loader capacity vs HP

[onegreenday]

I was looking at loader capacity in the Mahindra specs and notice that:

#2310HST 4wd 25hp 6.3 gal pump output gets ML108H loader
#2810HST 4wd 28HP 6.3 gal pump output gets ML108H loader
#3510HST 4wd 34HP 6.4 gal pump output gets ML108H loader

****#2310HST (25HP) equals lift of #2810HST (28HP) & #3510HST(34HP) with lower horse power*****

So if you are looking for the most lift capacity per HP it would be the #2310HST. Most lift capacity for your money.

***ML108H loader lifts 1100lbs to full height

 

[DavesTractor]

They are all the same chassis, just different HP, and they take the same loader. Rumor has it that consideration is now in the works to increase the loader lift ram sizes slightly on the 3510HST to give it about 1450-1550 capacity to full height.

 

[onegreenday]

It would appear that the lift capacity of the ML108H loader is determined by the hydraulic pump capacity and NOT the tractor HP. But I found a glitch in this thinking:

#3015HST (30HP) 4WD, 7.9 gal hydraulic pump gets ML110 loader (1350lbs to full height) but the:

#3510 (35HP) 4WD, 7.87 gal hydraulic pump (same size) gets the ML112 loader (1972lbs to full height)

So the pump size is NOT the absolute determining factor in the loader lift capacity, as far as I can tell.

 

[DavesTractor]

green,

Pump capacity (volume) has nothing to do with loader lift capacity. A 1 gpm pump run by a 2 horsepower Briggs and Stratton can lift as much, it would just take longer. Capacity is a function of the system pressure at relief and the size of the cylinders. There are some finer points, like leverage issues, etc., but that is the basic idea.

To get more lift, we can adjust the system relief higher, which is dangerous and should not be done, or we can increase the cylinder size. Increasing the cylinder size means you need more volume to keep the same speed of lift.

It acutally does not take much HP to run a pump, so your HP to lift capacity study, while interesting, has little real world application.

 

[JerryG]

Dave is right on his statements. Where the gpm comes into play is it determines how fast the cylinders will move. There for the larger the cylinders that you have, the more gpm that you need to maintain the same speed.

 

[Clyde]

Another good example of gpm versus horsepower is the simple logsplitter. A small engine(5hp) runs a 10 gpm pump to a 2" hydraulic ram with a force of 20,000 lbs. The tougher to split a specific chunk of wood, the slower the ram moves....but it moves until the pressure relief trips and says "enough is enough".

Let's not forget the safety issues when this theory is applied to a FEL on any specific tractor. Compensation ballast in the rear of the tractor to keep the rear wheels on the ground is one point. You can have anything capable of overcoming the abilities of your specific tractor but the manufacturers have carefully kept the lifting abilities within safe levels. Imagine the product liabilities they would incur if an accident occurred with a product they deemed safe on a tractor that couldn't handle it. Personally, I'll stick with the recommended loader and live on the safe side of life. If you want more lift capacity - step up to a bigger tractor. If you want an earthmover - buy one! If you want to put more lift than the manufacturer designed - be willing to live with the premature oil leaks, and component failures that you caused yourself but then don't blame Mahindra for an inferior product.

Maybe we got a little beyond "onegreenday's" original post but I put my faith in Mahindra and the loader manufacturer's design limits and reasons for their recommendations and assignments. As always, I respect and personally, want to hear not only the practical but also the knowledgeable opinions that come out of this forum. Thanks to all of you for that. Once again - this is only my opinion.

 

[onegreenday]

Thanks for all the good info on loaders. I talked to one tractor dealer that will only put the tractor builder's official line of loaders on the tractor to protect the warranty, should there be any problems.

Another dealer offers their tractors with "unofficial" loaders from Quicke Alo & Hardly. I'd prefer to go with the loader spec'd by the manufacturer but looking for the best loader/tractor for the money.

Mahindra specs the 3510 with the ML112 loader (1972 lbs) &
the 3510HST with the ML108H loader (1100 lbs) 872lbs less with the HST tranny.

Why do you think Mahindra spec's the different loader for the HST? Thanks

 

[dbelisle]

There is a bigger difference that just the HST.

I own a 2810HST, it is the same tractor as the 3510HST but 7 HP less. The weight of the 2310HST, 2810HST and the 3510HST is #3060. It is the same tractor with different HP motors.

The 3510 is a much heavier tractor with its weight at #3881.

Even though they have the same model number they are different tractors.

Hope that helps

Dave in NH

Mahindra 2810HST

 

[Bob_Skurka]

I've never seen the 3510 tractors, but based on the Mahindra website, the 3510 HST and the 3510 gear are totally different tractors in many ways. From the looks of the specs below, these are different size machines physically and they have different capabilities in so many ways. I think everything below will explain why there are different loaders spec'd for the different tractors!

LOA of the HST = 114.2"
LOA of the Gear = 139"

Width of HST = 52"
Width of Gear = 58"

Turning Radius of HST = 8.2'
Turning Radius of Gear = 7.87'

Weight of HST = 3064 pounds
Weight of Gear = 3881 pounds

HP of HST = 34
HP of Gear = 35

3pt Capacity of HST = 2080#
3pt Capacity of Gear = 2865#

 

[onegreenday]

Thanks a lot. I thought being the "10" series they'd be the same tractor but it looks like they are different. Gotta look at those "specs" close.