Go Bottomloader and 3ph lifting capacities
 | Andy
Join Date: Posts: 1 
|
2000-03-28 14236
am I missing something here?...or just interpretting the data incorrectly?NH TC33D 3ph at 24" aft = 1635#, deere 4300 and kubota 3010 = 2200#NH 7308 FEL = 800#, deere 430 = 1258, kubota L481 = 1058I really want to go blue...cost and ergonomics are great...but I'm concerned/confused over the apparent disparity here....help me out here NH owners!
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add Photoloader and 3ph lifting capacities
| Donald
Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 0 pendleton,sc
|
2000-03-28 14258
I don't know for a fact, but the way this guy up the hill from me with a Kabota explained it; most tractors advertise total 3 pt. lift, where as NH tells what they will lift 24" behind the 3 pt. hitch. Like for example, my TC29D will lift about 2000 at the hitch, but only 1635 24" behind the hitch. What do you have that weighs a ton that you need to pickup and carry around?
Donald ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add Photoloader and 3ph lifting capacities
| Andy
Join Date: Posts: 1
|
2000-03-28 14259
Donald...what do I have that weighs a ton that I have to carry around??........obviously you've never seen my neighbor's wife!*L*...and its even worse when she gets stuck in the fence!............seriously, the numbers I quoted are all at 24" behind the 3ph. I don't really expect to be carrying 2000 pounds around very often......however, I am still curious as to why the disparity............especially in the loader. ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add Photoloader and 3ph lifting capacities
| Roger L.
Join Date: Jun 1999 Posts: 0
|
2000-03-29 14263
It may have nothing to do with the strength of the 3pt. It might be a figure related to something else entirely. For example, it might be that a certain company has decided not to publish a figure for 3pt lift that would be greater than the amount that would cause the front of the tractor to lighten-up by more than some percentage of the normal downforce on the front tires. I can see a valid safety argument there....
One thing that is probably NOT a reason for the difference is any sort of improvement or difference in lift or hydraulic circuit design. These things are all real similar - and well worked out. It might be a real difference because a company has decided to be more conservative with the stress, or it might be a paper difference because a company has decided for whatever reason to publish a lower number. I'd like to know how to find this out myself, but haven't the slightest idea how to go about it. ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add Photoloader and 3ph lifting capacities
| TomG
Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 5406 Upper Ottawa Valley 
|
2000-03-29 14265
I have good luck posing technical questions through e-mail links on corporate web sites. The queries usually get passed through sales and customer service areas to technical people. It works for me with implement manufactures, but I haven't tried contacting a tractor manufacturer.
This discussion got me thinking that I don't know the 3ph capacity of my Ford 1710. I checked, and there is no capacity stated in either my owner's or repair manual. There is a general safety discussion about front ballast and heave 3ph implements.
From this, I'd guess that Roger's idea that the lift capacity is really more of a safety than a structural issue may be correct. Seems like it would be good engineering to over-design the hitch structure so that safe operation isn't going to break the hitch. In that case, differences in ratings may be affected by how much weight is in front of the rear axle and the wheel base.
Another relevant question might be if a rated capacity is with or without front ballast? A related question is: If a 3ph rating is with front ballast, is there a maximum front ballast rating from the manufacturer?
Guess I should figure this one out since I've had 3ph pallet forks on order for a few weeks now. ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add Photoloader and 3ph lifting capacities
| Andy
Join Date: Posts: 1
|
2000-03-29 14269
good responses guys...it seems to me though, if a certain manufacturer notices a disparity between his published specs and his competitor's published specs, and the disparity was NOT in his favor...he would try to provide an explanation to show his specs were just as good as his competitor's....UNLESS he's intentionaly trying to promote confusion................ ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add Photoloader and 3ph lifting capacities
 | Murf
Join Date: Dec 1999 Posts: 7249 Toronto Area, Ontario, Canada
 Pics
|
2000-03-29 14270
I think Roger has it right, the top 3 reasons I can think of for the difference is 1)sales figures, 2)warranty claim figures, and 3)product liability....I have a friend who works for a large company which produces (amongst other things) ladders, he tells me that only 25% of what the MANUFACTURER gets for a ladder is to cover cost of manufacture and profit, of the remainder, 15% goes to marketing, 10% for warranty(since they replace, not repair them) the other 50% of the money goes into a slush fund to pay-off people who fall off and sue... ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add Photoloader and 3ph lifting capacities
| Russ DenBleyker
Join Date: Posts: 1
|
2000-03-29 14271
It seems to me that if you are pushing the weight limits that closely, you might want to be looking at bigger tractors. I don't recall ever seeing a 2000 pound implement with Cat 1 pins on it. ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add Photoloader and 3ph lifting capacities
| Scott Stewart
Join Date: Posts: 1
|
2000-03-29 14283
I checked my info sheets for this same information. I compared the JD790, Kubota L2500 and TC29. Their specs are: 24" behind 3PH lift point - JD 815lbs, Kubota 1435lbs, NH TC29 1635lbs. FEL lift capacity at full height - JD70 ? (didn't get the brochure), Kubota LB400/LA450S-1 883lbs, NH7308 800 lbs. I don't know if it makes a big difference, but all of these are standard transmission tractors.
