Ag tires vs R4

[rjkobbeman]

It's a matter of use and location. Our here in the desert (no row crops here), the R-1's are pretty useless. All you do is sink down in the soft dry sand and make ruts. The R-4's float on top of the sand and provide excellent traction.

True, the ground matters a lot.

Tall and skinny provide greater PSI on the contact patch. Tall and skinny also go through the "soft stuff" and get to the "solid stuff" underneath (if the tires are tall enough to get to the solid stuff). This is why tall and skinny work better in the snow and mud... depending how deep it is.

Fatter tires provide a greater contact patch, but has a lower PSI on that contact patch. Somtimes this is good... sometimes this is bad.

In sand (good example), there is no "getting through the soft to the solid". That is why fatties with low pressure float real good.

There are so many variables... you really have to evaluate on a case-by-case-by-use basic.

 

[TripleR]

True, the ground matters a lot.

Tall and skinny provide greater PSI on the contact patch. Tall and skinny also go through the "soft stuff" and get to the "solid stuff" underneath (if the tires are tall enough to get to the solid stuff). This is why tall and skinny work better in the snow and mud... depending how deep it is.

Fatter tires provide a greater contact patch, but has a lower PSI on that contact patch. Somtimes this is good... sometimes this is bad.

In sand (good example), there is no "getting through the soft to the solid". That is why fatties with low pressure float real good.

There are so many variables... you really have to evaluate on a case-by-case-by-use basic.

Exactly; here are two different size Ag tires, so it's hard to generalize about sinking in loose material or flotation etc.; some times the difference is almost negligible.

 

[Diamondpilot]

I keep hearing all this talk about R1's and a FEL. I have only used 1 tractor with R4's and all the rest have had R1's. All but one of the tractors I have operated were equipped with a FEL. My little Jinma 28 HP tractor has a loader on it that will easily pick up 2,200# 5' off the ground. I have also lifted a 3/4 ton Dodge Van's front end off the ground so we could drag out a rock the telephone man drove over. I only lifted the van a few inches but it was heavy. I have had no issues with my R1' tires running 32 psi. I would be more afraid lifting that type of weight breaking my front axle before it did tire damage.

Chris

 

[Scotty370]

Great conversation! I believe, I've got unloaded R-4's. That like the 'Skid-Steer' shallow bars, correct? I will say I like them, and on turf, as long as I'm not in 4WD, they don't 'scuff' and destroy! But that said, if I get into mud, they just 'load-up', and I might as well have 'racing slicks' on the back! Just another excuse to buy another tractor!!! ~Scotty

 

[foggy1111]

How do you manage a 1800lb difference???

The 790 weighs ~2100 and the 3320 is ~2900. That a diff of 800. Unless you are going to leave the loader on the 3320 and didn't have one on the 790.

But it will be a close call but my money would still be on the ag tires

The fluid in the 790 is 450 lbs less than the 3320's fluid. The cx loader and bucket weigh more than the 70 loader.....and the tractor is 900+ lbs more (the 790 only weighs 1900 lbs (I thiink) . When I did the math to write those numbers...it came out to that much difference.....but my wife cleaned my desk this afternoon....and I cant find my figures. :laughing: (Sorta like the dog ate my homework? :laughing

I'm going to look for my math and see if I can better justify what I wrote. ....But my 3320 with the loader and loaded R4's weighs in at 5000 lbs.

I have sandy soils.....so its hard to know how that will effect the R1 vs R4's too.

 

[LD1]

The fluid in the 790 is 450 lbs less than the 3320's fluid. The cx loader and bucket weigh more than the 70 loader.....and the tractor is 900+ lbs more (the 790 only weighs 1900 lbs (I thiink) . When I did the math to write those numbers...it came out to that much difference.....but my wife cleaned my desk this afternoon....and I cant find my figures. :laughing: (Sorta like the dog ate my homework? :laughing

I'm going to look for my math and see if I can better justify what I wrote. ....But my 3320 with the loader and loaded R4's weighs in at 5000 lbs.

