dcyrilc
Super Member
...and change your signature as you won't have the (1/2 cab, 1/2 OS) anymore. LOL I just noticed it. Enjoyed to humor.
New JD4520 cab is destroyed
- Thread starter eepete
- Start date
- Views: 26425
-
- Tags
- john deere 4520
...and change your signature as you won't have the (1/2 cab, 1/2 OS) anymore. LOL I just noticed it. Enjoyed to humor.
OP
eepete
Platinum Member
How many people get to have the joy of their new tractor being delivered twice 
This is the view from the side that had the barn resting on it.
I also had a bigger weight bar put on it and added 4 70# weights. Added my existing 6 40# weights from the JD 318. Need two more to fill it up, will get those this week. Someone commented when I 1st got the 4520 if I was going to add some weight for the MX6. Since everything is being converted over to iMatch (quick hitch), the front weight requirement goes up a bit.
Also, an attachment followed the tractor home! I couldn't send it away, that would be cruel.
Also have my TnT on there now, will revive a thread I had on that and continue that saga.
But this event is not over, I still have to see what State Farm decides to cover and do.
Pete
This is the view from the side that had the barn resting on it.I also had a bigger weight bar put on it and added 4 70# weights. Added my existing 6 40# weights from the JD 318. Need two more to fill it up, will get those this week. Someone commented when I 1st got the 4520 if I was going to add some weight for the MX6. Since everything is being converted over to iMatch (quick hitch), the front weight requirement goes up a bit.
Also, an attachment followed the tractor home! I couldn't send it away, that would be cruel
.Also have my TnT on there now, will revive a thread I had on that and continue that saga.
But this event is not over, I still have to see what State Farm decides to cover and do.
Pete
Attachments
jenkinsph
Super Star Member
Pete,
Very good to see the tractor whole again.:thumbsup:
Nice looking landplane too, looking forward to your comments after using it.
Very good to see the tractor whole again.:thumbsup:
Nice looking landplane too, looking forward to your comments after using it.
dcyrilc
Super Member
How many people get to have the joy of their new tractor being delivered twice
Also, an attachment followed the tractor home! I couldn't send it away, that would be cruel
Looking at the picture, I would have to agree that the landplane really wanted to come home as it seams to have led the way.
Pete
Looks like the dealer took the tractor for a test drive though...It's got mud on the tires. Better send it back and tell them it doesn't match the attachment for cleanliness. LOL
OP
eepete
Platinum Member
The tires and the attachemnts will be much better matched real soon...
Pete
Pete
How many people get to have the joy of their new tractor being delivered twice
I also had a bigger weight bar put on it and added 4 70# weights. Added my existing 6 40# weights from the JD 318. Need two more to fill it up, will get those this week. Someone commented when I 1st got the 4520 if I was going to add some weight for the MX6. Since everything is being converted over to iMatch (quick hitch), the front weight requirement goes up a bit.
Also, an attachment followed the tractor home! I couldn't send it away, that would be cruel
Also have my TnT on there now, will revive a thread I had on that and continue that saga.
But this event is not over, I still have to see what State Farm decides to cover and do.
Pete
Good you have your unit back. i hope State Farm covers it all.
dcyrilc
Super Member
The tires and the attachemnts will be much better matched real soon...
Pete
Somehow...I have no doubt of that.:laughing:
OP
eepete
Platinum Member
Well, the last chapter in this epic saga have now been written. I got a check from State Farm Insurance. It's one of the odder settlements I've got on insurance, and on balance I'm happy with it and with State Farm.
They covered 100% of the tractor repairs. The building part threw them for a bit of a loop. I had about $200 in direct cost, and about 17 hours of time doing the extraction. The locals are deconstructing the barn for wood and tin, so I suspect there will be near zero cost there and maybe a half day of tractor time to scrape the site clean. This saved $4600 over a quote to demolish and cart off the building. And that's money saved for all policy holders.
