Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Volvo LM 641 and LM 642 Loader Comparison and Four-Wheel Drive Evolution
#1
The Volvo LM Series and Its Agricultural Legacy
The Volvo LM 641 and LM 642 wheel loaders were part of Volvo BM’s push into multipurpose loaders during the 1970s. Designed primarily for agricultural and light construction use, these machines offered simplicity, mechanical reliability, and ease of service. The LM series was widely adopted across Europe, especially in rural settings where loaders were used for hay handling, log transport, and general farm duties.
Volvo BM, a division of Volvo Group, had already established itself in the tractor and forestry equipment market. The LM loaders were built in Eskilstuna, Sweden, and became known for their rugged frames, mechanical drivetrains, and straightforward hydraulics. Though exact production numbers are hard to trace, the LM 641 and LM 642 were sold in the thousands, with many still operating today.
Core Specifications
  • LM 641
    • Engine: Volvo diesel, ~70 hp
    • Transmission: 2WD mechanical
    • Operating weight: ~6,000 kg
    • Bucket capacity: ~1.2 m³
    • Steering: Articulated frame
  • LM 642
  • Engine: Volvo diesel, ~75 hp
  • Transmission: 4WD mechanical
  • Operating weight: ~6,500 kg
  • Bucket capacity: ~1.2 m³
  • Steering: Articulated frame
Terminology Notes
  • Articulated Steering: A steering system where the front and rear halves of the machine pivot at a central joint, improving maneuverability.
  • 4WD (Four-Wheel Drive): A drivetrain configuration where power is delivered to both front and rear axles.
  • Differential Lock: A mechanism that locks the differential to prevent wheel slip, especially useful in muddy or uneven terrain.
  • Hydraulic Quick Coupler: A system allowing fast attachment changes without manual pin removal.
Key Differences Between LM 641 and LM 642
The most significant difference between the LM 641 and LM 642 is the drivetrain. The LM 641 was typically delivered as a two-wheel drive machine, relying on rear axle propulsion. While some units were retrofitted or custom-built with 4WD, it was not standard. The LM 642, on the other hand, came factory-equipped with four-wheel drive, offering better traction and stability on uneven terrain.
Other differences include minor frame reinforcements, improved hydraulic flow, and updated operator controls. The LM 642 also featured a more robust front axle and differential lock system, making it better suited for forestry and heavy farm work.
Anecdote from the Field
In the Netherlands, a farmer used an LM 642 to haul logs from a wet pasture. The 4WD system allowed him to climb embankments and maneuver through soft ground without bogging down. His neighbor, operating an LM 641, struggled in similar conditions and eventually installed tire chains and added ballast to improve traction. After comparing performance, he traded up to a used LM 642 and reported a 30% improvement in productivity during wet seasons.
Buying Advice and Restoration Tips
  • Confirm drivetrain configuration before purchase; not all LM 641s are 4WD
  • Inspect articulation joint and steering cylinders for wear
  • Check hydraulic pump output and flow rate; older units may need rebuilds
  • Replace worn bushings and pivot pins to restore loader geometry
  • Upgrade lighting and operator seat for modern comfort
Recommendations for Owners and Technicians
  • Use SAE 10W hydraulic oil and change every 500 hours
  • Grease articulation joint weekly
  • Inspect tire wear and rotate for even traction
  • Maintain clean radiator fins to prevent overheating
  • Document serial numbers and part compatibility for future sourcing
Conclusion
The Volvo LM 641 and LM 642 loaders share a common heritage but differ significantly in drivetrain and terrain capability. While both are reliable and well-suited for farm work, the LM 642’s factory 4WD makes it a superior choice for challenging conditions. With proper maintenance and occasional upgrades, these machines continue to serve decades after their production. In the world of vintage loaders, traction isn’t just a feature—it’s a legacy of design.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Takeuchi TB290 vs. CAT 308-2CR: A Comparison of Two Leading Mini Excavators MikePhua 0 8 2 hours ago
Last Post: MikePhua
  Kobelco SK55SRX vs Takeuchi TB260: A Comparison of Compact Excavators MikePhua 0 5 2 hours ago
Last Post: MikePhua
  Should You Replace a Clutch Fan with Direct Drive on Your Excavator MikePhua 0 11 7 hours ago
Last Post: MikePhua
  Case 9060, Sumitomo 2800, and Link-Belt Excavators: A Comparison of Reliability and Performance MikePhua 0 11 7 hours ago
Last Post: MikePhua
  Choosing the Right Replacement for Volvo A40F Haul Trucks MikePhua 0 12 7 hours ago
Last Post: MikePhua
  Can the Allison TT2420-1 Transmission Replace the TT2221-1 in a Case W20B Loader MikePhua 0 5 8 hours ago
Last Post: MikePhua
  Hough International H-70 Loader Overview MikePhua 0 6 8 hours ago
Last Post: MikePhua
  Caterpillar 902 Compact Wheel Loader Overview MikePhua 0 4 8 hours ago
Last Post: MikePhua
  Understanding the 1999 JCB 185 Skid Steer Loader MikePhua 0 6 8 hours ago
Last Post: MikePhua
  Track or Wheel Loader for Farm Use MikePhua 0 10 9 hours ago
Last Post: MikePhua
  Buying Your First Excavator: The Volvo EC160CL MikePhua 0 7 9 hours ago
Last Post: MikePhua
  Comparing CAT 928HZ and Hyundai 757-9: Which Loader is the Better Option? MikePhua 0 4 9 hours ago
Last Post: MikePhua
  Michigan L190 Loader Overview and Insights MikePhua 0 6 9 hours ago
Last Post: MikePhua
  Evaluating the 2008 Case 445CT Compact Track Loader MikePhua 0 6 9 hours ago
Last Post: MikePhua
  Caterpillar 416C: An In-Depth Overview of a Versatile Backhoe Loader MikePhua 0 6 9 hours ago
Last Post: MikePhua

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)