Sign in to follow this  
mader656

Dual 3100 loader question

Recommended Posts

For those of you with a unmolested dual loader what is the distance between pivot pins and hydralic pins in the bucket.

Mines got that farmhand plate on it and I think the pins are to far apart...the bucket just doesn't seem to have the needed range to dump or curl....

0607171321b.jpg

r_38-2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully someon gives you the right distance. The bottom loader is how they are all set up we have a junk 325 we can measure for you if nobody answers. Personall if it was mine I would switch the cylinders to the top side and run it like me that. I always hated the dual loaders for dump and pivot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can wait a day i can Measure it when i get home.  I have a new dual bucket so it should be right 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dale560 said:

Hopefully someon gives you the right distance. The bottom loader is how they are all set up we have a junk 325 we can measure for you if nobody answers. Personall if it was mine I would switch the cylinders to the top side and run it like me that. I always hated the dual loaders for dump and pivot. 

Very tempting. 

 

1 hour ago, RKO said:

If you can wait a day i can Measure it when i get home.  I have a new dual bucket so it should be right 

I'm in no hurry angle to the bottom would be nice too of the pin alignment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, mader656 said:

Very tempting. 

 

I'm in no hurry angle to the bottom would be nice too of the pin alignment

I will get the measurements for you 

Dont change the cylinder location. The way dual has them is why dual will out lift other loaders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After running any other loader it is just foreign to have the bucket pivot in the middle and cylinders push on bottom. I know they have way more force pushing out that way . But that power is negated by swiveling bucket on center and makes bucket control slow and awkward.  And I guess those cylinders with big ram tube wouldn't have any power pulling back .That's  just personal preference any other loader that pulls on top and bucket pivots on lower edge is way better outfit. Not knocking dual just been around them and always swore the first thing I would do. One more loader worked like that maybe ezee on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dale560 said:

After running any other loader it is just foreign to have the bucket pivot in the middle and cylinders push on bottom. I know they have way more force pushing out that way . But that power is negated by swiveling bucket on center and makes bucket control slow and awkward.  And I guess those cylinders with big ram tube wouldn't have any power pulling back .That's  just personal preference any other loader that pulls on top and bucket pivots on lower edge is way better outfit. Not knocking dual just been around them and always swore the first thing I would do. One more loader worked like that maybe ezee on.

Were the arm and cylinder mount on most loaders is about the same as dual just reversed.  Your idea of a dual being slower is wrong. It takes less pressure to roll bucket back so your pump is putting out more volume. Dual had a great idea putting the cylinder were they did.  To bad woods wrecked the dual line when they bought dual.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mader656 said:

For those of you with a unmolested dual loader what is the distance between pivot pins and hydralic pins in the bucket.

Mines got that farmhand plate on it and I think the pins are to far apart...the bucket just doesn't seem to have the needed range to dump or curl....

0607171321b.jpg

r_38-2.jpg

If your want reach. Good bucket roll back and dump buy one of the these. 

img.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RKO said:

Were the arm and cylinder mount on most loaders is about the same as dual just reversed.  Your idea of a dual being slower is wrong. It takes less pressure to roll bucket back so your pump is putting out more volume. Dual had a great idea putting the cylinder were they did.  To bad woods wrecked the dual line when they bought dual.  

Had a dual on a m for 1 day and it was gone just for that reason. Have a couple other dual loaders around taken off tractors just because of how they work. Farmhand was the big seller in our area. Then John Deere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mader, the center line dimension of 9-1/2" from top pin to bottom pin for the Woods DuAl 3100 and 3150.  That pin-to-pin dimension is closer than average for that size of loader...which delivers more swept area (rollback and dump angle) than if the pins were further apart.

Having the cylinder on the bottom delivered superior rollback power without compromising total swept area.  The cylinder extends during rollback taking advantage of the cylinder's full piston diameter instead of the rod side on a conventional loader design. Some Allis Chalmers loaders were built the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, EquipmentJunkie said:

Mader, the center line dimension of 9-1/2" from top pin to bottom pin for the Woods DuAl 3100 and 3150.  That pin-to-pin dimension is closer than average for that size of loader...which delivers more swept area (rollback and dump angle) than if the pins were further apart.

Having the cylinder on the bottom delivered superior rollback power without compromising total swept area.  The cylinder extends during rollback taking advantage of the cylinder's full piston diameter instead of the rod side on a conventional loader design. Some Allis Chalmers loaders were built the same way.

The theory of it is right but the application of rolling the bucket at mid point instead of at the bottom push point like all other loaders negates any extra pushing power or breakout,rolling power.I know there are thousands of scientific principals in play. Just saying if you hooked your bucket in bottom holes rolled back with top they make a lot better bucket control. The dual loader frame is actually well built but they fell out of favor fast up here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have two 3100 Duals and both of them will roll back a heavier load than the lift cylinders will lift. I've never been around another loader that's that same way. I've got to go with the bottom cylinders being a better design for rollback power.

 

Mader, the 3100 doesn't dump as far as other loaders. If you need a bucket that dumps further you might have to custom make something, but you will have to either sacrifice hydraulic power or the amount it will curl back.

