Quick Attach Option for FEL
- Thread starter texbaylea
- Start date
- Views: 7817
uhmgawa
Gold Member
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( It should have been designed right from the beginning with the Bobcat skid steer plate as the benchmark.)</font>
Try to find an authoritative definition of the Bobcat mechanism.
Doesn't exist in my experience. The best they can do is reverse
engineer from the actual product. (I'd be delighted to be shown
otherwise.)
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Buy the Kubota QA option. It is so simple to switch attachments, you'll forget about compatibility issues. )</font>
I have to agree. It is such a simple solution to a prevalent problem.
BTW I thought having the standard Q/A would be advantageous in the
sense more used attachments would be available. Turns out these are
snapped up pretty quick. However the Q/A is a fairly simple interface
to fabricate so it scores a plus for homebrew attachments as well.
Try to find an authoritative definition of the Bobcat mechanism.
Doesn't exist in my experience. The best they can do is reverse
engineer from the actual product. (I'd be delighted to be shown
otherwise.)
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Buy the Kubota QA option. It is so simple to switch attachments, you'll forget about compatibility issues. )</font>
I have to agree. It is such a simple solution to a prevalent problem.
BTW I thought having the standard Q/A would be advantageous in the
sense more used attachments would be available. Turns out these are
snapped up pretty quick. However the Q/A is a fairly simple interface
to fabricate so it scores a plus for homebrew attachments as well.
40Kchicks
Gold Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2003
- Messages
- 489
- Location
- Western Oregon
- Tractor
- 2003 Kubota M9000DTL 2001 JD 2252 Orchard Tractor Cat 216 Skidsteer 1999 JD 450H Dozer 1994 JD 644G wheel loader
uhmgawa
<font color="blue"> However the Q/A is a fairly simple interface to fabricate so it scores a plus for homebrew attachments as well.</font>
I agree. The universal quick attach is easy to build. I have built several buckets and a hydraulic auger for my skid steer. You can also by the receiver plates from the dealers, online, or ebay for about $120 and just weld them to whatever you need hooked up.
<font color="blue"> However the Q/A is a fairly simple interface to fabricate so it scores a plus for homebrew attachments as well.</font>
I agree. The universal quick attach is easy to build. I have built several buckets and a hydraulic auger for my skid steer. You can also by the receiver plates from the dealers, online, or ebay for about $120 and just weld them to whatever you need hooked up.
EquipmentJunkie
Platinum Member
I didn't make myself clear earlier, sorry.
Uhmgawa is right, there is not authoritative definition on the loader's QA plate, just the attachment plate. As a result, Kubota should have reverse-engineered the QA plate. They should have reverse-engineered to a fault...to the point of noting the height of the receiving plate, angle of the back of the bucket, center of latching pins, etc. of several leading skid steer manufacuturers and aftermarket manufacturers who do quality work.
I'm sure that everything worked fine during R&D testing with Kubota-built attachments. But what if you stick a Bradco pallet fork on the Kubota loader or use a Bobcat skid steer bucket? I am not aware of New Holland, Woods, Bush Hog, or Great Bend loaders having problems with their QA plates not working...I wonder why? Maybe its because they did their homework.
Kubota did their homework...almost. And its the almost that always causes the trouble.
Uhmgawa is right, there is not authoritative definition on the loader's QA plate, just the attachment plate. As a result, Kubota should have reverse-engineered the QA plate. They should have reverse-engineered to a fault...to the point of noting the height of the receiving plate, angle of the back of the bucket, center of latching pins, etc. of several leading skid steer manufacuturers and aftermarket manufacturers who do quality work.
I'm sure that everything worked fine during R&D testing with Kubota-built attachments. But what if you stick a Bradco pallet fork on the Kubota loader or use a Bobcat skid steer bucket? I am not aware of New Holland, Woods, Bush Hog, or Great Bend loaders having problems with their QA plates not working...I wonder why? Maybe its because they did their homework.
Kubota did their homework...almost. And its the almost that always causes the trouble.
uhmgawa
Gold Member
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( I didn't make myself clear earlier, sorry.
Uhmgawa is right, there is not authoritative definition on the loader's QA plate, just the attachment plate. )</font>
Well there now appears to be -- it is SAE J2513. Not that any additional
information is readily available but at least it has a name.
Incidentally the quick hitch option for TL1150/LA1162 loaders has been
updated to TL1709A (formerly TL1709). This may have addressed any
compatibility issues.
