Brand new 1735M broke after ~3hrs of use. Is this a freak occurrence?

[jawjaboy]

Me too milkman636.

 

[sd455dan]

A cabbed 1740M is at the top of my list of replacement tractor candidates, edging out another Daedong product. The back end did look a little lighter to me, but I kinda dismissed it as being too accustomed to my probably overbuilt tractor.

You've caused me to rethink this and literally cross the 1740M off the list. Thanks for taking the time to post your troubles, and the resolution process.

It was interesting to see the picture of the 1750M 3 point early in this thread

surprised to see the way the lift was designed.

https://www.tractorbynet.com/forums...ke-after-fc35a879-2ba9-4f06-9e5e-2b2267e47c12

It apparently puts much of the force into the left lower mount that supports the single hydraulic ram.

 

[Cat_Driver]

Playing devil's advocate here. They can say this is a "BROKEN" part and not fix it. Let's face it none but the drive knows what happened. It's obvious the part took some major stress. Now did that stress happen vertically, horizontally, or some other way to twist the cast iron.

Now having said that I would get a metallurgist involved if they DO NOT repair it. My guess is it's a Chinese forged part and the manufacturer cust some corners. Testing will tell you what that part was rated at. BUT, here again, no one but the driver knows if the cast was being utilized as it was intended.

It sounds like the owner will step up on this one as he should because it will cost him more in bad publicity that that repairs will cost.

 

[ptsg]

Playing devil's advocate here. They can say this is a "BROKEN" part and not fix it. Let's face it none but the drive knows what happened. It's obvious the part took some major stress. Now did that stress happen vertically, horizontally, or some other way to twist the cast iron.

Now having said that I would get a metallurgist involved if they DO NOT repair it. My guess is it's a Chinese forged part and the manufacturer cust some corners. Testing will tell you what that part was rated at. BUT, here again, no one but the driver knows if the cast was being utilized as it was intended.

It sounds like the owner will step up on this one as he should because it will cost him more in bad publicity that that repairs will cost.

In my opinion, it doesn't matter what caused it. If it was bad operation or not. It was simply bad design.

The 3 PT is the main working feature of the tractor, it must be made to handle pretty much anything. If the blade did hit, let's say a big rock, the tractor should either start spinning or just jerk to side and move on. Or, someone was plowing a field, like we do here, and it would find a rock or a root.

3 PT is where the main pulling and pushing forces happen. Relying on a single ear made that is made of cast iron, is kinda asking for problems. It would probably be fine if it was made of a thick piece of steel or if the pin would cross all the way to the other side and connected both ears.

I was using a spading machine on my tractor a month ago on a super packed hard clay and when the spading machine would it a even harder spot or a rock, it would throw my 4000lbs tractor around like nothing. Now imagine the stresses on the 3 pt during 6 hours of this. The tab that holds the pin even got the bolts loosen slightly. That design of the MF would break in a couple minutes.

 

[jawjaboy]

Was at a Massey dealer last week. They said Massey is changing the 1700m to 1800m. Whether that's just a nomenclature change or an actual update to the current 1700m design I don't know. But it will be interesting if there is an change in the design of the 3 point lower arm attachment points on the 35 and 40 hp models.

 

[Imold]

Hope they take care of it, seems like a bad casting just to bust off like that, I was just looking at a 1760M with cab yesterday, thinking of upgrading and the dealer also said they are changing model numbers this fall. I've pulled the heck out of my 4foot 4 tooth box blade with my 1705 with no damage yet and I have abused it which is my reason to go bigger.

 

[567Chief]

Any update on your tractor? I have a 1740M and I’ve lost a lot of confidence in my tractor. Good luck getting this resolved & keep us posted.

 

[Agvg]

Any update on your tractor? I have a 1740M and I’ve lost a lot of confidence in my tractor. Good luck getting this resolved & keep us posted.

Why? Have you heard about more than one that had a fault like this?

The tread is full of arm chair tractor engineers that know it all.

 

[ptsg]

Why? Have you heard about more than one that had a fault like this?

The tread is full of arm chair tractor engineers that know it all.

Agvg, we know you like MF and it's probably your favorite brand. That's absolutely fine but, we all have to agree that it was a bad design choice made between MF and Iseki. It's not a matter of being arm chair engineer. It's pretty obvious that it is a weak link using a single ear made with cast iron.

If they want to use that single ear design, at least get a shaft going from one ear to the other ear on the other side. It would make for much solid base for a 3pt as it wouldn't try to twist the ear like it does now.

The way they made it, it's not hard at all to break the ear. We all make mistakes and let's say you're turning with a mower attached and the mower would hit a tree or something? It would break that ear instantaneously, while with other designs would just handle the stress and skew the tractor sideways. I've done it myself with a 4000 lbs+ tractor without any damage whatsoever.

EDIT: On a closer look on the picture of the first post, look like they made it, so it's not necessary to replace the entire axle housing. The ear for the 3 point is part of a standalone piece between the rear end and the axle housing. It almost looks like they were expecting to have problems and made it somewhat easy and less expensive to replace.