The building was a 32 x 84 core, with 16' extensions on each side. One of the side extensions was not very accessible (it was built to feed cows). I was in the process of building a 30 x 40 Morton building when the collapse occurred (what a difference a month would have made!). So I told State Farm that if I could put up a 30 x 40 building, between that and what I built I'd be back at the core amount of area I was using. It would have cost $18.3K to build that. The one I was building was $23.5K but it had a concrete floor. Finally, to further confuse things the collapsed building was an open sided pole barn, the Morton is a fully enclosed pole barn.
So it's a challenge to compare old open pole barn to newer buildings, to figure out how those cost trade off, and to come up with a value for the building. As for my extrication, I think insurance companies like bills from licensed contractors and have a hard time with "stuff the home owner does". And I can't blame them in this regard, after all how do you evaluate the homeowner's efficiency. I did not specify an hourly rate for my work and said anything they wanted to pay was fine. From my perspective, getting the tractor out with no more damage (thus insuring it could be fixed vs. having to be totaled) was worth the time. All those aspects and trade offs are covered earlier in this post.
So I told State Farm I'd be happy with covering my extraction costs and a 30 x 40 dirt floor building because when used in conjunction with what I was building, I'd have the same functionality. Talking with the adjuster on the phone, he said that my policy was for a replacement and that State Farm felt that they should pay for the building that fell, even though that was more than I'd said I'd be happy with. When the check showed up, there were a number of pages where calculations were done (a computer program) to determine the cost of the building. This included cost of roofing metal, trusses, poles, the contractors mark up, and the like. There was also a depreciation in there, which I don't entirely understand because the policy is (in theory) for "full replacement". But it was only 10%. There was no amount for my extraction. It stated that if I incurred demolition costs, that I could submit that for payment.
The final value for the collapsed building (4000 sq feet, no sides, and with poles in it) was a bit more than two of the 30 x 40 Morton dirt floor buildings (no concrete, total square footage 2400 but with sides and doors). As such, I will have about the same usable square footage as I had before. It's really a bit less room, but, these will be buildings with side so in an apple vs. orange comparison it's just fine, and the values work out OK. I would have no loss in functionality and have the improvement of sides and doors.
I think that part of what's going on here is a claim that had too many "out of the box" pieces to it as far as the nature of the structures, homeowner involvement, local "Free" demolition, and the like. I think State Farm did an OK job of fitting their settlement tools around the problem. If you can get through calamity by being so close to breaking even that you can't tell, then you've done great. You're going to have time in the process and expecting to be paid for that is unrealistic. What I did not get for my extraction is covered by the building value less my deductable. It's like everything else in life- deal with it, fix it, learn, and get back on it and get to work (the tractor that is).
I will be reviewing my insurance policies to make sure everything is covered. Some people posting to this thread had bad surprises about limits of coverage in their policy. Now that I will have all my tractors under one (new) roof, I want to be sure I'm OK. The building at the collapse site will hold implements, my trailer, and store other items.
This event also shows the value of having cash for a rainy day. I was able to just tell the Deere dealer to fix the tractor, then pay them. State Farm was not able to get an estimate from the Deere dealer for whatever reason. A paid bill and working tractor took out all the variables for the insurance company. So having the cash and being able to wait for a settlement helped the process. Time also let the demolition process play out. If I incur cost to finish the demolition (if there is too much big stuff left after the scavenging) I can go back to State Farm and give them a bill from a contractor to haul off the rest of the debris. At any rate, having time reduced the number of unknowns and let the settlement process happen more smoothly. And everything I paid for are all things that would have to happen no matter what, so why not get things rolling as fast as possible.
So I'm happy with it all. I will have all the functional square footage I was using before the event when the 2nd building gets built. I'm happy to trade off a little less room for enclosed buildings with open interiors and doors. I'm happy that State Farm is showing some flexibility in dealing with this claim.
I hope people learned things from this thread, and hope my long windedness wasn't too annoying for y'all.
