4x4 Question

[Timber]

LOL I think that 1 struck a nerve, Oh well it happens, I think I'm OK now

 

[Farmwithjunk]

WOW....! I'm going to attemt to speak my piece without directly responding to anyone in particular, in fear of starting the dogfight all over again.

For those who seriously believe 4WD should never be disengaged. Why do you suppose the manufacturers included a SHIFTER to disengage/engage it? (ANSWER? To prevent UNNECCISSARY WEAR AND TEAR) The logic that there is NO wear on front end components when in gear is pure folly. So, does that mean a conventional 2WD tractor is not subject to ANY wear in the rear end? And that 2WD tractor's rear end doesn't have to STEER. There's MORE parts to wear. And wear they will. Look at the relatively low worth of BIG 4WD AG tractors after they get a lot of hours on them. Why do you suppose they drop in value so far at a given point? Because they're in need of a LOT of expensive repairs to maintain reliability.

For those who believe you HAVE to have 4WD in all situations. WRONG. It ranges from helpfull in some situations to downright required in SOME other situations. But all the time? Not happening guys. Yep, 4WD will get you through a swamp. Staying out of the swamp is a better option to me.

On 4WD being mandatory on a loader tractor. That's probably the best use of 4WD (ESPECIALLY on SMALLER tractors like compacts/sub-compacts) It makes for greatly improved efficiency, saftey, and LESS wear and tear in this instance. But it isn't MANDATORY.

I've owned one MFWD tractor. (4250 Deere 110 HP, bigger "ag tractor") It was nice having it around, but I just didn't need that big of a tractor while only farming about 110 acres at that time. No need to keep the money tied up in something I didn't need. Before and after owning it, I didn't/don't feel the need for ANOTHER 4WD tractor. (And I'm on hilly, rocky ground) I'm not doing what I'd consider "excavating work", just light farming and maintaining property.

If I was to buy a NEW tractor, and it was small to mid-sized, I'd PROBABLY buy MFWD, but in no way do I see myself HAVING to own such.

I still have a loader on a 2WD tractor. It's heavy enough to operate SAFLEY and relatively effeciently WITHOUT 4WD. But I'm not working in extreme muddy conditions. (If it's that muddy, I wait until it dries up some)

It's NICE to have 4WD. It's NICE to have an enclosed cab. It's NICE to have a back hoe. It's NICE to have all the bells and whistles. But I don't see being at any real disadvantage WITHOUT most of those bells or whistles. I get the job done, don't hurt myself or my equipment, and kept my money in the bank. That's what makes ME happy.

I'm going to got out on a limb here and say that 4WD is PROBABLY more valuable to less experienced operators in certain situations. That's not saying an experienced operator can't make good use of 4WD. I'm just trying to say as your experience accumulates, you will likely find yourself less dependent on 4WD (again, in some situations)

 

[N80]

I would agree that 4wd is a big help to the inexperienced operator and that an experienced operator can get more out of his machine than an inexperienced operator. But more is more and an experienced operator with a 4wd can probably get more out of the machine than an experienced operator without 4wd.

And I agree that 4wd can be a nicety that many people don't want or need and I'd just point to my post in regard to my B-I-L who lives by your username (farmwithjunk).

However, as has been mentioned, I think 4wd is more important to these small light CUT and sub-CUT tractors than on a big Ag tractor with 6 foot tall rears.

When I purchased my little and light 45 hp CUT it was for mowing roads and a few fairly level fields. I had a vague notion that it might be good for other things but did not have specific ideas for what else I'd use it for. I got 4wd because it was recommended. I almost didn't get the loader since I didn't have a specific need for it. But looking at what I use the tractor for NOW, a year later, I couldn't do half of it with 2wd. You might chalk it up to inexperience and I couldn't argue with you, but for the things I now do regularly (clearing land, digging stumps, mowing steep slopes, plowing and box blading the cleared land) I simply could not do on my land without 4wd. After I've been on pavement I often forget that I put it in 2wd and when I go to knock a tree over or sink the scarifiers on a 6' BB deep into the clay, it is instantly noticeable. I sometimes panic and think something is wrong until I realize that its in 2wd. So my take is that for these little tractors, 4wd greatly expands their utility, and to a degree that all the experience making the best or 2wd in the world could not overcome. There are many things these tractors can do without 4wd but there are many more things they can do with it. And the 'u' in CUT is utility.

The funny thing is that this post was originally about switching in and out of 4wd not the benefits of having it all.

 

[whodat90]

WOW....! I'm going to attemt to speak my piece without directly responding to anyone in particular, in fear of starting the dogfight all over again.

For those who seriously believe 4WD should never be disengaged. Why do you suppose the manufacturers included a SHIFTER to disengage/engage it? (ANSWER? To prevent UNNECCISSARY WEAR AND TEAR) The logic that there is NO wear on front end components when in gear is pure folly. So, does that mean a conventional 2WD tractor is not subject to ANY wear in the rear end? And that 2WD tractor's rear end doesn't have to STEER. There's MORE parts to wear. And wear they will. Look at the relatively low worth of BIG 4WD AG tractors after they get a lot of hours on them. Why do you suppose they drop in value so far at a given point? Because they're in need of a LOT of expensive repairs to maintain reliability.

