Front-End Loader FEL's on 2wd tractors

777777 · Oct 31, 2005

FEL\'s on 2wd tractors

Hi all,

Just looking for some clarification.

When you talk to anyone about FEL's, one of the first things said or asked is about 4wd and how you must have 4 wd to use a FEL.

Now when I look around at older tractors, I see that much better than 30% of them have only 2 wd, have an FEL and they have worked fine for many a year.

Has something changed ? I see the need for PS. That only makes sense. But how come FEL's were ok on 2wd tractors before but now days it seems almost taboo.

Are the front axles made less hardy ? FEL's that much heavier? Tractors that much lighter ? Has the geometry changed so much that they are unsafe ?

Were the old 2wd tractors with an FEL that unsafe ?

Sure, maybe a weight issue on the back now days if tractors are that much lighter but you can load tires, use a ballast box, etc.

So, can anyone tell me why it was ok before and it is completely frowned upon now.

Thanks for any input. Just trying to understand.

Tom

RoyJackson · Oct 31, 2005

Re: FEL\'s on 2wd tractors

Most older tractors were bigger and heavier then the Compacts most users on TBN own and operate.

I also suspect most older tractors with FEL's were used to load and move loose materials such as manure,hay..things such as that.

That said, if your tasks only include loading loose materials, ballast on the 3PH may be more important then front wheel assist.

Now, I think, front wheel assist is, like power steering or, for some folks, hydrostatic transmissions; a "luxury" that has become a necessity...just as automatic transmissions, air conditioning and other "options" have in the cars we drive.
Since most of us (including me) consider MFWD a "necessity"...that's what we promulgate when we offer our opinions.
Could be many professional farmers would consider us nuts...and, from their point of view, they might be right.

However, for my 2200 lb tractor and for my tasks, I find MFWD a very convenient option for those times we really need it. I do use it if I'm moving a load across the field. I don't use it if I'm moving a load on the drive way or on pavement.

I hope Soundguy picks up on this thread...reckon he has more experience with "old iron" then most of us on TBN.

jimmysisson · Oct 31, 2005

Re: FEL\'s on 2wd tractors

It's good someone asks the obvious questions once in a while so we can think why we think what we think. I had a '56 MH50 (a Massy Harris) gas 40 hp with an industrial loader. It would lift dirt and snow easily, two-handle control of course. The bucket was only about 4' wide, though it was a bit deeper than we're used to now, and was only about 1/4 yard struck. I poured a big block of concrete, probably about 400#, that hung on the backhoe subframe. (Did I mention this thing had an ancient backhoe attachment?) With the counterweight the 50 didn't get stuck in snow (with good chains) and was very stable. The counterweight was a nuisance to move, though, and the narrow bucket was poor at cleaning next to a building or fence or something. So, yes, we're used to more and better now, and it's nothing against the 2wd jobs, they were good in their day and much better than shoveling manure or loam or snow by hand. Still work fine, most likely.
Jim

Soundguy · Nov 1, 2005

Re: FEL\'s on 2wd tractors

( Has something changed ? I see the need for PS. That only makes sense )

I agree. On a new tractor, MY pre-req would be PS.. not 4wd.. though 4wd would be on my 'want to have' list... etc.

( But how come FEL's were ok on 2wd tractors before but now days it seems almost taboo.
)

Back when 95%? of the tractors were 2wd, and non PS.. you didn't have much choice.. you made due.

( Are the front axles made less hardy )

IMHO.. a fixed 'dead. or even an adjustable 'wing' or 'U-channel' front axle is much stronger than a front wheen drive axle... So I don't chalk it up to an axle weight issue specifically. More ergonomics, and wear / tear. A few on a 2wd, non ps / non 4wd tractor puts lots of wear on some steering components.. like gearbox.. course.. now with PS.. all those components are made differently now too.

Many of the early loaders were for stockpiled materials.. that is.. piled sand.. or as others mentioned.. soft materials.. like snow or maneuer.

My 1955 Ford 660 has a ford 722 hyd 1-arm loader with maneuer bucket and exterder plate on it. .. no ps on my unit.. though in 55 it was an option.

I added a huge concrete ballast weight ont he rear to make it steer much easier.

I have used it to dig some clay in a shallow scooping method.. however, it scoops and tends my maneuer pile much easier.. etc.

Soundguy

unreconstructed · Nov 1, 2005

Re: FEL\'s on 2wd tractors

I have a JD 5203 which is 2wd. I have been doing some digging with it, scraping caliche, and moving dirt which is not loose. I know I need some more ballast on the 3ph and have gotten bogged down where I am not sure that 4wd would have helped or would have sucked me down even further. Anyhow, this little tractor has had plenty of power to get a bucket full of undisturbed soil. The bucket capacity I believe is .49 cu yard struck.

