Antique Tractors Forum banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
4,191 Posts
Nice addition to the loader. I was thinking before the test...between your grapple trailer and new "big forklift" there's not a log safe in "Metsa-land."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim in NC

·
Registered
Joined
·
202 Posts
Wow, I didn't realize your loader had hydraulic quick attach, that's a real nice option. The A62 we had didn't have that which made changing from log forks to bucket a three man job requiring lots of time and a few choice words.

Spread the forks out wider and the logs will balance better on the forks, we had some box tubing welded to the back of the rack (back frame) that stuck up a few feet above the rack, this keep logs from coming over the top of the rack and possibly hitting the cab.
Years ago another local mill had a log come over the rack, the log turned long ways and hit the windshield and side of the door frame bending the cab, if it had came through the windshield the operator would have been crushed.
 

·
Machines Lover from Finla
Joined
·
172 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Wow, I didn't realize your loader had hydraulic quick attach, that's a real nice option. The A62 we had didn't have that which made changing from log forks to bucket a three man job requiring lots of time and a few choice words.

Spread the forks out wider and the logs will balance better on the forks, we had some box tubing welded to the back of the rack (back frame) that stuck up a few feet above the rack, this keep logs from coming over the top of the rack and possibly hitting the cab.
Years ago another local mill had a log come over the rack, the log turned long ways and hit the windshield and side of the door frame bending the cab, if it had came through the windshield the operator would have been crushed.
Yes it have, it sure helps a lot when You change attachments..

Oh no.. that is bad but luckily no ones heart.. :thumbup:

By the way, what kind experiences do You have that A 62 loader.. it is almost same than My A64 but little bit smaller engine. ??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
202 Posts
A62 and A64 are much the same, A62 has smaller tires with 256 cubic inch four cylinder turbo engine, A64 has larger tires with 401 cubic inch 6 cylinder engine.

Did more engine work than anything else, that was mostly operators fault from not watching gauges. Over heated engine two times from punching holes in the radiator and once from water pump failure, two over heats blew head gaskets, third melted pistons. Ran low on oil once destroyed the engine so we replaced the 256 turbo engine with a 268 turbo, ran much stronger with 268.

Allison trans gave no trouble other than suction screen plugging when they put the wrong oil in. Only use automatic transmission fluid, don't remember if type F or Dextron

Very simple and dependable hydraulic system, plenty strong enough to break the forks when they got hooked under a tree root in the woods.

We did have some issues with brake cylinder seal failures due to dirty oil in the axles, they never would change the oil in the differentials.

Differentials were similar to what some Ford tractors use.

It was a 76 model used in a gravel quarry tell 79 then used in log woods and sawmill yard till 96 when traded showing over 20,000 hours of use, needed brake work but still going strong.
 

·
Machines Lover from Finla
Joined
·
172 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
A62 and A64 are much the same, A62 has smaller tires with 256 cubic inch four cylinder turbo engine, A64 has larger tires with 401 cubic inch 6 cylinder engine.

Did more engine work than anything else, that was mostly operators fault from not watching gauges. Over heated engine two times from punching holes in the radiator and once from water pump failure, two over heats blew head gaskets, third melted pistons. Ran low on oil once destroyed the engine so we replaced the 256 turbo engine with a 268 turbo, ran much stronger with 268.

Allison trans gave no trouble other than suction screen plugging when they put the wrong oil in. Only use automatic transmission fluid, don't remember if type F or Dextron

Very simple and dependable hydraulic system, plenty strong enough to break the forks when they got hooked under a tree root in the woods.

We did have some issues with brake cylinder seal failures due to dirty oil in the axles, they never would change the oil in the differentials.

Differentials were similar to what some Ford tractors use.

It was a 76 model used in a gravel quarry tell 79 then used in log woods and sawmill yard till 96 when traded showing over 20,000 hours of use, needed brake work but still going strong.
Very Interesting data, seems that on My use this loader maybe works for years but of course it is old machine and You never know what can happens.. but this machines not have any fancy electronic gadgets so it is quite easy to maintain and repair on home user too..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
202 Posts
That's what I like about them, no fancy electronics and easy to maintain.
Local mill got two new loaders last year, one keep running batteries down if left setting for a few days, technician had to make machines computer adjustments with his laptop to stop battery drain.
Six month warranty, nine months old AC compressor failed on one, no warranty, company charged $3200 to fix AC system.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,276 Posts
Metsaman I totally agree about the lack of electronics and Big Dave's words above. I believe you have the capability to "move a mountain."
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top