BethesdaEC
Gold Member
I saw that, it looks like he didn't tighten the lateral turnbuckles so the implement was swing back and forth too.
difference btwn '07 2520 and '11 model
- Thread starter Jksnvly
- Start date
- Views: 2721
I saw that, it looks like he didn't tighten the lateral turnbuckles so the implement was swing back and forth too.
pdp11
Silver Member
BethesdaEC said:
Yes, and if he had the diff locked, which seems likely, that 3PH arm was jammed against the tire and holding it from turning against all the power of the tractor.
tomd999
Platinum Member
Hiya,
The 20A alternator I can see as a consolidation of SKU's as I believe the 2305/23/2520's were the only CUTs with the 20A. I could see the 20A not replenishing the battery if the usage was multiple starts with minimum run time at low RPM between them. (I sold a big block/4spd chevy PU years ago and 2 days later the new owner called and said I sold him a truck with bad alternator and battery because he needed to get jump started all the time. Turns out he would stall it 3 or 4 times every time he took off from a stop, he wasn't running it long enough between stalls to recharge the battery even with a 65A Delcotron.
As far as final drive failures, I remember that thread. I would suspect there was far more going on with that persons machine and his usage habits than 3pt arms hitting the lugs. The arm/tire interferance on the 2520 is just not severe enough to cause a final drive failure. If there was a case of the arm catching the tire lug to the point of something giving way, in my experence the tire is going to be the object that yields first because by design, it's flexable and conforms to uneven conditions. In all the cases I have seen with 3pt arm and tire interference, the tire is the loser. (Implement/tire interference is far more damaging) If the final drive couldn't hold up to that type of stress I have no doubt that we would have seen a lot more than 1 case of final drive failure on the 2520's noted here since '06.
(I remember the pictures in that thread, I would suspect, with the sway set improperly, and what looked like a high rate of ground speed, the implement drifted to one side, caught the tire as it was rotating, the tire then lifted the implement up on one side, as the tire rotated more, the implement twisted and was forced into the tire harder, the tire now acting as a lever lifting one side of the implement more and more, effectivly pushing the axle stub forward and the 3pt arm, being attached to the mounting point on the implement, now pulling back on the stub axle case, stressed the case to the point of failure. but that's just my take on what could have happened. I have seen a tow style York rake with the draw bar set too short on a Farmall cub catch a tire while turning and twist up like I described, even at low speeds, it twisted up the hitch fork on the rake and draw bar pretty good. )
My 2 cents,
Tom
The 20A alternator I can see as a consolidation of SKU's as I believe the 2305/23/2520's were the only CUTs with the 20A. I could see the 20A not replenishing the battery if the usage was multiple starts with minimum run time at low RPM between them. (I sold a big block/4spd chevy PU years ago and 2 days later the new owner called and said I sold him a truck with bad alternator and battery because he needed to get jump started all the time. Turns out he would stall it 3 or 4 times every time he took off from a stop, he wasn't running it long enough between stalls to recharge the battery even with a 65A Delcotron.
As far as final drive failures, I remember that thread. I would suspect there was far more going on with that persons machine and his usage habits than 3pt arms hitting the lugs. The arm/tire interferance on the 2520 is just not severe enough to cause a final drive failure. If there was a case of the arm catching the tire lug to the point of something giving way, in my experence the tire is going to be the object that yields first because by design, it's flexable and conforms to uneven conditions. In all the cases I have seen with 3pt arm and tire interference, the tire is the loser. (Implement/tire interference is far more damaging) If the final drive couldn't hold up to that type of stress I have no doubt that we would have seen a lot more than 1 case of final drive failure on the 2520's noted here since '06.
(I remember the pictures in that thread, I would suspect, with the sway set improperly, and what looked like a high rate of ground speed, the implement drifted to one side, caught the tire as it was rotating, the tire then lifted the implement up on one side, as the tire rotated more, the implement twisted and was forced into the tire harder, the tire now acting as a lever lifting one side of the implement more and more, effectivly pushing the axle stub forward and the 3pt arm, being attached to the mounting point on the implement, now pulling back on the stub axle case, stressed the case to the point of failure. but that's just my take on what could have happened. I have seen a tow style York rake with the draw bar set too short on a Farmall cub catch a tire while turning and twist up like I described, even at low speeds, it twisted up the hitch fork on the rake and draw bar pretty good. )
My 2 cents,
Tom
