I came across these videos of something called a Little Green Monster. It's a little slow in its movements but looks way more versatile than a Johnny Bucket.
I think I would be more concerned about damage to the front axle and spindles that I would the transaxle. I mean, how is a couple hundred pounds in the bucket any different than a couple hundred pounds in a lawn cart?
1st of all John Deere doesn't produce the K46 Tuff-Torq Does There are 56 different variants of the K46 Produced it is the most common lawn Tractor transmission in the world. Every transmission model can have issues! At one point a Few years ago a series of K90 series had to be recalled that were Put into some of the X739 it was about 100 or so that had a pump design issue where the pump would blow up inside the trans. It wasn't Deere's fault. It was Tuff-Torq's.
Ilovegreen, how did you get in contact with the builder and what kind of lead time are you looking at? did he go over all the different options?
I think this is what he should use for actuators https://ph.parker.com/us/en/compact-electro-hydraulic-actuator basically a electric pump & reservoir on a cylinder that doesn't need a tractor hydraulic system to runWell like with any other FEL don't forget ballast.
Maybe it is the camera angle or lens used but wow, those arms look long. The problem with that is more leverage working against you in the rear ballast battle. It would be nice if he could shorten those arms a bit, yes it would compromise lift height but I don't know how big of a deal that would be. It would come down to your intended use. Wonder if you have any issues over time with two linear actuators becoming out of sync? Also while actuators twice as fast might be nice, would that mean they lift half as much? It would be a question to ask.
I don't know that I would worry all that much about the TuffTorque. Here is where I see possible issues. Unloading the rear end and spinning tires or coming down oddly if not enough ballast. Not having enough ballast and raising the rear end (or unloading it enough to loose traction) and being on a hill. Keep in mind there are no brakes on the front wheels so once you start rolling you can't stop. Been there done that which is why JD always says to use 4wd when using the FEL. Finally as someone else mentioned, and repeating ballast, ballast ballast. If you don't have enough, will the front axle be able to take the weight?
Not saying it won't work or is a bad idea. With enough forethought it should be fine. Also take small bites of what you are moving but still better than a shovel.
Yep, my dad had a 4430 with FEL. I remember that tractor well.I think this is what he should use for actuators https://ph.parker.com/us/en/compact-electro-hydraulic-actuator basically a electric pump & reservoir on a cylinder that doesn't need a tractor hydraulic system to run
Deere Made 2WD for years with Loaders. My 2WD X485 handled the 45 loader just fine and Deere Built a Loader for it. I have seen that line though in the compact loader Manuals But not in the Utility or Row Crop loader manuals or the previous 45 loader manual
I was curious so I looked. I didn't see anything in the 1025R manual online in a quick glance but in looking at the H130 manual I see these comments.I have seen that line though in the compact loader Manuals But not in the Utility or Row Crop loader manuals or the previous 45 loader manual
So technically it is an if equipped statement. There may be other places, this is a quick glance.If tractor is equipped with 4-WD, be sure it is engaged during loader operation.
That was a concern I expressed earlier. Maybe it is camera angle or something but those arms look about 10-12" too long. The only benefit for the length is probably more lifting height. Maybe he designed it so he could get enough height to get into the bed of a pickup? I totally get lifting height. It is one of the complaints I have about my CTC. The tractor and FEL simply doesn't have the lifting height physically for a couple of my use cases. One of them is one that I do all the time and I have to resort to building a ramp by stacking up 2x12 board sections. So yeah, I get it. He might have had to do it to get the reach he needed because of limited range of motion of the linear actuators. I don't know, just a guess. The trade off is the leverage that this will cause means you need more ballast to compensate which in turn puts more stress on the chassis. I am sure some engineer out there can figure out what the multiplier is but lets say you add wheel weights to a tractor. Lets pretend that they are, I don't know 60#. That is 60# of effective ballast. Take another machine like mine. I use suitcase weights that hang off a 3pt with a quick hitch and a heavy hitch. Because of leverage and the weight hanging so far back behind the tractor one 40# suitcase weight probably provides as much effective ballast at 60# of wheel weights. The other benefit is when I don't need the weight, if I were mowing, I can take it off. Though I also have fluid filled rear tires that I can't shed the weight of.And my final thought is the symmetry. The bucket arms are way too long and will present much more strain on the chassis than was ever intended, all in the effort to extend the lift height..