Need a dealer for 4110 Parts !

[rback33]

I am guessing they did a change in the sequencing way back when they did the huge revamping of the tractor pre-2001. That's why his older tractor does not follow the pattern.

 

[cajunmike]

I ALSO HAVE A 2001 4110 WITH 250 HOURS ON IT. FRONT WHEELS WOULD NOT PULL . DRIVE SHAFT IS TURNING AND I DID HEAR A NOISE AT THE DIFFERENTIAL WHEN IT STOPED WORKING. HOW EASY IS IT TO GET THE DIFFERENTIAL APART TO CHECK THINGS OUT. THANKS

 

[coffeeman]

So I guess the only difference in 2001 and 2004 is the tire size. They left everything else the same? I am confused though. Do I want the rolling rear wheel rolling circumference to be 145 inches or do I want it to be 153 in. I have 17.5L x 24-8 , R4 - Ind Trac Lug tires. I think the Titan web site indicates the rolling circumference is 145.

Cheers...

.

Galen is right about the "new" rear tire size... 16.9x24-8 on my 2004 4110. According to the Titan Tire corporate website, the rolling circumference of your rear tire is 145 inches while the rolling circumference of mine is 153 inches. Funny how that works given the seemingly contradictory tire designation (i.e., 16.9 vs. 17.5). The new (16.9) tire is also 20 pounds heavier, 0.3 inches wider and can carry an extra 480 pounds of load... apparently due to 2 extra pounds of specified inflation pressure.

So if the new rear tire size is perfectly correct in terms of front vs. rear travel ratio... and if all other things remain equal... it means that older 4110s are, indeed, pulling way too hard with their front tires to the tune of 8 extra inches of attempted travel per single rear tire revolution. In other words, Nightrain1 was dead right in his observation... and I'll bet the axle forces are much higher with heavier FEL loads holding down those front tires that will want to be turning faster than the rears will allow. It does seem that Mahindra had the pressure thing backwards unless the point was to try to *skid* those front tires more easily with very high inflation. It obviously shouldn't have been an attempt to "grow" the front tire's rolling circumference.

Not to be intentionally funny... but is that why we have skid-steer tires on the front? Because they literally have to skid so much?

Dougster

 

[Dougster]

So I guess the only difference in 2001 and 2004 is the tire size. They left everything else the same? I am confused though. Do I want the rolling rear wheel rolling circumference to be 145 inches or do I want it to be 153 in. I have 17.5L x 24-8, R4 - Ind Trac Lug tires. I think the Titan web site indicates the rolling circumference is 145. Cheers...

You are correct. Your (older) 17.5Lx24-8 rear tire's rolling circumference is 145 inches. The later rear tires... size 16.9x24-8... have a greater rolling circumference of 153 inches. Assuming Mahindra got it right the second time around, the 153 inch rolling circumference should be a better match to the differential ratio and front tire's rolling circumference. While some parts may have been strengthened or otherwise improved, there is nothing I'm aware of to indicate any changes were made in the rear-to-front differential ratio.

This also indicates to me that the infamous recommendation to "lower the pressure in your rear tires and maximize the pressure in your front tires" was never intended to reduce rear tire rolling circumference (and increase front tire rolling circumference) as some had speculated. I don't see how that would have been physically possible to any meaningful degree. In my view, it was either a flat out mistake (which I doubt) or it was intended to assure that all relative travel "slippage" between the rear and front tires occurred where it would be most readily tolerated... on the smaller, lower load, less aggressive "hardened" front tires.

Of course, this "user fix" was probably near useless for those folks heavily loading up their front end loaders.

Dougster

 

[SPYDERLK]

Quote:I'm just wondering if these studs in the ring gear have always had some play in them and the shock of the slack taking up at just the right time is snapping these axles at that hardened spot where the diameter of the axle is turned-down to spline diameter - this is where they break everytime and it's a torsional break (twisted). It's not a break that is maybe cracked at one time then finally breaks at another time, it pops all at one time.

I must say that I am surprised at your loyalty to a company that has foisted a problem upon you that requires you to repair their product repeatedly because of its failures while operating in circumstances ordinarily expected of any competent tractor. Regardless of its strong points that make it attractive, it nevertheless breaks, causing inconvenience and expense to you. Presumably, you have taken responsibility for this out of necessity because Mahindra doesnt. You are the ideal customer from the Mahindra standpoint. You have become a member of their product development department and are working for less than nothing. You have the privelege of operating a capable tractor that breaks in normal use. They dont fix it or pay for it- you do. They fix subsequent models. WHY? Perhaps because they know that others would not hold them harmless in such circumstances. Thank goodness for that. Otherwise theyd still all be like yours. I would, and do, expect more from Mahindra.
larry

ps- If you can physically blend the transition in the change of cross section where the failure is occuring, eliminating any abrupt change, it will probably alleviate the problem. Quick changes in cross section concentrate stress and initiate cracks.

 

[Keith_B]

I used it commercially for 2 years down in Florida - alot of loader work, boxblade & bushogging but I only broke 2 axles in that 2 year period.

It could be like you mentioned earlier, the ring gear loosened up more over time, due to not being torqued or no loctite. The loose ring gear could then cause a jolt to the system and thus the axle problem. It will be interesting to see if the axle problem ends with the ring gear now being solidly tightened and torqued.