Used JD Tractor in 35-40 hp range - which models?
- Thread starter smarley
- Start date
jenkinsph
Super Star Member
I suspect I could maintain the arena with my x749 mower and keep the rest of the 2 acres mowed easily too.
Tx Jim
New Member
I worked for a JD dealer for over 21 yrs back before MFWD(4wd) tractors became the the BIG RAGE. It never ceases to amaze me the thinking that if a person doesn't have a 4 wheel. drive tractor a body will get stuck and get nothing accomplished. Sure dealer want there customers to think MFWD is the only way to go because the tractors cost more & wear out more parts so in essence the dealers bottom line(profit) is better. I grew up on a farm and have been associated with tractors all my life and been stuck with a 2WD tractor very few times. Tractors have diff lock that when engaged will get through some fairly deep mud. No I don't live where it snows. I dang sure don't care for MFWD tractors that have a larger turning radius and will wear frt tires rapidly if driven on pavement very much. Also IMHO MFWD's ride rougher. PS that 820 that jenkinsph spoke of have a very good reputation. I remember selling that model when they were introduced and it will more that handle your 2 acres.
kiotiken
Veteran Member
The difference between these old tractors you grew up with and many of the MFWD tractors of today is WEIGHT. Weight = traction. What used to be a 5000# tractor is now a 2000# tractor. Where all that steel went is a whole other thread, but with a light tractor, you need 4X4.
My Kioti DK45 is a little more than 4000# if I remember correctly + the FEL and loaded tires. All in, I'm probably around 6500-7000#. The only times I needed 4X4 were times I had near max weight cap. in the FEL. Once I tried to back away from a pickup truck with a skid of pavers on the FEL and couldn't figure out why I wasn't moving. I looked out and the back tires where spinning in the air! Other than those situation, a bigger CUT like mine will drag the arena all day long without 4X4, but a much lighter tractor may not. That said, most of those light tractors are 4X4, for that reason.
Tx Jim
New Member
I will totally agree that newer model tractors don't weight as much as older one hp for hp. There are cheaper ways to compensate for weight than MFWD. I have a Kubota M49000(54 engine HP) 2wheel drive that probably weights in at 4000-4500#s. It has liquid in rear tires and I load/unload tight rd bales that are 4X5.5 with no problem rain or shine. I've drug/plowed many rodeo arenas with my 14 HP JD BO that only came in 2WD.
kiotiken
Veteran Member
Yup, I do agree, and somewhat take back my last statement, it doesn't take much to pull a drag and I doubt you'd ever need 4X4 on anything bigger than a SCUT. 4X4 is a requirement when you're doing lots of loader work, especially if you're in hilly terrain. According to tractordata.com, your M4900 is 3970# + FEL + loaded tires. You're about the same weight as my machine all in, around the 6500# mark so I'm not surprised you don't have an issue. I have R4's, ags would give you much better traction.
arrow
Super Member
Jenkinsph's 820 is all you really need and at that is a bit of overkill. If it fits your price point I'd buy it and here's why: this tractor is heavy enough to mitigate the 4wd option. It has large tires that if ballasted, will add well over a thousand pounds. If you feel that after a spell with this type of tractor you want a fel, there are plenty of aftermarket ones available as this was a popular tractor. Its size and weight (especially ballasted) will give this tractor plenty of grunt for just about any fel work you want. Also, from the money saved by buying a good meaty 2wd such as this and if you add the fel later on, I'd be willing to bet you'd be at the same money or cheaper than you'd spend for that 4wd 790 or whatever but have a tractor that will outwork any of the smaller 4wd ones. This way you can get to see if you really need a fel and if you find out you do not, you have saved a great deal of money. Besides, there are so many 3 pt attachments now that just may serve you as well as a fel for your intended work. This is the type of purchase that gives you lee way and does not ever get you stuck in many more ways beyond tires in sand.
Tx Jim
New Member
OK think about what you stated. My M4900 with a loader weighs more than the 4000-4500#s BUT the extra weight of the loader isn't an asset but a liability because it relieves rear wheel traction although that doesn't concern me as I can still load/unload bales in muddy soil. Therefore I disagree with you statement that a 4X4 is required for loader operation. Is a 4x4 better? YES Is it a necessity?? definitely NOT. Is a 4X4 worth the added expense with all it's other detrimental things associated with it? NO not for me.
Like I said, I'm in 4x4 5% of the time, that 5% it really saves my @$$, but I can do 95% of what I do, without 4x4! If I'm buying new, and have the option, I'm going to get 4x4 for resale and that since the big push has been made, most tractors come with 4x4 standard and those that don't, it's only a minimal expense. If I'm buying a used older tractor in the case of the OP, I'd be more than happy to take a 2x4.
kiotiken
Veteran Member
OK, but if you use a FEL like me to dig out soil, move gravel, heavy box blade work and general landscaping tasks, you quickly find 4X4 is worth every penny. When I owned my JD 955 that weighed 1700# ++, I NEVER took it out of 4X4. My CK30 @ 3200# ++ was usually in 4X4 and my DK45 @ 4365# ++ is almost never in 4X4, only when I realize I need it. Weight matters a great deal for traction and at 6500# +, we don't often need 4X4. A 1500# tractor will need it quite often.