I have sandy soils.....so its hard to know how that will effect the R1 vs R4's too.

There's only one way to find out.....

 

[Diamondpilot]

JD 790 4x4 weighs 2,105# according to the net.

Chris

 

[RoyJackson]

JD 790 4x4 weighs 2,105# according to the net.

Chris

Deere rounds that off to 2200 lbs (with R1's, I believe) in the operator's manual. They don't specify if the tires are filled, but I doubt it.
My R4's (on the 790) were 15-19.5 size, which is the same as the as most of the old 4xxx series (with R4's) as well as some of the new 3x20 series machines, so the liquid ballast should be the same (but I don't recall if foggy's 790 tires were loaded).
I do know there's a base weight difference of about 800 lbs, but 5000 lbs seems a bit heavy.
My 4400, which is quite similar to the 3320 (actually closer to the 3520 in power rating), goes about 4200-4400 lbs (including the 430 loader). That's with filled 41x14x20 R3's which are considerably taller then R4's, but not quite as wide.

 

[foggy1111]

I found my notes buried in a pile. Here's my numbers on the 3320 weight.

Tractor 2900# + 300 CX 850# + bucket 300# + ballast 850# = 4900# Field Ready (less implement)

I just found the wieght on the 70 loader to be 646 lbs...but I don't know if that includes the bucket. So....2100 tractor +646 loader +400 ballast = 3146 # including bucket??

I had the small size R1's on the 790 and the big R4's on the 3320 thus a big difference in ballast.

I rest my case.

 

[buck12]

Scientific data (aka my experience) has shown that R4s are great for every job unless it involves mud. Mud and R4s will make a preacher cuss.

 

[rjkobbeman]

Scientific data (aka my experience) has shown that R4s are great for every job unless it involves mud. Mud and R4s will make a preacher cuss.

I can confirm that!

A week ago I was digging a ditch to lay in some 18" drain pipe. The ditch was about 300' long. With my tractor, I can dig about 3-1/2' deep with the bucket pointed straight down.

Anyway, there were some wet areas that turned to mud very quickly. I was operating on level ground and all of the dirt was long established hard-pack... so I wasn't getting in deep mud, just surface. Well, I was sliding a lot. Tight turns -- which I was doing a lot -- would not have been possible without 4wd. My R4s could have been racing slicks and I would not have known the difference.

 

[SPYDERLK]

I can confirm that!

A week ago I was digging a ditch to lay in some 18" drain pipe. The ditch was about 300' long.
Anyway, there were some wet areas that turned to mud very quickly. I was operating on level ground and all of the dirt was long established hard-pack... so I wasn't getting in deep mud, just surface. Well, I was sliding a lot. Tight turns -- which I was doing a lot -- would not have been possible without 4wd. My R4s could have been racing slicks and I would not have known the difference.

Hope you used your split brakes as well. They usually make a notable improvement in turning in 4wd when its slick.
larry

 

[RoyJackson]

I found my notes buried in a pile. Here's my numbers on the 3320 weight.

Tractor 2900# + 300 CX 850# + bucket 300# + ballast 850# = 4900# Field Ready (less implement)

I just found the wieght on the 70 loader to be 646 lbs...but I don't know if that includes the bucket. So....2100 tractor +646 loader +400 ballast = 3146 # including bucket??

I had the small size R1's on the 790 and the big R4's on the 3320 thus a big difference in ballast.

I rest my case.

I'd guess you'd add the bucket weight (on the 790) for comparison...especially if they're both 61" buckets (I'd guess the 790 had a 54" bucket though).
Anyway, close enough for government work!

 

[RFB]

Here are the load figures for my front R1w's per tire.

At 35 psi my front end is rated at over 9,000 llbs.

