DL 95 vs DL 100 loaders for GC series

[AxleHub]

But back to the target of this thread. If someone is anticipating purchsse of a GC 1700 series . . Should they want a dl95 or dl100 front loader?

 

[Johnnymossville]

But back to the target of this thread. If someone is anticipating purchsse of a GC 1700 series . . Should they want a dl95 or dl100 front loader?

I can't speak for the DL100 because I haven't used it. I can only go by my limited experience on my new GC1705 with the DL95 and the improved specs they give us on paper. The DL95 is a great FEL.

I do wish it had quick attach though. but hey, can't have it all I guess.

 

[Fiziksgeek]

But back to the target of this thread. If someone is anticipating purchsse of a GC 1700 series . . Should they want a dl95 or dl100 front loader?

I think it's debatable....I've heard comments from people who likes one or the other for specific reasons. I've heard from one guy who thought the fit and finish of the DL100 was better (can't confirm myself) and it's design is more robust (heavier built, larger crossbar, etc). However, on paper, the DL95 out-lifts it by a bunch, and have some better features, like easier to access zerks. It's also been commented that since the front axle has not been beefed up, that using the new DL95 at capacity puts your rig at higher risk for damage....There is also more history with the DL100, it's been proven to be a pretty robust loader, no reason to think the DL95 isn't as well, but it doesn't have the history of the last several years of production.

 

[TSO]

i visually compared the DL 130 which I have, to the replacement model DL 135. In my opinion, the DL 130 appears to be a more robust loader. The framing is thicker, the loader frame post that attaches to the tractor looks stronger, and the hoses appear to be routed better, with more hard lines, and are less susceptible to damage as they are better protected. The curl function geometry appears to be better on the DL 130 as well, as the pin spacing is farther apart at the quick attach plate, rendering better leverage for easier curl strength. Now, we are still waiting to see official full specifications for the DL 135. I have found conflicting information online, but one of the things I found suggested that it had a lower lift capacity than the DL 130. I agree that the previous version loaders had a very proven track record, ranging on models across the AGCO line, including AGCO tractors, Massey, and CAT Challenger as well. I do think that the construction of the new loaders appears to be of good quality, but I feel that there are some drawbacks compared to the older models. Hopefully we get official document clarification soon.

I have not personally compared the DL 100 to the DL 95. on paper it does appear to have better specs with the new loader. I did inspect the DL 125 personally at my local dealer, and it also appears to be well built, but with the same shortcomings as the DL 135 that I mentioned above.

 

[xmabellx]

I have a 1736 with the dl125. So far has been pretty good. Seems strong enough however I can't for the life of me seem to find if I'm missing a bucket level indicator. Any of you guys with the new loaders have an indicator of some sort. Was kinda nice having that on my older LS.

 

[atsah]

I just bought the 1705 and I had a choice between the 95 and 100.. Here is what I found.. The 95 lifts at least 100lbs more than the 100, the brace that goes across the loader is lower on the 95, it would be better when using lights at night. To me the fit and finish seems to be about the same, the lines are tucked away nice on both, the grease fittings on the 95 are easy to get at.

What I don't like is there is no leveler on the bucket of the 95 like there is on the 100 and there are no hooks on either. I made them throw in a hook welded to each side in front of each loader arm on the bucket. Both being the same price, the 95 is a no brainer IMO.

 

[onceacop]

Only took forever to get a manual but here is some info for you guys

 

[burnm]

I Looked at those specs.

Makes me suspicious. Looks like those lift numbers correspond to a hydraulic pressure at 15.7MPA. That converts to 2227 PSI. Seems to me these tractors relieve at 1914 PSI, which means these numbers are close to 20% more than what would actually be achievable in the field.

Am I right? If so, that is dirty and I don't like it.

 

[AxleHub]

I Looked at those specs.

Makes me suspicious. Looks like those lift numbers correspond to a hydraulic pressure at 15.7MPA. That converts to 2227 PSI. Seems to me these tractors relieve at 1914 PSI, which means these numbers are close to 20% more than what would actually be achievable in the field.

Am I right? If so, that is dirty and I don't like it.

Burnm,

Whatever the pumps produce is what they produce . . however we do know that the gc1705 abd gc1710 rate at 22.5 hp at 2600 rpm and with the same motor but changed rpm to 3000 and some pump tweeks we get 25 hp.

So what if the loaders themselves had some tweeks too. Power is a combination of volume and pressure. Each set of models has pumps that have a maximum volume . . The 05 + 10 is 4.3 gpm and the 15 and 20 is 4.8 gpm I believe. But if the dl95 had increased resistance lines . . The same volume would create increased pressure in the lines wouldn't it ??

I'm not saying it does . . I'm asking if that is a possibility.

 

[burnm]

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.