John Deere 4000 series promotional video
- Thread starter Hillbilly
- Start date
- Views: 8396
-
- Tags
- john deere 4000
Serial numbers do not have anything to do in defining the old axle style,it is one of two things, either you have the old axle style which was considered a "turf destroyer" by many, or either you have the "new style axle" which is a redesigned axle,so if anyone is looking at a John Deere tractor,forget the serial numbers,all you need to do is to be able to visually differentiate between the 2 styles of the axles. No need to call JD headquarters,they are pretty mum on the axle design,unless you happen to have one and are not happy with it. Of all the articles etc I have read about the axle problems not once did I see anything referring to "serial numbers" to identify the axle problem. Go to yahoo stock page and type in "de" for the stock quote and look at message 3016 and read what was said about the axle.
cowboydoc
Super Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2000
- Messages
- 6,725
- Tractor
- JD 8320 MFWD, JD 6415 MFWD, FEL, and cab, John Deere MFWD 4600, John Deere 4020, John Deere 4430, John Deere 455 mower, Deutz, and Gehl 4610 perkins skidsteer
Well Hillbilly that is straight from JD mfg. right here at JD headquarters. They are not mum on it and have identified and corrected the problem. If you call HQ they will let you know about it. Funny I have an early 2000 model year and not one bit of turf scuffing at all. Mine is an old axle design. If you'd like I can make a video of this tractor at work and of the axle so you can see that it is indeed the old style axle and that there is absolutely no scuffing of the turf at all.
My tractor was manufactured in 11/2000 and it will plow the front yard in 2 or 4 wheel drive,but it is not an issue for me,because I do not use it to mow golf courses etc.The only thing that bothers me is if it will hurt the resale value.
cowboydoc
Super Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2000
- Messages
- 6,725
- Tractor
- JD 8320 MFWD, JD 6415 MFWD, FEL, and cab, John Deere MFWD 4600, John Deere 4020, John Deere 4430, John Deere 455 mower, Deutz, and Gehl 4610 perkins skidsteer
I understand where you are coming from Hillbilly and this is where urban legend starts to take over. It wasn't all JD's that were affected but because a few were affected then the problem is applied to all of them. Then you have people looking around and saying oh well that is the old style then it's not worth anything. If yours is a 2000 model you can take it in and go over it with your dealer to get it changed. They will look at the serial # and do a test drive to see if it does it. Honestly they all do not do it. The old design, from the engineers standpoint, is actually a beefier and more solid design according to them.
Thank you Cowboy Doc,you are a gentleman and scholar,I have learned more about this "axle design" by talking with you,I have to agree the old it does look a lot more heavier built than the new style.I have been contemplating on whether to trade up or not. I am a little concerned about the hydro for long term,although I do not abuse it,and I would prefer the R-1 tires for there traction capability,other than that I would be gaining a few more hp and a little larger and heavier unit,I have bought a lot of extras for this 4400,forward and reverse lighting,adjustable linkage for the 3 pt,extra front weight and weight extension,brush guard,fiberglass canopy from firebird.com I even had a "luggage rack customized for the canopy that looks great and is ideal for carrying accessories.All of this stuff could be removed and put on the next tractor except for the rear wheel weights,I do not know how much the dealer would allow for rear wheel weights being it would be a larger rim and different style of rim as well.
The dealer completely rebuilt the hydro for me a 175 hours,I changed the oil and filter this weekend at 221 hours,( I was just being cautious) there was a little metal in around the reusable filter but nothing excessive at least not in my opinion,looking at the oil in a quart jar I could not see any impurities. Anyway you probably have heard more than you care to.
Thanks
The dealer completely rebuilt the hydro for me a 175 hours,I changed the oil and filter this weekend at 221 hours,( I was just being cautious) there was a little metal in around the reusable filter but nothing excessive at least not in my opinion,looking at the oil in a quart jar I could not see any impurities. Anyway you probably have heard more than you care to.
