TC-45 transmission split open

[Soundguy]

I hate when that happens.

Some day tractors will have a steel frame and modular parts. They're built from big fragile castings for no other reason than tradition.

I wouldn't call them particularly fragile. Tractors were primarilly designed as farm implements.. not bull dozers and track hoes.

Take a look at an industrial tractor.. or a farm tractor that has an industrial equivalent. Lotsa reinforcement.. usally better fornt axle.. and things like laodersa and hoe's have huge underbelly sub frames.. generally interconnected.. etc.


Modular? You mean like having a seperate front steering pedistal or axle, seperate engine casting, a seperate tranny casting, a seperate steering gear casting, a seperate center section/hyds, and a rear end casting, with removable axle trumpets??


How much more modular you want them... they are already just a big line of bolt together sections.. each one an assembly by itself... and in many cases thru history.. very interchangeable.

A 9n rear end will fit on an 8n, or 2n, and i believe a fergy 20/30. i know a fergy 30 rear end will fit an 8n. 9n 2n 8n trannies all will bolt up to either rear end or engine flywheels.. .. thats interchangeability from 1939-1952, and cross manufacturer.

Jump tot he hundred series. most of the 4spds/5sps/ can be swapped with their respective counterparts up between the x00 and x01 series. You can intermix the trannies.. sometimes with only minor things like changing a flywheel.. etc.. in the case of dropping an x6x trranny into a x4x chassie.

Lotsa ford x-7/8-1 tractors that came from the factory with 10spd sos trannies.. that now have a 4 or 5 speed in them..

Steel frames? Lotsa tractors had steel frame rails.. look at AC and JD just to name 2...

Soundguy

 

[jimmysisson]

I have to agree - the castings are tough, at least on the old units. They provide lower maintenance by enclosing all the parts inside, many with oil bath. They're harder to work on, but require less work. There's a lot of "rode hard and put away wet" especially with ag tractors, maybe not so much with CUTs. How many major tractor casting failures are there where there's no backhoe, or accident, involved, I wonder? Soundguy's right about the uses we put these things to. Just because you can bolt equipment on to a tractor doesn't mean it won't hurt it.
Jim

 

[have_blue]

My main beef is that the transmission housing is a structural member. That's not exactly a practical design, as the picture clearly shows. I don't believe there's a need to build them that way any more. Another down side is you have to split the tractor in half just to work on the clutch. Why build them that way when there are much better ways to do it now? That's just my personal opinion, of course.

With weight being a desirable feature in a tractor, there is no reason to build them lightly. A tractor should not have the power to crack itself in half by pushing, pulling, or lifting. If it does, I think it's a design flaw. Again, my opinion.

 

[Soundguy]

Yes.. the tranny is a structural casting. ( on most farm tractors )

It's not practicle because the guy had a break after using a hoe? Come on..

As another user points out.. How many casting failures do we see when there aren't backhoes or loaders on a tractor? I've seen 3 backhoe caused failures. I've seen one loader caused failure of a front end support shock load. I've seen plenty of front end abuse from overloading loaders.

The only tractor break I've ever seen that didn't involve a hoe was when bolts came loose and thel the casting pull away then break.. it wasn't the casting that initiated the failure.

Not practicle? It's nice and tidy.. keeps all the parts clean.. it's compact.. that's a huge plus for running thru brush and for cleaning.

Why build them like that /Much better ways ? How about cost? You gonna pay 1.5x to 2x more for your tractor just to have a frame rail setup like a car or truck does? Are you willing to sacrifice ground clearance for that?

I'm looking out at a couple million dollars of heavy equipment right now.. Just about all the 'tractor' looking pieces of machinery are structural castings. The bigger industrial TLB and rubber tire hoes' are all mounted on huge subframes.

My tractor is wide enough as it is with an integral casting for a tranny and center section.. I wouldn't want it any bigger or more expensive than it already was.

I think people try to use tractors like bull dozers and track hoes' and they aren't. Even the big heavy ag tractors are pretty much just used for drawbar work.. I havn't seen too many ford 9600's and TW series with backhoes on them.

You use a backhoe on a tractor.. you have to be carefull.

You buy a used tractor.. you need to look it over for prior damage and abuse... 'Stuff' happens.

Tractor based backhoe and tractor based loaders are no replacement for articulatong front end loaders , TLB industrial machines, or track hoes.

In many instances we use our farm tractors for far harder work than they were designed. When it all comes out ok.. we are happy.. when something breaks, you can't kick the tire and walk away saying it was a bad design... IMHO.. I think it's safe to say the design is time proven with decades to back it up... the machine and the job and the operator were mismatched. Hidden and unknown damage ( and factory defects ) don't help the situation any either.

My opinion too.. but I just can't see blaming 100 years of proven technology because of a very rare issue that usually results from very specific circumstances. The very first thought that pops in my mind when i think the word 'backhoe' and 'tractor' is 'broke in half'.


Soundguy

My main beef is that the transmission housing is a structural member. That's not exactly a practical design, a sthe picture clearly shows. I don't believe there's a need to build them that way any more. Another down side is you have to split the tractor in half just to work on the clutch. Why build them that way when there are much better ways? That's just my personal opinion, of course.

 

[JerryG]

My main beef is that the transmission housing is a structural member. That's not exactly a practical design, as the picture clearly shows. I don't believe there's a need to build them that way any more. Another down side is you have to split the tractor in half just to work on the clutch. Why build them that way when there are much better ways to do it now? That's just my personal opinion, of course.

With weight being a desirable feature in a tractor, there is no reason to build them lightly. A tractor should not have the power to crack itself in half by pushing, pulling, or lifting. If it does, I think it's a design flaw. Again, my opinion.

Another problem with the housings breaking (other than the owners using the tractors for dozers) is that the manufactures have wrung every ounce of extra metal out of the housings that they can. That makes them lighter and less expensive to build.
I had much rather split a tractor in half to change the clutch than mess with the other types of structures. I have split several MF tractors for a double clutch job in the 40 to 70 horsepower range. I always liked to start at 8:00 A.M, so that I could pull the tractor out of the shop finished by lunch.

 

[Doc_Bob]

Bob It's my opinion that manufacturers aren't interested in longevity, they're interested in putting out a product as inexpensive as possible so that their profit is high.

Ever hear a manufacturer say, "This part costs more so we'll use it instead."

Ever hear a buyer say "I want to pay more for a better product?"
Bob

 

[Doc_Bob]

My opinion too.. but I just can't see blaming 100 years of proven technology because of a very rare issue that usually results from very specific circumstances.

Amen
Bob

 

[PineRidge]

Ever hear a buyer say "I want to pay more for a better product?"
Bob

Bob lots of folks do it indirectly. We bought our Toyota Highlander because at the time it was rated very highly by Consumer Reports. I think that's why most folks use Consumer Reports, not necessarily interested in inexpensive products as much as a quality product with some longevity.

That's also one of the reasons the American car manufacturers are slipping behind in sales to the imports.

 

[have_blue]

My opinion too.. but I just can't see blaming 100 years of proven technology because of a very rare issue that usually results from very specific circumstances.
Soundguy

Well Sound Guy, I can see that I'll never convince you that there is always a better way of building things without sacrificing somewhere. And You'll never convince me that I should honor traditional design. So we'll call it a draw and leave it at that.

 

[have_blue]

That's also one of the reasons the American car manufacturers are slipping behind in sales to the imports.

Americans... especially us older guys, are funny about quality. We like it, we want it, and we will pay through the nose for it. However, a tractor has to LOOK like a tractor. It can be cheaper, stronger, have more ground clearance, 2x more versatile, 2x easier to service and maintain, and almost idiot proof. But, if it doesn't look like a traditional tractor, it ain't selling!

I think it's ironic that casting is extremely expensive as well as difficult to maintain consistent quality. The casting process does not lend itself to automation at all, and takes great skill to master. Yet the manufacturers still use castings to keep their customers happy... until a flawed one breaks.