 

[LRover]

Why? Have you heard about more than one that had a fault like this?

The tread is full of arm chair tractor engineers that know it all.

MF must have made thousands and thousands of tractors with this design. One owner with a new tractor posts in this forum that he had a failure within the first 3 hours of use and all of a sudden it is a bad design? As a MF owner, I too would like to hear from other owners who have had this same problem (but not just from a friend of a friend who says...) It does seem like a lot of folks are calling it a bad design because their tractor didn't break with hard use so their tractor's design is better. To me the circumstances of the failure during the first use all point to a manufacturing defect even not knowing situation where the failure occurred.

 

[airbiscuit]

I get that tractors with 3pt hitches seem to function well and seldom break. That said, I always cringe at the amplifications of force hanging out there. I used to drive 20 miles to our hunting and @16mph with a rough cut mower hanging out back. I always held my breath when i hit a bump and watched it bounce. I've heard of brackets breaking when pushing a rear blade in reverse, backing an empty lower arm into a tree, an implement bouncing on the rear, etc.

Maybe that design is robust enough, but I am sure glad that my New Holland has a "Clevis" type of bracket, rather that that single "ear" arrangement

 

[TheLandofSnipers]

Not much of an update. Deal came and got the tractor, did their inspection and returned the tractor to us unrepaired so we can keep using the loader and EA Wicked Grapple while we wait for the dealer to submit the warranty claim to Massey* and get approval to fix it. So they seem to be willing to get it fixed, but it certainly seems like it may take a while. Good thing the grapple is on the way, shipped yesterday, and I have lots of stuff I need to do with that.

*The dealer's certified Massey tech left so we are being delayed while a new tech gets certified.

 

[homesteader13]

My Massey 1742 that only had 80 hours on it then sat under 5 feet of water last year in the floods in the midwest had supporfs on both sides of the 3 point arm pivot.
My 1755 replacment tractor is exactly the the same with the exception of the auxiliary lift cylinder in the left side, the pin goes ALL the way through both ears, 3point arm and cylinder. And man, what a difference in the lift capacity between the 1742 and the 1755! As much as I loved my tractor that got totaled, I have to say I love the new one much more, bittersweet, lol.

 

[567Chief]

Any resolution yet on your tractor?

 

[TheLandofSnipers]

Nope. Still broken. Dealer had to get a new tech certified and he just finished the Massey certification yesterday. If I even believe them at this point. Supposedly my warranty claim was finally submitted.

 

[grsthegreat]

Techs do need to be certified. I keep having to get recertified from Generac to service their units AND expect to get reimbursed from Generac.

 

[rScotty]

Nope. Still broken. Dealer had to get a new tech certified and he just finished the Massey certification yesterday. If I even believe them at this point. Supposedly my warranty claim was finally submitted.

The problem I see is that the failure is pretty obviously due to bad design. You just cannot put 3pt hitch stresses through a single cast mounting like that. Even if they replaced it with a new one, how is that going to fix a bad design? It will obviously just happen again. I'd get some sort of lemon law involved.
At the very least I would get a judgement that made MF liable if it happened again.
rScotty

 

[sixdogs]

Any updates on this?

 

[metalbender]

Looking at the op first pic, comparing to pg 3, post 25. The arm is on the opposite side of the casting. Which is correct? Have to look at my 1742 to see how mine is mounted. Has me concerned.

 

[DL Meisen]

Looking at the op first pic, comparing to pg 3, post 25. The arm is on the opposite side of the casting. Which is correct? Have to look at my 1742 to see how mine is mounted. Has me concerned.

If you blow up pic in post #1 to maximum, on big screen it appears the stud has a step (shoulder) on it so stud can lock into mount and arm can still pivot on stud, it appears it will assemble only one way, the way it was done....

And it does appear that on both sides the 3PH arms are on inside of tabs....Don't think your observation is valid....

Dale

 

[metalbender]

Looking again, you're right. Somehow I pictured this as the left side of the tractor. Looked at mine a couple minutes ago, arms are on the inside. Does indeed look like a weak design, any side pressure would cause failure.

 

[TheLandofSnipers]

Went and picked it back up today. Everything seems to be working properly. Put ~3 hours on it, mostly with the grapple clearing a trail in the forest. Use the box blade a bit, very carefully, slowly and with the rippers pulled all the way up.

 

[homesteader13]

Well thats progress! Keep us posted, as icky as it sounda, best to beat the heck out of it now rather than later if it fails again...
Hopefully original was just a weak casting and not design flaw.

 

[thclimer]

Glad to hear you are back using it.

 

[TheLandofSnipers]

The service guys pulled the rear end apart and just replaced the broken casting. For some reason I thought replace the entire rear end was going to be easier . . . anyway that was the fix they applied. The tech that did the work was not very pleased with the design. He advised me to keep the stabilizer arms as tight as possible.

 

[thclimer]

He advised me to keep the stabilizer arms as tight as possible.

I believe this very good advise.

They can be kept tight if you fiddle with them and pushing the implement from side to side to find the most desirable holes. More optimal would be to have a set of stabilizer arms that are threaded with a lock nut which would be infinity adjustable similar to what most tractors have for their top link.

