Newer loader options for a 2444

[Absent Minded Farmer]

Wondering how new I can go with a loader for my 2444. It has the 2050 on it already. Just looking for something that isn't a pain in the d*** to work around. Trying to hash out electrical issues with that thing in the way downright sucks.... especially when my arm only has one elbow & not two or three.

Would something off a newer CaseIH Farmall or McCormick tractor work? Don't really require more capacity. Doesn't even need to be quick-attachable . Just needs to be the heck out of my way when it's up & locked out.

Mike

[bitty]

With a welder , torch, steel, drill and bolts virtually any loader could fit 

[jimb2]

If you could find an IH 1501 or 1550 loader, they were specifically designed for the ag version 444 style tractors. Much smaller loader frame with the capacity for the non-industrial application.

[Absent Minded Farmer]

2 hours ago, bitty said:

With a welder , torch, steel, drill and bolts virtually any loader could fit 

Quite true, Bitty.

Mike

[Absent Minded Farmer]

17 minutes ago, jimb2 said:

If you could find an IH 1501 or 1550 loader, they were specifically designed for the ag version 444 style tractors. Much smaller loader frame with the capacity for the non-industrial application.

I'm going to guess they have a 1500 vs 2000 lb capacity? That's not too much of a reduction. I'll have to check into that.

Mike

[wendyoakscubs]

6 hours ago, Absent Minded Farmer said:

Wondering how new I can go with a loader for my 2444. It has the 2050 on it already. Just looking for something that isn't a pain in the d*** to work around. Trying to hash out electrical issues with that thing in the way downright sucks.... especially when my arm only has one elbow & not two or three.

Would something off a newer CaseIH Farmall or McCormick tractor work? Don't really require more capacity. Doesn't even need to be quick-attachable . Just needs to be the heck out of my way when it's up & locked out.

Mike

Why don't you just take the loader off, if applicable, and fix all the issues on your tractor while the loader is off?? Sure, a non quick attach loader is no fun to remount or dismount, but sure beats complaining about it. Not trying to be a smart a**, but wouldn't that make a bit more sense? Just had to do this to my 504. Had a couple hours in mounting and dismounting the 2001 loader. But surely beat heaving myself over the loader arms....maybe I'm wrong, I don't know. 

[iowaboy1965]

9 hours ago, wendyoakscubs said:

Why don't you just take the loader off

Was thinking the same. After making some stands I can have the trip bucket loader arms and cyls off in about 15 min and on in 20 more or less.

Be a lot cheaper than another loader too.

[wendyoakscubs]

8 minutes ago, iowaboy1965 said:

Was thinking the same. After making some stands I can have the trip bucket loader arms and cyls off in about 15 min and on in 20 more or less.

Be a lot cheaper than another loader too.

I couldn't agree more. If the OP is having that many electrical issues, just make it easy on yourself. Bite the bullet and build/buy a wiring harness, replace components and carry on. 

[iowaboy1965]

And I wasn't trying to be a smart Alec either. Just think it would help make it easier to get the job done.

[jimb2]

Below is a photo of an IH 1550 loader on an IH 384 which is the AG model one generation newer than your 444.
The 1550 loader arms and bucket can be removed from the tractor in less than 10 minutes if the bucket hydraulic lines have quick couplers. We had two chains hanging from a beam in a shed drive in connected the chains around the loader arms, pull 4 pins, disconnect the bucket hydraulic lines and back up. There were brackets that connected in the loader arm pins to hold the lift cylinders up against the rear loader frame while the loader arms and bucket were removed.
The photo I am attaching, someone has done a hack job on the bucket hydraulic lines.

[Absent Minded Farmer]

18 hours ago, wendyoakscubs said:

Why don't you just take the loader off, if applicable, and fix all the issues on your tractor while the loader is off?? Sure, a non quick attach loader is no fun to remount or dismount, but sure beats complaining about it. Not trying to be a smart a**, but wouldn't that make a bit more sense? Just had to do this to my 504. Had a couple hours in mounting and dismounting the 2001 loader. But surely beat heaving myself over the loader arms....maybe I'm wrong, I don't know. 

No argument here. I'm getting a wiring harness for it soon & will strip off the cab, loader & trencher bar to put it in the garage. Will also tend to anything else I see wrong. As for a different loader, something for the future would be nice. Anything to streamline lubrication, maintenance, cleaning & giving it the once over before I do something.

Mike

[Absent Minded Farmer]

9 hours ago, iowaboy1965 said:

Was thinking the same. After making some stands I can have the trip bucket loader arms and cyls off in about 15 min and on in 20 more or less.

Be a lot cheaper than another loader too.

