Large JD CUT questions -

[timb]

A couple of questions for the "big" JD owners -

1st - for the folks who run a large-frame JD 45x0-47x0, the 460 loader, and R1 tires. Do you have any problems with the front R1's during heavy loader lifts?

I think the manual states that the (optional?) 8-16 R1's have a max pressure of 28psi and load capacity at that pressure of just 1360 lbs. each. The standard R4 fronts have a far higher rating. It would seem that with the base tractor front weight, the loader and bucket itself, and anything near the load limit - most or all of which I would think ends up on the front axle - puts you way over the carrying capacity of the factory R1 tires. Closer to double the limit. For my particular mix of intended uses I think I would really prefer the R1's but it seems like there could be a concern with the front tires. (The rear R1's ratings seem to be plenty high for that end.) What's the real-world experience the R1's?

2nd - adding front weight. When running heavy 3ph implements (without the FEL) how much weight have you had to add to the front end? According to JD, up to 420 lbs (840 lbs with the weight extension) can be added - nearly all of which is needed for something the size of an MX6 rotary cutter. Since the extension bracket can't be left on when the loader is mounted - do you have a problem with a light front end (or does everyone tend to leave the FEL on all the time? )

Thanks for any help!

 

[JerryG]

Timb,
I don't have a large frame JD, but I do have a 33 hp MF 1250. My tractor came with Firestone 7-16 front tires. They were four ply. I don't think that they should ever put 4 ply tires on any tractor with a loader. By the end of the first year, both front tires were falling apart interiley. Firestone worked with me on the replacement and I now have six plys. The six ply have been on for I guess about 700 hours and still are in good shape.

 

[BillyP]

Tim,

I have a JD 4610 MFWD with FEL. I use a JD 616 cutter without the FEL or front weights without any problem. Before I got this tractor I had a JD 4600 2WD without FEL. On that tractor I had to use front weights when bush hogging.

On the R1 tires, I've had both R1s and R4s, I prefer the R4s. I use this tractor to mow my yard too and the R4s don't leave lug tracks like the R1s. The best I can tell, the 4s have as good traction as the 1s but it all depends on where you're going to be using it.

Billy

 

[rancar]

Tim....

I bought a JD4710 with the 460 FEL and R1s in May, 2002. While I haven't had it all that long, I've used the FEL to move some large stones and stumps. I'm not sure if I was at the carrying capacity of the FEL...it seemed like it a few times. However, I DID NOT notice any apparent difficulty in the performance or durability of the front R1 tires nor any undue stress on the front axle.

I will add though I mentioned this to my dealer when purchasing the tractor. I just thought the wheels looked somewhat small for the size of the tractor. The dealer assured me that in actually these wheels are a bit bigger than ones used by other manufacturers and that JD has not received any consumer complaints on this issue. From personal experience, neither have I experienced any problem. You raise a good point though about the weight limits for each tire at maximum pressure and this is an issue I want to investigate further myself. Thanks.

.....Bob

 

[timb]

I've been mentally leaning toward the R1s over the R4s, but I don't really have any experience with an R4 tire to compare.

Far as I've been able to tell from tons of posts here and other sources, the only advantages the R4's have are - undeniably sturdier and more puncture resistant, especially for the fronts - and maybe better on the lawn. (I've seen some varying opinions on that last item). For flat-out traction in dirt, mud, or snow it sounds like the R1's usually come out ahead.

I haven't been too worried about R1 "damage". We've cut most of the yards/fields around here for years with an F1/filled-R1 equipped 2wd Ford NAA. That tractor, set up the way it is, is pretty close to the same size/weight/footprint of a bigger CUT. We've never had any real issues running across the lawn. On my in-laws place the really close in areas are cut by a push mower or small JD rider. Some day I'd like to get some sort of ZTR for the "good" lawn (when I put that in) - up till then I don't think I'll have too much concern over R1 lawn damage.

So for all the million other jobs I've got - I like the R1s - if they're up to the heaviest load work.

While we're talking load limits - anyone notice the limits on the axles listed in the JD information? Again, they don't seem to be rated to handle the everyday tractor setup. For instance at the rear - the static tractor weight plus the effect of the 3ph at or near it's limit. Obviously these tractors are out there working everyday, but some things don't seem to add up.