 

[TheLandofSnipers]

More optimal would be to have a set of stabilizer arms that are threaded with a lock nut which would be infinity adjustable similar to what most tractors have for their top link.

Is this an available option?

**** my old Ford just has some chain. Ah the good old days.

 

[sixdogs]

Does anyone make some sort of retro kit that might offer a better arrangement? I've seen them for other tractors.

 

[airbiscuit]

I wouldn't trade my stabilizer arms for those #$%^ turnbuckles. If the tractor breaks with that small amount of play, there's something wrong with the tractor.

 

[thclimer]

I think we can all agree that this design of the single pin support of the lift arms from a casting is not the best design.

The stabilizers are attached to the rear axle with a bracket which is non-cast steel, presumably more durable than the casting which the lift arms are mounted to with a single stub for the lift arm pin. However, because of how the stabilizers are designed their end which attaches to this bracket consists of 2 loops which provide considerable slop. When you are connecting an implement if you do not fully tension the stabilizer and find just the right hole in its adjustable linkage it is easy to end up with a considerable amount of side to side swing of your implement (see picture).





My New Holland tractor's stabilizers are also adjustable with a sliding mechanism and a pin similar to this Massy design but it's attachment to the rear axle is much more rigid and easily allows for a connecting an implement with very little side to side swing.

 

[Doug62]

Here is the 1835M photos of the same area for reference.

 

[sixdogs]

After looking at all the pictures again, I wonder if there isn't some way to weld a steel bracket to some other steel braket on the tractor that will offer some additional degree of stability to the lift arm. Much like the other models show. Surely this is possible and I wouldn't be surprised if some vendor doesn't sell something like that.

I've seen similar issues like this over the years and it seems we always found a way to add additional support where needed. This does not need to break again and it probably won't until the day after warranty expires.

 

[DL Meisen]

View attachment 671384
View attachment 671385

Here is the 1835M photos of the same area for reference.

Would seem to be the with a ball joint where main arm attached to housing the only way it is really venerable to breaking is if stabilizer allows to much side movement of arm as it tries to move beyond limits imposed by ball joint...

Dale

 

[FrankJG]

Exactly and the limits imposed by the ball joint is pretty wide in my opinion you should be easily able to tighten the stabilizers in those limits.

I have a 1740M with the same design approaching 300 hrs with a lot of roading with a 900 lbs snowblower bouncing at the back on a gravel road... no problem so far. Used a box blade and a two row plow in rocky ground too without issues.

 

[DL Meisen]

Exactly and the limits imposed by the ball joint is pretty wide in my opinion you should be easily able to tighten the stabilizers in those limits.

I have a 1740M with the same design approaching 300 hrs with a lot of roading with a 900 lbs snowblower bouncing at the back on a gravel road... no problem so far. Used a box blade and a two row plow in rocky ground too without issues.

Yeah... I have a QH on my 1715 and I have the side play adjusted so there is maybe 1/2 to 3/4 inch side play all through its vertical travel....

Dale

 

[airbiscuit]

I had a John Deere 850 with a rotary cutter - stored inside. The ball rusted inside the 3pt arm, and it broke off about 3" back from the end from metal fatigue. No big deal to weld it back on, but it took a lot to free up that ball. I now spray the balls with penetrating oil now and again.

If you think about it most attachments have a pin mounted the same way as the OP's tractor and they don't seem to fail. That said, if there is a failure it is a lot more costly if a axle housing breaks as opposed top a piece of angle iron bending. It seems like a weak design feature to me.

 

[JWR]

I had a John Deere 850 with a rotary cutter - stored inside. The ball rusted inside the 3pt arm, and it broke off about 3" back from the end from metal fatigue. No big deal to weld it back on, but it took a lot to free up that ball. I now spray the balls with penetrating oil now and again.

If you think about it most attachments have a pin mounted the same way as the OP's tractor and they don't seem to fail. That said, if there is a failure it is a lot more costly if a axle housing breaks as opposed top a piece of angle iron bending. It seems like a weak design feature to me.

That's because almost NONE of the attachments are cast metal where the attachment pin is mounted ! Essentially all are mild steel or some form of steel far less brittle than cast iron.

 

[airbiscuit]

I agree. My last sentence is ...

It seems like a weak design feature to me.

 

[TheLandofSnipers]

View attachment 671384
View attachment 671385

Here is the 1835M photos of the same area for reference.

Yeah, that looks about the same as my 1735M, almost identical.

My tractor is up to ~45 hrs now and I have been keeping the stabilizers as tight as possible. No more issues so far.

 

[Agvg]

That's because almost NONE of the attachments are cast metal where the attachment pin is mounted ! Essentially all are mild steel or some form of steel far less brittle than cast iron.

But is almost certainly not cast iron but cast steel and that is something completely different.

 

[Agvg]

Cast Iron vs Cast Steel | Metal Casting Blog

 

[JWR]

But is almost certainly not cast iron but cast steel and that is something completely different.

Isn't cast metal , be it iron or steel, more brittle than mild steel? Your ref does not clarify that primary point.