If You Could Change/Want/Miss Anything On Your New JD?

[Neophyte]

Good stuff bam747.

There is absolutely nothing associated with a MSL setup that prevents the operator from adjusting the bucket curl/dump while simultaneously rasing/lowering the FEL booms.

If this is the case, and you can still combine functions, then it's a point for MSL (+1).

If you are talking about rollback and dump angle, the exact opposite is true.

Good catch, you are absolutely right about this. The reason I was thinking the opposite is because I saw it mentioned in a manual that caution needs to be taken when lowering the 542 with the bucket at the full dump angle because the bucket can actually hit the tires. The 542SL prevents this because the dump angle is limited when lowered. I assumed the dump/rollback angle was limited through the full range of motion on the 542SL but I guess it only becomes limited when the arms are at either end of the spectrum (high or low).

I was able to find the specs for the 400X vs. 400CX and it depicts this by giving the angles at full height and when lowered. The 400X has a much greater dump angle at ground level (130 vs. 86.5) and much greater rollback angle at full height (117 vs. 43) than the 400CX. Of course, a large rollback angle at full height is not a great thing. I'm not sure if these numbers really would benefit anyone. With that said, the two loaders cannot be compared in terms of strength. I doubt anyone out there would sacrifice the power of the 400CX for the increase upper/lower angles of the 400X. I would say it's another point for MSL (+1).

I wish I could have found 400x/400cx specs on lift, breakout, rollback numbers.

I have attached them and there is no comparison between the two loaders. We would have to see a 400CX (non-MSL) vs. a 400CX (MSL) and these don't exist. Even if they did, I think the differences would be negligible. So negligible rollback power loss means another point for MSL (+1).

Note that the 300cx is NOT a MSL loader while the 400cx is. This difference has already been pointed out by other posts in this thread.

I understand the 300CX is not an MSL and that's my point. You can upgrade from a 400X (non-MSL) to 400CX (MSL) for the same price as an upgrade from a 300X (non-MSL) to 300CX (non-MSL). If MSL really added cost, then the 400X-to-400CX price differential should be more than the 300X-to-300CX price differential, which is not the case. This means that MSL does not really add any cost, which means another point for MSL (+1).

Here are the specs comparing the 400X to 400CX:
http://www.deere.com/en_US/govsales/purchaseguide/2006PG/links/42_43.pdf

Here are the specs comparing the 542 to 542SL:
http://www.deere.com/en_US/govsales/purchaseguide/2006PG/links/44_45.pdf

Other than the additional cost, I see no downside whatsoever of MSL, especially since it is a passive system that just uses geometry to implement the self leveling action.

Additional cost does not even appear to be a factor on the smaller machines. Perhaps they did not offer it on the 300CX because it would provide too much lift capacity for the machine? Is this a possible reason?

I hope everyone can understand why I couldn't understand the reasoning behind the dislike of a MSL loader versus the same loader without the MSL option.

I certainly have a better understanding now. This is why TBN is so addictive.

Actually, most of the HSL FELs I've heard of only level the FEL attachment while the FEL arms are being raised. However, I do remember running across an HSL system that does level for both the raise and lower operation.

My understanding is that many of the simple HSL systems are limited to leveling while raising only and it usually becomes ineffective once the bucket is raised above the hood of the tractor. I believe the more advanced HSL systems can level in both directions and throughout the full range of motion. I can imagine these types of systems may add some additional cost.

So let's tally up the points. It seems like MSL 4 and non-MSL 0. Given all of this, I would really like to know JDs reasoning behind not offering it on the 300 series loaders.

One question still remains. Does the 110 TLB have a self-leveling feature? Given the above information, what would be the reasoning behind not having it as a standard or even optional feature on this type of machine? Also, why would it still be an option on so many higher end tractors, TLBs and skid steers?