 

[JATO_RaT]

Tim, I think you have it pretty well figured out. The R1's do provide better traction with the possible exception of dry pavement. The load carrying ability is less with R1's then R4's but that should not be an issue for you. Run the front R1's at maximum pressure and you will be fine. JD has it figured out, the loader may be able to "overload" the fronts, that condition will be temporary at worst and the definition of "overloaded" needs to be more fully examined. I suspect that if you plan on filling the bucket up to the max with heavy material, driving at maximum speed for a long period of time to the point where heat will be a problem, then you will be in an overloaded condition. For typical tractor use, this is not a problem. For years we have been running our Kubota L4850 with R1's 20" diameter wheels with a loader that can obviously load the R1's to the point they look like they are quite low on air. They have held up fine since 1992 and were replaced last year from lack of tread, not from breaking down. If its traction you want, the R1's are the choice, for multipurpose use, the R4's work well but traction in wet material will be considerably less then R1's. R4's are usually heavier in ply rating, my front R4's, 16.5" go to 65 psi, I cannot overload them. Rat...

 

[timb]

(I originally posted this on the tale end of a JD vs NH discussion - but rather than hijack that thread I've redone it under this one.)

(By the way thanks for the tire info guys)

A question for the JD experts - a fair amount of comments are made about JD's 4x10-series electronics and wondering about potential long-term issues.

I can see all the electronic-based features in use on the hydro models, but other than the electrically-triggered PTO and 4WD - how much electronics <font color=green>get in the way</font color=green> /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif of the PowrReverser equipped (not the e-PowrReverser used on the mid-sized JD's) large-framed JD 4510-4710's? I'm all in favor of the KISS approach especially when it comes to tractors and not all that excited about too much gadgetry.

Do both the gear and hydro versions use the same central "CPU" / "OS" / wiring bus or are the gear versions using relatively simple and established (independent?) circuitry for those two (PTO/4WD) functions?

(Still rather have just simple basic mechanical engagment controls for those functions - it may be just me, /w3tcompact/icons/hmm.gif but an extra layer of electronics and complications just don't seem to bring anything to the table in those cases.)

 

[BillyP]

"Do both the gear and hydro versions use the same central "CPU" / "OS" / wiring bus or are the gear versions using relatively simple and established (independent?) circuitry for those two (PTO/4WD) functions?"

The PTO/4WD are independent of the controller. They work the same way as trucks have used for years (push button 4WD).

Something else I learned from another forum:

"First the PTO switch is the same one that has been used on the 4500-4700. Most of the other switches are the same general design as the cruise control switch that was used on the 4000 series. The only switch that looks new to me is the MFWD control switch. All the other switches have been on tractors and exposed to the weather for some time and I am not hearing of any problems here or from John Deere owners I know.

Also, I have learned from a mechanic that the only switch required to be in place for the eHydro to work is the PTO switch. If the PTO switch is not in place the safety interlock won't let the engine run, but all the others can be missing and the tractor will still drive--you just lose the functions that the switch activate."

Billy

 

[rancar]

Tim....

I'm not a technician and not all that familiar with the wiring and electronic controls that JD has built into my 4710 other than what I read in the operator's manual. But, from an operating perspective my sense is they've tried to build these controls in to simplify operation of the tractor. And from my own experiential perspective, I think they have done a fairly good job with these electrical component modifications....at least I have noted no deficiencies in anything during the time I've owned the 4710. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

.....Bob

 

[dmccarty]

timb,

I have a 4700 with a 460 4n1 bucket and R1s. The 460 only
comes off the tractor when I have to do oil/fluid changes.

I have moved many a 36 inch oak stump some of which could
just barely be moved by the tractor. By barely moved, the
FEL could just and I mean just get the stump off the ground
enough for the tractor to get enough traction to move. The
FEL could only lift so far and then no more. So the FEL was
out its limits.

Doing this I MIGHT see the front tires compress. I have seen
the front tires really compress but that was after some A..Hole
had let alot of the air out of the tire. With proper inflation
I can't say I have ever had problems.

I have about 393 hours on the tractor at this point and much
of it is picking up brush, trees, dirt, stumps, limbs, etc. I mow
maybe 6 times a year with an MX6 and its about time to put
on the backhoe. The tires are worn but I think it took 200
hours or so for the rubber lines to wear off the tires. [smiles]

I can imagine leaving the FEL off the tractor.... /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif I
always need it even when mowing. I have used the 4n1 to
"cut" branches that where in the way of mowing and it real
nice to put the bucket a few inches off the ground when
cutting tall grass/weeds. With the bucket down and going
slow it helps keep the MX6 from hitting rocks, stumps, logs,
etc.

Later,
Dan McCarty

 

[timb]

Dan (and Bob),

Thanks for the info - that's exactly the kind of real-world results I was hoping to hear. Sounds like the R1s are rated very conservatively - which is good. I don't intend to constantly run around maxed out, but one of the things that's pointing me toward the large-framed CUT's vs. the medium-sized crowd is the very big jump in FEL performance. Hate to have that much capacity but have the tires be the weak link.