 

I've NEVER seen a loader of comparable size stand up to abuse as well a 3100. Have and have had farmhand, JD, westendorf, and Miller. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, Dale.  Theoretically, it is a great design.  Like anything else, there are some drawbacks.  There could be bucket clearance issues when dumping the bucket at full height into a largeTMR or tall dump truck, for example.  DuAl compensated for that with the multiple positions for the lift cylinders.  Like ZachGrant said, it a beefy design.  Those torsion members and braces are larger than anything at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My pins are 11.25 center to center...would explain only 90 degrees tilt... Add that to the project list...

I agree that bucket curl is strong. Might explain that bend in the bucket...

Wonder if I could mount global quicktach to get rid of old farmhand redneckness...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ZachGrant said:

We have two 3100 Duals and both of them will roll back a heavier load than the lift cylinders will lift. I've never been around another loader that's that same way. I've got to go with the bottom cylinders being a better design for rollback power.

 

Mader, the 3100 doesn't dump as far as other loaders. If you need a bucket that dumps further you might have to custom make something, but you will have to either sacrifice hydraulic power or the amount it will curl back.

 

I've NEVER seen a loader of comparable size stand up to abuse as well a 3100. Have and have had farmhand, JD, westendorf, and Miller. 

Way mine is setup at full height second pin holes on the lift full dump is level....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, mader656 said:

Wonder if I could mount global quicktach to get rid of old farmhand redneckness...

Yes, both skid steer or Euro/Global quick attaches are available for the DuAl 3100.  PM me for details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just talking loaders with my cousin earlier this week. He said that when he bought his first Miller loader, he talked to the owner/operator of Miller. He had previously worked for/built Dual loaders. When he started building loaders he addressed many of the flaws of the Dual loaders. One of them being the geometry of all the lift points and pivot points. Tilt-back was one of the things he addressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MNredfarmer said:

I was just talking loaders with my cousin earlier this week. He said that when he bought his first Miller loader, he talked to the owner/operator of Miller. He had previously worked for/built Dual loaders. When he started building loaders he addressed many of the flaws of the Dual loaders. One of them being the geometry of all the lift points and pivot points. Tilt-back was one of the things he addressed.

IIRC, our Miller loader had the tilt cylinders on the bottom.... Don't recall if it dumped further than a Dual, but I do know it had cracking problems in the cross brace.

55 minutes ago, mader656 said:

Way mine is setup at full height second pin holes on the lift full dump is level....

I can't tell from the pictures exactly but I would say the pin holes are too far apart for sure.

Edit: I see now that you posted the measurement. That explains it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the plate off the farmhand f11 style loader rednecked onto the 3100...current plan is move the pivot down as ive got extra length down and would act more normal I think... 

Just takes time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ZachGrant said:

IIRC, our Miller loader had the tilt cylinders on the bottom.... Don't recall if it dumped further than a Dual, but I do know it had cracking problems in the cross brace.

I can't tell from the pictures exactly but I would say the pin holes are too far apart for sure.

Edit: I see now that you posted the measurement. That explains it.

The very first ones had a single cylinder tilt setup. They did have cracking in the cross brace. The first yellow ones went to a two cylinder tilt and it helped a lot, but it didn't take long and they updated it again and then they were a heck of a loader. 

when I dump the bucket and put the cutting edge on the ground,  the bottom of the bucket is vertical to the ground. It tipped back pretty far. I'd say somewhere between 30 and 45 degrees.

IMG00377.jpg

IMG00378.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MNredfarmer said:

I was just talking loaders with my cousin earlier this week. He said that when he bought his first Miller loader, he talked to the owner/operator of Miller. He had previously worked for/built Dual loaders. When he started building loaders he addressed many of the flaws of the Dual loaders. One of them being the geometry of all the lift points and pivot points. Tilt-back was one of the things he addressed.

Miller has some conection with Dual.

Dual had patents on The quicktach to the tractor. The quicktach bucket. And the way the bucket cylinders mounted. Some agreement with Miller let Miller use dual patents.  Look at the later miller loaders they are dual loaders 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, RKO said:

Miller has some conection with Dual.

Dual had patents on The quicktach to the tractor. The quicktach bucket. And the way the bucket cylinders mounted. Some agreement with Miller let Miller use dual patents.  Look at the later miller loaders they are dual loaders 

I've only looked at the 325 type and 345 type Dual's, but I've never seen a quick tach on a Dual so I wouldn't know. If you look at my second picture, The tilt cylinders are under the steel inside of the loader arms. I thought Duals were under the loader arms? When I look at the newer Millers, I don't see the Dual loader at all.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MNredfarmer said:

I've only looked at the 325 type and 345 type Dual's, but I've never seen a quick tach on a Dual so I wouldn't know. If you look at my second picture, The tilt cylinders are under the steel inside of the loader arms. I thought Duals were under the loader arms? When I look at the newer Millers, I don't see the Dual loader at all.

 

Dual made a line of loader just before woods bought them. No. Are like 205 215 305 355 they look just like loaders miller made 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my PL2X. Don't see any Dual influence there.

IMG_2579.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dual 3100on it's stand if you have good level ground it's about a 5 minute on off loader....little longer if ground is ruff...if I had a open station I could take it off without climbing off...

337469_opt.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this