Uhmgawa is right, there is not authoritative definition on the loader's QA plate, just the attachment plate. )</font>
Well there now appears to be -- it is SAE J2513. Not that any additional
information is readily available but at least it has a name.
Incidentally the quick hitch option for TL1150/LA1162 loaders has been
updated to TL1709A (formerly TL1709). This may have addressed any
compatibility issues.
uhmgawa
Gold Member
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Well there now appears to be -- it is SAE J2513. Not that any
additional information is readily available but at least it has a name. )</font>
Digging further there actually is a document available for purchase:
http://www.sae.org/servlets/productDetail?PROD_TYP=STD&PROD_CD=J2513_200006
Note this describes the attachment side only. I'm not too motivated to
pay $60 to get the definitive spec of where to cut two holes and weld a
strip of steel.
Attached is a quick & dirty drawing taken off of my TL1709 and
bucket. Pardon the low res. I had to stomp on it to get under the
100K attachment size limit.
additional information is readily available but at least it has a name. )</font>
Digging further there actually is a document available for purchase:
http://www.sae.org/servlets/productDetail?PROD_TYP=STD&PROD_CD=J2513_200006
Note this describes the attachment side only. I'm not too motivated to
pay $60 to get the definitive spec of where to cut two holes and weld a
strip of steel.
Attached is a quick & dirty drawing taken off of my TL1709 and
bucket. Pardon the low res. I had to stomp on it to get under the
100K attachment size limit.
Attachments
EquipmentJunkie
Platinum Member
SAE J2513 covers the attachment side of the quick attach, in other words, the bucket portion. There are no current specs/standards for the "male portion" of the QA.
Grand L loaders with QAs were the loaders that have the compatibility issues and not the L48. Your TL1709 QA should be fine unless the attachments are out of spec with the SAE J2513. The "A" on the TL1709A QA is most likely a vendor change.
Grand L loaders with QAs were the loaders that have the compatibility issues and not the L48. Your TL1709 QA should be fine unless the attachments are out of spec with the SAE J2513. The "A" on the TL1709A QA is most likely a vendor change.
uhmgawa
Gold Member
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( SAE J2513 covers the attachment side of the quick attach, in other words, the bucket portion. There are no current specs/standards for the "male portion" of the QA.)</font>
I believe I stated so. Anyway this should be enough standardization to
alleviate variations between vendors by eliminating the need to reverse
engineer the dimensions.
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Grand L loaders with QAs were the loaders that have the compatibility issues and not the L48. Your TL1709 QA should be fine unless the attachments are out of spec with the SAE J2513. The "A" on the TL1709A QA is most likely a vendor change. )</font>
Interesting. I've been told by a Kubota service manager that Kubota
does make its loaders here in the US. I suppose they could OEM the
TL1709 but can't immediately see the motivation for doing so.
I don't have confirmation the LA1709 meets SAE J2513, rather only
the LA1709A.
I believe I stated so. Anyway this should be enough standardization to
alleviate variations between vendors by eliminating the need to reverse
engineer the dimensions.
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Grand L loaders with QAs were the loaders that have the compatibility issues and not the L48. Your TL1709 QA should be fine unless the attachments are out of spec with the SAE J2513. The "A" on the TL1709A QA is most likely a vendor change. )</font>
Interesting. I've been told by a Kubota service manager that Kubota
does make its loaders here in the US. I suppose they could OEM the
TL1709 but can't immediately see the motivation for doing so.
I don't have confirmation the LA1709 meets SAE J2513, rather only
the LA1709A.
ljh2
Gold Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2001
- Messages
- 282
- Location
- Western Maryland
- Tractor
- Kubota M6800, Ferris IS4500Z Cat Diesel mower
tex,
I don't know about the QA for the 3130, but the one on my M6800 (which is a LOT bigger tractor) seems to be compatible with 'standard' skidsteer equipment so far. The machine did not come with a Kubota bucket, but an HLA (Horst engineering) skidsteer bucket (78").
I think they are a handy option that really can increase the utility of your FEL.
I don't know about the QA for the 3130, but the one on my M6800 (which is a LOT bigger tractor) seems to be compatible with 'standard' skidsteer equipment so far. The machine did not come with a Kubota bucket, but an HLA (Horst engineering) skidsteer bucket (78").
I think they are a handy option that really can increase the utility of your FEL.
EquipmentJunkie
Platinum Member
Kubota's loaders are made at their factory in Gainesville, GA. Years ago, the loaders were made in Japan, but for the last 10-15 years they were made in GA.
