Woods 1006 FEL

[CraigM]

I'm comparing the Woods 1006 loader to the Kubota LA350A for my B2150. The specs on the Kubota loader show about 200# more lift capacity and about 500# more breakout force. One of the local dealers says he can still get the Kubota loader for my old tractor, the other says it's not available and quotes me the Woods. It makes me wonder how one dealer can find a loader and the other can't, but that's another issue. I'm quoted about $2900 for the Woods installed and $3600 for the Kubota. I have trouble justifying 20% more for the Kubota loader, and get a bit suspicious when the specs are so different for such similar pieces of eqipment, so my question to anyone out there who has a Woods 1006 is...Has it ever not had enough snot to get the job done?

 

[Rick Jay]

CraigM,

Just a question about the lift capacities. The LA350 should have a lift capacity of about 770 lbs. (2.2 kgs/lb. x 350) and the Woods 1006 is rated at 740 lbs., per their website pdf file. The Woods breakout is spec'd at 1290 lbs. What' the LA350 rated at? I don't think my LA402 is rated more than 1500 or so (been a while since I checked).

Make sure you're comparing the right specs and recent specs as well. You might find an e-mail or phone call to Woods helpful to clear up some of these issues and check out their website Woods too.

I believe the lift height is better with the Woods (84") as well.

One other thing you might wish to check into is the availability of a quick-attach system. Woods has them for their larger loaders, it might be available as an option on the 1006. I couldn't tell for sure from their pdf file.

You can get the Woods loader in Kubota orange to match your tractor, if you so desire.

Good Luck,

~Rick

 

[CraigM]

Rick:

I took you advice and re-checked the woods site and the specs for the 1006 are changed a bit from what I have. The last time I checked was a few years ago. I really wonder if the changes are truly improvements, or just measured differently.
For example, the lift capacity is improved from 630, to 740, but is now specified as being measured at the bucket pivot pins. Since these pins are at the back of the bucket, a load hung on these pins would be easier to lift than the same load in the bucket itself.
The number looks better, but is it really an improvement? The Kubota lift is specified as 838, which is the same as the max loader load allowed by the Tractor manual. The Kubota breakout is listed as 1440#, the Woods is listed as 1290, which is an improvement over the previous 950, but is listed at bucket pivot pins. I always thought that breakout refered to the force at the cutting edge of the bucket.
lift heights are within an inch.

Guess where this all leads is that I need to ask for more details about how the Kubota numbers are measured so I can know that I'm comparing apples with apples. The Woods numbers may be lower than Kubota's, but they beat the heck out of my wheelbarrow and shovel. That's why I ask if anyone who has a Woods 1006 has ever found it lacking.

 

[Anonymous Poster]

Most loaders that I've been checking on give the load at the pivot pins. They do this for several reasons.

The number 1 reason is the numbers look better there.

2. The Mfg doesn't know what bucket you will put on it.

3. There are so many attachments you can apply that the pivot pins are the only constant placement.

Having said that I always check the capacity at the pins and at the next place they quote then compare how far from the pins it was stated some quote at different places. I don't recall now the mfg's but I do remember one was 19.5" out form the pins and another was 31".

Of course you have to look at the tractor you'll be putting it on some loaders are just too big or too small for the tractor.

I almost made that mistake and thanks to the great folks here on TBN I corrected it before it caused me a problem

 

[JohnMiller3]

Hi Craig,

I think Woods Mfr. makes a number of quality products… and if I had an older tractor that needed a nla or retrofitted loader, Woods would be a serious contender…

However, if I owned a tractor and the mfr. of the tractor currently had a time tested and proven loader available, I wouldn’t look any further but the mfr. (and most cases have already been tested for compatibility with other implements in their line, such as mid mount mowers, backhoes, ease of install, matched to tractor’s nominal hydraulic horsepower,etc.) (not to mention proper balance, loader mounts, normally being safer and more stable than most aftermarket units)

The spec’s on all after market units are the BEST spec’s for that loader on a particular model tractor (largest in it’s class and maximum hydraulic horsepower)… unless you have that EXACT MODEL tractor… you normally will get much LESS capacities than what you originally anticipated.

In the example you’re stating, the mfr. loader is still available at a higher cost… I’d stick with the OEM loader designed for your tractor, even at the higher price…

Remember and read the fine print at the bottom of all the aftermarket loader mfrs… /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

<font color="blue">...“*Specifications may vary with different tractor
and loader configurations.

Note: specifications may vary with tractor and tire size.” ...</font>

 

[Bird]

Well said, John. I agree completely.

 

[CraigM]

John:
I am pretty careful to read the fine print and make sure that the specs are all the same, measured at the same place etc. The current Woods specs look pretty good since they went to 1660 PSI, and I am leaning pretty far in favor of Woods. I just can't justify the extra 20% price tag.

I'm grateful that I can bounce it off of so many people and get all their input before making my decision.

 

[Rick Jay]

ahhh...so much good advice!!! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I'm normally one to go with the manufacturer's brand equipment too. When I bought my B2910 I got the Kubota LA402 loader and a Woods 7500 backhoe with subframe. I chose the Woods backhoe because for my uses, I felt the subframe mount was better. I've since bought many other Woods implements and have been satisfied with the quality of all of them (SS60 snowblower, 1160 PHD, HB60 boxblade, HBL-72-2 rear blade and a GTO60 rototiller on order). Anyway, quality wise, I think you'll be happy with either loader.

One thing to keep in mind that I believe I mentioned in an earlier post, is that the lift height of the Woods loader is higher than that of the Kubota. Upside: Loading a truck bed, or over a fence, the extra lift height might be something you need. Downside: The higher you lift the load, the more unstable the tractor can become and the greater likelihood of a mishap.

I believe Kubota carefully selects the lift heights of their loaders to match the overall weight of their tractors to keep the center of gravity within some "magical" range. If you put enough ballast on the back of the tractor, neither loader should be a problem there if you're careful. And always be careful .

~Rick