I was advised by a couple of other JD '03 model owners prior to my buying my '03 that their's too had sufficient power to do what they wanted. Average rainfall in my area is 26 inches on one place and 18 on the other so constant mud is not an issue and my area is relatively flat compared to a lot of TBN posters.

If I had wanted to spend more money, of course I would have liked to had 4WD, but like an earlier poster said--one makes do with what he has.

Hope that helps.

Farwell · Nov 1, 2005

Re: FEL\'s on 2wd tractors

I have a 1965, 45 hp 2wd JD2010 with a heavy duty FEL that I do a lot of digging, dirt moving and tree removal with. I am happy with it but the work would go much faster if it had 4wd. It would also work a little better if I had teeth on the bucket. It needs a bucket rebuild so I can add a few extras to it like teeth, a grapple, etc.
Another thing that would go better with 4wd is I could go places on my property that I can not go to with out getting stuck.
Farwell

Farmwithjunk · Nov 1, 2005

Re: FEL\'s on 2wd tractors

My loader tractor is 2WD. (Massey Ferguson 150) I've had no need to change that over the years. It's also HEAVIER than most compacts. Weight is your friend when dealing with a loader.

Weight equates to traction. It also helps with control and stability. Both keys in loader use.

One advantage to having 4WD on a loader tractor is the ability to shove the bucket into material. Another is added steering control when those front wheels are mashed into soft ground. (i.e. mud....)

A bigger tractor can overcome it's disadvantage with shear weight, but even that heavier tractor can benifit from 4WD.

I'm around construction sites quite a bit with my job. Over the past 20 years, I've seen back-hoes gradually make the transition to 4WD. Even with their heavy mass, they are much more manuverable and have far more "pushing power" with the front end driving too.

As I get older, I'm begining to see a need for a new tractor on my little farm. One feature would be a cab. (The MAIN reason I'd buy a new tractor) If I spend the money, it's going to have 4WD, and a loader. (Something in the 75 to 90 HP range) I've done perfectly fine WITHOUT 4WD, but it sure is nice when you do need it.

hudr · Nov 1, 2005

Re: FEL\'s on 2wd tractors

4wd makes it a lot easier to push, back up and turn with an FEL. We have not a single 4wd tractor on our place and have loaders on most of them. Have not had much problems other than ones mentioned above. I think back to the first FEL we owned. We hadn't had one for years before that but now I don't know how we got things done w/o them. 4wd would be the same I imagine. We just spoil easy, thats all. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

MossRoad · Nov 1, 2005

Re: FEL\'s on 2wd tractors

So, can anyone tell me why it was ok before and it is completely frowned upon now. 

Folks use to store food in lead containers and not wear seatbelts in cars, too. Times have changed. So have people's attitudes towards small, utility tractors VS. farm type AG tractors.

I think smaller, lighter tractors really benefit from 4WD while larger, heavier 2WD tractors get by fine in most circumstances. The reason is traction and weight, I guess. It just boils down to what your needs are in a machine.

777777 · Nov 1, 2005

Re: FEL\'s on 2wd tractors

Gentlemen, thank you for the clarification.

Now, as I understand it, no real issues with an FEL and 2wd as long as you have weight behind it. In other words, a heavier tractor and some ballast on the back. So, I guess most of the newer CUTS are just too light to handle as they certainly weigh less than older tractors. I see many older tractors with full size buckets on them.
So 4wd is nice and a preference but not a necessity.
When you are talking about the back and forths with picking up loads, does a shuttle shift not help out there if you have a gear drive tractor ?

Again, thanks, have made things a little less hazy for me.

Tom

bam747 · Nov 2, 2005

Re: FEL\'s on 2wd tractors

I have a single family owned 1973 John Deere 1020 tractor with a model 48 loader. The tractor is 2WD and is considered a "small utility Ag tractor". They didn't even offer MFWD on this size tractor back then. The tractor is only rated at 38 PTO HP. The model 48 loader is rated at 2,400 lb lift capacity. The tractor has killer power steering on it that never had any problem with even maximum loads in the FEL.

The big difference between the 1020 and today's CUT is that the 1020 is what I call an "old school heavy metal" tractor design. As measured on a certified truck scale, this tractor, loader, cast iron rear wheel ballast weights (330 lbs per side, 660 lbs total), rear 3PH blade (also used for ballast), and ROPS weighs 7500 lbs. This thing is one massive chunk of cast iron from front to back. The front axle is even a solid chunk of cast iron.

In 33 years of use, I have never once lifted a rear tire off the ground with anything the loader would lift. Dirt, gravel, rocks, whatever. And I never had any problems getting the loader to dig into any of the Colorado dirt I tried to dig up with it. Note, however, that the FEL was NEVER used without having the rear blade on for added 3PH ballast.

