Front-End Loader FEL's on 2wd tractors

[bam747]

Re: FEL\'s on 2wd tractors

I have a single family owned 1973 John Deere 1020 tractor with a model 48 loader. The tractor is 2WD and is considered a "small utility Ag tractor". They didn't even offer MFWD on this size tractor back then. The tractor is only rated at 38 PTO HP. The model 48 loader is rated at 2,400 lb lift capacity. The tractor has killer power steering on it that never had any problem with even maximum loads in the FEL.

The big difference between the 1020 and today's CUT is that the 1020 is what I call an "old school heavy metal" tractor design. As measured on a certified truck scale, this tractor, loader, cast iron rear wheel ballast weights (330 lbs per side, 660 lbs total), rear 3PH blade (also used for ballast), and ROPS weighs 7500 lbs. This thing is one massive chunk of cast iron from front to back. The front axle is even a solid chunk of cast iron.

In 33 years of use, I have never once lifted a rear tire off the ground with anything the loader would lift. Dirt, gravel, rocks, whatever. And I never had any problems getting the loader to dig into any of the Colorado dirt I tried to dig up with it. Note, however, that the FEL was NEVER used without having the rear blade on for added 3PH ballast.

The other thing about a 1020 versus a modern CUT is that is has a longer wheel base with longer loader arms that put the loader weight further back from the front axle. This gives you a very nicely balanced tractor/FEL setup. To get a better idea of how this tractor and FEL combo looks, see the attachment to this post.

All this being said, if I was buying a new tractor today, be it a CUT or utility Ag tractor, it would definitely have 4WD. No question. But the 4WD would be more for its added traction advantage than loader use.

I think the moral of the story for this 2WD versus 4WD and FEL combination is that with a properly designed and coordinated FEL/tractor combination with proper rear axle AND 3PH ballast, using the FEL on a 2WD tractor can work just fine.

 

[jcmseven]

Re: FEL\'s on 2wd tractors

Multiple 7's,

I am relatively new to the compact tractor market myself, but I have had experience with the older style 2wd tractors and loaders also. My good friend and his family have a large dairy farm, and they have both two and four wheel drive smaller tractors to move manure, feed etc. To appreciate the difference, one must see them working side by side. The MFWD machines generally will run circles around the RWD machines, with a few exceptions, mainly the larger, heavier tractors. But these machines lose efficiency in tight spaces, and do not generally perform as well in slick conditions as do the MFWD machines. In short, the advancement has been worth it. My friend, who has probably owned 100+ tractors over the years, says there are one or two RWD machines he would not sell, since they work well, but any new machine he buys for loader work will be MFWD.

John M

 

[Soundguy]

Re: FEL\'s on 2wd tractors

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( When you are talking about the back and forths with picking up loads, does a shuttle shift not help out there if you have a gear drive tractor ?
)</font>

Yes.. a shuttle does make loader work on a gear tractor much closer to loader work on an HST tractor.

Int he old days.. not many gear tractors had shuttle. However, Ford, in 1955 came out with a 5spd 'stacked' tranny.. the gear shift only moves front to back, and then it can also go up/down in 3 planes.

In the top plane, you have 3 and R that gives you a decent shuttle as 3rd is still powerfull enough to drive into a stockpile... I'd call that an early attempt at a shuttle tranny.. etc.

Soundguy

 

[rambler]

Re: FEL\'s on 2wd tractors

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Most older tractors were bigger and heavier then the Compacts most users on TBN own and operate.

I also suspect most older tractors with FEL's were used to load and move loose materials such as manure,hay..things such as that.

That said, if your tasks only include loading loose materials, ballast on the 3PH may be more important then front wheel assist.

Now, I think, front wheel assist is, like power steering or, for some folks, hydrostatic transmissions; a "luxury" that has become a necessity...just as automatic transmissions, air conditioning and other "options" have in the cars we drive.
Since most of us (including me) consider MFWD a "necessity"...that's what we promulgate when we offer our opinions.
Could be many professional farmers would consider us nuts...and, from their point of view, they might be right.

However, for my 2200 lb tractor and for my tasks, I find MFWD a very convenient option for those times we really need it. I do use it if I'm moving a load across the field. I don't use it if I'm moving a load on the drive way or on pavement.

I hope Soundguy picks up on this thread...reckon he has more experience with "old iron" then most of us on TBN. )</font>

Utility & larger class tractors have the weight, wheelbase, & rear end to be just fine with 2wd & a loader. The old 3020 & 4020 JD's with a loader - cool.

This website talks mostly of compact tractors. The biggest use I see here for a tractor is - mowing the lawn. Everyone wants a very light & very manuverable tractor that doesn't hurt the lawn, first & formost.

So, they are built very lightweight, 7 with a very short wheelbase.

Makes them very, very light in the rear for putting a loader on.

I have an old IHC H tractor, narrow front, no power steering, obviously 2wd, tires are bald from spinning on concrete feeding pads picking up manure. Dad made concrete wheel weights, 2 are on the wheels, 200# each, & 2 more go on a rack when doing real loader work.

That old gal is more stable and safer than the New Holland 1720 with loader that I got. Man, is the rear end on that thing light, first thing I did is have the tires filled with CC, still light. The wheelbase is so short, and the reach of the loader is pretty far forward of the front axle.