Thanks
cowboydoc
Super Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2000
- Messages
- 6,725
- Tractor
- JD 8320 MFWD, JD 6415 MFWD, FEL, and cab, John Deere MFWD 4600, John Deere 4020, John Deere 4430, John Deere 455 mower, Deutz, and Gehl 4610 perkins skidsteer
Hillbilly,
No problem. I try and get info. from the horse's so to speak before I talk about it. Sounds like you have one great little tractor there! I'd like some of those mods myself. Good luck with whatever your decision may be on a new one. If it's anywhere like here they don't give you anything for trade-ins unless they're really making it up on the front end.
No problem. I try and get info. from the horse's so to speak before I talk about it. Sounds like you have one great little tractor there! I'd like some of those mods myself. Good luck with whatever your decision may be on a new one. If it's anywhere like here they don't give you anything for trade-ins unless they're really making it up on the front end.
JOR_EL
Silver Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2001
- Messages
- 242
- Tractor
- JD4700 HST w/mods. SUPERBABY
CowboyDoc,
Something puzzles me about this statement:
<font color=blue>The old design, from the engineers standpoint, is actually a beefier and more solid design according to them.</font color=blue>
If "them" refers to "the engineers", what is their rationale for changing to a NEW design which is LESS "beefy" and LESS "solid". /w3tcompact/icons/shocked.gif
(Something wrong with this picture, seems to me! /w3tcompact/icons/crazy.gif
Presumably, these "engineers" intended to design an "improved" unit, no?
For some "reason", no?
Larry
Something puzzles me about this statement:
<font color=blue>The old design, from the engineers standpoint, is actually a beefier and more solid design according to them.</font color=blue>
If "them" refers to "the engineers", what is their rationale for changing to a NEW design which is LESS "beefy" and LESS "solid". /w3tcompact/icons/shocked.gif
(Something wrong with this picture, seems to me! /w3tcompact/icons/crazy.gif
Presumably, these "engineers" intended to design an "improved" unit, no?
For some "reason", no?
Larry
cowboydoc
Super Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2000
- Messages
- 6,725
- Tractor
- JD 8320 MFWD, JD 6415 MFWD, FEL, and cab, John Deere MFWD 4600, John Deere 4020, John Deere 4430, John Deere 455 mower, Deutz, and Gehl 4610 perkins skidsteer
Jor El,
Glad you asked that! The design was changed to accomdate the groomsman. What I mean by that is the guys that buy these tractors to use for mowing and turf work. Basically the old design was a bulletproof front end that put the power to both wheels with a very strong limited slip. Much like the old posi-tracks but with some slip. The problem was on some of the clutch slip mechanisms the parts used on some of them were too strong and wouldn't engage the slip mechanism on level turf. So the tires dug in thinking they needed more traction and thus tore up the turf. On the new design they compromised between toughness and turf applicability, thus you have a weaker system and now is more like the limited slip that you see on pickups, pretty worthless. It gives you some dual wheel traction but not much and not nearly what the old axle gave you. In order to make this compromise you had to sacrifice some of the bulletproof quality of the old axle design.
Glad you asked that! The design was changed to accomdate the groomsman. What I mean by that is the guys that buy these tractors to use for mowing and turf work. Basically the old design was a bulletproof front end that put the power to both wheels with a very strong limited slip. Much like the old posi-tracks but with some slip. The problem was on some of the clutch slip mechanisms the parts used on some of them were too strong and wouldn't engage the slip mechanism on level turf. So the tires dug in thinking they needed more traction and thus tore up the turf. On the new design they compromised between toughness and turf applicability, thus you have a weaker system and now is more like the limited slip that you see on pickups, pretty worthless. It gives you some dual wheel traction but not much and not nearly what the old axle gave you. In order to make this compromise you had to sacrifice some of the bulletproof quality of the old axle design.
JOR_EL
Silver Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2001
- Messages
- 242
- Tractor
- JD4700 HST w/mods. SUPERBABY
CowboyDoc,
<font color=blue>On the new design they compromised between toughness and turf applicability, thus you have a weaker system and now is more like the limited slip that you see on pickups, pretty worthless. It gives you some dual wheel traction but not much and not nearly what the old axle gave you.</font color=blue>
Interesting!