Look, I don't know why you keep trying to make such a point of this. I will attempt to speak for all of us here, :We know that parts wear when you use them. This isn't exactly a profound statement. Your point is made, we all agree. Move on. The question isn't whether or not it wears. It's a question of whether or not it wears any faster or slower than any other part of the tractor that's used. Unless it wears at a significantly different rate than any other part, then there is no valid point to bring up the wear. This is just like the fuel consumption point; if it uses 50% more fuel to do the same task, then that's significant. If it uses 5 or even 10% more fuel, it's not (given the caveat that the primary users of this forum use their tractors for personal use at less than 500 hours a year; professional farmers that are on such slim margins that a 5% increase in fuel usage would cause financial hardship are probably farming rather than arguing on the internet). The post about turning radius is close by giving hard numbers about the increase, but doesn't come full circle (pun intended) by telling us what the size of the turning radius is, just what it increases by. Again, if it's a 50% increase in turning radius that's significant; if it increases from 10' to 12', that's not such a big deal for most people.

 

[RobJ]

Staying out of the swamp is a better option to me.

I think having 4wd contributes to MORE 4wd tractors getting stuck (just look at this site and the pictures and posts). With my 2wd I look and say, "nope, to wet". If I (as in me myself) had a 4wd I know for certain I would be tempted to give it a try. But these things aren't ATV's, a tractor usually sinks.

 

[BillyP]

Why this thread keeps going is beyond me. It doesn't matter who says what, you're going to do what you want to anyway.

This thread gives a whole new meaning to "talking in circles"

 

[Farmwithjunk]

Look, I don't know why you keep trying to make such a point of this. I will attempt to speak for all of us here, :We know that parts wear when you use them. This isn't exactly a profound statement. Your point is made, we all agree. Move on. The question isn't whether or not it wears. It's a question of whether or not it wears any faster or slower than any other part of the tractor that's used. Unless it wears at a significantly different rate than any other part, then there is no valid point to bring up the wear.

First off, I don't see YOU speaking for everyone here. In fact, I'd go so far as to say you don't even speak WELL for your own arguement. Then let's go with the statement on how I "keep trying to make such a point of this" in regards to wear on a tractor. THAT POST WAS THE FIRST COMMENT I'VE MADE IN THIS THREAD .... Where on earth did you come up with that statement? I wasn't attempting to make a "profound statement". All I was doing was expressing MY opinion. I have that right. It ISN'T up to you to determine who does and who DOESN'T have a say.

 

[whodat90]

First off, I don't see YOU speaking for everyone here. In fact, I'd go so far as to say you don't even speak WELL for your own arguement. Then let's go with the statement on how I "keep trying to make such a point of this" in regards to wear on a tractor. THIS IS THE FIRST COMMENT I'VE MADE IN THIS THREAD SLICK.... Where on earth did you come up with that statement? I wasn't attempting to make a "profound statement". All I was doing was expressing MY opinion. I have that right. It ISN'T up to you to determine who does and who DOESN'T have a say.

Um, look. I honestly apologize for confusing you with others that said the same or similar thing over the 19 pages of this thread. As for the rest of your reply, it seems like a case of attack the messenger rather than the message. Have you anything pertinent to add, or will it be more name calling?

 

[Timber]

First off, I don't see YOU speaking for everyone here. In fact, I'd go so far as to say you don't even speak WELL for your own arguement. Then let's go with the statement on how I "keep trying to make such a point of this" in regards to wear on a tractor. THAT POST WAS THE FIRST COMMENT I'VE MADE IN THIS THREAD .... Where on earth did you come up with that statement? I wasn't attempting to make a "profound statement". All I was doing was expressing MY opinion. I have that right. It ISN'T up to you to determine who does and who DOESN'T have a say.

I certainly saw this 1 coming. People get personal and then it all goes down hill from there. There are people hear from all walks of life with all kinds of experience on how things can be done. You have to stay objective. Everyone has something to bring to the table. I will never understand a personal attack on another member sharing there opinion or experience on a subject. Just because someone disagrees or feels it irrelevant to another member doesn’t mean it is to everyone. This is a Place to share information and opinions and you take away what it relative to your lifestyle and apply it accordingly.

 

[Farmwithjunk]

Um, look. I honestly apologize for confusing you with others that said the same or similar thing over the 19 pages of this thread. As for the rest of your reply, it seems like a case of attack the messenger rather than the message. Have you anything pertinent to add, or will it be more name calling?

I don't deal well with condescending remarks from someone who THINKS they have some right to dictate who can and who can't express their opinion. That said, it would be best if you let your statements speak for themselves, and stop trying to tell the rest of us what we think or who's comments are more "pertinent". I fail to see where you brought any more or less to the table than me or anyone else. Apology accepted on round one. No plans on pulling any punches on FURTHER cheap shots at me.