[AT] Continuing "What to do"

Cecil R Bearden crbearden at copper.net
Tue Jan 12 07:49:19 PST 2016


Dennis:
I have an 8345 Belarus 4 x 4 w/cab that I use for feeding and most any 
utility tractor need.  I do not have ballast in the rear wheels, but I 
always put a round bale on the rear bale prong whenever I need the extra 
weight or handling bales.  I put 2 bales on the front end with the 4 
prong front fork.  When I need the extra traction, I engage the 4wd.  
Most of the time I only need 2wd even in the mud around the feeders.  
The front tires are 9.00 x 20 tractor tread.

However, my TS110 New Holland is 2wd and has a front loader.  Both 
Koyker loaders.  If I put a bale on the rear prong and try to move hay 
in a muddy area, with only one bale on the front, the TS110 is stuck.    
The larger front tires give you a great advantage in mud.   The TS110 
also has  oversize tires on the front.   Those small front wheels are 
what sticks a tractor in the mud.  I have a friend with one of those 
NewHolland 4wd tractors that has the front and rear tires the same.  He 
hardly ever uses the 4wd to work through mud.

I cannot say enough good about the 2 Belarus tractors I have.  If I did 
not have them I would surely be in deep muck trying to handle hay in 
this mud...

Cecil in OKla

On 1/11/2016 8:52 PM, Dennis Johnson wrote:
> Spencer
>
> Today I got a reminder why older 2x4 tractors with FEL are not always the best. I needed to go to Oklahoma for several things. One was to put the hydraulic system back together on my loader after having fittings and new hoses welded to the tubes that were welded to a distribution block. Got that installed, and now loader works fine.
>
> I thought that I would try and use the loader a little bit. First task was getting it stuck when trying to push over a dead tree. Used loader to pick up front tires and put some tree limbs under the front tire, and was able to back out. Second task worked fine, lifting and moving limbs from neighbors tree that fell on my drive (see above) - worked well. Third task was to try and move a tree I took down few months ago - result was get stuck again. Loader picked up front end, put something under both wheels, and was able top back out again. Parked tractor for a drier day and went on to other tasks.
>
> The turning radius on the IH2504 is similar to the Massy Ferguson 35 series. It turns and maneuvers well on solid ground. The loader sticks out a little, guessing 3 foot from front of front tires to the front of the loader. The real issue is there is just a lot of weight on the front tires. I could add some ballast the the rear a few feet behind the rear tires, but that would limit using the 32 point, and the manual does not recommend adding ballast on the 3 point assembly.
>
> To get more usability on soft wet ground I need a 4 x 4 of some kind. Getting a 4 x 4 with front loader would cost 2 to 4 times what I paid for this IH2504. With my budget constraints, that cost of machine is not in the picture now, so I need to accept not using the tractor/loader when soil is wet and soft. Neighbor top the South has a Chinese 4 x 4 tractor with FEL. It works well, but he has had several maintenance issues - hydraulics and front axle bearing problems. Other neighbor has a small 4 x 4 Kubota, which works great. Both of these are significantly smaller than my tractor, but are great for small utility chores.
>
> Point is that if you need something usable in rough conditions, you need a 4 x 4 which requires more $$$. If you can wait for dry/solid ground, you can get something with a lot less $$$.
>
> Something that might work for moving manure, etc would be a dirt scope on the back of your 3 point. You might need to make a special one with a wider bucket, but that would be a possibility of you do not need to lift it very high. I am sure it would not be a nice as a FEL, but cost is significantly less.
>
> I also have a loader for my 1938 F20 - it is a cable system that used 2 cylinders to move cables to lift it. Both the F20 and the loader need a lot of TLC to get them running and usable. Not sure I would recommend that unless you just like to play with old iron.
>
> Thanks,
> Dennis
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Jan 9, 2016, at 1:40 PM, ATIS <yostsw at atis.net> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry for the two part message, but that send button is entirely too close to the text box :-)
>>
>> Anyways the quandary I am in is do I sell my Ford 861 and get a more modern tractor with a  FEL in upper 30s or low 40s HP (my minimum requirement)?  Or keep the 861D and go with a smaller tractor just for its front loader?   The price differential between a little 22 hp tractor with a FEL and 40 hp tractor, all other things being equal in terms of wear, years, etc is not that great. I really feel like it would be foolish to own two tractors when the little one cost 10K or more  But then again the extra money for that larger single replacement tractor is extra money. And it doesn't grow on trees.
>>
>> Has anyone else been in this circumstance? What did you do to resolve it?. Would you do it the same way again?
>>
>> Thanks in advance
>>
>> Spencer Yost
>> _______________________________________________
>> AT mailing list
>> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
> _______________________________________________
> AT mailing list
> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at




More information about the AT mailing list