ARRRRRRGH!!!!!!! Broke my tractor.... Engine Block went SNAP...

[Alan L.]

If it were me I would leave the tractor at the dealer until NH fixes it. No way should you be able to break the tractor by overloading the FEL. Exactly how much is too much?

Then go buy a new tractor (of a different color) and if you ever get the NH fixed, sell it and pay down the new tractor.

No way would I put $3K in this tractor and $8K would be a total no no.

 

[KrisHansen]

If it were me I would leave the tractor at the dealer until NH fixes it. No way should you be able to break the tractor by overloading the FEL. Exactly how much is too much?

Then go buy a new tractor (of a different color) and if you ever get the NH fixed, sell it and pay down the new tractor.

No way would I put $3K in this tractor and $8K would be a total no no.

That's basically what I'm doing. yeah, I'm tempted to say to heck with New Holland and go get the Kubota I should have in the first place.

the thing is, I like the size of this machine. Not too big, not too small. The Grand L is MUCH bigger... I don't think it would fit in my garage, which the 33D does, perfectly.

 

[KrisHansen]

That was good of NH to offer some parts support. Usually when a warranty is expired, that's it. They don't even want to hear it. On one hand you do have some extenuating circumstances that merit careful consideration. On the other hand I'm sure there are plenty of CUT owners that have been left out in the cold with a "just" expired warranty. It's a fine line they are walking when they warrant something outside the boundaries of the warranty. I'm sure the vast majority of CUT owners run out of time on the warranty way before the hours are up. My tractor has only 335 hrs in close to 3 yrs. Looks like the FarmTrac people took care of the rest of my warranty.

John

I agree. However, I feel that because of the low hours, and the extreeme nature of this complete and utter failure of their product, they need to do something. Frankly, I wish this thing had broken in half earlier (while under warrranty).. but it didn't.

 

[Eagleview]

I personaly think it's great New Holland have offered to help and i have great respect for them but i think they could go a little further . By the time the internal components are swapped into the new block and new rings , gaskets etc are fitted not to mention the possibility of other internal damage adding to the cost and also some form of warranty needing to commence , i think they would be far wiser to supply a long engine . Im still concerned that they are thinking along the lines of poor block casting and not loader frame design was the cause . The new block they want to supply could well be from the same batch so what gaurantees it wont happen again ? I dont think the block failed because of a weakness , i believe the loader frame exerted sufficient forces to crack the block .

 

[JerryG]

Kris,
Sorry about your tractor.
No saying that it is what should or shouldn't been done, but paying for the parts is normally the extent that the tractor manufacture will go after the warranty has expired. That is only if there is a chance that a defective part existed.
Good luck getting it fixed.

 

[TomOfTarsus]

Iron Horse:

I think if you review the thread, you'll conclude that the loader frame exerted sufficient forces to crack a weak block, to borrow your words.

For one, we don't think Kris was abusing his tractor. Further, it seems inconceivable that NH would put out a design that couldn't handle a load of snow (or even a bucketfull of water), even with the blower on the 3PH. It's obvious to Kris that the break is consistent with the loading on the tractor (like you bent the driveline over your knee), and so the lack of a subframe no doubt contributed to it because it concentrates the bending moment from the overhung bucket at the attachment point on the drive line.

But if you reviewed the design files at NH, you'd probably find it is well-verified. Probably. Mistakes have been known to slip through before.

As well, I've seen otherwise good designs fail because they didn't adequately account for normal variations in manufacturing.

I've kinda discounted the first in my mind, because we aren't hearing about lots of these failures, but then, would we know? Some here seem to think it happens a lot more than we know about. The second I'm curious about. But very likely it's a bad casting, either alone or in combination with a design that didn't account for the possible variations.

And let me tell you for sure that this ol' boy will be looking long and hard at his FEL, which seem to be attached in the same manner. I'm new with tractors but I've been doing failure studies for quite a while now. I just wish I could look into it more, this is a big-ticket problem for Kris.

 

[Eagleview]

Iron Horse:

I think if you review the thread, you'll conclude that the loader frame exerted sufficient forces to crack a weak block, to borrow your words.

For one, we don't think Kris was abusing his tractor. Further, it seems inconceivable that NH would put out a design that couldn't handle a load of snow (or even a bucketfull of water), even with the blower on the 3PH. It's obvious to Kris that the break is consistent with the loading on the tractor (like you bent the driveline over your knee), and so the lack of a subframe no doubt contributed to it because it concentrates the bending moment from the overhung bucket at the attachment point on the drive line.

But if you reviewed the design files at NH, you'd probably find it is well-verified. Probably. Mistakes have been known to slip through before.

As well, I've seen otherwise good designs fail because they didn't adequately account for normal variations in manufacturing.

I've kinda discounted the first in my mind, because we aren't hearing about lots of these failures, but then, would we know? Some here seem to think it happens a lot more than we know about. The second I'm curious about. But very likely it's a bad casting, either alone or in combination with a design that didn't account for the possible variations.

And let me tell you for sure that this ol' boy will be looking long and hard at his FEL, which seem to be attached in the same manner. I'm new with tractors but I've been doing failure studies for quite a while now. I just wish I could look into it more, this is a big-ticket problem for Kris.

You've lost me .

 

[KrisHansen]

You've lost me .

I think he's saying that the 7308 loader design doesn't help support the block in anyway, so if there is a weakness in the casting, there is nothing to help support the loader's capacity.

 

[Eagleview]

Obviously has not read one of my posts . I was the one taking a beating from others by daring to suggest it was poor loader frame design and not operator abuse or over use of the tractor . I was also the one who suggested that New Holland supply a long engine and also said that the block they want to supply could be from the same batch if as they are thinking the first was from a crook batch . I can't see what part of that rant pertains to anything ive said . Anyway how's it going with the saga ?

 

[dynasim]

Iron Horse,

If the "probably flawed" block had failed while Kris was using the 3-point to carry near its maximum load, would you have made the argument that the 3-point design was faulty?

From the limited evidence I have read, the block was bound to fail, sooner or later(note the evidence of an old rusty crack, and a new crack).

What you seem to be saying is that tractors should have secondary frames to prevent the 1 in 400,000 chance that a casting flaw will fail. I would disagree, as have most tractor manufacturers.

Chris