5055D vs 5065E with 10ft disc

[downslope]

...2wd 2550 deere (65 PTO hp) and it did pretty well with it 90% of the time...it probably specs out closer to the older 6000 series tractors vs the 5000 series...

... Seems our old Ford 4000 2wd does as good or better when pulling a disc when comparing newer similar hp 2wd tractors.

Why do you think experienced operators make observations like these? Were the older tractors rated different or are the current 2wd utilities built lighter or have exagerated ratings? I too have noticed that it sometimes requires FWA on a modern tractor to pull the same implement as older 2wd utilities of equivalent HP from the 1970's.

[deere5105]

Why do you think experienced operators make observations like these? Were the older tractors rated different or are the current 2wd utilities built lighter or have exagerated ratings? I too have noticed that it sometimes requires FWA on a modern tractor to pull the same implement as older 2wd utilities of equivalent HP from the 1970's.

Good question. I figure it is a design change to lighter weight and more nimble and more user friendly. I figure there are less people performing farming oriented tasks and more performing property maintenance. Maybe user friendly has replaced performance. Comparing a mule to tractor years ago probably made the old tractors look quite user friendly!!

[carterbeauford]

Were the older tractors rated different or are the current 2wd utilities built lighter or have exagerated ratings?

combination of light weight and weight distribution/traction. my John deere B will pull the 10' disc in question, my New Holland T2310 will too but the B is 2wd and the New Holland needs 4wd despite weighing over 500lbs more. no weight over the rear axle. useless in anything other than 4wd. I was hoping with loaded tires the 5055D wouldn't be similarly useless. I am leaning more towards another two cylinder like a 720 or a new generation like a 3020.

[Verticaltrx]

Why do you think experienced operators make observations like these? Were the older tractors rated different or are the current 2wd utilities built lighter or have exagerated ratings? I too have noticed that it sometimes requires FWA on a modern tractor to pull the same implement as older 2wd utilities of equivalent HP from the 1970's.

A big part of it is the tractors nowadays just have more hp and less weight. Also I think weight distribution and proper ballasting has a lot to do with it. Just for comparison sake, size and power wise the 5055D/E is about the same as a 2150, which most folks in the 80's/90's would only use for a chore tractor or use around a small farm (with small equipment.) Another way to look at it, the 5065E is about the same hp as a 3010, obviously the 3010 is way more tractor.

[downslope]

Good question. I figure it is a design change to lighter weight and more nimble and more user friendly. I figure there are less people performing farming oriented tasks and more performing property maintenance. Maybe user friendly has replaced performance. Comparing a mule to tractor years ago probably made the old tractors look quite user friendly!!

combination of light weight and weight distribution/traction. my John deere B will pull the 10' disc in question, my New Holland T2310 will too but the B is 2wd and the New Holland needs 4wd despite weighing over 500lbs more. no weight over the rear axle. useless in anything other than 4wd. I was hoping with loaded tires the 5055D wouldn't be similarly useless. I am leaning more towards another two cylinder like a 720 or a new generation like a 3020.

I think another thing is that years ago the manufacturers basically only made one model in a HP class. They may have had utility and row crop versions, but the driveline components were essentially the same. Look at Deere today; you can get 55-65 HP in a CUT, a 5D, 5E or a 5M, a model for every budget. The 5M would certainly match up to the old tractors but you will be paying deerely for it. The other tractors are going to be built lighter, smaller displacement, high rpm engines, etc. A lot of the older tractors mentioned could be had with cast center wheels, large diameter tires, etc. Even the Ford 4000 mentioned could have been ordered with 38" rubber. Carter's old JD B probably has some tall skinny wheels on it. To get that kind of stuff today Deere would have you move up to one of the premium lines.
Part of it is what deere5105 says; large farms today aren't buying that many tractors in the sub-100 HP range, so to keep the price down for the smaller operators they come out with the lighter economy models. But when you choose one of those you give up a lot of the user friendly features found in the premium lines. As far a being more nimble, I'm not sure. If you have to move up to 4wd to get the job done a lot of the nimbleness can be lost.

[deere5105]

I think another thing is that years ago the manufacturers basically only made one model in a HP class. They may have had utility and row crop versions, but the driveline components were essentially the same. Look at deere today; you can get 55-65 HP in a CUT, a 5D, 5E or a 5M, a model for every budget. The 5M would certainly match up to the old tractors but you will be paying deerely for it. The other tractors are going to be built lighter, smaller displacement, high rpm engines, etc. A lot of the older tractors mentioned could be had with cast center wheels, large diameter tires, etc. Even the Ford 4000 mentioned could have been ordered with 38" rubber. Carter's old JD B probably has some tall skinny wheels on it. To get that kind of stuff today Deere would have you move up to one of the premium lines.
Part of it is what deere5105 says; large farms today aren't buying that many tractors in the sub-100 HP range, so to keep the price down for the smaller operators they come out with the lighter economy models. But when you choose one of those you give up a lot of the user friendly features found in the premium lines. As far a being more nimble, I'm not sure. If you have to move up to 4wd to get the job done a lot of the nimbleness can be lost.