I was out working on my dam hand cutting and clearing brush yesterday. It was great to then take my tractor and do the final trim of that area with the sickle bar mower.
:tractor: = :dance1:
Pete
They covered 100% of the tractor repairs. The building part threw them for a bit of a loop. I had about $200 in direct cost, and about 17 hours of time doing the extraction. The locals are deconstructing the barn for wood and tin, so I suspect there will be near zero cost there and maybe a half day of tractor time to scrape the site clean. This saved $4600 over a quote to demolish and cart off the building. And that's money saved for all policy holders.
The building was a 32 x 84 core, with 16' extensions on each side. One of the side extensions was not very accessible (it was built to feed cows). I was in the process of building a 30 x 40 Morton building when the collapse occurred (what a difference a month would have made!). So I told State Farm that if I could put up a 30 x 40 building, between that and what I built I'd be back at the core amount of area I was using. It would have cost $18.3K to build that. The one I was building was $23.5K but it had a concrete floor. Finally, to further confuse things the collapsed building was an open sided pole barn, the Morton is a fully enclosed pole barn.
So it's a challenge to compare old open pole barn to newer buildings, to figure out how those cost trade off, and to come up with a value for the building. As for my extrication, I think insurance companies like bills from licensed contractors and have a hard time with "stuff the home owner does". And I can't blame them in this regard, after all how do you evaluate the homeowner's efficiency. I did not specify an hourly rate for my work and said anything they wanted to pay was fine. From my perspective, getting the tractor out with no more damage (thus insuring it could be fixed vs. having to be totaled) was worth the time. All those aspects and trade offs are covered earlier in this post.
So I told State Farm I'd be happy with covering my extraction costs and a 30 x 40 dirt floor building because when used in conjunction with what I was building, I'd have the same functionality. Talking with the adjuster on the phone, he said that my policy was for a replacement and that State Farm felt that they should pay for the building that fell, even though that was more than I'd said I'd be happy with. When the check showed up, there were a number of pages where calculations were done (a computer program) to determine the cost of the building. This included cost of roofing metal, trusses, poles, the contractors mark up, and the like. There was also a depreciation in there, which I don't entirely understand because the policy is (in theory) for "full replacement". But it was only 10%. There was no amount for my extraction. It stated that if I incurred demolition costs, that I could submit that for payment.
The final value for the collapsed building (4000 sq feet, no sides, and with poles in it) was a bit more than two of the 30 x 40 Morton dirt floor buildings (no concrete, total square footage 2400 but with sides and doors). As such, I will have about the same usable square footage as I had before. It's really a bit less room, but, these will be buildings with side so in an apple vs. orange comparison it's just fine, and the values work out OK. I would have no loss in functionality and have the improvement of sides and doors.
I think that part of what's going on here is a claim that had too many "out of the box" pieces to it as far as the nature of the structures, homeowner involvement, local "Free" demolition, and the like. I think State Farm did an OK job of fitting their settlement tools around the problem. If you can get through calamity by being so close to breaking even that you can't tell, then you've done great. You're going to have time in the process and expecting to be paid for that is unrealistic. What I did not get for my extraction is covered by the building value less my deductable. It's like everything else in life- deal with it, fix it, learn, and get back on it and get to work (the tractor that is).
I will be reviewing my insurance policies to make sure everything is covered. Some people posting to this thread had bad surprises about limits of coverage in their policy. Now that I will have all my tractors under one (new) roof, I want to be sure I'm OK. The building at the collapse site will hold implements, my trailer, and store other items.
This event also shows the value of having cash for a rainy day. I was able to just tell the Deere dealer to fix the tractor, then pay them. State Farm was not able to get an estimate from the Deere dealer for whatever reason. A paid bill and working tractor took out all the variables for the insurance company. So having the cash and being able to wait for a settlement helped the process. Time also let the demolition process play out. If I incur cost to finish the demolition (if there is too much big stuff left after the scavenging) I can go back to State Farm and give them a bill from a contractor to haul off the rest of the debris. At any rate, having time reduced the number of unknowns and let the settlement process happen more smoothly. And everything I paid for are all things that would have to happen no matter what, so why not get things rolling as fast as possible.
So I'm happy with it all. I will have all the functional square footage I was using before the event when the 2nd building gets built. I'm happy to trade off a little less room for enclosed buildings with open interiors and doors. I'm happy that State Farm is showing some flexibility in dealing with this claim.
I hope people learned things from this thread, and hope my long windedness wasn't too annoying for y'all.
I was out working on my dam hand cutting and clearing brush yesterday. It was great to then take my tractor and do the final trim of that area with the sickle bar mower.
:tractor: = :dance1:
Pete
jenkinsph
Super Star Member
Pete,
Good deal:thumbsup: Alls well that ends well.
Good deal:thumbsup: Alls well that ends well.
dcyrilc
Super Member
Hey Pete,
Saw one of your posts tonight and was just wondering how the tractor's doing since you got it back? Everything working like it should?
Saw one of your posts tonight and was just wondering how the tractor's doing since you got it back? Everything working like it should?
OP
eepete
Platinum Member
In general, everything is working good. Doing lots of mowing with it, got to try out the new landplane on the driveway :thumbsup:.
I am having a problem with the enhanced (auto style?) cruise control. If I used the fixed-speed cruise control, it can keep the speed to within .2 to .3 MPH going up and down hills under various loads. If I used the "Max speed" feature, the speed varies by over 1 MPH. Loadmatch is off. I'm going to do a repeatable test on this and have already talked to the dealer about it. Unless someone has a "Here's what it is" reply, I'll wait until I do a repeatable test with some hard data and then start a new thread on it.
Without a loader on it, the 4520 needs front weights when pulling the MX6 mower. I had six 70# and four 43# weights. Got into a new area mowing the other day, and had some front end slide so I ordered two more 70# weights, we'll see how it goes on that area. The new and modified weight bracket (there's a thread on that too) is doing great. At 65 hours, it's about time for my 1st oil change.
It's been a little warm down here in NC so the cab is a huge win. It's odd to think "Hey, it's 2:00 PM and really hot, so this is a good time to mow". I think the temperature gauge runs a bit hotter since I added the horn, and the horn is right in front of the radiators so I'm thinking of moving it down just above the battery and see if that helps.
This fall, I'll do another 30 x 40 Morton Country Craft building where the collapsed one was. Hopefully you caught the thread on the 30 x 40 building I finish up a few months ago, it's been great.
I'm getting further along in the solar project, will put a thread on that when it's more or less done.
So life goes on, things more or less work, tweaks and adjustments all the time. Doesn't get much better than that. Long Pete Post again, but that's better than "Fine. Yes." to answer your questions.
Pete
I am having a problem with the enhanced (auto style?) cruise control. If I used the fixed-speed cruise control, it can keep the speed to within .2 to .3 MPH going up and down hills under various loads. If I used the "Max speed" feature, the speed varies by over 1 MPH. Loadmatch is off. I'm going to do a repeatable test on this and have already talked to the dealer about it. Unless someone has a "Here's what it is" reply, I'll wait until I do a repeatable test with some hard data and then start a new thread on it.
Without a loader on it, the 4520 needs front weights when pulling the MX6 mower. I had six 70# and four 43# weights. Got into a new area mowing the other day, and had some front end slide so I ordered two more 70# weights, we'll see how it goes on that area. The new and modified weight bracket (there's a thread on that too) is doing great. At 65 hours, it's about time for my 1st oil change.
It's been a little warm down here in NC so the cab is a huge win. It's odd to think "Hey, it's 2:00 PM and really hot, so this is a good time to mow". I think the temperature gauge runs a bit hotter since I added the horn, and the horn is right in front of the radiators so I'm thinking of moving it down just above the battery and see if that helps.
This fall, I'll do another 30 x 40 Morton Country Craft building where the collapsed one was. Hopefully you caught the thread on the 30 x 40 building I finish up a few months ago, it's been great.
