4x4 Question

[neverenough]

If you use a loader for anything regardless of the application and not use your 4 wheel drive is just foolish. The moment you put wt into the bucket or on forks you pivot over the front axle and take the load off the rears and if your front axle is free wheeling your in trouble.

I have to respond to this post, becouse it is down right scarry. If you pick up a load with your loader, and it makes the rear of the tractor lose traction, you are in one of the most dangerous positions you can put a tractor in. The rear of the tractor MUST be properly ballast, whether it's a 2wd or MFWD tractor. IF the rear is properly ballast, the front axle being locked in is of no concern. Granted, digging with the tractor locked in will aid in traction and allow for better "bite" when digging in hard soil and slippery conditions, but if you are relying on the front axle for control when loaded, your tractor is improperly set up for loader work. We have been using the same 2wd tractor for loader work since 1971. We take it in the sloppiest, softest, slipperiest, conditions in the spring, hauling 1500lb bales to feed the cows. When we use it to pick up dirt, or push on a stump, the wheels do spin, this is where MFWD would help. Regardless, the tractor is properly ballast, and traction is not much of an issue. MFWD does NOT mean you can replace ballast with a driving front axle, no if's, and's, or but's about it. It does not matter if you have 2wd, MFWD, 4 wd, or reversed, like a fork lift, the rear of a tractor must NEVER loose traction (meaning become lite and/or come off the ground) while hauling with a loader.

 

[Soundguy]

The 4X4 in a 1999 and new GM pickup and SUV's have an optional system (may be standard now) computer controled mode called Auto-something. I can not remember how it is labled right know, mine is a 2500HD which did not offer it.

My GMC yukon had 'touch' 2x4 and 4x4 and auto. in auto.. it 'suposedly' stays in 2 unless you lose traction.

On a ford explorer at work, there is a 'traction control' feature.. which looks to me like it uses the emergency brake / ABS system to xfer power thru the drivetrain from a slipping wheel.. etc.

Soundguy

 

[RobJ]

I have to respond to this post, becouse it is down right scarry. If you pick up a load with your loader, and it makes the rear of the tractor lose traction, you are in one of the most dangerous positions you can put a tractor in. The rear of the tractor MUST be properly ballast, whether it's a 2wd or MFWD tractor. IF the rear is properly ballast, the front axle being locked in is of no concern. Granted, digging with the tractor locked in will aid in traction and allow for better "bite" when digging in hard soil and slippery conditions, but if you are relying on the front axle for control when loaded, your tractor is improperly set up for loader work. We have been using the same 2wd tractor for loader work since 1971. We take it in the sloppiest, softest, slipperiest, conditions in the spring, hauling 1500lb bales to feed the cows. When we use it to pick up dirt, or push on a stump, the wheels do spin, this is where MFWD would help. Regardless, the tractor is properly ballast, and traction is not much of an issue. MFWD does NOT mean you can replace ballast with a driving front axle, no if's, and's, or but's about it. It does not matter if you have 2wd, MFWD, 4 wd, or reversed, like a fork lift, the rear of a tractor must NEVER loose traction (meaning become lite and/or come off the ground) while hauling with a loader.

Another food for thought, so you have it loaded and the rear wheels are lightly on the ground and you want to go easy down a hill, so you hit the brakes which stop all 4, but since all the weight is on the front the only thing between the brakes and wheels is a little front driveshaft. They have been known to twist.

 

[whodat90]

Another food for thought, so you have it loaded and the rear wheels are lightly on the ground and you want to go easy down a hill, so you hit the brakes which stop all 4, but since all the weight is on the front the only thing between the brakes and wheels is a little front driveshaft. They have been known to twist.

What happens in a 2wd without even that little driveshaft? Do any of the cuts and subcuts have front brakes?

 

[Soundguy]

You use ballast in the rear, and you keep the bucket low to the ground.. very low.. incase you have to ground it.

( I know of very few units that have front braking.. most are hyd independent drive type units, or coupled 4wd.. I've seen a few rare antiques with hyd front brakes.. very rare.. and were either low # conversions.. or owner conversions.... )

Soundguy

 

[Timber]

I have to respond to this post, becouse it is down right scarry. If you pick up a load with your loader, and it makes the rear of the tractor lose traction, you are in one of the most dangerous positions you can put a tractor in. The rear of the tractor MUST be properly ballast, whether it's a 2wd or MFWD tractor. IF the rear is properly ballast, the front axle being locked in is of no concern. Granted, digging with the tractor locked in will aid in traction and allow for better "bite" when digging in hard soil and slippery conditions, but if you are relying on the front axle for control when loaded, your tractor is improperly set up for loader work. We have been using the same 2wd tractor for loader work since 1971. We take it in the sloppiest, softest, slipperiest, conditions in the spring, hauling 1500lb bales to feed the cows. When we use it to pick up dirt, or push on a stump, the wheels do spin, this is where MFWD would help. Regardless, the tractor is properly ballast, and traction is not much of an issue. MFWD does NOT mean you can replace ballast with a driving front axle, no if's, and's, or but's about it. It does not matter if you have 2wd, MFWD, 4 wd, or reversed, like a fork lift, the rear of a tractor must NEVER loose traction (meaning become lite and/or come off the ground) while hauling with a loader.

