2 Wheel Drive LS

[super55]

Wheat farmer you are correct there are huge savings to be made with going with a 2WD instead of a 4wd as with going with a gear transmission or a hydrostatic would be.

Only you know what your specific needs are. If I was doing tons of field work and very little loader work I would do just as you stated go with a larger 2wd with more weight and PTO hp than over a smaller/lighter 4wd tractor. A friend of mine who's a farmer once told me if you need 4wd in the field than you shouldn't really be in the field to begin with because it's going to be more work than its worth trying to repair ruts, unclog planters or digging yourself out.

I do small scale field work I'm sure no where on the level you are at but when I do I leave my 4wd John deere at home and grab my old Oliver super 55 that is 2wd that doesn't even have power steering just because it is a better tractor for field work. With independent braking and a much tighter turning radius I can spend more time going back and forth versus having to back up. From my experience the traction gained from a 4wd with R4 industrial compared to a weighted 2wd with ags R1 and differential lock is minimal if any. If you do get a tractor with 4wd get ags all the way around. My personnel opinion of R4 industrials is they do a little bit of everything but they don't do any of it well.

 

[Fallon]

R4's are definitely a compromise tire. R1's are designed purely for traction. R4's are a compromise of durability, damage resistance, flotation, carrying capacity & traction. I'm happy with my R4's as I have a compact utility tractor I use for all sorts of stuff, including mowing the lawn, not just field work or log skidding. I also accept I need chains in the winter & might not with R1s.

Same with 2wd. If you are just pulling a plow or doing field work, the drag of the plow will transfer most of the traction to the rear tires, minimizing the effectiveness of 4wd. However when you are running a loader, that puts a lot of the traction on the front axle, same with pushing a snow plow.

R1's & 2wd do make sense if you are just doing field work. The picture is much less clear if you have more utility uses for your machine.

 

[Fallon]

Also modern CUTs & utility tractors are designed differently. They are shorter & put more weight on the front axle than the older 2wd machines. They tend to be weighted more for expecting 4wd to get all their HP to the ground.

 

[oldpilgrim]

With 4wd in the field, the front wheels will tend to climb over any dirt humps that get in front of the wheels instead of trying to push into them.

 

[jeff9366]

Same with 2wd. If you are just pulling a plow or doing field work, the drag of the plow will transfer most of the traction to the rear tires, minimizing the effectiveness of 4wd.

FALLON: I respect your contributions but I differ with you completely, both from personal plowing experience and from reading of Harry Ferguson's development of the Three Point Hitch.

When a Three Point Hitch mounted plow is adjusted level, front to back and side to side, the Top Link and Lower Links are in the condition of tension worked out by Ferguson to locate the VIRTUAL HITCH POINT just behind the tractor's front wheels. I do not know what load split between the front and rear wheels Ferguson desired but he developed the 3-Pt. concept, including hydraulic lift, Draft Control and central PTO location, over fifteen years of plowing trials in Britain and Ireland. Development involved the 3-Point hitch and tractor dimensions.

When Ferguson licensed his patents to Henry Ford in January 1939, Ford engineers modified the design of the two Ferguson created prototype tractors used in Ferguson's 1938 demonstrations to Ford, for Detroit assembly line production, but the dimensions remained Ferguson's. Ford engineers carried out laboratory tests and found the greater draft load on the plow, the more weight transferred to the tractor's FRONT wheels. Ford engineers were amazed. I have found interesting vector diagrams of forces involved but diagrams are in .pdf format which, alas, cannot be copied to T-B-N.

Ford produced Fordson brand tractors from 1917 to 1922 in the USA, longer in Britain, so Henry knew tractors. In 1938 it took Henry Ford only minutes to recognize genius in Ferguson's "system" relative to existing tractor designs.

While the collaborative tractors were known as Fords, they carried a plate under the Ford logo inscribed 'Ferguson System'.

Ferguson broke with the Ford company in 1946.

Ferguson's multiple 3-Point patents expired serially in the mid-1950s.

In 1953 Ferguson merged his company with Massey-Harris, which changed its name to Massey-Ferguson.

 

[Old Wheat Farmer]

Wheat farmer you are correct there are huge savings to be made with going with a 2WD instead of a 4wd as with going with a gear transmission or a hydrostatic would be.

