jerrybob
Super Member
Kinda sounds like this???? It's normal! Great engine and tractor!! Congrats!
3 CILINDER YANMAR DIESEL ON JOHN DEERE TRACTOR - YouTube
3 CILINDER YANMAR DIESEL ON JOHN DEERE TRACTOR - YouTube
My new old YM240
- Thread starter robsym240
- Start date
- Views: 17439
California
Super Star Member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2004
- Messages
- 16,689
- Location
- An hour north of San Francisco
- Tractor
- Yanmar YM240 Yanmar YM186D
I wish my YM240 sounded all pretty like that. This YouTube vid is what they really sound like. (After this owner spends 40 seconds -unnecessary- playing with the thermostart).
CLANK CLANK CLANK RAP RAP RAP CLANK CLANK CLANK ... The sound is like a bunch of clowns hammering on a manhole cover with sledges. Everyone's first impression is that a rod is about to come through the block. No. They just sound like that.
OP
robsym240
Member
Yep, aside from the near flaming thermostart, that's the sound! So far I've not had to use the thermalstart, this old tractor starts right up every time. I think the noise scared a lot of potential buyers off, the seller had it listed for nearly a month, the noise freaked me out too until I found out it's supposed to sound like that.
clemsonfor
Super Member
Yep thats the good things about them!!! They are reliable and really when you get down to it parts are about as cheap as tractor parts can be. That is the few things that you should need for one. I have only done an axle seal, volt reg, radiator, 3pt valve (these last 3 were under warrenty, from where i bought it), changed fluids, and rebuilt my hydraulic 3 point lift just to help the leak down and to just freshen the lift system up.
I also have added several hundred pounds of weight to the front bumper to help keep it down as well as added windshield washer fluid to my rear tires to get more weight on the tractor to help in pulling tractor for disking/plowing/blading.
These tractors were built to rototill in japan, they have a high HP to weight ratio, and they just dont weight much. Traction is often times your limiting factor when useing ground engageing implements, which is the reason i have all the weight on mine. To give you a comparisen the Old for N's were close to the same HP but they weighed almost 2x as much before they were even balasted, once balasted with water and wheel weights and bumper, they approach 2.4-3x the weight. the 8n could pull a 2 bottom plow, your lucky to pull a single bottom in most ground the size of the bottoms on the 8n. BUUUTTTT the N's were built for american farming with ground engageing equiptment. So they were heavy to get the power to the ground. Where even with the say 200lbs on my bumper and over 200+lbs of fluid in my rears i still will spin out pretty often if the disk gets too deep or the mower get caught on a high spot etc.
I also have added several hundred pounds of weight to the front bumper to help keep it down as well as added windshield washer fluid to my rear tires to get more weight on the tractor to help in pulling tractor for disking/plowing/blading.
These tractors were built to rototill in japan, they have a high HP to weight ratio, and they just dont weight much. Traction is often times your limiting factor when useing ground engageing implements, which is the reason i have all the weight on mine. To give you a comparisen the Old for N's were close to the same HP but they weighed almost 2x as much before they were even balasted, once balasted with water and wheel weights and bumper, they approach 2.4-3x the weight. the 8n could pull a 2 bottom plow, your lucky to pull a single bottom in most ground the size of the bottoms on the 8n. BUUUTTTT the N's were built for american farming with ground engageing equiptment. So they were heavy to get the power to the ground. Where even with the say 200lbs on my bumper and over 200+lbs of fluid in my rears i still will spin out pretty often if the disk gets too deep or the mower get caught on a high spot etc.
jerrybob
Super Member
Neat 1500
Platinum Member
Ha ha, i stood next to mine today while it was idling at about 1050 RPM, just listening. Its mesmorising after a while
OP
robsym240
Member
Ha ha, i stood next to mine today while it was idling at about 1050 RPM, just listening. Its mesmorising after a while
I start mine every day at least once and just listen to it idle, then I end up going back out to the garage to make sure I turned the key off and end up starting it up again...It's so ironic that the sound that almost made me pass on buying it is now music to my ears
OP
robsym240
Member
The link from Nebraska Tractor Testing Laboratory is from the testing of a 1975 YM240 made for the American market, note the color, the external headlight location and the hood is hinged in the rear. The ad for the American marketing of the YM240 is from 1977 and shows the headlight located within the grill and the hood is hinged in the front. http://contentdm.unl.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/tractor/id/1264/rec/16
clemsonfor
Super Member
look at all that rear wheel ballast! And those tires squatting. That sure is some weight, as California notes probably more than they say is manufacturer specs
(o is that 284??) this is so that they can actually put the power to the ground.
(o is that 284??) this is so that they can actually put the power to the ground.
284 International
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2010
- Messages
- 1,464
- Tractor
- International Harvester 284
That linked picture from the Nebraska test is really interesting. I had never encountered that section before. Apparently the side steps are actually for passengers! It would also make climbing aboard MUCH easier.
My manual for the YM240 says no more than 310 lbs of added weight TOTAL, or 155 lbs per rear wheel. It also specifically says not to run liquid and cast iron ballast, but to choose one or the other. Additionally it says never to run liquid ballast in the front tires. Yanmar, whose representatives setup and operated the tractor, according to other commentary, gave their YM240 430 pounds of cast iron ballast PER WHEEL, and then tossed in another 136 lbs of liquid ballast in each tire as well.
