Modified IH front end loader purchase

[GBell966]

Hello everyone. Im looking at a 706 with an IH industrial loader on it Thursday. Its a tricycle front end so before anyone says anything i have a wide front for it. What worries me is the loader was cut, and extended to clear the tires. I also noticed larger cylinders were fitted to the bucket, and it looks like the top clevis mounts were modified. Im guessing the lower ones were as well. Would this scare yall off? He says the tractor mechanic who installed the new clutch and TA extended the loader. Not sure about the cylinders. Pictures attached with all the worry spots circled. Thanks for any help!

[Jeff-C-IL]

What would scare me off on that loader is the extremely long handles on the hydraulic valves.    A lot of motion there to make anything happen!  On the other hand - likely real easy to "feather" the action.

Make sure the loader arms are not cracked or broken just above the front cross frame - There is a gusset plate on the outside, but they can still break inside.   Recently had to weld one up that had broken nearly off there on both sides.

[just Dave]

A good bit of oddness. If you only need a loader for occasional use, it might be ok, not great but ok. I would not add much value to the tractor because it has a loader. If you are a Welder of some medium or better competency you will be ok. I have rolled a trike w/ loader, it was way easier than I thought to roll it. Definitely pick up a load with it before buying!

[stronger800]

Check that it cycles through its full range of travel too. Ie, the bucket dumps all the way etc. 

the cylinders were likely fitted, because they were a Lot cheaper, than the damaged originals.
not an industrial loader…but an old loader, with industrial color paint, see other recent threads with “2000” series loader. I grew with one.  that being said, it  might work just fine for what you are doing.  
I would like to buy one of those narrow fronts someday.  

 

[GBell966]

6 hours ago, stronger800 said:

Check that it cycles through its full range of travel too. Ie, the bucket dumps all the way etc. 

the cylinders were likely fitted, because they were a Lot cheaper, than the damaged originals.
not an industrial loader…but an old loader, with industrial color paint, see other recent threads with “2000” series loader. I grew with one.  that being said, it  might work just fine for what you are doing.  
I would like to buy one of those narrow fronts someday.  

 

I imagine its one of the industrial variants of that, like this one pictured. Cheaper cylinders make sense, looks like the did a good bit of fab work to make them fit

[GBell966]

7 hours ago, just Dave said:

A good bit of oddness. If you only need a loader for occasional use, it might be ok, not great but ok. I would not add much value to the tractor because it has a loader. If you are a Welder of some medium or better competency you will be ok. I have rolled a trike w/ loader, it was way easier than I thought to roll it. Definitely pick up a load with it before buying!

Yeah i may end up walking away in that case. It’s main job will be lifting heavy  round bales and stacking them in the barn

[7and8and1456]

Here is what has happened . That loader, if a true industrial will be the model 3000. They are very similar to the 2000 model , only difference being the style of hinge mechanism at the front of the boom arms for the bucket to pivot on. Can't quite see the bucket pivots on the lift arms but the loader could very well be a 3000.  Plus generally the loader operation valves were mounted on the right side frame towers. See pictures below. First two are 3000 loader. 3 &4 are 2000 loader. The loader pictured by GBell966 was used on a small frame tractor such as an  International 504, 2504 Industrial, 606, 2606 industrial or others and has been modified to put on that 706. It was never intended for row crop Farmall tractors 706 and up size tractors. The front loader mounts seen in his picture are for use on small frame utility and industrial models a fore mentioned. Yes, someone bolted them to the 706 Farmall  and it did go on the tractor. But using those front mounting brackets causes a problem on the tall row crop tractors. It puts the loader frame so high above the ground that when the loader is lowered to full lift cylinder retract position, the bucket is not close to the ground surface. Below are his pictures. If you notice where the lift cylinders attach to the loader frame there are three holes there in the frame. The front one is where the factory attached the cylinder. On the pictured loader, the loader lift cylinder pivot was moved to the rearmost hole of the three. This involved welding new pin bosses in the frame holes as none are there from factory. This will allow the loader arms to drop the bucket to the ground. However this new location of the lift cylinder attachment changed the geometry of the motion so that the cylinder rod contacted the gusset bracing of the tower to the frame side rails. This did not work, so a portion of the gusset was torched out to provide clearance for the cylinder rod. The unpainted steel on the side of the frame was most likely a repair for some cracks that developed in the steel of the frame.  

 Whomever mounted that loader should have looked at parts catalogs and pictures of loaders mounted on 706 and above tractors and constructed factory style front brackets and rear axle mountings so the thing fit properly. It would make the tractor and loader safer to operate. Below are two pictures of a loader mounted on a 706 as it should be. Notice the front mounting bracket.  Also are two pictures I grabbed off Red Power years ago of the same thing done to a loader mounted on a 504 Farmall. It is too high on that tractor. The fellow who owned it posted a picture sometime later of the tractor and loader laid on its side in a road.  Last picture is of a loader on a Farmall 504 with correct front mounting brackets. Notice how much higher the modified loaders are on both the 706 and 504 as compared to factory correct mountings.   