Bob/Dan/Billy - have you ever used your 46/4700's to run any ag equipment that "technically" is beyond a compact's reach (i.e. a baler)?

Other than playing Paul Bunyan - what's the hardest job you've tackled?

Dan - how do you like the hoe? Really wish I could justify having that - but that's one implement I'll probably skip unless I find a used one at a good price point.

Thanks,
Tim

 

[rancar]

You're welcome Tim!! Best of luck in your shopping for a CUT.

One thing I should add is I decided to purchase the largest 4x10 series (4710) CUT because for a couple thousand dollars more I was indeed getting the bigger FEL and a larger 48HP engine that has the highest torque of any of the 4x10 series tractors. I think if you're unsure of the extent of your anticipated projects and you want the maximum bang for the buck and can afford a couple extra thousand the larger CUT may be the way to go.

<font color=blue>Bob/Dan/Billy - have you ever used your 46/4700's to run any ag equipment that "technically" is beyond a compact's reach (i.e. a baler)?</font color=blue>

No, I haven't. However, I recall other posters here at TBN who have (eg, talk to cowboydoc) and even the small bailers put a strain on the tractor. If you're thinking of running ag attachments, you might want to think of investigating JD's various 5000 series line ag tractors.

<font color=blue>Other than playing Paul Bunyan - what's the hardest job you've tackled?</font color=blue>

...Lifting field stone out of hedgerows that I'm clearing on the property. These stones are quite large and I have to be careful I don't overload the FEL. I can tell though when I'm hitting maximum lift capacity. Being careful in this way, I've had no problems with the 4710 or the 460 FEL.

Hope all this helps...

....Bob

 

[dmccarty]

Tim,

I have only run a MX6, 4n1 460 FEL, box blade and JD 48. No
big equipment over what the tractor can handle. I certainly
feel that I have pushed the FEL and backhoe to its limits. Not
abused the equipment but certainly used the stuff. My use
is size and hydraulically limited not HP bound.

I love the JD48. I use it during the winter and I'm about to
put it back on the tractor when I finish cleanup from the ice
storm. I have dug up hundreds of stumps, quite a few 36+
inch oaks. Its paying for itself. The problem with the 48
and the tractors in general is the old time and money issue.
If I had a bigger backhoe I could do more and faster but it
would cost more money. So I take more time to get the job
done but it gets done. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

I use the 48 mainly for digging up stumps. I have used it to
dig some big post holes for a small fence/gate. It was over
kill and made me use a lot more concrete than I would have
like but it sure beat digging by hand. An auger would have
been more efficient but I don't have the money. I do have
the 48. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif So it dug the hole. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

After our house is built I'm going to build a barn and a garage.
I'll use the backhoe to dig the foundations. I might do it with
the house but would prefer the builder do it so I'll be out of
his way.

The backhoe is lots of money. Its nice to have around but it
has to pay for itself as far as I'm concerned. I spent alot of
time getting the 48 and I'm glad I did but it was a real HARD
decision. It really busted my budget but I could not have done
what I need to get done without it. If you don't have lots
of digging to do I think its hard to justify the price.

I have cleared out two driveways with the backhoe and 1.75
house sites. I still have some work on my house site.
Without the 48 I would have had to pay someone to do the
job or rented equipment. Around here it is VERY hard to get
people to do some jobs which is why I ended up with my
equipment. I got tired of waiting for people to show up....
But the equipment has to pay for itself. I figure my tractor
will be "paid" for this year or next. If I add up the work I
have gotten done and what it would have cost me the tractor
will be paid for. Course I still have the monthly payment but
in the long term its made me money. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

Hope this helps,
Dan

 

[cowboydoc]

Timb,
I've pushed my 4600 way beyond anything it was ever meant to do. I've got a backhoe as well and have done some pretty big jobs. I have run a baler, rake, plow, disc, hauled 15-20 tons of hay on a hay trailer regularly, lift 1600 lb. bales on an almost daily basis, etc. This has been one tough little machine. I have over 1500 hours on mine and very little trouble at all.

 

[timb]

Richard,

You've mentioned baling with your 4600 before - and that while it worked it wasn't the best thing to do to the 4600. What kind/model baler are you running?

Of all the things I can think that I might get into - baling's probably the hardest on the tractor. That's why I'm keeping it in the back of my mind as a yardstick.

