[AJD] Two Cylinder JD's and Power Driven Equipment

[Duane Ledford]

"Binderoids"-----I'll have to remember that one!

On Tue Feb  5 20:45 , 'J.R. Hobbs' <jrhobbs2004 at yahoo.com> sent:

>This is opinion and experience, not necessarily knowledge on my part. I think the 
part about a two-cylinder tractor being harder on the bearings of a belt-driven 
machine is bunk, simply because the transmitting medium, the belt, would have 
absorbed the shock of the uneven firing, and the bearings would never notice.
>   
>  However, I do believe that on loads that required every ounce of power, such as 
a "fuel racks set wide open"  "720" Diesel with about 70 horsepower on a 4-row 707 
stalk cutter in heavy corn stalks, they were definitely harder on U-joints than a 
multi-cylinder tractor would be. With the "720" powering the 707, getting a year's 
service out of a set of U-joints was doing well. When the same cutter was powered 
with a 4010, U-joint life was tripled. Some of this might have been because of 
slightly different power delivery angles, but I believe that it was mostly because 
of the smoother power delivery at relatively high horsepower ratings. And, had the 
PTO's been 1000 rpm instead of 540, I think that would have made for longer U-joint 
life for the two-cylinder.
>   
>  However, on machines not requiring full power, such as mowing machines, etc, we 
never really saw all that much or any significant difference in U-joint or bearing 
life. So, I think your conclusions are correct, and that in most cases, it is 
indeed a myth, perpetrated largely by the kind of people I like to call Binderoids.
>
>Duane Ledford dledford at classicnet.net> wrote:
>  
>Thought I would ask you folks what your opinion and knowledge is about this. Have 
>ran across several individuals who claim that if you use any type of PTO driven or 
>belt driven equipment on a two cylinder JD, that the bearings of the equipment 
will 
>be ruined. Their reasoning is that the uneven firing of the two cylinder engine 
>pounds on the bearings, universal joints, etc. I might be able to see this if you 
>were lugging the tractor for an extended time. But if this is true, wouldnt every 
>bearing in the tractor be subject to this pounding, therefore need frequent 
>replacing? Bearings wear out, but I really haven't seen any more frequency in JD's 
>bearings needing replaced over any other brand. Has anyone done or heard of a 
>study of this "rural myth?" Would be interesting to see measured results of the 
>differences in stress on equipment between the pulsing two cylinder engines over 
>the smoother running four and six cylinder ones. What has been your experience? 
>What do you think? 
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Antique-johndeere mailing list
>http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/antique-johndeere
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Antique-johndeere mailing list
>http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/antique-johndeere