You are absolutely right I wouldn't disagree with that assessment at all. I grew up on 2 wheel drive tractors but you don't have the 4 wheel drive option in a 2 wheel drive, if you did you would use it. You can’t change the laws of physics if you add wt to one end you will lighten the other. Even if you add counter wt why would you not use your 4 wheel drive if you had it? If you have been in the farming industry for any length of time how many tractor rollover stories have you herd. In a perfect world with a perfectly balanced tractor it only takes a hole you didn't see or a piece of soft ground or a poor grade to upset your equipment

 

[whodat90]

You use ballast in the rear, and you keep the bucket low to the ground.. very low.. incase you have to ground it.

( I know of very few units that have front braking.. most are hyd independent drive type units, or coupled 4wd.. I've seen a few rare antiques with hyd front brakes.. very rare.. and were either low # conversions.. or owner conversions.... )

Soundguy

Yeah, I know you should stack the deck in your favor but still... Even if you have the counterweight, and even if you only have the bucket 6" above the ground, the rear tires only have to bounce off the ground a little bit to lose the traction and braking. I have a tiller that I hang off the back of my tractor, well within the weight capacity of the 3pt hitch. I have 110lbs of weight on the front of my tractor. 90% of the time it's just fine. Every now and then, however, if I'm going up a hill and hit a bump the front end comes up. I could add more weight to the front, but you reach a point of diminishing returns. My point is that in this particular circumstance, any loss of rear traction equates to total loss of drive and braking force. If it got bad enough to twist a front driveshaft, you were going to have a bad day regardless of whether or not it's 4wd.

 

[neverenough]

You are absolutely right I wouldn't disagree with that assessment at all. I grew up on 2 wheel drive tractors but you don't have the 4 wheel drive option in a 2 wheel drive, if you did you would use it. You can’t change the laws of physics if you add wt to one end you will lighten the other. Even if you add counter wt why would you not use your 4 wheel drive if you had it? If you have been in the farming industry for any length of time how many tractor rollover stories have you herd. In a perfect world with a perfectly balanced tractor it only takes a hole you didn't see or a piece of soft ground or a poor grade to upset your equipment

Tractor accidents are operator error and/or lack of knowledge. MFWD isn't designed to be some magical invention that allows your tractor to be transformed into a "super tractor". MFWD tractors are not going to leap holes in a single bound. MFWD tractors are not going to float over soft ground. MFWD tractors will still roll over, that's why they have ROPS. MFWD tractors will get stuck if taken beyond the limits of their traction/flotation. MFWD tractors will still become dangerous if over worked and used to, or beyond, it's limit's. MFWD or not, steep hills should still be descended, slowly, in reverse, with the load as low as possible while using a loader. MFWD is a nice addition for some uses, but it isn't much more than an aid.

 

[dirtworksequip]

OH NO!!!!! That snowball is going to get so big now, I don't think I can even push it in 4 wheel drive!

 

[dieselsmoke1]

MFWD is a nice addition for some uses, but it isn't much more than an aid.

Among other pieces, I've used an FEL on a MF135 and my 2810HST, similar weigh tractors (MF plus 300 lbs.). Operations that are marginal on the 135, such as driving down a bank or trying to back uphill with a load in the FEL are handled substantially easier with the 2810. Work which is marginal for the 2810, such as wrestling stumps up and down slopes yesterday (thanks to Ernesto), the 135 simply would not be able to handle.

I expect the front wheels were providing 50% (or more) of the traction during this hairy manuver, much more than "aid". This is an extreme example. The more challenging the terrain and load, the more FWD is going to help.

All this probably doesn't mean squat if the work is move dirt, hay etc. on flat ground. And it's just my opinion.

 

[Soundguy]

Yeah, I know you should stack the deck in your favor but still... Even if you have the counterweight, and even if you only have the bucket 6" above the ground, the rear tires only have to bounce off the ground a little bit to lose the traction and braking..