Although I didn't buy any of these, I did shop them all and had decided on the JD because of price. However, we got lucky and picked up a 98 NH 1730 (200hrs), 7308, bushhog and blade at a great price. I am very happy.
Scott ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add Photoloader and 3ph lifting capacities
| JeffM
Join Date: Posts: 1
|
2000-03-29 14288
Are all of these hydraulic systems 2500 psi? That would make a difference over and above loader geometries. ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add Photoloader and 3ph lifting capacities
| Greg franklin
Join Date: Posts: 1
|
2000-03-29 14295
I have taxed my 3ph in the past when I screwed the post hole digger into the ground and when pulling t-post out of the ground. ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add Photoloader and 3ph lifting capacities
| TomG
Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 5406 Upper Ottawa Valley
|
2000-03-30 14297
Andy: It's possible that many ratings have become almost meaningless. I think that manufactures, and politicians for that matter, found that it's easier to compete through communications stuff than by just delivering the goods.
I know in pro sound equipment (home stereo is worse) you almost have to have an engineering background to get any real meaning from comparing equipment specs. What manufactures seem to be competing for is market niches. One manufacturer goes for power, another for clarity, one for reliability, one for price, and there probably even a life-style niche.
So, the idea is you get people to buy into your ad images. Then, it's a simple trick to craft specs that match your niche image. For example, an audio manufacturer that goes for 'power' just advertises a big power rating and trusts that most people won't notice that the specs also have high noise and distortion ratings. You can get big power out of puny equipment as long as you don't mind a little noise and distortion. But, people that go for POWER probably won't notice anyway.
It shouldn't be too difficult for an industry to agree on a standard set of rating measures that would be directly comparable. But, confusion among customers probably is good for manufacturers. It's probably easier to get people to deal with ad images if things are a bit confusing. Confusion also probably adds to aggregate demand. After all, somebody who buys a POWER tractor probably buys a POWER truck, a car, a stereo, boat, computer............. Once a POWER self-image sets in, there's no end of stuff that has to be bought in order to support the self-image.
Anyway, a wholly cynical attitude would say that's the way the system works. That's not my notion, but I do think there is unfortunately far too much 'communications stuff' in government and corporate approaches.
....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add Photoloader and 3ph lifting capacities
| Dean Quackenbush
Join Date: Posts: 1
|
2000-03-30 14300
FEL capacities are determined Partialy by what tractor they are mounted on and the hydraulic pressure they use. Lift capacity of the NH7308 FEL on a TC33d is 1020 lbs. @ 2100 psi. The lift capacity of a JD 430 on a 4300 is 1045 lbs. These setups are VERY similar (compareable). These figures are from our repair/owners manuals. Bottom line: if you change the tractor/hydraulics, you will change the FEL's capacities.
Dean Quackenbush
....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add Photoloader and 3ph lifting capacities
| alf
Join Date: Posts: 1
|
2000-03-31 14335
I just took delivery on a TC 25 with the NH 7308 loader today (yeah!) and the manual for the loader gives different capacities when mounted on different tractors. (776# for 1715, 1320, 1520, 1620, 800# for the TC 25, 29, 33, 1725, 1925, 1530, 1630, 920# for the 1720, and 1020# for the 1920). It is stated that these are all at 1800 PSI, 2800 RPM . So it appears that these capacities are influenced by the strength (front axle?) and weight (counter balance) of the tractor, not the loader. ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add Photo
Go Top
Share This