What tire pressure with loaded tires?

[JasG]

Granted I'm from the old school. I filled many new tractor tires with fluid way back in the 60's-80's when I worked at a JD dealership. It takes weight to make traction. These where 2WD rowcrop units not utility tractors. I'd have to witness a tractor without fluid out performing one with fluid to believe it. Were these identical tractors in comparison 2WD or MFWD??? I agree that fluid can make tractor ride more rough. Thanks,Jim

I have seen it done with 2 identical tractors, row crop 120-125 HP tractors when I was in college. My neighbor the 1 tractor was a 4020, the 2nd was 6605. The 4020 had been rebuilt both engine and trans 2 years before and we were told dynoed at just over 100 hp. The 6605 is suppose to be 95 hp. If anything the 4020 weighted a lot more on the rear end than the 6605. Not only did it have liquid filled tires but 2 sets on each side of 500 lbs cast weight and the heavy rims. The 6605 is MFWD, but for the testing the tractor was run in 2wd. The 4020 was a syncro and the 6605 had the reverser transmission. It was also close to an apples to apple as I could make it, to make my friend happy that the tires were not filled.

Here is a link to a outline of why Michelin Tire does not recommend liquid ballast. I already above linked to Deere.

http://www.clemson.edu/cafls/safes/...rojects/brannon_setzler_michelin_ag_tires.pdf


I am not saying that you don't have to have weight, or that an unweighted tractor will out do a liquid filled tractor. What I am saying is the cast is much better and the tractor will do much better than liquid. The liquid is not compressable so the tire will not flex as much. If you have only 1/4 of the air chamber left and the tires squat under a load from pulling. They will not flex out anywhere near as much as when the tire has the full amount of air. As they squat the volume will decrease, the pressure inside will rise. When you have the full volume of the tire, it can squat more because the pressure will come up less.

 

[Tx Jim]

6605 according to Tractordata weights 8776 to 10252 pounds

4020 according to Tractordata weights 8645 to 13980 pounds. Then ADD 4(500# weights)+ approx 2000#s of liquid in tires.

Granted a tractor can be over-ballasted because a 2WD tractor needs about 15% wheel slippage for optimum operation.

I still don't think a 6605 in 2WD will out pull a 4020. Seeing would be believing.

Also back when I worked at a dealer radial rear tractor tires were few and far between.

In your statement about liquid filled tires won't squat as easily as non filled. Just let the air pressure out of a correctly liquid filled tire and I'll bet you it will squat. I had to air too many of them up after correctly filling.

I have a JD 4255(radial tires) with the intellitrak dash with the radar light. It measures acres,distance and "wheel slippage" aka "traction". If I pull a plow with no liquid ballast and with liquid ballast the dash indicts less "wheel slippage" with ballast. How do you explain that????????????????

 

[JD3520Turbo]

The real test is to take two identical tractors and fill one with liquid and one weighted the same axle weights with cast weights and air both correctly for the load they are carrying. Then measure 3 things. Over all traction, ride comfort and soil compaction.

What you will find is that compaction will be reduced with the cast weight tractor, ride quality will be much better. And slippage should be reduced.

The reasons are that a tire with air in it, will respond to iregularities in the field much quicker and more completely than a tire with fluid in it. The fluid will not compress like air does, so it will have more weight/square inch of footprint and it will compact the soil creating a reduction in yield. Also, your footprint will be a little smaller at any given time, giving you less lug/bar in the ground to aid in traction. And finally when a tire can't flex correctly over bumps, it transfers that shock to the driver in the form of a rougher ride.

The fluid filled tire will still have some air in it, but a much smaller amount, thus reducing the tires effectivness in conforming to the ground and absorbing shock.

Having said all that, I believe there are some instances where it might be the right choice. For a tractor that does primarily front end loader work, it is the cheapest way to keep the rear end on the ground. For row crop work where No Till practices are used and compaction is a serious concern, it is the worst option you can have.

Something else to consider is that if you have a flat on a filled tire, it will be more expensive to change, because it is a hassle to deal with. Especially calcium.

Since you used just water, it is not as big of deal. If you don't like, roll the valve stems to the bottom and drain it out. No big deal.