Only you know what your specific needs are. If I was doing tons of field work and very little loader work I would do just as you stated go with a larger 2wd with more weight and PTO hp than over a smaller/lighter 4wd tractor. A friend of mine who's a farmer once told me if you need 4wd in the field than you shouldn't really be in the field to begin with because it's going to be more work than its worth trying to repair ruts, unclog planters or digging yourself out.

I do small scale field work I'm sure no where on the level you are at but when I do I leave my 4wd John deere at home and grab my old Oliver super 55 that is 2wd that doesn't even have power steering just because it is a better tractor for field work. With independent braking and a much tighter turning radius I can spend more time going back and forth versus having to back up. From my experience the traction gained from a 4wd with R4 industrial compared to a weighted 2wd with ags R1 and differential lock is minimal if any. If you do get a tractor with 4wd get ags all the way around. My personnel opinion of R4 industrials is they do a little bit of everything but they don't do any of it well.

That's what I have always thought, I even thought about putting duels on for field work if needed, I think the problem with new tractors is they never put wheel weights on them. I used to part out antique tractors and they always had weights on them. I had a Massey 65 that had a set of wheel weights that weighed 600lbs each (=1200lbs for the set) and I had the same sized weights on a MH 55.

Any one know how much cheaper 2wd is compared to 4wd?

 

[jeff9366]

In the USA only Ford and Ferguson Tractors could use Ferguson's Three Point Hitch until Ferguson merged with Massey-Harris in 1953.

Pre-Ferguson tractors, lacking a Ferguson Three Point Hitch, required huge amounts of wheel weight for traction. Pre-Ferguson, tractors were measured in tons.

Today, 60 years after Ferguson's patents expired, kits to convert non-Ferguson tractors to the Ferguson System are still sold: Complete Cat 1 3 point hitch

Individual R1 ag tires are narrower than R4 industrial tires, so they sink in a little deeper in soft ground, or when churning, allowing additional bars to grip. Of course, R1 treads do not load.

Dual R1s reduce soil compaction because of float and improve traction by increasing weight and 2X the tire bars contacting soil. Fuel consumption increases with duals. Dual capable tractors cost more up front. I have never observed weighted duals.

In North Florida some have installed puffy, low-pressure radials rather than R1-duals, seeking some of the float and traction of R-1 duals with single rear wheels. LINK: Comparison of radial and bias tires by Michelin Agricultural


No mud in North Florida. We have sandy soil and the aquifer is 25' below the surface.

That's what I have always thought, I even thought about putting duels on for field work.

There is no way to satisfactorily mount duals on tractors not specifically built for duals. Duals put great strain on the rear axle so tractors must be engineered with heavier rear components to be reliable with duals. (Kubota dealers having been screaming at Kubota manufacturing for a dual capable ag tractor for ten years.)

Consider radial tires.

Your current implements are narrow and light. With your current implements you will never want for traction with a 30+ horsepower LS, which are heavy in their class.

Heavier, wider implements would be a new case.

 

[motownbrowne]

That's what I have always thought, I even thought about putting duels on for field work if needed, I think the problem with new tractors is they never put wheel weights on them. I used to part out antique tractors and they always had weights on them. I had a Massey 65 that had a set of wheel weights that weighed 600lbs each (=1200lbs for the set) and I had the same sized weights on a MH 55.

Any one know how much cheaper 2wd is compared to 4wd?

When I was shopping Kubotas, I think 4wd and a loader each added about $4000 to the price. Finding a 2wd with a cab is gonna mean looking at 50+ HP utility models, at least in the Kubota lineup. I doubt ls is too much different.

One thing to consider: LS is still a bit of an "off brand" please no one take offense, I know they make great machines, but they don't have the name recognition of Deere or Kubota. The reason I mention this is because of resale value. It's going to be pretty easy to sell a cabbed 4wd LS with a loader. People will get over the name issue because it's still the kind of tractor they want. Subtract the loader and you just lost 40% of your market. Subtract the 4wd and now your potential market is really small. Yeah, it's still a cool tractor, but only for a small percentage of users.

Example: I just paid $5500 for my New Holland TC-29D with no loader(and it was on Craigslist for over 2 months). I'm seeing the same tractors in similar condition selling for $10-12,000 with a loader. So, you get the price of the loader back when you sell, in addition to reaching a larger potential market.

Just a thought. If you're keeping your tractor forever then it may not exactly apply. Then again, if you're keeping the tractor forever, get exactly what you want and forget about the price.