They did follow their own requirement and didn't add liquid to the front tires, just 220 lbs of suitcase weights. It sums to 1355 lbs ballast added to the 1950 pound tractor, or a mere 825 lbs beyond what Yanmar specified in their manual. They went over the required maximum ballast by 42% of the tractor's starting weight, which is rather a lot to me. However, I have to say my YM2000 does much better with filled tires and 180 lbs of cast iron ballast per wheel....I understand why they did it, but I bet it wouldn't be much fun going up a steep grade.
My manual for the YM240 says no more than 310 lbs of added weight TOTAL, or 155 lbs per rear wheel. It also specifically says not to run liquid and cast iron ballast, but to choose one or the other. Additionally it says never to run liquid ballast in the front tires. Yanmar, whose representatives setup and operated the tractor, according to other commentary, gave their YM240 430 pounds of cast iron ballast PER WHEEL, and then tossed in another 136 lbs of liquid ballast in each tire as well.
They did follow their own requirement and didn't add liquid to the front tires, just 220 lbs of suitcase weights. It sums to 1355 lbs ballast added to the 1950 pound tractor, or a mere 825 lbs beyond what Yanmar specified in their manual. They went over the required maximum ballast by 42% of the tractor's starting weight, which is rather a lot to me. However, I have to say my YM2000 does much better with filled tires and 180 lbs of cast iron ballast per wheel....I understand why they did it, but I bet it wouldn't be much fun going up a steep grade.
California
Super Star Member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2004
- Messages
- 16,689
- Location
- An hour north of San Francisco
- Tractor
- Yanmar YM240 Yanmar YM186D
This spotlight on the Version 1 YM240 is interesting. I haven't seen the facts about these drawn together into a single thread.
My YM240 Parts Manual says 'For YM240 1975 and later'. But the Nebraska testing was done in 1975 so I assume this model already had some market presence here by then - or they never would have heard of it. Does anyone know when this model started (in Japan as YM2000) or was first imported here?
I'll toss in a wild guess, unsubstantiated: it looks to me that YM1900 (years unknown) was the earliest version of this series.
284 noted the extreme ballast for the Nebraska test. I'll agree with his point about too much ballast to maintain speed going uphill. I first loaded my (oversize) rear tires to maximum with water and that required stopping to shift down a gear or two before attempting any upslope. After adding the ROPS (65 lbs behind the rear axle) I reduced the rear tire fill to 50%, which now seems about right.
My YM240 Parts Manual says 'For YM240 1975 and later'. But the Nebraska testing was done in 1975 so I assume this model already had some market presence here by then - or they never would have heard of it. Does anyone know when this model started (in Japan as YM2000) or was first imported here?
I'll toss in a wild guess, unsubstantiated: it looks to me that YM1900 (years unknown) was the earliest version of this series.
284 noted the extreme ballast for the Nebraska test. I'll agree with his point about too much ballast to maintain speed going uphill. I first loaded my (oversize) rear tires to maximum with water and that required stopping to shift down a gear or two before attempting any upslope. After adding the ROPS (65 lbs behind the rear axle) I reduced the rear tire fill to 50%, which now seems about right.
clemsonfor
Super Member
I was thinking about liquid in the fronts to help hold it down when lifting my heavy dish harrow, glad i saw your post i may just live with it now?
284 International
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2010
- Messages
- 1,464
- Tractor
- International Harvester 284
I don't run liquid in the front tires of my 2 wheel drive tractors, but do in a couple of the 4 wheel drive machines. The small diameter, skinny tires wouldn't hold much liquid, at least on my tractors, so I'm happier adding suitcase weights. I think it is harder on the drivetrain parts, and puts more stress on the tractor when hitting bumps, but I just drive very carefully and bless the added traction.
clemsonfor
Super Member
I have about 200lbs of junk that i have fixed to my front, but i still cant quite keep the front pinned down when the disk is ballested.
kenmac
Super Member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2005
- Messages
- 9,943
- Location
- The Heart of Dixie
- Tractor
- McCormick CX105 Kubota MX 5100 HST,
B-4 installing my loader, I ran water in the fronts. I needed the weight when using my boom pole lifting logs. no water in the fronts now,but the rears are full
OP
robsym240
Member
Me and my ''Yan Deere'' YM240 gettin' r done 
Scotty Dive
Veteran Member
NIIIIIIICCEEEEEEE
Did the 240's have an alternator or is that an after market solution to the dynamo?
Did the 240's have an alternator or is that an after market solution to the dynamo?
clemsonfor
Super Member
240s or 2000's have an alternator.
OP
robsym240
Member
..In the manual it's called a ''A.C. generator'', it's a new ''alternator'' the previous owner had just put in, he got it from Hoye.
California
Super Star Member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2004
- Messages
- 16,689
- Location
- An hour north of San Francisco
- Tractor
- Yanmar YM240 Yanmar YM186D
[photo] Me and my ''Yan Deere'' YM240 gettin' r done
That thing is gorgeous! I wish mine were clean like that.
Aren't these things great toys? You'll be grinning like that photo every time you get on it. :cool2:
