Full Frame

[EhM8]

Here in Australia, John Deere have recently released the 5020 series full frame designed tractors, which seems to be the smaller version of the 6020 series. I have the impression that the 5020 tractors in the US might be a different model, I am not sure. Anyway, reading the John Deere speel about the full frame design, it sounds pretty good.

The main advantage I see is to the manufacturing side of things, being able to assemble tractors using a modular approach, thus allowing for more combinations of transmissions and engines. One advantage they claim is that the frame takes the load off of the transmission and engine housings, and enables tractors to therefore be made lighter. I am not sure this is a great thing with lighter tractors in the 50-100hp, because for loader and farm work, you usually want a bit more weight rather than less. Having a bolt on frame in some of the sticky, clay country we have around here, to my mind might also provide a few more nooks and crannies for mud to get caked in, but that is only a minor thing.

What I am wondering is why if this is such a good and cost effective way to make tractors, why haven't the other tractor companies copied it, and why wasn't it done before? It seems a pretty obvious idea, so why did they start making tractors with load bearing transmission and engine housings in the first place instead of having a frame?

 

[EhM8]

Hmm, I can't seem to find the US equivalent of the 5020 series on the US John Deere site, so here is the Australian page with the 5020 tractor for those who wonder what I am talking about

5020 Series Full Frame Tractors

These tractors are made in germany apparently.

 

[slowzuki]

I was reading some discussion on this recently. The JD techs were saying it has increased the cost of clutch replacment due to increased tear-down time.

Valtra-Valmet I believe have a full frame too but you don't need to strip the frame I understand for a lot of repairs. I've heard there is a short stub shaft between engine (donk) and tranny you can remove to drop the bellhousing and get at the clutch.

 

[flusher]

Here in Australia, John Deere have recently released the 5020 series full frame designed tractors, which seems to be the smaller version of the 6020 series. I have the impression that the 5020 tractors in the US might be a different model, I am not sure. Anyway, reading the John Deere speel about the full frame design, it sounds pretty good.

The main advantage I see is to the manufacturing side of things, being able to assemble tractors using a modular approach, thus allowing for more combinations of transmissions and engines. One advantage they claim is that the frame takes the load off of the transmission and engine housings, and enables tractors to therefore be made lighter. I am not sure this is a great thing with lighter tractors in the 50-100hp, because for loader and farm work, you usually want a bit more weight rather than less. Having a bolt on frame in some of the sticky, clay country we have around here, to my mind might also provide a few more nooks and crannies for mud to get caked in, but that is only a minor thing.

What I am wondering is why if this is such a good and cost effective way to make tractors, why haven't the other tractor companies copied it, and why wasn't it done before? It seems a pretty obvious idea, so why did they start making tractors with load bearing transmission and engine housings in the first place instead of having a frame?

Don't know if this one qualifies as "full-frame", but the old Allis Chalmers WD has a lot of frame under it

 

[slowzuki]

I've always heard of WD's but never seen one, that a heck of a long wheelbase!

 

[flusher]

I've always heard of WD's but never seen one, that a heck of a long wheelbase!

Yep, the wide-front WDs had the frame sticking out in front of the radiator. The narrow front and 3-wheelers had a little different arrangement.

One of my neighbors has this WD for sale. I'm partial to the wide front version--not as tippy as the narrow front types.

 

[EhM8]

I was reading some discussion on this recently. The JD techs were saying it has increased the cost of clutch replacment due to increased tear-down time.

Valtra-Valmet I believe have a full frame too but you don't need to strip the frame I understand for a lot of repairs. I've heard there is a short stub shaft between engine (donk) and tranny you can remove to drop the bellhousing and get at the clutch.

It is probably a good thing then that most of them probably come with wet clutches then, but that is something I hadn't thought of. It's be simpler to attach an loader to one of these tractors, but yeah, a lot more bolts if you had to pull it down. Think I read that the Valtra tractors use the fuel tank as a structural component or something.

 

[EhM8]

Don't know if this one qualifies as "full-frame", but the old Allis Chalmers WD has a lot of frame under it

There you go. I knew it must have been done before at some stage.

 

[Renze]

Old tractors all had a riveted frame, to hang a marine diesel to, and some shafts and chain sprockets.. Henry Ford and Harry Ferguson took the approach of integrating the engine into the frame, to make them stiffer and build cheaper.

The major disadvantage is that you need an engine, specifically designed as a tractor engine (to be able to be of structural support to the tractor) because an automotive engine doesnt have the reinforcements.
A tractor engine is often too heavy for on-road use. That was the concession that Case had to make when they chose to co-develope their new engine line with Cummins, back in 1981. Because an engine designed to be used as a tractor frame part, would be too heavy and uneconomical to fit a Dodge truck, they went with a light industrial style engine block, which meant that Case had to use a front frame.

On the other hand, when the frame structure is integrated into the engine, the engine is generally stiffer and would deform less during operation.


The only advantage i see in the JD frames, is that its easier to mount a side arm ditch mower, front loader or front 3pt hitch. Because the frame rails are at a wider spacing, they provide more lateral strength than bare engine and gearbox castings, which will need an additional subframe with rear axlebars.


Old fergies came in 2 varieties: Those with, and those without front frame. I think it had to do with it having the Standard, or the Perkins engine.

 

[Renze]

OH and Valtra:

Valtra uses a different approach: They use not the engine BLOCK as an integrated frame part, but the OIL SUMP as integrated frame part. This means that it takes advantage of both strategies: With a sheetmetal sump, they have a light industrial engine, and with the heavy cast sump, they have an engine integrated to the frame.

Valtra uses a very short and compact transmission, located under the drivers seat. Its only just over a yard long.
The engine and transmission are coupled by a welded fuel tank (which is also a structural frame part)
Because of this, Valtra can offer the same tractor with different wheelbases, and weight distribution ratios ( 50/50 for field tractors, 40/60 for utility loader tractors)