I didn't think about stands. Sounds like a good idea. I'd also like to figure in a few hydraulic breakaways to make less of a mess. Think the return lines might prove to be a bit of a challenge. Can still undo them the old fashioned way if that fails.

Mike

[Absent Minded Farmer]

8 hours ago, jimb2 said:

Below is a photo of an IH 1550 loader on an IH 384 which is the AG model one generation newer than your 444.
The 1550 loader arms and bucket can be removed from the tractor in less than 10 minutes if the bucket hydraulic lines have quick couplers. We had two chains hanging from a beam in a shed drive in connected the chains around the loader arms, pull 4 pins, disconnect the bucket hydraulic lines and back up. There were brackets that connected in the loader arm pins to hold the lift cylinders up against the rear loader frame while the loader arms and bucket were removed.
The photo I am attaching, someone has done a hack job on the bucket hydraulic lines.

Hey, that's just what I'm looking for & a loader that comes off easier is a plus. The loader on my H took about the same amount of time. I'll have to keep an eye out for one.

Mike

[iowaboy1965]

1 hour ago, Absent Minded Farmer said:

I didn't think about stands. Sounds like a good idea. I'd also like to figure in a few hydraulic breakaways to make less of a mess. Think the return lines might prove to be a bit of a challenge. Can still undo them the old fashioned way if that fails.

Mike

Can you post a picture of your loader and tractor? I can't recall exactly what that model looks like.

[Absent Minded Farmer]

I included a pic of it with the loader up to prove there is actually a tractor under all those attachments.

Mike

[jimb2]

The IH 2000 series loaders really had a substantial sub frame that was mounted to the tractor and I believe they were designed that way to transfer all the push load to the rear axles instead of on the torque tube like the 1501/1550 series loaders. The result was a very strong loader but it made it very difficult to access parts of the tractor to do regular maintenance. With the 1501/1550 loaders the sub frame was much smaller and when you lifted the loader up to max height you could access much of the tractor much easier. 

  

[7and8and1456]

13 hours ago, Absent Minded Farmer said:

I included a pic of it with the loader up to prove there is actually a tractor under all those attachments.

Mike

That loader does not look like a 2050. First picture below is a 2050 picture from my sales brochures. 

Your loader is a 2000 that someone has done some modifying for some reason. The subframe towers have been shortened in height by several inches (see 2nd picture below and compare with 3rd picture below ) and the towers appear to have some steel angle stock welded in that area.  

In your pictures I see that the lift cylinder rods are extended from the cylinder tubes about 12 inches or so with the bucket  on the ground. That is NOT normal.   With the bucket on the ground, there should be only about three inches or less of the rod extended from the cylinder tube ( see 4th picture).  Your  loader having the towers shortened would cause the geometry of the lifting motion to be changed and cause the cylinder rods to be farther extended when the bucket is on the ground. A normal 2000 loader would be able to lift the front axle and wheels about 6 or 8 inches above the ground. If you were to put down pressure on your loader with the amount of cylinder rod that remains to be retracted into the cylinders, I'll guess that the front wheels could be lifted two feet or more from the ground. That is definitely not normal. 

5th picture is a 2000 loader  

[Absent Minded Farmer]

7 hours ago, jimb2 said:

The IH 2000 series loaders really had a substantial sub frame that was mounted to the tractor and I believe they were designed that way to transfer all the push load to the rear axles instead of on the torque tube like the 1501/1550 series loaders. The result was a very strong loader but it made it very difficult to access parts of the tractor to do regular maintenance. With the 1501/1550 loaders the sub frame was much smaller and when you lifted the loader up to max height you could access much of the tractor much easier. 

  

The 1501/1550 sounds like it would be about just what I'm looking for. Will the torque tube hold up to the strain of a loader mounted there?

Mike

[Absent Minded Farmer]

7 hours ago, 7and8and1456 said:

That loader does not look like a 2050. First picture below is a 2050 picture from my sales brochures. 

Your loader is a 2000 that someone has done some modifying for some reason. The subframe towers have been shortened in height by several inches (see 2nd picture below and compare with 3rd picture below ) and the towers appear to have some steel angle stock welded in that area.  

In your pictures I see that the lift cylinder rods are extended from the cylinder tubes about 12 inches or so with the bucket  on the ground. That is NOT normal.   With the bucket on the ground, there should be only about three inches or less of the rod extended from the cylinder tube ( see 4th picture).  Your  loader having the towers shortened would cause the geometry of the lifting motion to be changed and cause the cylinder rods to be farther extended when the bucket is on the ground. A normal 2000 loader would be able to lift the front axle and wheels about 6 or 8 inches above the ground. If you were to put down pressure on your loader with the amount of cylinder rod that remains to be retracted into the cylinders, I'll guess that the front wheels could be lifted two feet or more from the ground. That is definitely not normal. 