It comes down to personal choice, and your specific situation.

 

[Bigfoot62]

Granted I'm from the old school. I filled many new tractor tires with fluid way back in the 60's-80's when I worked at a JD dealership. It takes weight to make traction. These where 2WD rowcrop units not utility tractors. I'd have to witness a tractor without fluid out performing one with fluid to believe it. Were these identical tractors in comparison 2WD or MFWD??? I agree that fluid can make tractor ride more rough. Thanks,Jim

Jim,
FWIW, I don't have fluid ballast in any of my tractor tires. And, so far, I've not seen the need. I've had water in tractor tires before, just don't see the need now. My old 2600 just does "light" work these days. 3 pt hitch seeder, small disc, 6' finish mower, and 5' brush hog. No FEL, so rear ballast is not required. Before I purchased the other two tractors, I did a bunch of research on comparable tractors' weight. Both the NH and JD tractors listed in my signature were pretty much the heaviest in their class. The JD does my heavy pulling, and it weighs about 10,000# with the FEL, and has radial tires. I agree with you - weight means traction. You can have all the power in the world, but if you can't get it to the ground, you're not going anywhere.

 

[Red Horse]

I've never heard about filling to cover the steel wheel area. Most stuff I came up with when I searched suggested a 75% fill. Deere states that liquid ballast is not preferred in rear tires because it greatly increases tire stiffness at lower operating pressures and reduces ride performance. I was going to use steel weights, but it was going to cost about $900 for about 1,000 lbs of wheel weights, and that was aftermarket weights. I'd like to know if there is any truth to covering the wheel in water or not, though.

Will is correct. I just had the tires on my 4720 filled and took it to a commercial tire guy. My Deere dealer wanted $3.50 a gallon for Rimguard and 200 bucks labor! Someone told me about this tire guy and he quoted 200 bucks total. But, he was using calcium/water. Now my 2005 3320 was done with Rimguard and shows no signs of any rim corrosion so I was a skeptic. His answer? A wet bead is the key to keeping a calcium/water solution from rotting the bead. He got the job.

 

[rossco]

Well, after filling at a 70-75% level with water, I believe I added 1400-1500 lbs to the rear end with the 18.4-30 tires. Used it yesterday and it definitely didn't feel light in the rearend anymore while using the loader. JD recommends a 40% fill, so I may drain some out, which should give me roughly 800 lbs. added weight and see what that does. I don't want to add any more weght than I need. At a 40% fill, it should be a better compromise as far as ride quality, less compaction, etc. I may even add some antifreeze mix to it to aid in rust prevention. Only thing I didn't care for was I did notice condensation buildup on the outside of the rim, I assume due to the cooler temp of the water inside the rims and the moist outside air. Aftermarket weights would run me about $900, so liquid filling for my purposes is definitely the most cost effective solution.

 

[HenryFordPower]

I saw previously in this thread some one asking about a corrosion resistant fluid. If you want to go about it in an economical fashion, meaning cheaper that RimGuard, try methanol.

It can be purchased at many local performance shops and places of the sort for about $100 for a 55 gallon drum. Just make sure you get pure methanol, and not methanol with a petroleum additive as the additive will prevent proper dilution.

If you, your local dealer, or tire shop will pump it in for you, simply mix it at a ratio of 5:1. That is say about 10 gallons to every drum of water.

Its alot less expensive, 100% non corrosive, and holds up to about -15* F if mixed properly.

Hope that might help.

 

[Tx Jim]

Jim,
FWIW, I don't have fluid ballast in any of my tractor tires. And, so far, I've not seen the need. I've had water in tractor tires before, just don't see the need now. .

You're 100% correct. Extra ballast requires extra fuel and extra flat tire repair cost and can definitely affect ride comfort. In my post I stated rowcrop tractors which were used strictly for pulling heavy loads in the field plus way back then they came from factory with bias-ply not radial tires. A lot of today's tractors utility & CUT's don't require extra ballast.

 

[murphy1244]

Mine requires 1038 lbs of rear ballast . I have not seen a utility with a FEL that did not need extra ballast.

 

[GPintheMitten]

Hmm, what was the question, I've lost track.... Oh yah, how much air pressure.:laughing: