John Deere 4000 series promotional video

[Anonymous Poster]

<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

 

[cowboydoc]

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.

 

[JOR_EL]

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

 

[Hillbilly]

I got the video in the mail July 14.

 

[kerr]

Me too.

 

[tanuke01]

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

 

[kerr]

I liked the guy unhooking the hyd. lines from the fel on the bota!Mabee a little over acting!The turning radious test kinda shoots the supersteer in the butt though.

 

[glennmac]

I'm still waiting for my video. Is there anything Deere can deliver on time?/w3tcompact/icons/shocked.gif/w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif

 

[glennmac]

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?

 

[JATO_RaT]

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....