5th picture is a 2000 loader  

That's strange. The 2050 in your brochure looks different than the one I found in the Spring of 1970 ag catalog. One thing that stands out is the oval cut-out in the tower for the cylinder rod. Wonder if IH had a different 2050 loader made overseas somewhere & had it imported to the US or if the one in your pic is something that was a later update?

The 2000 loaders in the second & third image I've posted look just like the one you posted & have the cylinders that retract all the way. The first image in this/my post show quite a bit of paint on the rod where it meets up with the loader frame. Kind of interesting.

Mike

[7and8and1456]

24 minutes ago, Absent Minded Farmer said:

That's strange. The 2050 in your brochure looks different than the one I found in the Spring of 1970 ag catalog. One thing that stands out is the oval cut-out in the tower for the cylinder rod. Wonder if IH had a different 2050 loader made overseas somewhere & had it imported to the US or if the one in your pic is something that was a later update?

The 2000 loaders in the second & third image I've posted look just like the one you posted & have the cylinders that retract all the way. The first image in this/my post show quite a bit of paint on the rod where it meets up with the loader frame. Kind of interesting.

Mike

Your pictures from brochures really make things puzzling now!

First picture below is from my loader parts book. It is a 2050, identical to your tractor and your first brochure picture. Also looks identical to your third brochure picture. The 2050 that I posted  picture from brochure earlier today is called "2050 Series A" . Second picture below is another page from the brochure . I compared lift cylinders from different models. Apparently the 2050 you have has shorter lift cylinder tubes, being the reason that so much rod is showing and it being painted. The rod is longer than the tube and it is not possible to be retracted into the tube.

Thanks for posting your brochure pictures. I learned something from them.

[jimb2]

1 hour ago, Absent Minded Farmer said:

The 1501/1550 sounds like it would be about just what I'm looking for. Will the torque tube hold up to the strain of a loader mounted there?

Mike

We had an IH 1501 on an IH 434(older version of 4444) on my Dad's farm for about 12 years then Dad traded 434 for a 384 (newer version of 444) and he had it for about 10 years before trading it on a CIH 495 with 2250 Quick-attach loader. We used the 1501/1550 for general farm use ad also picked and removed a lot of large rocks and loaded many logs on log trucks and never had a problem with either the loader or the tractor except some blown hydraulic hoses. The 1550 had both up and down pressure on the loader boom as the 1501 only had up pressure and gravity down, both had identical hydraulic buckets.

[Absent Minded Farmer]

13 hours ago, 7and8and1456 said:

Your pictures from brochures really make things puzzling now!

First picture below is from my loader parts book. It is a 2050, identical to your tractor and your first brochure picture. Also looks identical to your third brochure picture. The 2050 that I posted  picture from brochure earlier today is called "2050 Series A" . Second picture below is another page from the brochure . I compared lift cylinders from different models. Apparently the 2050 you have has shorter lift cylinder tubes, being the reason that so much rod is showing and it being painted. The rod is longer than the tube and it is not possible to be retracted into the tube.

Thanks for posting your brochure pictures. I learned something from them.

Guess IH had "Series A" designated to a lot of stuff in the '70s. Was not familiar with the 2050A until now. Thanks for posting that brochure!

Mike

[Absent Minded Farmer]

12 hours ago, jimb2 said:

We had an IH 1501 on an IH 434(older version of 4444) on my Dad's farm for about 12 years then Dad traded 434 for a 384 (newer version of 444) and he had it for about 10 years before trading it on a CIH 495 with 2250 Quick-attach loader. We used the 1501/1550 for general farm use ad also picked and removed a lot of large rocks and loaded many logs on log trucks and never had a problem with either the loader or the tractor except some blown hydraulic hoses. The 1550 had both up and down pressure on the loader boom as the 1501 only had up pressure and gravity down, both had identical hydraulic buckets.

Sounds like a winner to me. Thanks to you & the rest of the guys for the help & info on this.

Mike

[Jeff-C-IL]

I went on the Westendorf site and looked at their loader selector.   For your tractor, they recommend the WL-21.

https://www.loaders.com/aspx/products.aspx?id=26

A very open frame, quick on/off, quick attach bucket......old time vs money debate.  Spend a bunch of time tracking down an specific IH model (thats in good enough shape to use), or buy a new one with the right brackets.  May be an option for you.

Dad beat the snot out of a WL-44 feeding cows for years.   Only broke it once - trying to dig out a 4' diameter rock....and that was MY stupid. Backed up and rammed it.....  Great loaders.