And these are R1 pattern with R4 sidewalls; Michellin XM27's

25 mph 20 mph 05 mph PSI
1,710 lbs 1,830 lbs 2,500 lbs 14 psi
1,940 lbs 2,070 lbs 2,790 lbs 17 psi
2,160 lbs 2,330 lbs 3,080 lbs 20 psi
2,390 lbs 2,570 lbs 3,370 lbs 23 psi
2,620 lbs 2,810 lbs 3,660 lbs 26 psi
2,850 lbs 3,050 lbs 3,950 lbs 29 psi
3,080 lbs 3,310 lbs 4,230 lbs 32 psi
3,310 lbs 3,550 lbs 4,530 lbs 35 psi

I do not see much worry for FEL loads.

 

[dixstir]

R 1-R4 tires bought a extra set of wheels on ebay 187.00 all 4 shipped to the door went to goodyear and bought a set of R1 tires for my 2305 john deere 300.00 all 4 so now I am ready for snow lawn or field . simple.

 

[wolc123]

There are a few more places where R4's a real bad. On tilled or "loose" soil they are extremely poor, delivering far less traction than R1's (this is why you dont see them on farm tractors). Snow may already have been mentioned, but that deficiency is easily overcome by the addition of chains. On a 4wd tractor with loaded R1's, chains are rarely necessary for operation on snow. Using chains on R4's, as a traction booster in mud or tilled ground, sounds easy, but is actually very inpractical compared with just gettig the right tires (R1's). On a 40 hp tractor, R1's should also save you about $400 on your purchase price compared to R4's.

 

[D7E]

I think if you tried to go in a farmers field with a R4 tyre here you'd probably get shot, they are very damaging to crop land .

 

[ejkessler]

I have searched this thread and wonder what the definition of "mud " or "snow" is. I have R4's and plow/blow no problem in the snow so far and that was with 20" plus storms and walking through 3' to 4' drifts at times. They did spin from time to time but did not hinder me from a practical standpoint. When the soil gets soft enough for their to be a difference for "mud" I would believe that R1's would make a difference but that is if I were doing "only" field implement work. When I do brush out and clear stumps and debris the R4's are great. When I do loader work and backhoe work the R4's do great. When I blow/plow snow the R4's are adequate, not great. When I seed/fertilize/aerate/lime the lawn they once again are adequate and would only be better if I had turfs. R1's would tear it up. If it is "muddy" enough for the R4's to ball up and not work well then I would not be going out. If all I were doing as I mention above is the field work then hands down the R1's in "mud" would be the way to go. But when the soil is wet or soft but not necessarily "muddy" they are adequate. It's kind of like the big trucks with the huge monster or extra large lugged tires. Unless you are in bottomless "mud" all the time they are ridiculous. R4's sell and are used for many for good reason. They work adequately, not great, for most, applications. To each his own when figuring out what to go with. I have considered chains for R4's but have yet find that I needed them, not that will not be the case at some point.

 

[consaka]

Lol this is funny. Out here if you dont float on the soggy ground you aren't going anywhere. R1 Tires here will sink in and the whole tractor will be stuck. I till, brushhog, and do boxblade work plus FEL stuff. My place(preschool business) would look like some kind of mud pit if I used R1.
Part of the problem is the tight turning radius of the Mahindra. You dont dare turn very sharp in 4wheel even with R4.
I have even moved snow with it. I didnt chain up but if I was doing a lot of snow I probably would chain the front tires with a lightweight chain. I didnt notice a lot of difference compared to my dads kubota with the ag tires. but then my mahindra is a bit bigger then his b1700.

Either one will have trouble in snow at 30 to 33 degrees. But colder it isnt such a problem.
If you like plowing in mud and your mud is only a few inches thick then ag tires will be your best bet. Personally I dont work the soil with anything when the ground is saturated damp. Just seems to make a big mess I cant do anything with.

 

[Reg]

I think if you tried to go in a farmers field with a R4 tyre here you'd probably get shot, they are very damaging to crop land .

I would expect AT LEAST a warning shot if I took a tractor of any sort on someone else's crop land (-:

I think the O/P was NOT considering growing row crops, but more general utility applications.

CUTS typically don't have wheel track spacing that is adjustable to suit row crops ANYWAY, so this is hardly an issue.