 

[stronger800]

I looked at a nice tractor last year, where the guy had tried to retro fit tractor supply cylinders for the bucket, but they were wrong, and he welded them wrong, and the result was a bucket that would curl Up but would hardly curl down. He was pushing gravel in his driveway and always has a wheelbarrow full in the bucket, because it wouldn’t tilt enough to dump it.  Guy was pretty unique 

[HydroTek]

Wonder why the lift cylinder is in the wrong hole -- that is why the frame has a cutout torched in it 

That loader was never intended to be on a 706, too large of a frame on that tractor
-- tho brackets could have positioned the loader lower and farther forward

[GBell966]

35 minutes ago, 7and8and1456 said:

Here is what has happened . That loader, if a true industrial ( I believe it is) will be the model 3000. They are very similar to the 2000 model , only difference being the style of hinge mechanism at the front of the boom arms for the bucket to pivot on. Plus generally the loader operation valves were mounted on the right side frame towers. See pictures below. First two are 3000 loader. 3 &4 are 2000 loader. The loader pictured by GBell966 was used on a small frame tractor such as an  International 504, 2504 Industrial, 606, 2606 industrial or others and has been modified to put on that 706. It was never intended for row crop Farmall tractors 706 and up size tractors. The front loader mounts seen in his picture are for use on small frame utility and industrial models a fore mentioned. Yes, someone bolted them to the 706 Farmall  and it did go on the tractor. But using those front mounting brackets causes a problem on the tall row crop tractors. It puts the loader frame so high above the ground that when the loader is lowered to full lift cylinder retract position, the bucket is not close to the ground surface. Below are his pictures. If you notice where the lift cylinders attach to the loader frame there are three holes there in the frame. The front one is where the factory attached the cylinder. On the pictured loader, the loader lift cylinder pivot was moved to the rearmost hole of the three. This involved welding new pin bosses in the frame holes as none are there from factory. This will allow the loader arms to drop the bucket to the ground. However this new location of the lift cylinder attachment changed the geometry of the motion so that the cylinder rod contacted the gusset bracing of the tower to the frame side rails. This did not work, so a portion of the gusset was torched out to provide clearance for the cylinder rod. The unpainted steel on the side of the frame was most likely a repair for some cracks that developed in the steel of the frame.  

 Whomever mounted that loader should have looked at parts catalogs and pictures of loaders mounted on 706 and above tractors and constructed factory style front brackets and rear axle mountings so the thing fit properly. It would make the tractor and loader safer to operate. Below are two pictures of a loader mounted on a 706 as it should be. Notice the front mounting bracket.  Also are two pictures I grabbed off Red Power years ago of the same thing done to a loader mounted on a 504 Farmall. It is too high on that tractor. The fellow who owned it posted a picture sometime later of the tractor and loader laid on its side in a road.  Last picture is of a loader on a Farmall 504 with correct front mounting brackets. Notice how much higher the modified loaders are on both the 706 and 504 as compared to factory correct mountings.   

 

Wow! Thank you for this wealth of info and the effort you put in to it. You made the decision very easy for me

[Matt Kirsch]

100% agree with @7and8and1456's assessment. 

This is the result of the "anything can be made to fit with a torch and a welder" option to the question of, "Will an X loader fit on my Y tractor?" that is asked so often on tractor forums.

Just from the pictures, it appears to be a decent job. Not a professional job but definitely not a booger welder job. That opinion might change with an up close inspection, but based on the pictures, there's nothing there that would worry me.

[1480x3]

If your primary use is round bales you will be fine, most are less than a ton

[7and8and1456]

To GBell966, If you or anyone else were to purchase that tractor and loader, the FIRST THING to do is slide both rear wheel centers out on the axles and get them set MUCH WIDER than they are in pictures. Wide front axle as opposed to tricycle front will not be of much difference in preventing a side roll-over. Rear wheels set WIDE apart is most important, but even then roll-over can happen with a heavy load lifted high and tractor on a side slope or in motion turning left or right. Liquid filled rear tires or a stack of iron weights on wheel centers are important also.  

[snoshoe]

2 hours ago, 7and8and1456 said:

Wide front axle as opposed to tricycle front will not be of much difference in preventing a side roll-over.

Thank you for saying that. Nobody ever believes me when I say anything like that. Yes the secret is weight on the rear wheels.

[GBell966]

6 hours ago, Matt Kirsch said:

100% agree with @7and8and1456's assessment. 

This is the result of the "anything can be made to fit with a torch and a welder" option to the question of, "Will an X loader fit on my Y tractor?" that is asked so often on tractor forums.

Just from the pictures, it appears to be a decent job. Not a professional job but definitely not a booger welder job. That opinion might change with an up close inspection, but based on the pictures, there's nothing there that would worry me.

Okay, yeah im torn between hold out for a one with a better loader that hasnt been messed with but these are hard to find around here. It comes with an okd woods 3 point bush hog thats operational but rusted out around the edges so not too much stock in that. The package for $6500. Doesnt burn oil, hours unknown

[Jeff-C-IL]

Rear tires on that 706 are worth $1000!  Kept under a roof is worth something too.   I would test drive it and see how it all works.   One thing sure - you won't be loosing money if you sold it running as is.

[GBell966]

10 minutes ago, Jeff-C-IL said:

Rear tires on that 706 are worth $1000!  Kept under a roof is worth something too.   I would test drive it and see how it all works.   One thing sure - you won't be loosing money if you sold it running as is.

So maybe not such a bad deal after all?

[stronger800]

It’s gas, but if the torque and all works good, it’s very reasonably priced.  
($1200 fenders)

($1000-1500 tires. )

$1000 wheels 

$1000 pto

and remember I’d like to  give like $250 for that Dangerous front end