fails if the only meaningful impact is the pump. Brands and models of loaders all vary in performance with the same pump pressure because loader geometry leverages that pump pressure differently.

Now if the dl95 and the dl100 loaders had the exact same geometry . . Then hydraulic pump output would be the only variable . . but geometry alters leverage and leverage alters the combination of speed of movement and weight/distance moved. At least thats what I remember from long long ago math and physics classes. Could geometry and 1900 psi pressure alter weight or speed performance ?

 

[TSO]

I don't have the specs in front of me ... But the new loader might also be lighter than the old one, which would result in increased lift capacity also.

 

[burnm]

I am sorry for not being clear. What I am saying is that they are measuring their DL95 lift based on a hydraulic pressure of 2227 psi (likely hooked up to some loader testing machine or however else they get their lift numbers) BUT The actual tractor only produces 1914 psi.

I.e. In lab test, loader gets 2227 psi. In field, loader actually only sees 1914 psi.

Since 1914/2227 is 85%, the true lift numbers are only 85% of what Massey is claiming (therefore, dl95 would actually lift 740lbs at pin, not 870 lbs)

My math and physics are not wrong. The only thing I am not sure about is the relief pressure for the GC, but I am pretty sure 1914 psi is right (or close)

 

[AxleHub]

Greetings,

When I ordered my gc1715 I specified I wanted the dl95 loader even though the only loaders I had physically seen were the dl100.

After taking delivery I was initially pleased with the Dl95 choice.

But now after a couple weeks and some better observation . . I'm more than just pleased . . I'm very glad.

I'm sure the dl100 is a fine loader . . . but now I see bigger differences than at inital delivery.

1. The level of hose line protection for the dl95 is substantial. Lines aren't just out of the way . . They are run inside the frame arms.

2. And speaking of the fel frame arms . . . they are smoothly curved yet substantial . . . And greese fittings are many.

3. No negatives intended to the dl100 fel . . . but the dl95 unit is cleaner in design with much red showing and black covered hydraulic lines tucked, hidden, or unnoticed by design.

Stronger or more specs . . that I can't say . . But a nice upgrade regardless.

 

[burnm]

Have you had a chance to disconnect the loader much? When I was deciding between the gc vs the bx two months ago, I went to 2 massey dealers and both of them took 10 or 15 minutes trying to drop the dl95 loader ( kept changing the position of the kick stand and fiddling, the loader would just not rock off of the frame. Both times I had to stand in the bucket to get it free)

I wasn't sure if it was just our inexperience with the new loader or if it has an inherent balance issue.

I ended up getting the bx25d. 10 hours , So far so good. I drop and connect the loader and hoe almost weekly, and it is simple, quick, and is easily done the first time, everytime.

 

[AxleHub]

Have you had a chance to disconnect the loader much? When I was deciding between the gc vs the bx two months ago, I went to 2 massey dealers and both of them took 10 or 15 minutes trying to drop the dl95 loader ( kept changing the position of the kick stand and fiddling, the loader would just not rock off of the frame. Both times I had to stand in the bucket to get it free)

I wasn't sure if it was just our inexperience with the new loader or if it has an inherent balance issue.

I ended up getting the bx25d. 10 hours , So far so good. I drop and connect the loader and hoe almost weekly, and it is simple, quick, and is easily done the first time, everytime.

Great question. When they delivered my unit . . the sales guy spent easily 15 minutes showing me how to take it off (1 time and 15 minutes). Needless to say it made me a bit nervous but machines don't intimidate me easily.

Then he left with the fel off. I'd never seen it put on . . But . . . It took me a few minutes to hookup the hydo lines because one was being fussy. Then on my 1st time putting the fel on it took about 1.5 minutes and I had it on . . Mounting it is easy.

So then I used it and went to remove it. Glad to say it didn't take 15 minutes . . Maybe 4 tries and 5 minutes total. By the second time I was removing it . . I was down to 2 minutes and I'll get better each time. The secret is to watch the mounts to tractor motion . . Not the bucket movement. . . . . And . . Be on a relatively flat hard surface.

After 3 weeks and several cycles in that time . . Its very easy on and mostly easy off. And after the first issue with the one hydro line connector . . Never a problem since.

I really like how when you take the fel off . . You could let it stand out in a big storm and nothing will tip it over . . Even trying to tip it over.

I'd like some time . . To test the dl100. I'd say the build of the dl95 is superior as is the hydro lines setup for it.

 

[madhatter]

So far I am happy with the new DL95 loader. Seems to lift more than the older loader which is nice. My DL100 bucket edge was almost wore off, but the new bucket with the beefier edge seems more robust. The hoses in in the loader are a nice touch, but I did add some tie wraps to the hoses where they meet at the cross bar as they looked messy. Biggest beef is taking the loader off as I need to stand on the bucket to get it to release. My old DL100 did not require this. Putting it on however is just as easy as the DL100.