Honestly I'm not sure if I'll ever get into doing hay on my own, it certainly would not be tremendously cost-(or time) -effective but it's something I'd like to have the option to do as much for self-satisfation as anything. If I do bale, it's not going to be a big area (under 30 acres - probably well under) - and all the old family haying equipment has long since been sold off.

So to justify it - I'll almost certainly have to keep my eyes open and pick up smaller used equipment as it becomes available around here. I would be content with a small-end baler (say a Hesston 530-size or equivalent in a round baler, ditto the small end of square balers). And for square bales I wouldn't have any compelling reason to have to use a kicker and tote a wagon. I can live with making a couple of passes to finish the job.

I know my wife's grandfather did all his own hay work on the place with his Ford NAA - and I'm pretty sure he had a PTO-powered baler, but I don't know exactly what he had. Unfortunately all that stuff is gone although the NAA is still in the family and still purring.

Tim

 

[cowboydoc]

timb,

I've got a JD 328 baler. The only thing I didn't like is that it jerked the tractor around alot. When the plunger would go forward it would jerk the tractor back and forth some. I bale hundreds of acres of hay and so I wouldn't do it all day with this tractor. But if I only had maybe 5 or 10 acres to do I wouldn't hesitate to use the 4600. You can do five acres pretty quick with this baler. I keep the loader on which I would think you would want to do. If my 4020 broke down, my normal baler tractor I wouldn't hesitate to use the 4600. We've used it periodically when we have needed to.

With regards to a round baler I don't think I would ever use one. Even one of the smaller ones. I think those are just too hard on a compact, plus you really have to consider the weight factor there as well. Even with an 800 pound bale you are going to have to be really careful going down hills.

 

[JTD]

Timb, I have a 4700 hydro w/ R-4s and generally like them. Since most of my land is sand, I haven't had many problems with traction. Around the pond and creeks it can become tricky though. I've put 600+ hrs on the unit. I bought it used with 500 hrs; 1100 total now. My post driver is by far the heaviest 3PH attachment and it moves it OK. I've bent two cat 1 pins on it interestingly just from normal use. I've used the loader to pick up and move 16 ft 30 inch pine logs with the forks - just barely. Recently, one of the hydraulic cylinder bucket curl seals failed internally and I'm waiting for the seal kit to fix it today. Spoke with a guy who used to work at the Grovetown, GA assembly plant and he told me that in their testing of the 460 that this occasionally occures under heavy use. My tractor tends to overheat when discing the sand land (6 ft 18 disc) in summer after 2 to 3 hours. I was told that this tends to occur with units with the hydro. Although I can run a square baler, it's going to stress these tractors and I'd be really careful going downhill. It'd be really slow too. Wouldn't try to run a round baler at all. I'm buying a round baler now and will use my neighbor's tractor for a few years.

 

[timb]

I've never run or been all that close to a round baler running - so this may be a really dumb question. While I understand the overall weight of the thing (especially as the bale builds up) - I kind of assumed it was a more "steady" load compared to the plunger impact on a square baler. True/False?

I have to agree any "normal" round baler would be too much of a good thing for the 4600/4700, but the little Hesston 530 I mentioned (think this became the 730 and now the 830) is really small compared to a "normal" round baler. Light it weighs only around 2500 lbs and since it produces relatively small (39" wide bales) - they should top out around 500-600 lbs. (compared to the 4500-5000 lbs or more for a more typically-sized round baler and bale). Hesston only specified 30 pto hp so they seem to be thinking smaller tractor - old or new.

I think Richard's JD 328 runs around 2800-3000 lbs "dry". Price and availability-wise I'd probably end up with a square baler anyway, although it seems like more New Holland around here.

Anyway - it sounds like if I ever do begin to hay myself, the 4600/4700 could at least work for awhile to start. Fortunately (and unusually) for this area of PA - I have relatively flat pastures. Nearly all the slopes are in the woodlots.

Other than John (jtd) what size disc has anyone used?

 

[cowboydoc]

I would say false. It's the pto that you have to worry about and esp. the weight. Now remember when they say 30 hp that's pto hp. I have never run one of those little ones like that so it may work, I'm not sure there.

As far as a disc goes I can pull 12' if I don't drop it all the way into the ground. The 10' it pulls no problem.

 

[timb]

Richard - A 10' disc ought to be plenty for me - but out of curiousity, what's the problem with the 12' disc, traction or hp? What kind of ballast are you running (rear wheel/front weights, filled tires)?

If you were going to the 4710 would you recommend the 13.8-28 or 16.9-24 rears? (Tractor will be used as part-time lawn mower with RFM).