For those of you who think the L3400 has a weak loader!!

[Bluegill2]

Ya know, read stuff here for awhile and you start to think you 'need' a larger tractor. My wife got so tired of me talking about larger tractors 6 months ago, she said "just go get an bigger one". But I didn't want to spend the money and the L3800 always does everything I need.

The L3400/3800 is a lot larger than any of the BX or B models ya know. :laughing:

 

[xring100]

I certainly don't know what I would do with a spec of double what mine is rated for. It would be usless to me except for bragging rights.
"In my experience you'd find plenty especially with pallet forks"

Certainly not a weak loader by any means. Just might not have a "bragging rights" spec.

Loader Lift capacity is like barn capacity in the fact that with a barn the crap will expand to fill the space. Similarly with a loader the greater capacity the heavier stuff you will attempt to pick up. Obects you would pass at I lift without thinking about. Back to the pole barn analogy My dads pole barn 40' x30' Full (I'm storing his excess crap in my barns), My 56x32 & 40x24 barns are approaching capacity which is why i had to get the Saturn out. Neighbors 40x60 almost full just enough room to juggle stuff around inside.
Loader capacity is also a lot like going from VGA to HD TV you don't really appreciate the HD TV until you've had it, and once you have you don't want to go back

The CUT's definitely serve their purpose and they definitely make a lot of people happy. I'm very glad yours is sized to your needs. I really would not mind having a 40 hp Cab CUT with loader someday. However I was really concerned with lift capacity not just for bragging rights, but because I've used CUT's like a Kubota L3130 or B3030 and JD SCUT 2520 and yes they could do work but not at the pace i wanted. nor would they lift the kind of load i wanted. I do a fair amount of wood work mostly Firewood and some mill work and when you can avoid having to use the 3pt and just use the loader you can save an awe full lot of time when using pallet forks.

When i Ordered 31 squares of shingles and had the lowes delivery guy told me that it is not possible to get them out to my barn due to the off camber hill and slight ditch at the road, he clamed he'd get stuck, it was really nice being able to tell him fine leave them at the road i'll move them my self. having the ability to lift a 2600 lb pallet and carrry it 125 yards to the barn was really nice I hauled this giant piece of swamp oak out of the swamp and onto the wood mizer because his lift could not get it. "There is a stuck tractor story associated with this log"
Here are a few examples of why i needed more lift capacity

My buddies Barn yep its full too

Some of the Ash we cut that day

 

[Piston]

I certainly dont know what I would do with a spec of double what mine is rated for. It would be usless to me except for bragging rights.

LD1,
It sounds like your loader and tractor are well matched for the uses you have it for :thumbsup: Not all of us can say that. :laughing: That's the beauty of all the choices we have, if you don't need a lot of lift capacity, you can get away with a smaller loader like yours, if you do need a lot, you just buy a loader/tractor that matches your needs. Sounds like you hit the perfect match!

I also agree with you that these small tractors really can lift a lot of weight, and do a really lot of work. I've never once found myself needing more lift capacity when it comes to moving dirt. However, pretty often I max out my lift capacity with a larger loader than you have. So I guess it just depends on what your needs are. I think for the most part, and in most people's situations, you can get away with the smaller loaders of CUT's.

I"m with you Dave, I could certainly use more loader lift capacity.
There are times though, when I just haven't been able to lift the logs I'm trying to get to my mill, that is really when I wish for more lift capacity. I hate it when I try to lift a log only to realize I can't, then I have to go back to where the equipment is parked, start up the JD 410, get the chains for the bucket, go back to the log, chain it up, and carry it to the mill. It would be a lot nicer to just be able to lift the logs I handle on a regular basis with the tractor I use on a regular basis. So you can put me in the "need more loader lift capacity" camp :laughing:

 

[Bluegill2]

Dave, that's a 'Hog' and yes I could find some uses for it. But I'm logging in some tight places and that thing just would not fit, without cutting more trees than I want and making wider trails. Very cool machine though and could sure handle the mowing of some of our larger fields. :thumbsup:

 

[LD1]

Obects you would pass at I lift without thinking about.