 

[AxleHub]

So far I am happy with the new DL95 loader. Seems to lift more than the older loader which is nice. My DL100 bucket edge was almost wore off, but the new bucket with the beefier edge seems more robust. The hoses in in the loader are a nice touch, but I did add some tie wraps to the hoses where they meet at the cross bar as they looked messy. Biggest beef is taking the loader off as I need to stand on the bucket to get it to release. My old DL100 did not require this. Putting it on however is just as easy as the DL100.

Greetings madhatter. I'm curious why you have to stand on the bucket in fel removal.

There are several setting locations where the "stands " can be set . . I choose the steepest one . . Then I pull the large mount pins and get back on the tractor and commence tipping the bucket. The concept as explained to me is that when properly released . . Then the whole fel unit tips forward on its own. At that point I get off and unhook the hydro lines. I don't leave the seat until I'm going to unhook the lines.

 

[madhatter]

Greetings madhatter. I'm curious why you have to stand on the bucket in fel removal.

There are several setting locations where the "stands " can be set . . I choose the steepest one . . Then I pull the large mount pins and get back on the tractor and commence tipping the bucket. The concept as explained to me is that when properly released . . Then the whole fel unit tips forward on its own. At that point I get off and unhook the hydro lines. I don't leave the seat until I'm going to unhook the lines.

Ya I am not sure why.... I have tried all the different positions. Could just be where I took it off, as I have had it come off without stepping on the bucket a few times. Not a big deal....

 

[zudnik]

I have to bump mine a bit forward to get the top arms free.

 

[AxleHub]

I have to bump mine a bit forward to get the top arms free.

I've been doing some testing recently regarding the removal of the fel.

I've discovered 3 things:

1. I found that if I detach my fel on concrete with both tractor and fel on concrete . . It comes off easy. If I detach where fel is on concrete and tractor is on grass . . . Fel pinches a bit and doesn't come off as easily . . CAUSE is not grass but rather tractor is tilted/cocked a bit from left to right compared to fel.

2. In multiple times repeated . . if I put parking brake on and get off unit and stand to the side of the machine . . I can detach much easier because I can see if bucket is making even contact left and right side. I'd have to get off anyway to attach or detach hoses . . so no difference in effort . . just easier to get fel off or on without delay.

3.. Sprayed a little heavy duty white lithium lub (CRC) in the fel frame mounts . . and it now doesn't bind as easily when it is cocked a little . . funny how when you see what is happening from a different angle . . you can diagnose issues much easier.

 

[jsftractors]

You can't base your decisions on the marketing material and specifications provided by the manufacturer when they are introducing a new product. The change in loader supplier is based solely on price, not quality. It's very clear if you simply look at and compare the the construction of the 2 loaders. If you want a quality loader that will last many years, go with the DL100. If you want a loader that hides the hydraulic lines nicely, go with the DL95. Keep in mind you will need to buy a replacement DL95 in a few years, if your lucky you could find a used DL100 to replace your 95.

 

[AxleHub]

You can't base your decisions on the marketing material and specifications provided by the manufacturer when they are introducing a new product. The change in loader supplier is based solely on price, not quality. It's very clear if you simply look at and compare the the construction of the 2 loaders. If you want a quality loader that will last many years, go with the DL100. If you want a loader that hides the hydraulic lines nicely, go with the DL95. Keep in mind you will need to buy a replacement DL95 in a few years, if your lucky you could find a used DL100 to replace your 95.

I really have a hard time agreeing with your viewpoint. Take as an example the bucket. The DL95 bucket is heavier built and its edge is significantly more reinforced for longevity. I'm not sure how that isn't obvious.

The DL95 uses a very strong channel inside a channel gusset structure with as well formed of weld beading as i've seen by anyone.

I also like how the DL95 utilizes stainless 2 point locking connectors with the zerks built into \hem at each point. It makes it cleaner and a very good connection joint.

1 inch pins provide a stronger bucket/pin/support arm construction. By the way this is 1/3rd heavier built than kubota loaders 3/4 inch pins.

Specifications is one thing that can be a variable . . but there is no mistaking in visual inspection the weld quality on the dl95 loader. There's no mistaking the weight and thickness of metal. There's no mistaking the double gussett support structure of the fel arms or the quality of hydraulic hoses and positioning of them.

While I'm sure the dl100 woukd do a fine job . . I deliberately chose the dl95 over the dl100 based on physical examination.

I have a hard time seeong logic in your claim that the changover happened just becsuse of price. I see know way you could no that unless you worked for massey or worker for the dl100 manufacturer. Certainly by visual inspection the dl95 does not have any appearance of being 2nd to the dl100 loader.

Lets also remember that the dl100 was on the older GC product and the initial gc1700s. But massey increased their warranty length at the same time it went to the dl95.

