anyone got an idea about this?

[RollingsFarms]

I borrowed my friends disk today to do my firebreaks. they needed to be done badly and I haven't bought a disk for my tractor yet. I have a John Deere 5203 MFWD and his disk is a 6' Tuffline. I'd estimate it to be 800-900lbs according to the specs on Tuffline's Website. my tractor is 56 hp, turbo, and you'd think I would have no problem pulling a 6' disk, right? wrong. my soil is basically soft sand, and ofcourse its previously plowed ground since I've been cutting the same firebreaks for years now. when I disk, I want the blades to run as deep as they can possibly go to avoid having to make multiple passes and to get as deep as possible. The disk wasnt set to it's most aggressive setting, infact, it wasn't even set to half it's aggressivness. I dropped the disk as far as shed go, went for a ways and then the tractor just stopped and started spinning. I locked it in 4wd and continued with some slippage, but it was minimal. I tried to go back to 2wd to finish the job, but always kept getting the same result so I left it in 4wd the rest of the time. what's the problem? is it a lack of horespower? is it because my tires aren't loaded? is it possible that I need to change my rear tires to 16.9X28 instead of the 14.9x28 I currently have? is it lack of traction? when I add rear fluid, should I add a set of wheel weights too? I know I could not put the disk all the way down and make multiple passes but I'd be doing that all day as I have many firebreaks to do. I was just shocked that a 6' disk was stopping a 56hp tractor so easily that weighs 5044 lbs. even if the disk is being run all the way down, shouldnt the tractor be able to muscle it through the ground with no problems? I know if I was using this disk on ground that had never been touched I would have no problem pulling it. I just have really soft ground and it's soft, thick sand. I guess when I do buy a disk in the next month or so, I better not get anything over 6'!! anyone have any ideas what the problem is?

 

[MikeInEburg]

Clearly the trouble is not a lack of horsepower, but rather the inability to apply that HP to Mother Earth. Loading the tires will help. Chains will help. Wheel weights will help. Leaving it in 4-wheel drive will help.
Mike

 

[George2615]

If it worked for you when you used 4WD then that's what you need to do. Soft soil in 2WD may not provide the traction you need. If you're not sinking in then rear wheel weights may help.
I doubt changing the rear tires from 16.9 to 14.9 would help. Besides if you change the rears you have to change the fronts to keep the gear ratios (front and rear) from fighting each other when using 4WD and possibly causing damage.

 

[KennyV]

I guess I do not understand...
Since you are having a traction problem, why are you not using 4 wheel drive??? You said it was working in 4 wheel...
In loose dry sand you NEED all the traction you can find...
Is there some reason you are not using 4 wheel drive while tilling? KennyV

 

[RollingsFarms]

I guess I do not understand...
Since you are having a traction problem, why are you not using 4 wheel drive??? You said it was working in 4 wheel...
In loose dry sand you NEED all the traction you can find...
Is there some reason you are not using 4 wheel drive while tilling? KennyV

I just never thought I would need it only pulling a 6' disk. I see people on here pulling 7' with 45hp and even 8' at times. I guess I got the big head in thinking my tractor was going to toy with this disk, only to have my words thrown back in my face I did put it in 4wd and there was still SOME slippage, but the tractor did pull it. I was thinking it was a traction/lack of rear ballast problem and I think others are agreeing with me.

 

[RollingsFarms]

If it worked for you when you used 4WD then that's what you need to do. Soft soil in 2WD may not provide the traction you need. If you're not sinking in then rear wheel weights may help.
I doubt changing the rear tires from 16.9 to 14.9 would help. Besides if you change the rears you have to change the fronts to keep the gear ratios (front and rear) from fighting each other when using 4WD and possibly causing damage.

I discussed the rear tire change with my dealer and he said it was fine because the 5303 comes with 16.9's and has the same gear ratio as my 5203 with 14.9's. i was thinking the larger tire would provide better grip while also holding more fluid therefore giving me more weight and traction. i'm thinking i might need to get my rears filled AND either a set or two of rear wheel weights. i asked my dealer about this when i bouhg the tractor and he said not to do it now, to wait until i got my loader in a couple years.

 

[KennyV]

I just never thought I would need it only pulling a 6' disk. I see people on here pulling 7' with 45hp and even 8' at times. I guess I got the big head in thinking my tractor was going to toy with this disk, only to have my words thrown back in my face

Not all discs are engineered the same. They may look very similar, but you will find some are much more efficient than others.
Same with AG tires, some will have a little better advantage than others. KennyV

 

[Farmwithjunk]

Traction, and the lack of......

I pull a 10' IH wheel disc with my Deere 2440. It's 61 hp (pto) 2wd, but weight is around 7200lbs w/fluid and cast weights as I normally use this tractor.

