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

[Bluegill2]

Ya know, some of those rigs look the have same size cylinders, or just slightly larger. So they must have a special secret way to measure lift capacity.

I also feel the FEL capacity of this size Kubota is balanced well with the size of the rig. Mine will also lift the loaded rears of the ground, with rear ballast. I need to put a gauge on it and see what PSI it's set at...

Good thread, man!

 

[LD1]

Yea, I'b be curious to see what the cylinder sizes are on the LS and the mahindra 3616. I couldnt find that listed. But both the kioti DS3510 and ck35 list it @ 1.77" diameter (45mm) which is the same as my kubota. And their spec is within a few pounds also:thumbsup:

 

[repete]

This conversation reminds me of the changes in auto extrication tools over my 45 years in the fire service. Hurst Corp (Hurst tool aka Jaws of Life) had an operating pressure of 5000 PSI to the tool from the portable pump. It required a large cylinder to exert the 20,000 pound force at the spreader tips. This was one heavy tool.

Holmotro came out with a tool maybe 20 years later that was smaller but had roughly the same "tip" specs. The major difference was that the system ran at 10,500 PSI line pressure.

The Hurst tool was the workhorse when cars were heavier and larger or involved semi trucks. The Holmotro was smaller and lighter and could get places where the Hurst could not. We carried both on our rigs to cover a larger spectrum of what we might find.

 

[xring100]

LD1 That is definitely some spread.

I have an idea why they might do this. at full height your lift capacity is only 1131 however breakout force on the ground is 2460 lbs is
And at 60" off the ground its 1400 lbs.

It takes way more than 1100 lbs to get the rear end light I'm guessing

Lets say you can lift 2000 lbs at the pivot off the ground without getting light in the rear. the only problem is you can only pick it up a 1ft or so off the ground.
Some of the other tractors would be able to pick up the same 2000 lb load and lift it to a much higher height and yet they would still have the rear tires planted on the ground. The numbers on the max are concerning.

The draw back of these tractors is that they would have way more breakout force than they could handle. Does this make sense? If it's not 2000 lbs maybe its 1600 or 1800lbs I'm picking an arbitrary amount
You would also have to make sure that the front axle could handle this load

 

[LD1]

I wouldnt say it takes "way" more than 1100 to make the rear light. 1100 is definatally noticeable to the tractor even with the 700lb blade.

And yes, loader lift force is a curve. It gets less the higher you go. But I have no doubt in my mind that I could lift 1500lbs to max height (properly ballasted of course). Those loads of dirt were pushing that, and I still had pleanty of PSI to play with.

My only point of all of this is, I can lift the rears of my tractor with my 1100# bushhog (barley, but still doable). So if a similar tractor, of like weight, from another MFG claims to be able to lift ALOT more, can you really????

You think the numbers from the Max are concerning, what about the LS tractors?? I didnt know their specs until I just looked at them when I posted. rated @ 2x's the lift capacity I have. How in the h3ll can you lift that without something along the lines of 2k on the 3PH???

 

[Piston]

I wouldnt say it takes "way" more than 1100 to make the rear light. 1100 is definatally noticeable to the tractor even with the 700lb blade.
So if a similar tractor, of like weight, from another MFG claims to be able to lift ALOT more, can you really????

I'd be pretty surprised if about ANY of our tractors could lift what the rated capacity is, most likely you can lift either a little more, or a little less. I doubt the lift capacities are based on actual tests they perform, but rather by calculations they use. This is all speculation of course, I have nothing to back it up.
But yes, I do this other manufacturers can lift more, I don't think that's an opinion, I think it's a fact. We all know that our Kubota's are built to be light tractors, and they do not have as much lift capacity as others. That doesn't make them bad tractors, it can be an advantage actually, but lets not pretend that they are in the top of the list for loader lift capacity.

You think the numbers from the Max are concerning, what about the LS tractors?? I didnt know their specs until I just looked at them when I posted. rated @ 2x's the lift capacity I have. How in the h3ll can you lift that without something along the lines of 2k on the 3PH???

I don't know of any tractors in the size range most of us have on here, that can safely lift the max capacity that the loader specs state, without ballast. I know I can't. The tractors with higher lift capacity, require more ballast on the 3PH. I don't doubt that they can lift somewhere near the stated capacity, but certainly they can't do it without proper ballast...safely anyways. This is stated right in the operators manual, it specifically says that rear ballast is required for max capacities.

 

[LD1]

This is stated right in the operators manual, it specifically says that rear ballast is required for max capacities.

Correct. But there is no point in boasting about a super lift capacity if one has to have ballast that is way above and beyond normal. And by normal, I would be inclined to say something in the 700-900# range in the form of a tiller, blade, bushhog, or whatever other properly sized implement for the tractor. Sure, you could put 3000lbs on the back of a 2500# tractor just so you can say the loader can lift 2500#, but realistically????? who is going to do that?? and if someone has to fabricate a counterweight like that just to get the max, I'd say they bought the wrong tractor.

 

[RaydaKub]

When the ballast has to approach the weight of the tractor, something is way outta whack... And I'll bet the front end is not built to such a standard.

 

[repete]

When the ballast has to approach the weight of the tractor, something is way outta whack... And I'll bet the front end is not built to such a standard.

So do you think the front axle (aka fulcrum) may not be designed to support all of the weight. I suspect when you lift 1500 pounds in the bucket of a tractor that weighs 3000 pounds and the rear wheels come off the ground you are essentially putting 4500 pounds on the front axle. I have trouble seeing where adding 1000 pounds to the rear end to hold it down takes any load off the front axle but rather just keeps the rear wheels on the ground.

 

[LD1]

So do you think the front axle (aka fulcrum) may not be designed to support all of the weight. I suspect when you lift 1500 pounds in the bucket of a tractor that weighs 3000 pounds and the rear wheels come off the ground you are essentially putting 4500 pounds on the front axle. I have trouble seeing where adding 1000 pounds to the rear end to hold it down takes any load off the front axle but rather just keeps the rear wheels on the ground.

Partially correct. Its like an arc, or rainbow. With the left being NO added ballast of any kind. And the far right being an infinite amount.

Lets use my L3400 weights for example. Empty non-ballasted weight of bare tractor + loader is ~3750#. With NO ballast, the FEL may only be able to lift ~250# before the rear raises. Placing a total load of 4000# on the front.

Add a 500# disk to the rear, and now the loader might be able to lift 750# but the rear still raises. So 3750 + 500 + 750 = 5000lbs now on the front.

Add 1000lbs ballast, and now loader might be able to lift 1000lbs, BUT, the rears stay planted, AND because the 1000lb ballast hangs off the back, relieves some of the weight from the front, and say keeps 1000lbs on the rear axle. So, 1000lb ballast+ 1000lb load + 3750lbs tractor = 5750lbs, but 1000lbs stays on rear. Now we are down to 4750lbs on the front.

The more ballast added to the rear from this point will only reduce weight on the front, since loader is maxed out.

If to an infinite amount of rear ballast that makes the rear axle become the pivot, and the front axle sees NO load. And even with a max load in the bucket, the front axle stays in the air.

So adding ballast BEHIND the axle does indeed increase front axle load, up to a point, and then it starts coming back down. That is why "sufficient" ballast is needed. And ofcourse this is only when dealing with max loads too. Smaller loads can get by with lesser ballast and still be taking weight off the front axle.