Ok.. so you bounce and the rear comes up, and you loose braking and drive!! Then you immediatly ground that front load that is a mere 6" above the ground... that is a huge front anchor now, plus your rear drive/braking wheels will now be allowed to touch the ground... Seems like this adequtely solves the problem that 2wd tractors and laoders going down an incline have had since loaders were invented.


Imho.. if your front end is light with 110# on the front. then you need more. I keep 420# one one of my work tractors, and 600 on the other. As soon as I get some more weights, that 420 will become 520...

Soundguy

I have a tiller that I hang off the back of my tractor, well within the weight capacity of the 3pt hitch. I have 110lbs of weight on the front of my tractor. 90% of the time it's just fine. Every now and then, however, if I'm going up a hill and hit a bump the front end comes up. I could add more weight to the front, but you reach a point of diminishing returns. My point is that in this particular circumstance, any loss of rear traction equates to total loss of drive and braking force. If it got bad enough to twist a front driveshaft, you were going to have a bad day regardless of whether or not it's 4wd.

 

[Soundguy]

Among other pieces, I've used an FEL on a MF135 and my 2810HST, similar weigh tractors (MF plus 300 lbs.). Operations that are marginal on the 135, such as driving down a bank or trying to back uphill with a load in the FEL are handled substantially easier with the 2810. Work which is marginal for the 2810, such as wrestling stumps up and down slopes yesterday (thanks to Ernesto), the 135 simply would not be able to handle.

I expect the front wheels were providing 50% (or more) of the traction during this hairy manuver, much more than "aid". This is an extreme example. The more challenging the terrain and load, the more FWD is going to help.

All this probably doesn't mean squat if the work is move dirt, hay etc. on flat ground. And it's just my opinion.

It's a traction issue.. the more drive rubber you have on the ground, the better then chance not to spin, assuming you have the drawbar hp... it don't matter 2x4 or 4x4.. I can imagine many instances where a 2x4 with dual rears may outpull a smaller 4x4 ( smaller, as many people say that you can use a minscule 4x4 to do the drawbar work of a titanic 2wd unit.. ok.. so that's embellished a little.. etc.. ) That extra width equals a whole lots of flotation in wet ground. One o fthe local const companies i work with has used an old ford 8000 with duals to pull out a quite new, hiclearnce 4wd jd from a muck farm. The jd with narrow ag tires sunk down to the spindle housings in the front. Had it not bene hi-clear.. it would have high centered. The ford had huge worn out balloon quad ribs onthe dront.. perhaps? 12-16 from the looks.. and a quite big set of dual rear ags ont he back. She didn't do much mor ethan puff some black smoke off that big 6 to pull the jd 4x4 out.. mind you.. that muck is bad stuff. The 2wd ford didn't do any victory dances or anything.. and got in and out of the muck as fast as possible... it was a bad mess getting worse as more vehicles got involved.

All we had were little dozers on site.. d-5 and such.. and they were useless. Had we had the d-8 and rear winch.. we might have been ok. Our plan, had the ford not pulle dher out was to go get our dragline matts and lay them out then use a crawler loader to go get the jd.

I'd bet if that 135 had duals on the rear.. it would have been fine.

Ever see old ag tractors like big jd case or fords with duals? Ever wonder why? vs a newer 4wd? It was cheaper to add another set of rear tires to those old cheap 100hp machines to make them pull.. vs buying a 4wd machine...

Soundguy

 

[SPYDERLK]

Maybe. I did an inadvertent experiment yesterday that might give you guys something else to chew on.

I was working with the loader/grapple picking up fairly big log ends and stumps to take to a burn pile. I was working the wooded pasture, hilly rough ground, driving over arm thick logs and such. I had a heavy load in the bucket -- nothing really huge, but enough so I knew it was a good load, I 5' x 30" or so, wet half rotted oak log with a huge knot.

I was moving slowly uphill, climbing over a small log, and the tractor stalled ou the HST -- engine bogged down, tractor didn't move, tires didn't spin. Then I noticed I was in 2wd, shifted to 4wd, and moved right out, no hint of stalling the hydro.

Point -- there was obviously more strain on the hydro in 2wd than in 4wd. This would also translate to greater strain on the rear axle than when 4wd is engaged and the work load is divided between 2 axles.

So, does using 2wd to save miniscule amounts of wear on the front drive axle system cause a corresponding amount of additional wear on the rear one that would not occur had the front end been engaged?

Have fun!