But "pretty worthless" is a strong judgement. ("not nearly ....etc." is too.)
What with all our recent concern with "objectivity" do you mind if I ask "Who says so?" Any way to do (or has someone already?) comparison tests to demo. this as fact, or is this a "rural-legend" in the formative stages? /w3tcompact/icons/blush.gif
Are you saying that the "new"MFWD is effectively just a 3-wheel drive system,( or what)?
Larry
<font color=blue>On the new design they compromised between toughness and turf applicability, thus you have a weaker system and now is more like the limited slip that you see on pickups, pretty worthless. It gives you some dual wheel traction but not much and not nearly what the old axle gave you.</font color=blue>
Interesting!
But "pretty worthless" is a strong judgement. ("not nearly ....etc." is too.)
What with all our recent concern with "objectivity" do you mind if I ask "Who says so?" Any way to do (or has someone already?) comparison tests to demo. this as fact, or is this a "rural-legend" in the formative stages? /w3tcompact/icons/blush.gif
Are you saying that the "new"MFWD is effectively just a 3-wheel drive system,( or what)?
Larry
Anonymous Poster
Epic Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 29,678
<font color=blue>...Are you saying that the "new"MFWD is effectively just a 3-wheel drive system...</font color=blue>
Larry,
I think just about all MFWD systems are "truly" 3 wheel drive... unless you have differential lock on the front axle as on the back. The front axles are limited slip on all the "compact" tractors I'm aware of...
But... you know what... those three wheels, still pull better than two!
And by the way, I've seen you've "discovered" the <font color=blue>blue</font color=blue> reply method...versus all those brackets[[[[{{{{}}}]]] inside brackets inside brackets...
Thank you Larry, it makes your posts much easier on the eyes... /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif
Larry,
I think just about all MFWD systems are "truly" 3 wheel drive... unless you have differential lock on the front axle as on the back. The front axles are limited slip on all the "compact" tractors I'm aware of...
But... you know what... those three wheels, still pull better than two!
And by the way, I've seen you've "discovered" the <font color=blue>blue</font color=blue> reply method...versus all those brackets[[[[{{{{}}}]]] inside brackets inside brackets...
Thank you Larry, it makes your posts much easier on the eyes... /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif
cowboydoc
Super Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2000
- Messages
- 6,725
- Tractor
- JD 8320 MFWD, JD 6415 MFWD, FEL, and cab, John Deere MFWD 4600, John Deere 4020, John Deere 4430, John Deere 455 mower, Deutz, and Gehl 4610 perkins skidsteer
Jor El,
Since I am one of only a handful of docs in JD's insurance, it's lousy, I get alot of the john deere guys here as patients. That's where I get my info. from. You have to look at the front end from a realistic standpoint. Do you want traction or do you want to not scuff the turf? Basically what happens in the rear end is that you have a one wheel drive system when you start to slip. Then you can put in the locker and make it a posi-trac. Ideally this would be nice to do in the front end as well but not very cost effective. So essentially it's like 4wd in a pickup. If no slip you have 4wd. If you have slip then only wheel is turning. Originally, like I said, they had in a very strong limited slip unit in the front end. Now it's a weaker unit. The reason being that you can't have both worlds. You either have to the very low limited slip so as not to scuff the tires or you crank it up and scuff the turf. Yes it works somewhat but not really. To me it's really worthless because the minimum amount of traction you get isn't much to write home about. Same way in the pickups with limited slip, you pay about $500 for the option and it works minimally. Again the same principle, you are sacrificing traction for driveability. The guys I talk to are the ones that design these things so I can't imagine they would lie to me about it so I'd rule out urban legend. To test it all you have to is get your tractor stuck or get it on ice in the winter. You can lock out the rearend but the front end will slip from wheel to the other depending on which one gets the traction. So don't take my word for it just go out and try it for yourself and see what the front end does. As far as testing goes Deere did extensive testing before they came out with the newly designed front end. It sure doesn't scuff turf anymore but you did compromise some in the traction and ruggedness of the previous design.
