I'm a Dealer Rep!

  • Thread starter Thread starter lumberjack
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 361
  • Views Views 30K
And the 520 has a counterweight "option" because it is pre rigged with hydraulics and all for a back hoe attachment, some people rig them out that way from new. So the counterweight may not always be necessary.
 
ahurepu5.jpg

peburuge.jpg


That reminded me about the pictures, still working currently, I'll respond in a bit.
 
ahurepu5.jpg

peburuge.jpg


That reminded me about the pictures, still working currently, I'll respond in a bit.
 
A wider stance is always nice when dealing with more weight, but the narrower width is nice for getting into tight places. Being able to get all that power into a tight area is great for certain jobs. I've fit my 340 into places your 520 wouldn't fit, and the 540 isn't much larger (3" wider, 14" longer, and 2000lbs more I think) so being able to fit a machine of that size into those tighter places is a huge plus for us. But then again, since I worker with you Keith, you don't have many tight areas to get too, so the smaller stance isn't as big a deal for you.
 
I get the counterweight being an option, but the quick attach requiring it and the quick attach being an option is what confuses me.

The 520 is 25% wider than the 540 (13"). There are plenty of times where the extra width would have prevented me from accessing a job (entirely or efficiently. One example was a pool fill in job I did last year with the 340. $4k in profit for a day and a half on site.

The backhoe option is I intriguing, but it lists for $17k which takes the pondering right out of the equation.:lol:

Did those pictures work in my above, double post?
 
Yeah. No offense but the swivel looks extremely weak. I'll try an post some of mine tomorrow. And I've had the swing on both of ours rebuilt at 2000 hours. Lots of heavy wood though. Lots.
 
Haha no, Gehls oscillate and articulate. It would also appear that Gehls would be easier to replace the bearings, whenever the time comes.

Strength wise, from the pictures, I don't see an advantage either way. However your oscillation bearing looks to be a "interesting" design. I'm guessing it's a booger to change out?
 
It's no easy change, but it's built heavy like an industrial wheel loader. We have a caterpillar 930 that we use at the yard to load mulch that has a similar pivot, the bigger John Deere also have it like this, as do the yanmar wheel loaders.
 
When I think "industrial", I think of an oscillating rear axle with a rigid articulation joint.


Nearly positive that's what your 930 has.
 
The Gehl joints are pretty beefy from my experience. And as has been said, Carl isn't the easiest on things haha. If it could break he would have broken it I'd say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

lumberjack
Who wants a screaming deal on a new Boxer 532DX? No 'fools!
5 6 7
Replies
155
Views
22K
Cobleskill
Cobleskill
Back
Top