Rich, thank you for reporting this well. Without that it would have been extremely difficult to make the proper connections to identify the special case that caused this. - - In 2WD your front wheels were trying to push that log. In 4WD they just climbed over it. We learned something about 2 vs 4, but not that 4 is more efficient.
No.
Larry

 

[3RRL]

This is definitely a most interesting thread. With that in mind I'll report that my tractor stays in 4 wheel drive all the time now except when I'm on a paved road, which is never. My property is hilly wilderness with a dirt road running through it. It is hot andy dry and slippery and sandy and also wet and muddy and slippery...too dangerous to try without 4wd.

I may not need to have it in 4wd on the dirt road but it's a soft decomposed gravel that is kind in the Summer and a mud slide in the Winter. Anytime I get off the road 4wd is a must. I've spent too many times getting stuck in 2wd only to find that I'll still try to get out of it, mostly spinning the rears and creating a huge rut before shifting to 4wd. Then it's almost too late. In any case with the chances of slipping and tilting over, I don't risk it. I'd love to wear out my drive train if it means providing safety beforehand.

Someone mentioned to use the 4wd as you need it and I agree with that. Only thing is I need all the time. If it wears out, too bad.

 

[dieselsmoke1]

I'd bet if that 135 had duals on the rear.. it would have been fine.
Soundguy

Maybe...never know for sure.

One stump was heavy enough that I couldn't lift it. Cut away all that I could. Had to chain it in the bucket, roll the bucket over, lift the arms then roll it back. Was able to clear the ground about 4" doing this.

Wish I would have filmed it. You guys would enjoy the show. I used my bushhog as a counterweight as it is much heavier than my weight bar. With the 3 pt. lowered I rolled the bucket up liftingthe rear tires about 4". Eased up the lift, rears went down, stump came up.

Me and Melinda vs. the stump and we won. Way overloaded and stressed but we made it. This is not a manuver for the faint of heart.

 

[SPYDERLK]

Geez, that snowball rolled from New York clear to Texas. So, to push it back to New York from Texas should I use my 4 wheel drive? Great post by everyone, but did we learn anything?

1) Lots of interesting useful stuff.
2) Candidates for "Ignore".

 

[Timber]

1) Lots of interesting useful stuff.
2) Candidates for "Ignore".

I think everyone has valid points and personal experiences that lead people to feel the way they do about any subject. A person’s difference in opinion doesn't make them wrong just different. A successful tread only works if there is a difference in opinion. If there wasn't we would have nothing to talk about. The great thing about this board other than the subject matter is everyone seems to be respectful of the other guys position regardless if the agree or not. I have yet to see posting degrade to hostility as I have seen on other message boards. I have seen people exercise a lot of self control with subjects they passionate about. That is a true testament to the character of the people that run this group and there members as well as the character of the earth grooming community in general

 

[Soundguy]

Well said.

Soundguy

 

[RobJ]

What happens in a 2wd without even that little driveshaft? Do any of the cuts and subcuts have front brakes?

You don't push the limits of the tractor and get hurt. You get the right machine for the job.

Or perhaps you just back down the hill.

 

[whodat90]

Ok.. so you bounce and the rear comes up, and you loose braking and drive!! Then you immediatly ground that front load that is a mere 6" above the ground... that is a huge front anchor now, plus your rear drive/braking wheels will now be allowed to touch the ground... Seems like this adequtely solves the problem that 2wd tractors and laoders going down an incline have had since loaders were invented.


Imho.. if your front end is light with 110# on the front. then you need more. I keep 420# one one of my work tractors, and 600 on the other. As soon as I get some more weights, that 420 will become 520...

Soundguy

Yes, I understand the procedure. I also understand that what you're saying is basically that if you handicap yourself by restricting yourself to only using the safest and slowest procedures you're going to be fine. The fact is that with 4wd you don't have to restrict yourself to exclusively backing down hills. It's called progress. Once farmers used mules, and they worked just fine. Then there were tractors, and farmers learned how to use them. Now we have 4wd tractors.

In a perfect world we'd all have 5 or 6 tractors, each that work for a particular weight and job. In the real world, at least here on this board, most of us have one tractor that's too big for some stuff and too small for other stuff, and we make it work. If you can handicap yourself by using only 2wd and still get your work done, good on ya. If you want to take every advantage offered by the tractor and greatly increase your safety margin, get a 4wd. You will never, however, convince me that using a mule or a 2wd tractor by simply following special procedures will ever be as fast, efficient, or safe as doing the same things in a modern 4wd tractor.

As far as putting more weight on the tractor, sounds good but I don't want to. If I put your 600lb weight on the front of my tractor, it would weigh half again more than it does now. Weight also reaches a point of diminishing returns for marginal gains. I have room for one more suitcase weight, and that's it. Adding more exceeds the design specs. For an occasional lightening of the front wheels with one implement, it's not worth the monetary, procedural or equipment stress penalty.