Tractor specifications. Are they inflated?

[TMGT]

Adding the steering and implement pump outputs together is bogus when like in most modern CUTS they're separate circuits and can not be used together.

Also watch for loader and 3pt lift ratings that are measured differently. For example loader lift will be higher when measured at the pins but that's not a practical measurement since you're always lifting loads whose center of gravity is well out from the pins. They might be measuring without the bucket too.

Pin measurements are fine since there can be a lot of other variables, as long as they are both measured from the same place.

The issue I see is some manufacturers giving lift capacity at lower lift heights which will typically be higher.

 

[oosik]

If you think all tractors measure lift capacity - 500mm out from the lift pins & 500mm off the ground - you might be getting fooled. Read the spec sheets carefully and understand what they are/are not telling you.

 

[ericm979]

The problem with lift capacity at the pins is that you will never be able to lift that much in real life. So for example if you get a loader whose listed capacity should just barely be able to pick up something important to you like an IBC tote cage full of firewood or a round bale, if the listed capacity is at the pins it might not be able to handle your object.

Another way the specs can fool the buyer is when the loader has a lower max lift height. The geometry change to do that gives the loader more lift capacity with the same cylinders. You may legitimately want that if getting the bucket high is not a concern for you, but it's something to be aware of. It's a legitimate tradeoff decided by the manufacturer but they may factor in to their decision buyers who shop by the spec sheets.

 

[k0ua]

There are MANY things to consider when comparing tractors other than just raw lift numbers. I don't see and have not seen any "fudging" of the numbers in tractor manufacturing specs. That said, you have to look very carefully at what the numbers mean as stated by the other posters above. In my opinion rating loader lift at the pins is fine, as long as you are comparing two loaders with the same way of measuring. Not comparing apples and oranges. . Also there are other things to consider other than raw lift. Like as pointed out above, loader geometry, and total lift height if that is an important parameter.

Another parameter is cycle times. All a manufacture has to do to increase lift capacity is put on larger cylinders. BUT a larger cylinder will require more fluid to fill, and the cycle time of the cylinder might be somewhat snail like unless the pump flow rate is upgraded to fill those huge cylinders rapidly. Then there is the matter of is the frame really big enough to justify picking up heavy loads that the loader can lift, but are dangerous to transport because the tractor size is too small.

The marketing/sales department and the engineering department are NEVER goin to see eye to eye on how to do things. And the Accounting department (bean counters) don't like either of those departments and has to keep an eye on them. You can see how these 3 departments have a constant war going over over making a product meet a particular standard but having some severe engineering compromises and some severe fiscal constraints all the while trying to maintain marketing position in the segment. It is a rough old world out there.

 

[Hay Dude]

There are MANY things to consider when comparing tractors other than just raw lift numbers. I don't see and have not seen any "fudging" of the numbers in tractor manufacturing specs. That said, you have to look very carefully at what the numbers mean as stated by the other posters above. In my opinion rating loader lift at the pins is fine, as long as you are comparing two loaders with the same way of measuring. Not comparing apples and oranges. . Also there are other things to consider other than raw lift. Like as pointed out above, loader geometry, and total lift height if that is an important parameter.

Another parameter is cycle times. All a manufacture has to do to increase lift capacity is put on larger cylinders. BUT a larger cylinder will require more fluid to fill, and the cycle time of the cylinder might be somewhat snail like unless the pump flow rate is upgraded to fill those huge cylinders rapidly. Then there is the matter of is the frame really big enough to justify picking up heavy loads that the loader can lift, but are dangerous to transport because the tractor size is too small.

The marketing/sales department and the engineering department are NEVER goin to see eye to eye on how to do things. And the Accounting department (bean counters) don't like either of those departments and has to keep an eye on them. You can see how these 3 departments have a constant war going over over making a product meet a particular standard but having some severe engineering compromises and some severe fiscal constraints all the while trying to maintain marketing position in the segment. It is a rough old world out there.