I have a rock box I made for the 3pt, get 500 lbs of rocks or so on the 3pt. And the rear wheels still spin out on that tractor if I am in 2wd. It is just the overall design of the compact tractor - I'm likely to tip it over.

The old H I have can lift more weight. But, it is stable as all get out - even with the narrow front. Just the engineering, wheelbase vs the reach of the loader vs the weight of cast iron everything....

--->Paul

 

[777777]

Re: FEL\'s on 2wd tractors

Hi All,

Want to thank you again for your help. Certainly have cleared up a bunch of things for me. Been very interesting actually with how the changes in tractors over the years both in size and weight have affected the comfort levels of all involved.
Now, tractors are much less hearty and weighty but try to compensate by adding features such as 4wd.

Thanks again. Have learned alot.

Maybe talk about gear and Hydrostatic as I am always looking to learn.

Take care
Tom

 

[jcmseven]

Re: FEL\'s on 2wd tractors

Gear? What is gear? Oh, sorry, I remember, that is what we did before hydro. All kidding aside, like MFWD, hydro has revolutionized the compact tractor. There are still gear afficianados out there, and gear drive is reliable and efficient, but not the better option for loader work. The fact that one can infinitely adjust speed and direction merely by pushing a pedal rather than clutching or shifting is a real advancement. Where I live in the mountains, I do not believe one could effectively use a gear drive transmission. Gear drives are usually a bit less expensive to buy, which makes them popular. Sometimes one can get into a larger, more powerful tractor by getting a gear machine, but the efficiency is not as good for most things, such as loader work. Now, in larger tractors, the heavily synchronized trannies are very similar to hydro's but I sense this is not your interest at this time. Also, one final thought on MFWD. There have been some thoughts about the newer tractors being lighter, and that is the reason for four wheel drive. I am not sure that is totally true. Yes, the older tractors had lots of steel and were quite heavy, but my 4520 weighes 6450# with a loader and rear box blade, which is 1000# heavier than my neighbor's old MF 60 HP tractor (with two wheel drive) in an equivalent setup, and it is a compact tractor!! It is true that in order to gain manuverability in these machines, there has been a shortening of the wheelbase, but the bigger reason (to me) for the MFWD is to better utilize engine power. My 4520 has 53.5 hp. My next door neighbor (not the same one mentioned earlier) has an older Ford tractor. His tractor visually is the same length and width as mine, only slightly longer. It has a gasoline engine with 26 hp!! When pulling, it will bog and stop before losing traction in most cases, so MFWD would not really offer too much benefit to it. In my case, with a 50+ diesel that is turbocharged, the MFWD really helps get the power to the ground, especially when doing box blading or loader work. It does seem to me, that as with cars, the power is going up and up in these machines and must be harnessed to work well.

John M

 

[Soundguy]

Re: FEL\'s on 2wd tractors

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( My next door neighbor (not the same one mentioned earlier) has an older Ford tractor. His tractor visually is the same length and width as mine, only slightly longer. It has a gasoline engine with 26 hp!! When pulling, it will bog and stop before losing traction in most cases, )</font>

Hmm.. I'd say he has not maintained it.. or it is ready for a rebuild. My 26 hp 1946 2n that has a whopping 9 psi of oil pressure when hot and not very awesome compression will spin tires when it is chained to a load that it can't pull... engine does load up a little a little.. but she won't stall.. will set and spin untill the ag tire digs a hole and she is high centered... What ford 26hp gas tractor does your neighbor have?

Soundguy

 

[have_blue]

Re: FEL\'s on 2wd tractors

7777,

I have a 4WD tractor with FEL, but I seldom use 4WD for FEL work. I think if you find 4WD a necessity for most FEL work, you are probably (but not always) using the FEL and tractor in ways they weren't intended.

Oh boy, I bet I'll get smacked around for saying that! /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

 

[unreconstructed]

Re: FEL\'s on 2wd tractors

Have Blue,

I even feel that way about 4WD pickup trucks. /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

I'll get smacked along with you. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

 

[JTC]

Re: FEL\'s on 2wd tractors

Weight isn't always a good thing and equating weight with strength is just faulty reasoning. Most CUT owners use their tractors for much more than loader work. I would say mowing is 70% of my seat time. I would not want a tractor any heavier for mowing. As it is, there are noticable tire depressions in my lawn where I make two passes around the perimiter before I can go back and forth and vary the pattern. My bare tractor weighs 1420 Lbs., MMM about 250 Lbs so that's 1700 Lbs. in the mowing configuration. I frequently use the FEL with the MMM on so that's 700 Lbs. for the FEL plus 800 Lbs. on the 3 pt. balast box. , so that's about 3200 Lbs. I've had probably 1000 lbs. in the bucket on a couple of occasions (not very high), so that's 4200 Lbs. (plus my 200 Lbs. and fuel) being moved around by a 18.5HP diesel with no complaints.

Older equipment has many more cast iron components which need to be thicker and heavier to have the equivelant strength as a fabricated (stamped, formed, welded) CRS component.

I plow my 500' driveway in the winter with my loader. I plow it down hill and don't even try to plow up hill. On some occasions, there's no way would my CUT would make it up the driveway without MFWD. It's even been dicey a few times in 4wd.

Jim