Is a 110, L39, or L48 enough tractor?

mike69440 · Mar 29, 2006

Mike69440 Response to
MarkV



( The PTO power really has me baffled as to why there is so much of a drop from the gross horse power. It may just be what their HST tranny uses or how the turbo develops power. For the multi use owner you would have a hard time using a rotary mower large enough to cover the tractor width.

Just some points of interest for those comparing the CBL40 to the L39. The CBL lists its operating weight as 7580 lbs and that includes a 165lbs operator and I would suspect fuel and oils. Kubota says 6987 lbs. for the L39 and I think that is dry. Sounds like they would be close if weighed the same way.

The CBL loader shows lift capacity to full height at the pivot pins as 2980 lbs and 4375 lbs breakout force. (I assume also at the pivot pins) The L39 from the same point shows 2767 lbs. lift and 4605 lbs. breakout. Again pretty close when compared from the same points.

I'd like to correct, based on the following Information:

http://www.hytopz.com/products/Loader_Excavators/PDF_files/Tractor_Loader-Backhoe/Yanmar_CBL40.pdf

CBL40 Lift at the pins is as 2960 lbs compare to 2767 LBS @ the pins for the L39.

Not a lot a difference here and since I have my pressures set correctly, I am not really complaining about the lift of my L39

The CBL40 4375 lbs breakout force from the bucket cylinders is supposedly measured at bucket edge vs. the 3560 Lbs @ the pins for the L39. I do not know where the 4605 Lbs value came from? This is a considerable difference as the L39 has a lot of leverage disadvantage from the moment arm of pins to bucket edge.

I find the bucket curl the weakest part of t he L39.

The L39 backhoe and the CBL are within an inch of each other for max digging depth. The CBL shows bucket digging force as 5798lbs and arm force as 3582lbs where the L39 lists 5825lbs for the bucket and 3779lbs for the arm.

Yes , talk about splitting hairs.

The CBL40 looks to be real comparable to the L39 on many of the specs. I can see how it would have a place in the market for those who want the HST and turbo diesel while still staying, by very little, under 10,000lbs. for a tractor and trailer combo. That is hard to do with the L48 or JD110. I’ll look forward to hearing from someone who has used both to give a seat of the pants comparison.

That goes for me also, although I do not see me trading my L39 soon. If anything I would get something with tracks to complement the L39.

MarkV · Mar 29, 2006

Mike, we must be reading the owners manual for the L39 differently. On page 7 of mine it says that the loader breakout force for the L39 at the pins is 4605lbs. and 20” forward of the pins it is 3560lbs. As I said in the other post I assumed they were measuring breakout force of the CBL at the pivot pins. The link you posted reads, ‘Break out force by bucket cylinder’ which I think of as at the pivot pins, though I could be wrong. Where did you see it spec’ed at the bucket edge? I would find that a big difference for two loaders that were so close on all the other specs.

It doesn’t really matter to me because like you I am keeping what I have. Actually my wife has made it clear that is the only option I have. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif It would be good for those still shopping to make sure we a comparing apples to apples though.

MarkV

Builder · Mar 29, 2006

MarkV,
Like the other poster, the Yanmar dealer seemed to be impressed that the CLB had more lift capacity (~3,000lbs) than the L-39 (~2,200lbs), too, but it looks like he was mistakenly reading the "lift capacity to max height at pivot pin" for the Yanmar and "lift capacity to max height at bucket bottom mid point" on the L-39. This is an unfair comparison, since the L-39 has a much closer capacity (2767lbs) to the yanmar (2960) when also measured at lift capacity to max height at pivot pin.

So much for the 30% lift capacity advantage. Looks more like 6 or 7%. I think we have a new "grasshopper". /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

mike69440 · Mar 29, 2006

( Mike, Where did you see it spec’ed at the bucket edge? I would find that a big difference for two loaders that were so close on all the other specs.

MarkV
)

If I remember correctly, it was the the announcement blurb from the rental company that had a product announcement.

Not the most reliable source.

The 3560lbs at the Pins comes from the Kubota Web site, but what do web designer people know about Tractors!

http://www.kubota.com/h/products/l39Specs.pdf

I think we need all four of the CUT TLBS and a bunch of calibrated strain gages!

mike69440 · Mar 29, 2006

So much for the 30% lift capacity advantage. Looks more like 6 or 7%. I think we have a new "grasshopper". /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif )

Oops, Been bit by a praying mantis! Makes sense as the weight of the CBL40 is 6-7% over the L39 at best. I'm interested to determine what is the real apples to apples on the bucket curl?

Builder · Mar 29, 2006

I bet they're so close it's splitting hairs.

You guys don't seem too surprised that the Yanmar really sticks it to the 110???? Seems kinda harsh to do to a "customer" like John Deere. /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

Now that the loader specs are so close, and the Y costs $2,000 more, than the K, it makes sense. Upgrade a L39 to HST 2 range and I bet it adds at least $2,000.

KiotiJohn · Mar 29, 2006

( It is hard to tell in the brochure. Does the CBL have a range selector? By reading what the broshure says, I get the impression it doesn't, that it is all automatic. )
Yes, everything I read seems to make it sound that way. The hydromechanical transmission eliminates the need for range shifting while loading. Sounds automatic to me too.
I'm still trying to find real specs that say, but so far, no luck.
John

KiotiJohn · Mar 29, 2006

Here is a site that show things a little better than I had seen.
CBL40

John

john_bud · Mar 29, 2006

You know guys, after reading all the specs on lift, break out force, etc, my eyes start to cross! There used to be an SAE spec that they had to test a loader to. They no longer quote that SAE method, but give all kinds of confusing gibberish designed by advertising agents ! ARGH! Why not spec out how much you can lift and dump into a 10' tall dump truck, along with the time it takes for a full cycle? The adverts for my 1963 Ford tell me that it takes 11.2 seconds to fully tilt the bucket, raise it up to full height, fully dump it, bring it back to level and drop it to the ground. And that is with 3000# in the bucket on the way up. From exp, they were either right on or pretty close.

I say dump out 100 yards of 3-5" river rock and time how long it takes to spread it out to a uniform 5" depth. Then gather it back up and dump it back into dump trucks. Do that for both and you will KNOW which is the better loader! Specs smecks, we don't need no stinking specs!

jb

monkeymonk · Mar 29, 2006

just saw a jd110 when i was looking for a rotary tiler for my l48. The dealer asked me what i paid for my 48 (38,000) he told me the jd was 45,000 with the thumb and 4 in 1 bucket extra hydraulics. mine came with the quick attaches only. i was afraid i bought the wrong machine until i sat on and checked out the jd. heavy yet plastic. im sure glad i got my 48. just feels like a more powerful machine and it is.

wood chipper
thumb
forks
earth ripper
cultivator /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif