Frivolously productive afternoon

[capt1989]

Dude, I love the way that looks! That is to cool. Kudos to you! Hope your girlfriend like it too.

Capt.

 

[284 International]

The verdict is in. She said "What did you do to my tractor? It looks like a mutant! Will it keep me from getting stuck? I like that if it does!" :laughing: Sounds like a hung jury. We just had some rain yesterday, so the real test will be how it handles tillage work to plant some potatoes in the next few days.

I'm concerned that it's too wide, and the small disk doesn't cover the tracks. My bigger disk likely is too large for this tractor to pull, though it would cover the tracks. It may work well with my 2 bottom plow. I don't know. The experimentation will begin. I hope it's a useful addition to the machine. It might not be. My brother saw it and said, "Why did you do that? Just use the bigger tractor if you can't pull something. It's pretty awesome though. And ugly." He pretty much echoes my own thoughts.

The Shibaura tiller I converted to three point while waiting for the spacer paint to dry works really well. I'm pleased with that little project.

I will give a review of the tractor's performance when it is fully tested, but for now, to anyone who may consider this, it's a straightforward project and simple to do at home with basic equipment. It comes out really ugly, though, and may impede your ability to use some implements in the way you would prefer.

 

[284 International]

Update on how this monstrosity works: All in all, I'm very pleased with how much better it pulls. The dual tires don't give it fully double the pulling power, but it's significantly improved. I ran my two bottom plow (I think it's a 10 inch, though I've never measured) behind it a little bit today, to try it out, and compared it to some of my other machines.

The pair of rear wheels definitely give the tractor more bite, and better flotation. The width makes driving in the furrow virtually impossible though, and doesn't give a nice looking cut. They allow the tractor to work, though, and keep soil compaction to a minimum, but the smaller outside tires don't do much unless the ground is soft and the tractor is sinking in. That isn't bad, necessarily, but around here the ground gets really hard quickly, so I need some more weight on back to help them engage once things start to dry up. I think I'm going to fill at least the inner tires, and see if that helps any.

The other thing I noticed, and am mulling over on ways to fix, is that the plow's attachment points appear to be ASAE standard, or about 27 1/2 inches apart, center to center. This YM2000's lower links interfere a bit with the tread of the tires when they are spread that wide. What are people using to keep that from happening? I can't, with any reasonable effort, change the mounting width of the plow or some of my other attachments, since they are all one piece.

I tried the plow with the 186D, the duallie YM2000, and my regular gas 284. The 284 pulls it as if it were designed to do row crop work (go figure) and is perfectly matched for this type of duty. I was surprised by the 186D. Once ballasted up, it did much better than I expected, and left pretty, tight furrows. It can't quite pull it through Bermuda grass roots when buried in these (ideal) soil conditions, but I think it will do enviable work once I fill the tires and put a little more weight up front. If it were 2wd it would be worthless. It's significantly slower than the YM2000, and vastly slower than the 284. I really like the maneuverability and narrow size of the 186D, though. I think I can make it work on this toy farm.

The YM2000 pulls it well, but is squirrelly to drive in comparison to the 284, mostly due to the wide rear tires and shorter wheelbase. It interfered too much on the tires to mess with it much. I'm disappointed, and need to figure out how to make the lower links span my implements' attachment pins without rubbing on the tires.

 

[California]

Could you rig up a Quick Hitch to move the implements back farther, and allow them to be a little wider than the tractor's arms? I wonder if that QH could be fitted with inward-pointing pins to mate to the tractor. Is it the arms that hit the tires, or the implements?

You are tightening all the slack out of the sway chains, no?


Or maybe move over the longer (?) arms from the 284 to the Yanmar?


What is the horsepower and weight of the 284? Is it substantially larger than the YM240? I don't NEED a larger tractor but something like that would be fun to play with!

 

[jtokc]

You might want to consider offset lower lift arms like these:

Yanmar Tractor Parts: LOWER LIFT ARM (OFFSET)

They are designed to reach back beyond the tires before angling out to attachment width

 

[284 International]

California, the 284 is a size or two up from the YM2000/240. It's a just a little bigger in overall platform. With the duals on, the two are the same width, but the 284 has probably an extra foot of wheelbase. The unballasted weight is around 2300lbs I think, or about where the YM2000 ends up with filled tires and weights on front. It's about 27 PTO hp as I recall.

Mine is a gas engine, which isn't a big deal by itself, but it doesn't run perfectly, so it doesn't the lugging ability that it should. It needs to be kept revved up more than it should, and it bogs if any sudden load is applied, so it doesn't feel as powerful as it really is. The difference can be seen in comparison pulling the same load. My 284 either goes faster or deeper with any given implement. It's a row-crop tractor, optimized for agricultural use. It drives and tracks very straight, has lots of lifting capacity on the 3 point hitch, and a relatively lightly built front end.

The trouble is with the arms hitting the inside cleats of the tires, not the implements. The arms' angle to reach the mounting points on the implements makes them contact the tires. If the chains are adjusted such that the arms don't touch the tires, the arms won't go wide enough to fit the implements. I think the quick hitch requires the same spacing of the arms, though I've considered mounting a different bracket between the two sides, allowing me to couple the quick hitch to the tractor with the arms set narrower.

The offset lower arms may be the ticket; I'll have to get some dimensions from Hoye, and off my tractor, to check that out. Thanks for the link, 1401downer.

 

[jtokc]

If I remember to do it, I can measure from distance before the angle out when I get home--I have a set. They are 24.5" between centers.

I those are too short, they also have a longer set that are 27.75 between centers.

http://www.hoyetractor.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=LA-2775

 

[California]

I think the quick hitch requires the same spacing of the arms

The QH is intended to mount the tractor arms into its slots. But I was thinking of adding implement pins (and spacers) on the QH, pointed inward.
You would still have 27.5" width facing the implement, but considerably less where the arms meet these new pins.

Something like this but with the pins pointed inward. This measures 1 3/8" from the face of the implement to just past the pin's shoulder.

 

[jtokc]

If I remember to do it, I can measure from distance before the angle out when I get home--I have a set. They are 24.5" between centers.

I those are too short, they also have a longer set that are 27.75 between centers.

I measured (the set with 24.5 centers) and the distance from center to the angle out was 19.5"

 

[284 International]

Terrific, 1401, thank you so much! How much offset is there at the angle? I'll go rig up a piece of wire with those dimensions and see if it will work for me. Thanks again.