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

[wayne johnson]

Binderoids??  That's a good word.  I think your concepts are pretty correct. 
Merle Wayne
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "J.R. Hobbs" <jrhobbs2004 at yahoo.com>
To: "Antique John Deere mailing list" 
<antique-johndeere at lists.antique-tractor.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: [AJD] Two Cylinder JD's and Power Driven Equipment


> 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
>