The other thing about a 1020 versus a modern CUT is that is has a longer wheel base with longer loader arms that put the loader weight further back from the front axle. This gives you a very nicely balanced tractor/FEL setup. To get a better idea of how this tractor and FEL combo looks, see the attachment to this post.

All this being said, if I was buying a new tractor today, be it a CUT or utility Ag tractor, it would definitely have 4WD. No question. But the 4WD would be more for its added traction advantage than loader use.

I think the moral of the story for this 2WD versus 4WD and FEL combination is that with a properly designed and coordinated FEL/tractor combination with proper rear axle AND 3PH ballast, using the FEL on a 2WD tractor can work just fine.

jcmseven · Nov 2, 2005

Re: FEL\'s on 2wd tractors

Multiple 7's,

I am relatively new to the compact tractor market myself, but I have had experience with the older style 2wd tractors and loaders also. My good friend and his family have a large dairy farm, and they have both two and four wheel drive smaller tractors to move manure, feed etc. To appreciate the difference, one must see them working side by side. The MFWD machines generally will run circles around the RWD machines, with a few exceptions, mainly the larger, heavier tractors. But these machines lose efficiency in tight spaces, and do not generally perform as well in slick conditions as do the MFWD machines. In short, the advancement has been worth it. My friend, who has probably owned 100+ tractors over the years, says there are one or two RWD machines he would not sell, since they work well, but any new machine he buys for loader work will be MFWD.

John M

Soundguy · Nov 2, 2005

Re: FEL\'s on 2wd tractors

( When you are talking about the back and forths with picking up loads, does a shuttle shift not help out there if you have a gear drive tractor ?
)

Yes.. a shuttle does make loader work on a gear tractor much closer to loader work on an HST tractor.

Int he old days.. not many gear tractors had shuttle. However, Ford, in 1955 came out with a 5spd 'stacked' tranny.. the gear shift only moves front to back, and then it can also go up/down in 3 planes.

In the top plane, you have 3 and R that gives you a decent shuttle as 3rd is still powerfull enough to drive into a stockpile... I'd call that an early attempt at a shuttle tranny.. etc.

Soundguy

rambler · Nov 2, 2005

Re: FEL\'s on 2wd tractors

( Most older tractors were bigger and heavier then the Compacts most users on TBN own and operate.

I also suspect most older tractors with FEL's were used to load and move loose materials such as manure,hay..things such as that.

That said, if your tasks only include loading loose materials, ballast on the 3PH may be more important then front wheel assist.

Now, I think, front wheel assist is, like power steering or, for some folks, hydrostatic transmissions; a "luxury" that has become a necessity...just as automatic transmissions, air conditioning and other "options" have in the cars we drive.
Since most of us (including me) consider MFWD a "necessity"...that's what we promulgate when we offer our opinions.
Could be many professional farmers would consider us nuts...and, from their point of view, they might be right.

However, for my 2200 lb tractor and for my tasks, I find MFWD a very convenient option for those times we really need it. I do use it if I'm moving a load across the field. I don't use it if I'm moving a load on the drive way or on pavement.

I hope Soundguy picks up on this thread...reckon he has more experience with "old iron" then most of us on TBN. )

Utility & larger class tractors have the weight, wheelbase, & rear end to be just fine with 2wd & a loader. The old 3020 & 4020 JD's with a loader - cool.

This website talks mostly of compact tractors. The biggest use I see here for a tractor is - mowing the lawn. Everyone wants a very light & very manuverable tractor that doesn't hurt the lawn, first & formost.

So, they are built very lightweight, 7 with a very short wheelbase.

Makes them very, very light in the rear for putting a loader on.

I have an old IHC H tractor, narrow front, no power steering, obviously 2wd, tires are bald from spinning on concrete feeding pads picking up manure. Dad made concrete wheel weights, 2 are on the wheels, 200# each, & 2 more go on a rack when doing real loader work.

That old gal is more stable and safer than the New Holland 1720 with loader that I got. Man, is the rear end on that thing light, first thing I did is have the tires filled with CC, still light. The wheelbase is so short, and the reach of the loader is pretty far forward of the front axle.

I have a rock box I made for the 3pt, get 500 lbs of rocks or so on the 3pt. And the rear wheels still spin out on that tractor if I am in 2wd. It is just the overall design of the compact tractor - I'm likely to tip it over.

The old H I have can lift more weight. But, it is stable as all get out - even with the narrow front. Just the engineering, wheelbase vs the reach of the loader vs the weight of cast iron everything....

--->Paul

777777 · Nov 2, 2005

Re: FEL\'s on 2wd tractors

Hi All,

Want to thank you again for your help. Certainly have cleared up a bunch of things for me. Been very interesting actually with how the changes in tractors over the years both in size and weight have affected the comfort levels of all involved.
Now, tractors are much less hearty and weighty but try to compensate by adding features such as 4wd.

Thanks again. Have learned alot.

Maybe talk about gear and Hydrostatic as I am always looking to learn.

Take care
Tom

jcmseven · Nov 2, 2005

Re: FEL\'s on 2wd tractors

Gear? What is gear? Oh, sorry, I remember, that is what we did before hydro. All kidding aside, like MFWD, hydro has revolutionized the compact tractor. There are still gear afficianados out there, and gear drive is reliable and efficient, but not the better option for loader work. The fact that one can infinitely adjust speed and direction merely by pushing a pedal rather than clutching or shifting is a real advancement. Where I live in the mountains, I do not believe one could effectively use a gear drive transmission. Gear drives are usually a bit less expensive to buy, which makes them popular. Sometimes one can get into a larger, more powerful tractor by getting a gear machine, but the efficiency is not as good for most things, such as loader work. Now, in larger tractors, the heavily synchronized trannies are very similar to hydro's but I sense this is not your interest at this time. Also, one final thought on MFWD. There have been some thoughts about the newer tractors being lighter, and that is the reason for four wheel drive. I am not sure that is totally true. Yes, the older tractors had lots of steel and were quite heavy, but my 4520 weighes 6450# with a loader and rear box blade, which is 1000# heavier than my neighbor's old MF 60 HP tractor (with two wheel drive) in an equivalent setup, and it is a compact tractor!! It is true that in order to gain manuverability in these machines, there has been a shortening of the wheelbase, but the bigger reason (to me) for the MFWD is to better utilize engine power. My 4520 has 53.5 hp. My next door neighbor (not the same one mentioned earlier) has an older Ford tractor. His tractor visually is the same length and width as mine, only slightly longer. It has a gasoline engine with 26 hp!! When pulling, it will bog and stop before losing traction in most cases, so MFWD would not really offer too much benefit to it. In my case, with a 50+ diesel that is turbocharged, the MFWD really helps get the power to the ground, especially when doing box blading or loader work. It does seem to me, that as with cars, the power is going up and up in these machines and must be harnessed to work well.

John M

Soundguy · Nov 3, 2005

Re: FEL\'s on 2wd tractors

( My next door neighbor (not the same one mentioned earlier) has an older Ford tractor. His tractor visually is the same length and width as mine, only slightly longer. It has a gasoline engine with 26 hp!! When pulling, it will bog and stop before losing traction in most cases, )

Hmm.. I'd say he has not maintained it.. or it is ready for a rebuild. My 26 hp 1946 2n that has a whopping 9 psi of oil pressure when hot and not very awesome compression will spin tires when it is chained to a load that it can't pull... engine does load up a little a little.. but she won't stall.. will set and spin untill the ag tire digs a hole and she is high centered... What ford 26hp gas tractor does your neighbor have?

Soundguy

have_blue · Nov 3, 2005

Re: FEL\'s on 2wd tractors

7777,

I have a 4WD tractor with FEL, but I seldom use 4WD for FEL work. I think if you find 4WD a necessity for most FEL work, you are probably (but not always) using the FEL and tractor in ways they weren't intended.

Oh boy, I bet I'll get smacked around for saying that! /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

unreconstructed · Nov 3, 2005

Re: FEL\'s on 2wd tractors

Have Blue,

I even feel that way about 4WD pickup trucks. /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

I'll get smacked along with you. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

JTC · Nov 3, 2005

Re: FEL\'s on 2wd tractors

Weight isn't always a good thing and equating weight with strength is just faulty reasoning. Most CUT owners use their tractors for much more than loader work. I would say mowing is 70% of my seat time. I would not want a tractor any heavier for mowing. As it is, there are noticable tire depressions in my lawn where I make two passes around the perimiter before I can go back and forth and vary the pattern. My bare tractor weighs 1420 Lbs., MMM about 250 Lbs so that's 1700 Lbs. in the mowing configuration. I frequently use the FEL with the MMM on so that's 700 Lbs. for the FEL plus 800 Lbs. on the 3 pt. balast box. , so that's about 3200 Lbs. I've had probably 1000 lbs. in the bucket on a couple of occasions (not very high), so that's 4200 Lbs. (plus my 200 Lbs. and fuel) being moved around by a 18.5HP diesel with no complaints.

Older equipment has many more cast iron components which need to be thicker and heavier to have the equivelant strength as a fabricated (stamped, formed, welded) CRS component.

I plow my 500' driveway in the winter with my loader. I plow it down hill and don't even try to plow up hill. On some occasions, there's no way would my CUT would make it up the driveway without MFWD. It's even been dicey a few times in 4wd.

Jim