So to summarize . . If the dl95 is actually a cheaper price , plus a longer equipment warranty, plus a visually verified heavy duty build and quality of construction . . . It would seem the pgase out of the dl100 unut was well planned.

 

[jsftractors]

If you get a chance to attach a picture of the bucket, I'll let you know if it's the 95 or 100 version. A number of dealers put the 100 bucket on the 95 to help sell against the 100.

 

[TSO]

I really have a hard time agreeing with your viewpoint. Take as an example the bucket. The DL95 bucket is heavier built and its edge is significantly more reinforced for longevity. I'm not sure how that isn't obvious.

The DL95 uses a very strong channel inside a channel gusset structure with as well formed of weld beading as i've seen by anyone.

I also like how the DL95 utilizes stainless 2 point locking connectors with the zerks built into \hem at each point. It makes it cleaner and a very good connection joint.

1 inch pins provide a stronger bucket/pin/support arm construction. By the way this is 1/3rd heavier built than kubota loaders 3/4 inch pins.

Specifications is one thing that can be a variable . . but there is no mistaking in visual inspection the weld quality on the dl95 loader. There's no mistaking the weight and thickness of metal. There's no mistaking the double gussett support structure of the fel arms or the quality of hydraulic hoses and positioning of them.

While I'm sure the dl100 woukd do a fine job . . I deliberately chose the dl95 over the dl100 based on physical examination.

I have a hard time seeong logic in your claim that the changover happened just becsuse of price. I see know way you could no that unless you worked for massey or worker for the dl100 manufacturer. Certainly by visual inspection the dl95 does not have any appearance of being 2nd to the dl100 loader.

Lets also remember that the dl100 was on the older GC product and the initial gc1700s. But massey increased their warranty length at the same time it went to the dl95.

So to summarize . . If the dl95 is actually a cheaper price , plus a longer equipment warranty, plus a visually verified heavy duty build and quality of construction . . . It would seem the phase out of the dl100 unut was well planned.

I haven't directly compared the DL95 & 100... but I have with the DL130 & 135. In my observation, I felt that the opposite was true. I felt that the DL130 was a much more robust piece of equipment than the 135.

I can't agree with 'jsftractors' in that the Quicke loaders won't hold up more than a few years ... they look like good loaders. I just think the Soo loaders were more robustly built.

 

[jsftractors]

I'll back up for a minute, I do agree if your using the 95 for general yard work and nothing more, it will perform well for a long time. When you move into the CUE category and begin comparing the 120/125 or 130/135 there is no comparison.

 

[AxleHub]

I haven't directly compared the DL95 & 100... but I have with the DL130 & 135. In my observation, I felt that the opposite was true. I felt that the DL130 was a much more robust piece of equipment than the 135.

I also don't agree with 'jsftractors' in that the Quicke loaders won't hold up more than a few years ... they look like good loaders. I just think the Soo loaders were more robustly built.

I'm not familiar with the dl130 and dl135.

In welding fabrication . . . What are known as "step gussets" or "step sleeving" is what the dl95 has. As an example . . The width of the upper connector pivots is (I believe 2 and 15/16ths). And the width of the bottom attachment points by the bucket are 3 and 7/16ths) meaning at the point of greatest strain there is an additional almost 5/8ths inch of metal sleeving support that extends up nearly 8 inches in a surrounding fashion. If I was normal, I'd claim the dl95 is over built . . but the tradition of industrial arts instructors and machinists is "something can be over priced but never overbuilt" lol

 

[AxleHub]

If you get a chance to attach a picture of the bucket, I'll let you know if it's the 95 or 100 version. A number of dealers put the 100 bucket on the 95 to help sell against the 100.

Here















are photos of my bucket. But I'm certain it is not a dl100 bucket because of the bracket spacing and reinforcement additions.

 

[jc21]

You can't base your decisions on the marketing material and specifications provided by the manufacturer when they are introducing a new product. The change in loader supplier is based solely on price, not quality. It's very clear if you simply look at and compare the the construction of the 2 loaders. If you want a quality loader that will last many years, go with the DL100. If you want a loader that hides the hydraulic lines nicely, go with the DL95. Keep in mind you will need to buy a replacement DL95 in a few years, if your lucky you could find a used DL100 to replace your 95.

Exactly what do you consider substandard on the DL95 vs. the DL100? .... inquiring minds want to know.

 

[AxleHub]

Exactly what do you consider substandard on the DL95 vs. the DL100? .... inquiring minds want to know.

Exactly. Just today I had my bucket off and found the pins on the bucket are 1 and 3/16ths inch instead of kubotas 3/4 inch or the dl100s 1 inch.

I saw some other brands buckets and fel arms/pistons and the dl95 is suvstantially heavier than those as well.

I fail to see how the dl95 is anything other than well built and cleverly designed in its connectors and arm design and anchoring mount posts and. Locator clips.