Seems like for the last 30 or so years, the bean counters have been winning more than the engineers. In most cases Yesterdays equipment lasts longer than todays.
I dont think complexity should be an excuse, either. If todays machines have exhaust filtration systems, they should be built to last. If not, they should be reasonably inexpensive to replace. They are neither.

 

[crazyal]

The problem with "at the pins" is that it's not a standard measurement. The pins on a Kubota could be closer or further from the bucket than a Kioti. Closer means the bucket will be able to lift more. Then there's the SSQA, add it and you add weight and push the bucket further forward. Both reduce lifting capacity. Depending on how it's designed the reduced capacity can add up. Unless it specifically says so assume that the bucket ratings are for a loader without SSQA.

 

[RickB]

Most loaders have standard and optional buckets. Establishing a lift standard "at the pin" is the easiest and most universally standard measurement that can be easily replicated. The standard is the same regardless of the size or weight of the bucket, grapple, forks, whatever. If people can't read a specification and understand it, that's on them.

A rating of X at the pins does not mean the loader will lift X center mass at the cutting edge of the bucket. But too many tractor buyers simply can't or won't grasp that.

 

[k0ua]

Most loaders have standard and optional buckets. Establishing a lift standard "at the pin" is the easiest and most universally standard measurement that can be easily replicated. The standard is the same regardless of the size or weight of the bucket, grapple, forks, whatever. If people can't read a specification and understand it, that's on them.

A rating of X at the pins does not mean the loader will lift X center mass at the cutting edge of the bucket. But too many tractor buyers simply can't or won't grasp that.

That pretty much says it all.

 

[strantor]

Most loaders have standard and optional buckets. Establishing a lift standard "at the pin" is the easiest and most universally standard measurement that can be easily replicated. The standard is the same regardless of the size or weight of the bucket, grapple, forks, whatever. If people can't read a specification and understand it, that's on them.

A rating of X at the pins does not mean the loader will lift X center mass at the cutting edge of the bucket. But too many tractor buyers simply can't or won't grasp that.

I agree. Rating at the pins is the only way to compare apples to apples (or as close as one color of apples can get to another). Buckets aren't the only thing that goes on a loader. When I bought my tractor my intention was to use it primarily as an offroad forklift. If I had to compare lifting capacities from brand A who rates it at the cutting edge of a 200lb bucket against band B who rates it at center mass of a 300lb bucket, vs brands C, D, and E, who rate theirs 3 other different ways, I would have a lot of work to determine to which one could lift more at center mass of a 48" pallet fork attachment. "At the pins" is the standard, and I for one think it's a good standard, whether it reflects real world achievable results or not.

To the original question, I have not seen much fudging of numbers in tractor specs. I suspect this is because this is one area where the numbers actually matter. It's not like a "5HP" shop vac that nobody ever puts to the test and actually needs or expects to hit 5HP, and most don't even know how to verify the claim. It would be a lot harder to get away with it in a tractor. If the tractor advertised a certain GPM and you use an implement which requires that GPM, you're going to know right away that it was an inflated rating and demand a refund. I suspect this is more trouble than its worth for the manufacturers, so they must find it more beneficial to advertise the truth. Maybe with some asterisks. Read the asterisks.

For those talking about the fit & finish of Korean tractors, I am curious what you think about the "American" CUTs by New Holland and Case IH.

I took these pictures last year at the county fair:





I bought an LS branded LS tractor and I got the same tractor as a Case / New Holland but for thousands less. And the loader that LS puts on them is much more stout than those Red and blue ones. It's a better loader than comparable Kubota and Mahindra models. I'm talking about the construction of it, not the specs. You can see the difference plain as day, just go look at them, take pictures, bring a pair of calipers if you want. LS is using 1" thick steel plate in places where Kubota is using 1/4" plate, and JD is using cast iron.

This wasn't supposed to be a promo for LS, just a counter example for the assertion that Korean = inferior in any way whatsoever. You DO get what you pay for, and what you are paying for is too often just a name.