My experience on previous 5105 2wd was that with a 6' cutter it was a mowing dream. Easily powered the 6' cutter and turned easily and quickly. Could pull 8' 3pt disc harrow, but performed better with 6'. Could pull 78"box blade but would spin often. Moved to 5303 4wd and same equipment. Runs cutter with ease, but doesn't turn as quickly. All other tasks mentioned are beyond comparison. Do have to engage 4wd to get maximum benefit, but when engaged it is day and night difference.

I wouldn't go back for any reason.

[jenkinsph]

combination of light weight and weight distribution/traction. my John deere B will pull the 10' disc in question, my New Holland T2310 will too but the B is 2wd and the New Holland needs 4wd despite weighing over 500lbs more. no weight over the rear axle. useless in anything other than 4wd. I was hoping with loaded tires the 5055D wouldn't be similarly useless. I am leaning more towards another two cylinder like a 720 or a new generation like a 3020.

I used to have a 3020 tricycle diesel and a 4020 wide front diesel, man that 3020 was extremely manueverable by comparison. Most people today have to have a fel on everything and the new tractors are better for that purpose. If you want a good 2wd tractor I would think a new generation series in good condition would be a great choice. They are set up to perform in 2wd and most of the newer tractors really need to have the 4wd engaged to handle high draft loads.

I think alot depends on what your expectations are from your tractor, the older tractors were heavier, slower, resulting in good tractive abilities. The new tractors are lighter, faster and can operate at higher ground speeds. Basically gets down to lbs/hp, the new tractors will usually have less wt/hp and require you to purchase extra weight, that is a double sale for the dealer. For the typical small tractor buyer today the new tractors with better front axles and 4wd seems to be a good compromise for a large variety of jobs.

I really like the old iron and would like to have a pristine 3020 or 4020 but when it comes to operating in close quarter as I do now the new compacts are much better suited for this. I spend more time looking at my 820 than actually using it, the 4520 and 110 compacts are more user friendly.

[Verticaltrx]

I used to have a 3020 tricycle diesel and a 4020 wide front diesel, man that 3020 was extremely manueverable by comparison. Most people today have to have a fel on everything and the new tractors are better for that purpose. If you want a good 2wd tractor I would think a new generation series in good condition would be a great choice. They are set up to perform in 2wd and most of the newer tractors really need to have the 4wd engaged to handle high draft loads.

Agreed. And if the OP wants a New Generation deere, really it continued from the 10 series all the way up to the 55 series in '92. Pick a year and any of those models in the 55 PTO hp and up size will pull a 10' disc with ease. There is no comparison between our 5203 and 2550 as far as pulling ability.

[flusher]

I have an older deere RW disc I am going restore over the winter. it will have 36 new 18" blades on it when its done. I am looking for a 2wd utility tractor mainly for raking hay and pulling a hay wagon after I disc and plant hay. I am not as much concerned about weight since they should be within around 500lbs of each other with loaded tires and full front weights. I like the short and nimble wheelbase of the 5D and the price, would 55HP be enough to pull my disc? I looked at one at the dealer and it "looked" big enough, had decent sized rear tires on it.

I don't really want a 4wd 5E since I'm dead set on a 5M if my hay operation takes off.

I modified an old Minneapolis-Moline KS-1300 (made by Krause) wheel disc recently ($600 for the disc). It came 13-ft wide with 44 pans on four axles (tandem disc arrangement). It was too big and heavy for my 2008 Mahindra 5525 (55 hp engine, 2WD, gear tranny 8F/2R) so I removed the 4 outer pans from each axle, cut the axles and the axle support beams to length.



In dry soil I can pull it in 4L gear at 1500 rpm on the engine which gives about 5 mph ground speed, which is recommended for this type of disc. I used it last week on my 6-acre hayfield that had been plowed a few days earlier with my 7-ft Towner offset disc.

Good luck

[AKfish]

Agreed. And if the OP wants a New Generation deere, really it continued from the 10 series all the way up to the 55 series in '92. Pick a year and any of those models in the 55 PTO hp and up size will pull a 10' disc with ease. There is no comparison between our 5203 and 2550 as far as pulling ability.

Much agreed, here! All it takes is one look at the rear transaxle housing for both tractors! The 50 series makes the 03's look a bit like a big, yard machine compared to a construction payloader!

Once in awhile.... (back when I was immortal) I used to lift the 6-row cultivator at the row turn on my uncle's JD730 tri-cycle and at the start of the next rows throw the clutch forward - fast! Better be on those split brakes - cause it was just like a funny car at the bottom green light! (I know... I know...) But, those soybeans could get pretty boring!

AKfish