I dont pass on anything. I just get the hoe. Guestimate of 6-7k


The point isnt about comparing my 3400 to a 85 HP tractor and matched loader. Sure, if you need to lift a 2500lb pallet, get a bigger tractor.

But some of the tractors being marketed today, VERY similar size and HP to mine, with 2-2.5x's the lift "spec" What would one do with that. IF you believe the specs, there is no way I could lift 2.5x's more than I lift now, without anchoring the rear of the tractor to the ground. THATS my point. My loader is sufficient enough to lift the rear with my heaviest implement. So giving it an over-inflated loader rating is absolutely useless other than for bragging rights (marketing)

 

[xring100]

Dave, that's a 'Hog' and yes I could find some uses for it. But I'm logging in some tight places and that thing just would not fit, without cutting more trees than I want and making wider trails. Very cool machine though and could sure handle the mowing of some of our larger fields. :thumbsup:

Thanks Yeah its large and i run into places i don't fit. We also use My buddies john deere it fits into much tighter places especially with no loader. Like i said i would love a smaller cab tractor someday but for now the M series was my best option. My Biggest drawback is the machine weight limits my ability to traverse my yard without tearing up the grass.

Definitely a tractor for every need and fortunately theirs lots to choose from so we can all get what best suits those needs. My next store neighbor loves his b2400 and has put 900 hours on it

 

[xring100]

I dont pass on anything. I just get the hoe. <img src="http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=334152"/> Guestimate of 6-7k

The point isnt about comparing my 3400 to a 85 HP tractor and matched loader. Sure, if you need to lift a 2500lb pallet, get a bigger tractor.

But some of the tractors being marketed today, VERY similar size and HP to mine, with 2-2.5x's the lift "spec" What would one do with that. IF you believe the specs, there is no way I could lift 2.5x's more than I lift now, without anchoring the rear of the tractor to the ground. THATS my point. My loader is sufficient enough to lift the rear with my heaviest implement. So giving it an over-inflated loader rating is absolutely useless other than for bragging rights (marketing)

Lol yeah that industiral works. Gotcha Yeah i have loaded tires and unless i have another 1500 lbs on the back i can do a wheel stand. Unfortunately the Kubotas tend to be lighter than the competition but probably not that much lighter if the competition really rates them that much higher.

 

[xring100]

I didn't get that you were trying to compare it to the competition on similar sized tractors

 

[Piston]

I dont pass on anything. I just get the hoe. <img src="http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=334152"/> Guestimate of 6-7k

The point isnt about comparing my 3400 to a 85 HP tractor and matched loader. Sure, if you need to lift a 2500lb pallet, get a bigger tractor.

But some of the tractors being marketed today, VERY similar size and HP to mine, with 2-2.5x's the lift "spec" What would one do with that. IF you believe the specs, there is no way I could lift 2.5x's more than I lift now, without anchoring the rear of the tractor to the ground. THATS my point. My loader is sufficient enough to lift the rear with my heaviest implement. So giving it an over-inflated loader rating is absolutely useless other than for bragging rights (marketing)

Okay, I gotcha now. I think I misunderstood what you were saying.

Nice pic with the huge boulder!

 

[LD1]

Here are some of the specs I am talking about...

Tractor.......................Tractor weight......................................rated lift @ pins
L3800..............................2600...................................................~1100
Mahindra 3616...................2500...................................................1650
Max28..............................1800....................................................1400:shocked:
LS G3038..........................2600....................................................1900
LS R3039..........................2700.....................................................2250


These are just a few. There are quite a few that are right on par as well. The Kioti CK35 and DS3510 are near identical spec wise. The deere 3320 is quite believable. Tractor weighs 300 more, and lifts 300 more. The Boomer 35 is like the deere 3320.

But some just seem to have really over inflated specs. I really cannot believe that the LS R3039 can lift a full 1000lbs MORE, and only weigh 100lbs more than my kubota. That is the prime example of what I am getting at. And the 3616 being a tad lighter, yet lifting 50% more.......I dont buy that for a second. Sure, it may have massive cylinders and be capable of lifting more on paper, but real world...........