I'm getting further along in the solar project, will put a thread on that when it's more or less done.
So life goes on, things more or less work, tweaks and adjustments all the time. Doesn't get much better than that. Long Pete Post again, but that's better than "Fine. Yes." to answer your questions.
Pete
dcyrilc
Super Member
Glad to hear that the repairs came out well and are passing the test of time.:thumbsup:
jenkinsph
Super Star Member
Hey Pete,
When your front end was sliding was this on a side slope?
FWIW, if you are on a side slope and the front slides towards the downhill side the ground might be too slick, if the front end swings uphill on a sideslope you need more weight. If your front end is sliding with the mower down and the tail wheel on the ground you need to change directions, go up and down the hill. Another thing to consider is the rear of the mower deck extends about 9 feet past the rear tractor axle, thats is alot of leverage. If the deck hangs up it can slide your front end a little. I would rather have the front slide in this case rather than put so much strain on the hitch components.
Just a few things to consider as you already have 168 more lbs on your tractor than I have.
When your front end was sliding was this on a side slope?
FWIW, if you are on a side slope and the front slides towards the downhill side the ground might be too slick, if the front end swings uphill on a sideslope you need more weight. If your front end is sliding with the mower down and the tail wheel on the ground you need to change directions, go up and down the hill. Another thing to consider is the rear of the mower deck extends about 9 feet past the rear tractor axle, thats is alot of leverage. If the deck hangs up it can slide your front end a little. I would rather have the front slide in this case rather than put so much strain on the hitch components.
Just a few things to consider as you already have 168 more lbs on your tractor than I have.
OP
eepete
Platinum Member
The front end swung uphill when I was on a slope (about 10 degrees, my threshold for "it's getting a little slope-y here). I was turning up into the hill because it was getting a little too tippy and I knew from previous mows that in about 15 feet there was a big dip/change in slope. So changing the two 43# for two 70# will give me an extra 54 pounds, not a lot of change more like a fine tune.
As for the 168 more #s I have, there is also the fact that the weight is 4" more "out in front" due to the weight bracket. If you look at the recommended ballasting on the MX6, it's an extra 140#s when you add an iMatch. The Imatch moves everything back by 4" and adds some weight of it's own. But the increase in weight requirement is almost twice the weight of the Imatch so there must be some effect of "how far back" (or the leverage) of the implement going on. So I wonder if there is an equivalent effect when the weights in the front move forward 4". Just more things for me to worry about :laughing:.
The hay here has been cut, so today's plan is to sickle bar around the hay fields to keep them from slowing closing in over time.
Pete
As for the 168 more #s I have, there is also the fact that the weight is 4" more "out in front" due to the weight bracket. If you look at the recommended ballasting on the MX6, it's an extra 140#s when you add an iMatch. The Imatch moves everything back by 4" and adds some weight of it's own. But the increase in weight requirement is almost twice the weight of the Imatch so there must be some effect of "how far back" (or the leverage) of the implement going on. So I wonder if there is an equivalent effect when the weights in the front move forward 4". Just more things for me to worry about :laughing:.
The hay here has been cut, so today's plan is to sickle bar around the hay fields to keep them from slowing closing in over time.
Pete
jenkinsph
Super Star Member
Pete,
Well you know the mathematical equations as I do, guess someone could find the center point of an MX6 by balancing it on a piece of pipe (for front to back) and noting the distance from the rear. Simple forces and reactions about a fixed point, so yes having the front weights extended forwards helps and having the IMatch extend rearward hurts. I use the IMatch with mine also though.
Well you know the mathematical equations as I do, guess someone could find the center point of an MX6 by balancing it on a piece of pipe (for front to back) and noting the distance from the rear. Simple forces and reactions about a fixed point, so yes having the front weights extended forwards helps and having the IMatch extend rearward hurts. I use the IMatch with mine also though.
Here are some similar links:
