651 vs 683 JD loaders

[crazy_bull]

So delving into the murky world of tractors!!! As I know the best part of F All about various models etc. I have the offer of two virtually identical tractors 6330’s

One has a 651 loader, the other has a 683 loader.

I am assuming the 683 is a stronger higher rated loader?

Can any of you machine wizz’s Put in layman’s terms the difference between the two?

All my attachments are currently on JCB brackets and don’t want to change them as I often use a neighbours loader for filling sheds etc.

Would I be better buying an adapter plate or can the JD loaders have the euro head swapped in for a JCB headstock. I have seen a ‘Stoll’ loader which had a JCB headstock, but not a JD.


Cheers in advance

 

[crazy_bull]

Finally I have stumped the collective brain of TFF

C B

 

[farmerbill]

All adapter plates i''ve seen make the geometry all wrong. Best thing you would do is get Taylor attachments to make you a Q fit headstock to fit- theyre not silly money.

 

[crazy_bull]

All adapter plates i''ve seen make the geometry all wrong. Best thing you would do is get Taylor attachments to make you a Q fit headstock to fit- theyre not silly money.

Just spoke to the fella, a very nice chap too!! thanks for the heads up.

C B

 

[Joe S]

the 683 will be a physically bigger loader and stronger but in reality might be a bit big for the tractor which will make it hard to keep the arse on the ground also make it feel clumsy to use

 

[BigBarl]

You’ll want a 750a next CB to get rid of all the grass and stick some wheat in?

 

[Steevo]

Just spoke to the fella, a very nice chap too!! thanks for the heads up.

C B

Cracking chap, you won’t go far wrong with him. Known him from before he started the business.

 

[egbert]

the 683 will be a physically bigger loader and stronger but in reality might be a bit big for the tractor which will make it hard to keep the arse on the ground also make it feel clumsy to use

not sure of numbers, but we've got a JD loader on a 6330, which is stupidly long for it. Try trundling about with 2 round bales lofted and you soon find out why. The smaller loader tractor is a 6130, and it's miles nicer to use. (but, as they say, couldn't pull the c*ck off a chocolate mouse)

 

[TomB]

631 would have been normal fit for a 4cylinder?

 

[Joe S]

633 jd is a very nice loader on a 63 very neat loader.
guessing the 651 will just be the size up

not sure of numbers, but we've got a JD loader on a 6330, which is stupidly long for it. Try trundling about with 2 round bales lofted and you soon find out why. The smaller loader tractor is a 6130, and it's miles nicer to use. (but, as they say, couldn't pull the c*ck off a chocolate mouse)

 

[crazy_bull]

not sure of numbers, but we've got a JD loader on a 6330, which is stupidly long for it. Try trundling about with 2 round bales lofted and you soon find out why. The smaller loader tractor is a 6130, and it's miles nicer to use. (but, as they say, couldn't pull the c*ck off a chocolate mouse)

Do you do any topping with your 6330? If you do what size batwing could it handle?

 

[Joe S]

631 would have been normal fit for a 4cylinder?

631 or 633 i think? there a very good size for a 4 cyl very neat an nice to use
same with a quicke Q46-Q48 loader

 

[TomB]

631 or 633 i think? there a very good size for a 4 cyl very neat an nice to use
same with a quicke Q46-Q48 loader

I think 633 is just a newer 631? But yes less is more with a loader tractor unless you want heaps of rear ballast.

 

[egbert]

633 jd is a very nice loader on a 63 very neat loader.
guessing the 651 will just be the size up

Do you do any topping with your 6330? If you do what size batwing could it handle?

I'll look in daylight, 6330 is here (wee'un is off site).
Closest we get to topping is using a wolsey swipe in waist deep gorse...and JDs aren't best suited due to (particularly) the F/R shuttle (I think it is) having a wire which gets pulled off under the guts of the thing. and crawling below to find it isn't a job anyone likes.

 

[Joe S]

I think 633 is just a newer 631? But yes less is more with a loader tractor unless you want heaps of rear ballast.

think your right yes
im sure a 651 will be fine though for @crazy_bull just will likely be better with a rear weight. this can be a pita though

 

[C.J]

631 would have been normal fit for a 4cylinder?

I have a 651 on my 6400 - lifts higher than 631 but not so much weight.

The arms were longer, so they would fit some 6 cylinder bonnets.(6506,6600,6510 and 6610)

 

[crazy_bull]

All adapter plates i''ve seen make the geometry all wrong. Best thing you would do is get Taylor attachments to make you a Q fit headstock to fit- theyre not silly money.

Thanks again, you best bill Mark for some commission

PS. I know it's not a JD, but with front linkage & PTO, alot newer, alot less hours, alot less £££ I couldn't say no.

 

[Farmer_Joe]

6330 will be fairly gutless and worked hard if been on a loader prob better off somthing a little fresher