Since I am one of only a handful of docs in JD's insurance, it's lousy, I get alot of the john deere guys here as patients. That's where I get my info. from. You have to look at the front end from a realistic standpoint. Do you want traction or do you want to not scuff the turf? Basically what happens in the rear end is that you have a one wheel drive system when you start to slip. Then you can put in the locker and make it a posi-trac. Ideally this would be nice to do in the front end as well but not very cost effective. So essentially it's like 4wd in a pickup. If no slip you have 4wd. If you have slip then only wheel is turning. Originally, like I said, they had in a very strong limited slip unit in the front end. Now it's a weaker unit. The reason being that you can't have both worlds. You either have to the very low limited slip so as not to scuff the tires or you crank it up and scuff the turf. Yes it works somewhat but not really. To me it's really worthless because the minimum amount of traction you get isn't much to write home about. Same way in the pickups with limited slip, you pay about $500 for the option and it works minimally. Again the same principle, you are sacrificing traction for driveability. The guys I talk to are the ones that design these things so I can't imagine they would lie to me about it so I'd rule out urban legend. To test it all you have to is get your tractor stuck or get it on ice in the winter. You can lock out the rearend but the front end will slip from wheel to the other depending on which one gets the traction. So don't take my word for it just go out and try it for yourself and see what the front end does. As far as testing goes Deere did extensive testing before they came out with the newly designed front end. It sure doesn't scuff turf anymore but you did compromise some in the traction and ruggedness of the previous design.
JOR_EL
Silver Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2001
- Messages
- 242
- Tractor
- JD4700 HST w/mods. SUPERBABY
CowboyDoc,
<font color=blue>Originally, like I said, they had in a very strong limited slip unit in the front end. Now it's a weaker unit. The reason being that you can't have both worlds. You either have to the very low limited slip so as not to scuff the tires or you crank it up and scuff the turf.</font color=blue>
I appreciate your comments, and am glad you have access to some apparently reliable sources. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif
I am left with a question about "emphasis", ...and the resulting impression.
If the situation you describe("either/or") is what design engineers face, re. MFWD axles, then I assume it is the same for K.and NH. engineers as well.
I do not hear anyone saying Kubota(for example) has a front axle that they have made "weaker" than they might have, so that it will "not scuff the turf".(Yet this must the case, since we don't hear about them tearing up yards, and the design-choice(as given) is "either/or"!
Ditto NH.
To make the distinction between the old "very strong" Deere unit, and the new "weaker" one can easily give the impression that the competition's MFWD's are "heavier-duty", ...an impossibility, according to the design choice given above.
I.e.; either you CAN have both, (strong/no-scuff), because the K. and NH. engineers have done it, ...or you CAN'T(because a design-choice is necessary), so K. and NH. don't have both either.
If this "choice" is a design fact, then ALL MFWD tractors that don't-scuff have weaker-than-the-"old"-Deere limited-slips.
In other words, the Deere unit has been "weakened" only to a level equalling the competitor's, ...which we are given to believe, are plenty rugged-enough!
If this is the case, then discussing the new "weaker" Deere unit with no mention of the relative performance of the others can easily give a "weighted" impression. The "objectivity police" are watching! /w3tcompact/icons/cool.gif
Anything wrong with this reasoning? (logically based. I believe, on the "can't have both" proposition)
Larry
<font color=blue>Originally, like I said, they had in a very strong limited slip unit in the front end. Now it's a weaker unit. The reason being that you can't have both worlds. You either have to the very low limited slip so as not to scuff the tires or you crank it up and scuff the turf.</font color=blue>
I appreciate your comments, and am glad you have access to some apparently reliable sources. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif
I am left with a question about "emphasis", ...and the resulting impression.
If the situation you describe("either/or") is what design engineers face, re. MFWD axles, then I assume it is the same for K.and NH. engineers as well.
I do not hear anyone saying Kubota(for example) has a front axle that they have made "weaker" than they might have, so that it will "not scuff the turf".(Yet this must the case, since we don't hear about them tearing up yards, and the design-choice(as given) is "either/or"!
Ditto NH.
To make the distinction between the old "very strong" Deere unit, and the new "weaker" one can easily give the impression that the competition's MFWD's are "heavier-duty", ...an impossibility, according to the design choice given above.
I.e.; either you CAN have both, (strong/no-scuff), because the K. and NH. engineers have done it, ...or you CAN'T(because a design-choice is necessary), so K. and NH. don't have both either.
If this "choice" is a design fact, then ALL MFWD tractors that don't-scuff have weaker-than-the-"old"-Deere limited-slips.
In other words, the Deere unit has been "weakened" only to a level equalling the competitor's, ...which we are given to believe, are plenty rugged-enough!
If this is the case, then discussing the new "weaker" Deere unit with no mention of the relative performance of the others can easily give a "weighted" impression. The "objectivity police" are watching! /w3tcompact/icons/cool.gif
Anything wrong with this reasoning? (logically based. I believe, on the "can't have both" proposition)
Larry
tanuke01
Bronze Member
You guys are funny. Why would anyone ever think that John Deere would point out the bad points of Deere and good points of any other machine. Guys, John Deere made the FREE Video to sell Jonh Deere not to inform of the best possibly machine.
DPR
DPR
glennmac
Veteran Member
I'm still waiting for my video. Is there anything Deere can deliver on time?/w3tcompact/icons/shocked.gif/w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif
glennmac
Veteran Member
I finally got the video. In fact, for some reason they sent two. Four things I thought interesting:
1. Whenever they showed a 3ph implement on a K or NH tractor, it was a JD green implement.
2. They consistently referred to NH as "Fiat New Holland". (This, of course, ties in with the boast that JD's are "assembled with pride" in the U.S.)
3. They did not claim that the JD loader had a higher hydraulic lift capacity than K or NH. They did claim, however, that the JD loader can reach higher up by a few inches.
4. This was the most impressive to me. They showed JD, K and NH plowing into piles of gravel, both in high range and low range. Both times, the JD plowed right though the pile while the K and NH tractors bogged down to a stop. They didnt disclose which models they were comparing and you couldnt tell from the head-on front shots. If they were comparing 4700 against K4610 and TC45, this seems pretty convincing that the JD top end model has more power and/or more traction. Right?
1. Whenever they showed a 3ph implement on a K or NH tractor, it was a JD green implement.
2. They consistently referred to NH as "Fiat New Holland". (This, of course, ties in with the boast that JD's are "assembled with pride" in the U.S.)
3. They did not claim that the JD loader had a higher hydraulic lift capacity than K or NH. They did claim, however, that the JD loader can reach higher up by a few inches.
4. This was the most impressive to me. They showed JD, K and NH plowing into piles of gravel, both in high range and low range. Both times, the JD plowed right though the pile while the K and NH tractors bogged down to a stop. They didnt disclose which models they were comparing and you couldnt tell from the head-on front shots. If they were comparing 4700 against K4610 and TC45, this seems pretty convincing that the JD top end model has more power and/or more traction. Right?
JATO_RaT
Veteran Member
Glenmac, I too thought that the dirt/loader test was impressive, the video itself was well made and I think John Deere deserves credit for a well thought out comparrison showing their strengths. Thing is, after some thought, I wondered what gear they had the tractors in. The Kubota has 3 ranges, in low range, even McChalkley says that with a hoe adding rear ballast to his 4310 and a bucket loaded with dirt, he can spin the tires without stalling the engine. Since his is a HST, it adds to the credibility of the advantage of HST. I'm not sure about the New Holland, but I know it has at least 2 ranges plus a hi/low on the joystick. While I don't believe John Deere is guilty of anything but showing the facts, I also think without more info, a direct conclusion is hard to make. The Kubota diesel I use is exceptionally powerful, that pile of dirt would have been a snap to plow through. Rat....