I use a 7'-6" 3-point disc behind my MF150. It'll dyno @ 47hp. The weight (w/fluid in rears) is right around 5000lbs. In really loose soil or plowed ground, that disc is a handfull, but traction and horsepower seem to be a fair match.

I'd have to think yours is just a tad light to be using it in 2wd. Weight may help, 4wd DOES help.

 

[RWolf]

You said in your first post that the ground had been worked before so it sounds like loose soil. In loose soil you won't get the same traction as someone on hard packed soil. With your larger tires you have less compactation on the soil. With the thinner tires they will dig down more until they get to harder soil. IMO keep the same tires and use 4WD. And lastly sometimes we just have to compromise and go over our soil a couple of times to get the results we want. Also how many gangs does this disk have and does it have coultiers or anything else? I'll be disking soon and using a 6' disk but I don't expect any problems because my soil is hard, hard, and hard. In fact I'll be using a subsoiler before I disk so I can break up the soil/hardpan and I know I'll have to go over the soil a couple of times at diagonals to get the desired effect.

Good luck

 

[RollingsFarms]

Traction, and the lack of......

I pull a 10' IH wheel disc with my Deere 2440. It's 61 hp (pto) 2wd, but weight is around 7200lbs w/fluid and cast weights as I normally use this tractor.

I use a 7'-6" 3-point disc behind my MF150. It'll dyno @ 47hp. The weight (w/fluid in rears) is right around 5000lbs. In really loose soil or plowed ground, that disc is a handfull, but traction and horsepower seem to be a fair match.

I'd have to think yours is just a tad light to be using it in 2wd. Weight may help, 4wd DOES help.

thanks Bill! i was hoping you'd stumble accross this thread. when i bouhgt my tractor i told the dealer what i'd be doing with it and that i wanted to go ahead and get the tires filled and throw on a set of 110 lb. wheel weights. he told me to just wait until i got my loader so i planned on doing that. this is the first time i've pulled a disk behind this tractor and i must admit, the lack of weight was the farthest thing from my mind being is the tractor came from the factory at 5044 lbs. i just didn't think it would pull so badly in 2wd. i was on the fence about getting 4wd as ive never owned a tractor with it and i figured i just wouldnt need it. today i was glad i had it! some questions i wanted to ask about your MF #25 and 150 as it is similar in weight and pto hp as my 5203. are the gangs set real aggressive in most of your uses? how does the tractor perform with it? much wheel spin? also, would you suggest going up to a 16.9 tire over the 14.9 i currently have? more fluid can be added to those and that equals to more weight, and i get a little better footprint, or should i be fine once i add fluid to my 14.9's? i've also been debating one set of rear wheel weights or two along with the fluid ballast. for my uses, the ballast i do add will never be removed as i never use the tractor on lawns or anything like that. i want to set it up strictly for field work and be able to get all the power i can to the ground. i estimated with filled tires, 2 sets of wheel weights and a loader(in the future) i'd be knocking on the door of around 7,000 lbs give or take.

 

[RollingsFarms]

You said in your first post that the ground had been worked before so it sounds like loose soil. In loose soil you won't get the same traction as someone on hard packed soil. With your larger tires you have less compactation on the soil. With the thinner tires they will dig down more until they get to harder soil. IMO keep the same tires and use 4WD. And lastly sometimes we just have to compromise and go over our soil a couple of times to get the results we want. Also how many gangs does this disk have and does it have coultiers or anything else? I'll be disking soon and using a 6' disk but I don't expect any problems because my soil is hard, hard, and hard. In fact I'll be using a subsoiler before I disk so I can break up the soil/hardpan and I know I'll have to go over the soil a couple of times at diagonals to get the desired effect.

Good luck

yeah, no hard packed soil around here that's for sure! they dont call it the sandhills for nothing! just good ol' blackish/grey loose sandy soil. i have a field that's covered in 'floor cactus'(a cactus plant native to this area that grows along the ground and never grows vertically) if that tells you anything. the disk i was using had 20(5 on each gang) disks and i think they were 18" or 20". what size tires are on your 5103? is it 4wd?

 

[chh]

I'd be fence about changing the rears out(I probably wouldn't). It would probably help some though. I would sure load the tires and/or get the wheel weights. The dealers locally will not hardly sell a tractor(esp with a FEL) without loading the rears. I would suspect though that in sand you will always end up using the front assist when discing on previously worked ground.

 

[Farmwithjunk]

thanks Bill! i was hoping you'd stumble accross this thread. when i bouhgt my tractor i told the dealer what i'd be doing with it and that i wanted to go ahead and get the tires filled and throw on a set of 110 lb. wheel weights. he told me to just wait until i got my loader so i planned on doing that. this is the first time i've pulled a disk behind this tractor and i must admit, the lack of weight was the farthest thing from my mind being is the tractor came from the factory at 5044 lbs. i just didn't think it would pull so badly in 2wd. i was on the fence about getting 4wd as ive never owned a tractor with it and i figured i just wouldnt need it. today i was glad i had it! some questions i wanted to ask about your MF #25 and 150 as it is similar in weight and pto hp as my 5203. are the gangs set real aggressive in most of your uses? how does the tractor perform with it? much wheel spin? also, would you suggest going up to a 16.9 tire over the 14.9 i currently have? more fluid can be added to those and that equals to more weight, and i get a little better footprint, or should i be fine once i add fluid to my 14.9's? i've also been debating one set of rear wheel weights or two along with the fluid ballast. for my uses, the ballast i do add will never be removed as i never use the tractor on lawns or anything like that. i want to set it up strictly for field work and be able to get all the power i can to the ground. i estimated with filled tires, 2 sets of wheel weights and a loader(in the future) i'd be knocking on the door of around 7,000 lbs give or take.

In MOST cases, I set the angle of the front gangs one notch less than all the way as aggressive as they'll go, and rear gangs get one LESS than that. The only time I use full angle is when I'm discing in sod ground.

My 150 runs 13.6X28 rears and has proven to be enough tire. The Deere runs 16.9X30's.

For tillage work, I'd think 56hp would make good use of 7000lbs, but I'd be hesitant to go much heavier.

 

[chh]

Finishing up what I previously posted. Front weight or a FEL may help some also. I used a heavy 8' disc behind my 2wd MF4243 last year finishing a hayfield renovation/bermuda sprigging project. It would not pull the disc very well at all with the FEL off and pulled it great with it on. I needed the weight extra in front for balance and to aid steering.

 

[radioman]

what about getting dual rears, all chained up, liquid ballasted, add-on wheel wieghts if there is still slippage ? Still having slippage after all this ? upgrade to a heavier tractor with same config above.

 

[RollingsFarms]

thanks for all the suggestions! i did some figuring and if i add washer fluid(what my dealer uses) and 2 sets of rear wheel weights, plus the weight of the tractor, i'm looking at about 6,364 lbs. This is with 14.9x28 rear tires. If i decide to switch to 16.9x28 tires, i'm looking at around 6,629 lbs. Add on the front end loader i'm guessing is another 1,000 lbs. I won't be getting that for another couple of years though. check my math to see if my calculations are correct.

tractor's current weight- 5,044 lbs

a gallon of washer fluid weighs 8.3 lbs and a 14.9x28 tire holds 53 gallons so 106 gallons x 8.3= 879.8 lbs.

2 sets of rear wheel weights(each weighs 110 lbs)= 440

i'd love to load up the front with some weights to get me close to the 7,000 lbs. mark but if i'm going to eventually get a loader this won't be cost effective.

these numbers look right?

 

[jmc]

You seem hopefully that a FEL will help with traction but if your goal is to disk in 2WD, the FEL will actually reduce your traction since it takes weight off the rear tires (and adds weight to the undriven, front tires)

John

 

[MikeInEburg]

a gallon of washer fluid weighs 8.3 lbs and a 14.9x28 tire holds 53 gallons so 106 gallons x 8.3= 879.8 lbs.

While I didn't check the math, just remember that you generally don't fill the tire to capacity with fluid. Rather you generally fill to just above the axle - allowing for some amount of air to remain in the tire.
Mike

 

[JB4310]

Just a thought based on zero experience with this particular application, but some experience with traction issues.
IMO the quickest/easiest way to gain some serious pulling traction would be to throw some weight on the front and get some use out of those big AG tires in 4WD. Being as light as your front is now, even with 4WD when your rears are grabbing traction it's lifting the front end and unloading that drive axle/tires. Suit case weights or front wheel weights if they're available would put those impressive looking front tires to work.

If your heart set on using only 2WD then you'll have to load up the rear as much as possible, but those big front tires will then be a detriment, trying to plow them through the ground, and with a future loader on there it would be worse (in just 2WD)

With the loader, a full bucket and 4WD there would be no traction issues

JB.

 

[firemen122]

You are wanting your tractor to pull a 6 ft disc set to full aggressive, burying the disc to the axle in soft previously worked sugar sand in 2wd. Thats a lot to ask of a tractor with no wheel weights and no fluid in the tires. Do you trailer your tractor alot? This would be my only reservation in loading the weight up on the tractor. If not load the tires get your weights and you should see a huge improvement. Do not be surprised if you still need 4x4 some. I have a 65 horse cab 4x4,loader, fluid in tires with 8 ft disc with 2 pieces of railroad iron on top. If I am in soft sugar sand with the disc buried it wants 4x4 to be comfortable. Head up a hill and hold on where did those 65 horses go..... No shame in using 4x4 thats what it is there for. Your tractor will handle an 8 ft set fine once set up right. It will most likely need 4x4 in sugar sand though......